Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
pepperonikkid

Kyle Rittenhouse and The Law of the Pursuer

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

pepperonikkid

Kyle Rittenhouse and The Law of the Pursuer

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/

By Civis Americanus

August 30, 2020

 

Article:

 

Wisconsin recently charged Kyle Rittenhouse with first degree murder for killing two people who were, from what I can see from the videos, attacking him with weapons. 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. The question at hand is however why he was charged with murder while his surviving alleged assailants were, as far as I know, not charged with anything.

This leads to the need to educate potential jurors (i.e. all citizens who are eligible to serve on juries) proactively about important self-defense principles. This must happen before they are called for jury duty because it is illegal to do so afterward. Jurors need to understand the simple concept of din rodef, "the law of the pursuer." This gives defense attorneys a single word – rodef -- to explain the concept if jurors are not already familiar with it.

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.

The first Rittenhouse video shows clearly that he was running away from another man, presumably Joseph Rosenbaum, who apparently threw something at him. Rittenhouse was therefore trying to avoid a violent confrontation while Rosenbaum, as best I can tell from the video, was the rodef who insisted on having it. He got what he wanted as in, "Stupid game, stupid prize." The following opinions are based solely on what can be seen from the videos, and there may well be additional evidence. If I were on the jury I would, on the basis of just the video, toss the charges against Rittenhouse unless the prosecutor could show me very convincing evidence that the incident was not as it seemed.


223282_5_.jpg

 

The second Rittenhouse video shows clearly that Rittenhouse was running away from a mob of no fewer than four individuals whose numbers, even if unarmed, gave them disparity of force which is the same as deadly force. The audio includes explicit violent threats such as "get him" and "get his ass" to which CBS adds, "Beat him up!" While the individuals claimed later that they were trying to take Rittenhouse into custody for shooting Rosenbaum, "get his ass" and "beat him up" sound a lot more like an intention to take the law into their own hands. Even if they were in fact seeking to only apprehend Rittenhouse, which I doubt, their mantle of innocence went out the window the instant they said "beat him up."

223281_5_.jpg

Twitter video screen grab

The individuals in question, having apparently not learned from seeing one person shot for chasing Rittenhouse, made themselves into rodfim and, when Rittenhouse fell to the ground, went at him with a skateboard allegedly wielded by Anthony Huber and a pistol allegedly wielded by the survivor, Gaige Grosskreutz. If this is the whole story then my verdict as a juror would be "Another stupid game, two more stupid prizes."

In addition, while Huber's past conduct did not entitle anybody to harm him except in self-defense, he was no angel if he was the same Anthony M. Huber cited in Kenosha County Case Number 2012CF001346. The deceased Anthony M. Huber's age (26) is consistent with the felon's date of birth in August 1996 which suggests they are the same; the former's friends are welcome to correct me if they are not.

 

Full Story
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePatriot

It is 100% clear that Kyle shot in self defense, so the charge of murder will not stick.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Yeah when this goes to trial I am sure he will be spanked for having the rifle, and at the same time acquitted on the charges of murder and assault. There is too much evidence on the contrary to support any of the murder or assault charges.

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
Posted (edited)

Oops, I accidentally hit the post button too early.

Edited by Dean Adam Smithee
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
Posted (edited)

According to Wisconsin law, self-defense cannot be claimed if "the actor was engaged in a criminal activity."

So the question becomes: Was Kyle Rittenhouse old enough to legally carry the murder weapon?

Edited by That_Guy
  • Disagree (-1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
1 hour ago, pepperonikkid said:

This leads to the need to educate potential jurors (i.e. all citizens who are eligible to serve on juries) proactively about important self-defense principles. This must happen before they are called for jury duty because it is illegal to do so afterward. Jurors need to understand the simple concept of din rodef, "the law of the pursuer." This gives defense attorneys a single word – rodef -- to explain the concept if jurors are not already familiar with it.

It is by no means "illegal" to educate potential jurors on what various principles like self-defense actually mean. That's what "standard Jury Instructions" are for. But that's the judge's job to explain to a Jury; anyone else is merely tainting the Jury pool. And then it's the prosecution's/defense's job to persuade the jury whether or not the facts fit the law as explained by the judge.

1 hour ago, pepperonikkid said:

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.

Nice that the author understands ancient Hebrew law. And, yes, to a point, this has impacted modern law; the colonial concept of "Hue and Cry" can be traced to this. But it means diddly squat in this case because the only thing a Wisconsin jury is allowed to consider is Wisconsin law and Wisconsin standard jury instructions. So let's take a look.

47 minutes ago, ThePatriot said:

It is 100% clear that Kyle shot in self defense, so the charge of murder will not stick.

I'll concede that the end result was indeed self-defense. HOWEVER, Kyle's own (now removed) social media posts before this, and even interviews at the scene, were that he was at least willing to, perhaps even wanting to, kill people like these rioters. If it can be established - And I think it's at least a 50/50 likelihood - that he deliberately put himself in harms way so as to have an excuse to defend himself, then "self-defense" as a legal defense evaporates under Wisconsin law.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.

(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself....

(Take note of the highlighted part. It is ALSO crucial)

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

(b ) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

(c ) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

I believe that once a Jury considers all the facts INCLUDING including social media posts , interviews, etc, that 938.48(2)(c ) will apply.

Particularly troubling is an interview on-scene not long before the shooting:

Reporter: Are you here in a strictly non-lethal role?

Kyle: No ma'am, we don't have non-lethal.

This KID doesn't have a frickin' clue about Use of force continuum. This KID had no business being there in the first place. There's a REASON you don't hand KIDS deadly weapons and send them into such situations.

 

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
2 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

This KID doesn't have a frickin' clue about Use of force continuum. This KID had no business being there in the first place. There's a REASON you don't hand KIDS deadly weapons and send them into such situations.

 

That is one area I have a problem with in this situation as far as shade being cast at Kyle or his family.  My 17 year old son should never be where Kyle was at WITH me, especially not there all by himself.  I'm not even suggesting he did anything wrong, but who would let their 17 year old son be in that predicament?  Protecting the homestead - 100% ok with this kid walking around with Uzi's or 50 BMG rifles.  But a stated intent of being 'in' with the protestors/rioters, providing first aid and using a rifle for defense while walking amongst a crowd of domestic terrorists - as a parent I would never had agreed to this.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
33 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

then "self-defense" as a legal defense evaporates under Wisconsin law.

Also because he was committing a crime by carrying the murder weapon. 

  • Disagree (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel
1 minute ago, That_Guy said:

Also because he was committing a crime by carrying the murder weapon. 

So if he was shot at, assulted etc ,, too bad die your white. Once again you show your racist side and who you support. A) a felon that was not allowed to own a gun B ) a domestic abuser and I forget what the 3 rd poor guy was. I’m so sorry your heros got what they deserved and a horrible white nazi got to live. Go back to your basement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel
1 hour ago, That_Guy said:

According to Wisconsin law, self-defense cannot be claimed if "the actor was engaged in a criminal activity."

So the question becomes: Was Kyle Rittenhouse old enough to legally carry the murder weapon?

Maybe check law a 17 yr old can legally carry a long gun if around a person over 18. If he was helping protect property and given the gun what do you think the odds are there was an 18 yr old there? If they moved to anouther location or as the reports say the police moved them,,, would you just drop the gun on the ground? I mean I’m sure one of your peaceful left protesters would turn it in right? Your still a joke get a new line or at least some actual information.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel

According to guy no one under 18 can hunt in Wisconsin unless they just throw rocks at deer. Is that about your stance TG no one under 18 allowed a rifle? I grew up in MN and hunted with family in Wisconsin. Maybe you can point out this new special law I don’t know of? I’d really like to warn my nephews up there. Or is it no white person allowed to defend them selves in Wisconsin? Please keep sharing your a laugh a minn.  have you given up on the he illegally crossed state lines with a gun to hunt black people? Please explain your new dead end your running down with out facts while eating out of a bag of leaf paint chips

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
23 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Maybe check law a 17 yr old can legally carry a long gun if around a person over 18. If he was helping protect property and given the gun what do you think the odds are there was an 18 yr old there? If they moved to anouther location or as the reports say the police moved them,,, would you just drop the gun on the ground? I mean I’m sure one of your peaceful left protesters would turn it in right? Your still a joke get a new line or at least some actual information.

Agreed - he even spent some time talking with the local police that night, while openly carrying the rifle and explaining what he was there to do.  They seemingly had zero issue with him.  I bet it is why when he walked out and tried to turn himself in, they just figured it was 'that kid' and just wanted him to move along while they sorted out the bad guys. 

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
2 minutes ago, Junto said:

Agreed - he even spent some time talking with the local police that night, while openly carrying the rifle and explaining what he was there to do.  They seemingly had zero issue with him.  I bet it is why when he walked out and tried to turn himself in, they just figured it was 'that kid' and just wanted him to move along while they sorted out the bad guys. 

indeed. There IS video of him apparently trying to surrender. Cops probably thought "Oh, that's just HIM" and moved on, not realizing he was the shooter.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
57 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Maybe check law a 17 yr old can legally carry a long gun if around a person over 18.

HIs attorneys make no mention of anyone else being with him at the time.

  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
21 minutes ago, Junto said:

when he walked out and tried to turn himself in

 

9 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

apparently trying to surrender

"Trying" to turn oneself in or surrender oneself to an officer isn't a thing;.

You either identify yourself as the shooter and hand over your weapon, or you haven't surrendered yourself.

  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker
Just now, That_Guy said:

 

"Trying" to turn oneself in or surrender oneself to an officer isn't a thing;.

You either identify yourself as the shooter and hand over your weapon, or you haven't surrendered yourself.

Thanks, Hamilton. Dismissed. 

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, That_Guy said:

HIs attorneys make no mention of anyone else being with him at the time.

Were you there, Hamilton?  Are you in possession of all of the facts, or your usual speaking from your back hole?

Edited by Noclevermoniker
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel
20 minutes ago, That_Guy said:

HIs attorneys make no mention of anyone else being with him at the time.

Gee so he was alone protecting buildings? Isn’t your bag of paint chips running low by now? But nice ignoring the rest of my post. Do you now admit he didn’t drive across state lines with a gun to illegally hunt blacks? If he didn’t cross state lines with the gun wouldn’t the gun owner have to be over 18? If the gun owner was over 18 and gave it to him to help isn’t that legal? You really are a joke a minn. again I know your mad a pedo, a domestic abuser and a felon with a gun were hurt and a white kid survived. Suck it up leftist racist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
3 hours ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Yeah when this goes to trial I am sure he will be spanked for having the rifle, and at the same time acquitted on the charges of murder and assault. There is too much evidence on the contrary to support any of the murder or assault charges.

Under what law would he be spanked for the "Keeping and Bearing"...Constitution says that "right" "Shall Not be Infringed"...State law says "No you can't you're not old enough" So a state can arbitrarily remove your Constitutional Rights..Constitution says the States can't do that Read the 10th Amendment in Conjunction with the 9th I know there are certain state laws that seem to Co-op the Rights Enumerated (notice I didn't say given by the Constitution these "Rights" are "God Given"...) and maybe they have gotten away with these things because nobody challenges them..and I'm not talking about the whole tax issue Fed Citizen Vs State Corporation etc. but just some basics...Don't misunderstand me here I'm not a legal eagle by any stretch of the imagination but I can read and a believe I'm capable of a modicum of understanding the law as written..But maybe given the present state of affairs it would behoove all of us to reacquaint ourselves with our Founding documents.

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
37 minutes ago, That_Guy said:

"Trying" to turn oneself in or surrender oneself to an officer isn't a thing;.

You either identify yourself as the shooter and hand over your weapon, or you haven't surrendered yourself.

Is it similar to "you either comply with police instructions or you don't"? Or "trying" to not necessarily appear threatening to police you've already fought against while reaching into a car?

Ah. Your comments don't apply to blacks/BLM types.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, That_Guy said:

Also because he was committing a crime by carrying the murder weapon. 

You play pretty fast and loose with words.

The term "murder" usually carries some pretty specific criteria.

1. Premeditation

2. As a result of premeditation, intent.

I'd like to know how you can determine premeditation and intent by watching a video. . .

Edited by mjperry51
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Junto said:

That is one area I have a problem with in this situation as far as shade being cast at Kyle or his family.  My 17 year old son should never be where Kyle was at WITH me, especially not there all by himself.  I'm not even suggesting he did anything wrong, but who would let their 17 year old son be in that predicament?  Protecting the homestead - 100% ok with this kid walking around with Uzi's or 50 BMG rifles.  But a stated intent of being 'in' with the protestors/rioters, providing first aid and using a rifle for defense while walking amongst a crowd of domestic terrorists - as a parent I would never had agreed to this.

I can't totally disagree with you Junto...but how would you feel if your 17yr son used the weapon to kill a guy (maybe like the Convicted Pedophile) that was trying to snatch a little girl from her yard?..or your car..or just on the street?..We all like to bitch about the Younger crowd (specially me..I've become my Grand father in these later years) but here we have a young dude doing some kinda brave and ballsy things things like protecting people that the Police are incapable/unwilling to protect. and was forced to defend himself against criminals..Bottom line for me is we have 30sec's of video showing the young man being pursued and viciously attacked by a mob of people that have burnt a bunch of things down have been shown to have no compunction about using violence to achieve their ends defends himself (Btw did you notice the kids restraint?..after he shot the guy in the arm who was bringing a handgun to bear that there was another guy right next to him that had his arms up and had ceased his attack and was backing away..Kyle did not shoot him..I might have.....the training does what the training does) So I think based on what I've seen on the vid and what his Lawyers have stated publicly (yeah I know internet searches of left wing web sites tell a different tale) I'd say "Well Done" Young Man. But i get what you're saying too. I predict it will be months before we know which way this goes..The State of Wi has grossly over charged him and the negotiations will be lengthy and convoluted..I'm betting that a jury never see's this (Not a G/J, those are used to provide indictments, and give the prosecution a hammer to negotiate with)...we'll see.

Kestrel... 

Kestrel...

Edited by kestrel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel
12 minutes ago, mjperry51 said:

You play pretty fast and loose with words.

The term "murder" usually carries some pretty specific criteria.

1. Premeditation

2. As a result of premeditation, intent.

I'd like to know how you can determine premeditation and intent by watching a video. . .

That’s easy I’ll answer for TG pedos, domestic abusers and convicted felons attacking an under age white kid have the right to kill any white child. It’s called reparations and he always defends the scum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
18 minutes ago, kestrel said:

I can't totally disagree with you Junto...but how would you feel if your 17yr son used the weapon to kill a guy (maybe like the Convicted Pedophile) that was trying to snatch a little girl from her yard?..or your car..or just on the street?..We all like to bitch about the Younger crowd (specially me..I've become my Grand father in these later years) but here we have a young dude doing some kinda brave and ballsy things things like protecting people that the Police are incapable/unwilling to protect. and was forced to defend himself against criminals..Bottom line for me is we have 30sec's of video showing the young man being pursued and viciously attacked by a mob of people that have burnt a bunch of things down have been shown to have no compunction about using violence to achieve their ends defends himself (Btw did you notice the kids restraint?..after he shot the guy in the arm who was bringing a handgun to bear that there was another guy right next to him that had his arms up and had ceased his attack and was backing away..Kyle did not shoot him..I might have.....the training does what the training does) So I think based on what I've seen on the vid and what his Lawyers have stated publicly (yeah I know internet searches of left wing web sites tell a different tale) I'd say "Well Done" Young Man. But i get what you're saying too. I predict it will be months before we know which way this goes..The State of Wi has grossly over charged him and the negotiations will be lengthy and convoluted..I'm betting that a jury never see's this (Not a G/J, those are used to provide indictments, and give the prosecution a hammer to negotiate with)...we'll see.

Kestrel... 

Kestrel...

I'm not upset with how he handled himself - I'd be very proud if either I or a family member was able to react so calmly and measured in a similar circumstance. I just mean you 100% would have at least seen me 3 feet away from my son at all times - and that kid was alone for some time in about the worst scenario you could find yourself in. It just is not ideal for 17 year olds to be so easily placed in a position where they could spend life behind bars based on super stressful/chaotic situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...