We would misinterpret the sequence of the accents if we supposed that it denoted רָשָׁע as obj.; it by no means takes וְאֵין־רֹדֵף as a parenthesis. רשׁע belongs thus to נָסוּ as collective sing. (cf. e.g., Isa 16:4);
(Note: The Targum of Pro 28:1 is, in Bereschith rabba, c. 84, ערק רַשִּׁיעָא ולָא רְרִיפִין לֵהּ; that lying before us is formed after the Peshito.)
in 1b, יִבְטָח, as comprehensive or distributive (individualizing) singular, follows the plur. subject. One cannot, because the word is vocalized כִּכְפִיר and not כַּכְּפִיר, regard יבטח as an attributive clause thereto (Ewald, like Jerome, quasi leo confidens); but the article, denoting the idea of kind, does not certainly always follow כ. We say, indifferently, כָּֽאֲרִי or כַּֽאֲרִי, כַּלָּבִיא or כְּלָבִיא, and always כְּאַרְיֵה, not כָּאַרְיֵה. In itself, indeed, יבטח may be used absolutely: he is confident, undismayed, of the lion as well as of the leviathan, Job 40:23. But it is suitable thus without any addition for the righteous, and נסו and יבטח correspond to each other as predicates, in accordance with the parallelism; the accentuation is also here correct. The perf. נסו denotes that which is uncaused, and yet follows: the godless flee, pursued by the terrible images that arise in their own wicked consciences, even when no external danger threatens. The fut. יבטח denotes that which continually happens: the righteous remains, even where external danger really threatens, bold and courageous, after the manner of a young, vigorous lion, because feeling himself strong in God, and assured of his safety through Him.