Rodef = One Who Pursues
A rodef (plural rodfim) is somebody who pursues somebody else with the objective of causing death or serious physical injury. Din rodef entitles the one pursued, or a bystander, to use reasonable force, up to and including deadly force, to stop the rodef from completing the intended violent crime. The principle is actually very similar to most modern laws.
Deadly force cannot be used if lesser force will suffice, and the rodef ceases to be a rodef the instant he desists from his violent actions. Din rodef is also reflected by the modern adages (in the context of a fight or argument) such as “Never follow anybody into the parking lot” and “Never follow the other guy home” because these are prima facie evidence of malicious and violent intent. It's hard for a rodef to claim innocence or self-defense when things go bad.
Do we have video evidence that he was attacked prior to the first shooting? He clearly is chased and attacked by the skateboard guy. But he had shot someone in the head before that, correct? Is there a video of the first shooting? I’ve only seen the aftermath.
Similar, if not the same, of the Castle Doctrine.
Thought you might appreciate this. Ping!
Self-defence therefore as it is justly called the primary law of nature, for it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away be the law of society.
“Whether Rittenhouse should have been in Kenosha in the first place, and with a weapon a 17-year old cannot legally carry in public, is a separate issue for courts of law to decide.”
Is it a fact that a 17-year old cannot legally carry such a weapon in public there? Can an adult do so?
If the DA wasn’t such a traitor, the Wisconsin governor, the Kenosha mayor, the surviving attacker of Kyle, along with as many of the Antifa/BLM terrorists as can be arrested, should be been charged with murder, just as a getaway driver is charge with murder if one of his fellow bankrobbers is killed by a bank guard.
Kyle was within his legal rights to carry a long rifle in Wis.
Since Rittenhouse went into a riot area, armed in violation of the law and in violation of the curfew, then can the prosecution say he can't claim innocent intent when things turned bad? I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent but wondering if that's why they charged him with murder?
“Din rodef” is ancient Jewish law. It would be better to explain in terms of modern law.
Is it too much to ask authors writing about this topic to at least get the basic facts and law correct?
Rittenhouse works in Kenosha, which seems like a pretty good reason for him to be there. Much better than the rioters who drove up from Chicago, or flew in from Seattle.
In Wisconsin a person under the age of 18 can carry a firearm legally under a set of varying conditions. Those conditions likely covered Rittenhouse.
And now that information has the pursuer now says he wished he had pulled his gun out sooner and emptied the magazine (paraphrased). Doesn’t that lead to intent on the pursuers case?
Whether Rittenhouse should have been in Kenosha in the first place.....
—————————————————
In case anyone didn’t know by now, I want to point out that of course Rittenhouse should have been in Kenosha. After all he works there.
He worked as a lifeguard at a pool. He worked that very same day.
..................
Since it hasn't been mentioned I thought I'd add that the law of Din Rodef dates to the Babylonian Talmud. Also applies to rape. And in one of these three instances, ironically, includes as a solution depriving him of use of a limb, such as cutting off his hand
Grosskreutz is a convicted felon. He is pictured clearly carrying a pistol. That’s a felony right there.
He also threatened Rittenhouse with that pistol - another felony.
Thanks to Smith & Wesson, three of these terrorists ceased to be rodef and desisted from their violent actions.
A rodent rodef. Has a certain ring to it.
Prosecutor will argue that he was the rodef, because he came there illegally armed and with no legitimate business. When he started running away, that argument would cease to work. But the bottom line is, his parents will either go bankrupt paying a good lawyer who will get him acquited of Murder 1, or he’ll get a public defender, who will railroad him into a plea deal. And one charge that will stick is carrying a weapon illegally. I fear the boy is going to go to jail regardless, and get butt-humped or worse while in there. Very sad. When he comes out, will CW 2 still be ongoing?