Agreed. And note that in California, for example, it is possible to travel 1000 miles without crossing a state line. Crossing a state line is irrelevant, unless it somehow triggers a federal offence.
So if someone in BLM crossed state lines to join a protest, and while legally protesting was suddenly chased by some armed maniacs in MAGA hats threatening to kill him, if he takes out a gun and shoots them after being knocked to the ground and having a gun pointed at him, he should forfeit his self defense rights?
After all, he crossed state lines, and had he just stayed home he would have been perfectly safe.
I think what you are really looking for is a law that prevents you from engaging in self defense while being Republican.
Sure, he crossed a state line, but he lived closer to Kenosha than two of the people he shot. And distance from home is absolutely irrelevant to a self defense argument.
I agree that he should have simply stayed home, but I’d argue the same thing about rioters traveling miles to destroy someone else’s neighborhood, which many times seems to be the case.
I frankly have to agree with Sam here; it is incredibly difficult to craft a law that would make Rittenhouse’s decision to go to Kenosha that night part of his self-defense claim and it honestly does sound like people just want to criminalize being a boisterous right winger who goes to public “gatherings” (be they protests or riots.)
I think the wicket is a lot stickier than you presume. For one, the jury already does a weighting as to how your life got into danger. If it got into danger because you, for example, pulled a gun on a shopkeeper to rob him, and he then pulled a gun on you, a jury is going to look at that much differently.
The main issue is any kind of “test” that would somehow neutralize the right of self-defense in circumstances materially similar to Rittenhouse’s is it is almost impossible to do so without restricting core rights in our society: freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, etc.
The main legal remedy for this situation is not, in my opinion, to attack the right of self-defense, or to create things in the law that require you to justify doing legal and (in some cases) constitutionally protected things before you can exercise self-defense rights. The main legal remedy was known in the Wild West–you restrict the ability to carry guns into town, in recognition that such behavior leads to trouble. At least right now significant restrictions on the open and concealed carry of firearms in municipalities is still constitutional at the Federal level (the State constitutions sometimes are different, some feature local preemptions); although admittedly the Supreme Court is heading in an ahistorical and negative path on this issue. But at least right now the solution for the Rittenhouse issue would be to convince the legislature and by implication the voters of Wisconsin that you need to change the laws to make it more difficult to walk around town with an AR-15 strapped to your chest.
One thing that the courts have not taken much issue with is age-restrictions on firearms. You could change the current law that did not apply to Rittenhouse because it was intended to exempt youth hunters, to more specifically say someone under the age of 18 cannot possess or transport a firearm unless it is a long-gun and they are actively traveling to hunt, or engaged in hunting activities. This would fairly clear have made it illegal for Rittenhouse to have even been carrying to gun in Kenosha.
Now, if he went ahead and broke that law anyway, and still ended up in a self-defense situation? Breaking a firearms law isn’t normally going to void your right to self-defense; but if it was explicitly illegal to have the gun in his circumstance it may have caused him to not do it. Rittenhouse actually showed some awareness of, and respect for, firearms laws in that he didn’t bring his own gun from Illinois which suggests to me he knew that as a 17-year-old there were restrictions on his being able to legal transport the gun across state lines. I’m not sure if he did the research requisite to know he’d be able to carry the AR-15 because of the Wisconsin statute exempting restrictions on youth carry for long guns, but it wouldn’t necessarily surprise me–even teenagers who are gun enthusiasts are often well informed of local gun regulations.
All of this “crossing state lines” defense is beginning to remind me of the “But there was no finding of collusion” excuse-the reaction is far surpassing any original claims that might have been made, and it tends to ignore all the other factors being discussed.
I don’t see where that intersects with anything I’ve presumed. There is a pretty straightforward legal test where a jury could tell the difference between someone being raped in a bad neighborhood, and someone doing something very reckless and provocative, where the average person would have little trouble finding that one person did something that assumed a high degree of risk, and the other didn’t. No?
That the second amendment exists, or that there is already a legal test of different things, or that there would be other constitutional attacks gun rights advocates would attempt if this were a real law is just you talking about the things you’d rather talk about. I was responding to the question “how could you write this law?” You certainly could write the law.
Define “very reckless and provocative” in a concise way that makes it obvious that what Rittenhouse did was reckless and provocative, but would not apply to a woman walking through a very high crime neighborhood in Baltimore in a low-cut dress.
If we want to move away from the “raped woman” narrative, which very admittedly was brought up to show the most extreme of negatives, maybe come up with a rubric that makes what Rittenhouse did not Kosher but doesn’t make what one of the journalists who was right there with Rittenhouse observing events also not Kosher.
Recklessness is already a precisely defined description of a legal state of culpability. And the reason that I said this wasn’t a commentary on Rittenhouse was that I actually can see the future, and was not interested in this specific debate.
It appears you are basically saying nothing.
Well I sure do apologize.
That’s factually incorrect. He was assaulted by members of a violent mob which makes him an actual victim. It makes the assailants dead assailants. There is cause and effect and unlike safe spaces, virtual or otherwise, redefining words to achieve a desired outcome and to placate a mob sometimes the justice system gets it right.
You could say that about any victim that crossed an imaginary line anywhere. The real criminals were those who crossed so-called state lines with the intent to engage in a riot where tens of millions of arson and looting damages were committed.
No. Whatever happened that day, Rittenhouse isn’t the one who ended up dead, and he was not a victim. He was an idiot who killed two people. Legally or not. Nor is there some kind of systemic oppression of white men who wave around guns, or some kind of culture that perpetuates the victimization of white men waving around guns, that would justify a rape analogy. On the contrary, our culture loves white men who wave around guns. This guy had every conceivable advantage in the case to defend him.
I don’t think Rittenhouse intended to kill anyone, I think he fancied himself a badass and believed he could protect his local neighborhood by acting like a badass. I think he’s a fucking moron, but “looking for trouble” in the sense of “wanting to shoot someone” seems like a stretch to me. I believe he thought the gun would act as a deterrent for rioters, and he was completely unprepared for others to be armed, or to be aggressively trying to disarm him, and when shit went south, he panicked and killed people. This guy is neither a hero nor a monster, just another idiot with a gun. I can only hope he learned something from this senseless tragedy, but with everybody blowing smoke up his ass about what a patriot he is, I’m not holding my breath.
What if the state line was ten yards from his back fence? Would that change your mind?
I see little to no justification in calling Rosenbaum a victim, he was a violent aggressor attacking someone illegally and was shot and killed. That’s not a victim, that’s a “criminal that has been dealt with”, in this case with lethal force because they were behaving violently. Huber and Grosskreutz might be victims of making a mistaken attempt to arrest someone they should not have been trying to arrest, due to not knowing the totality of the circumstances. That’s a charitable view of their motives, and one not clearly proven. I’m not comfortable coming down hard on them being victims or aggressors due to the murkiness of the data.
Carrying a weapon or being a non-rioter at a riot doesn’t entitle members of a violent mob to attack you.
Because it makes it harder to argue “stand your ground” when it ain’t even your ground.
I’ll be sure to use that if I ever get pulled over for speeding. “Officer, the speed limit changes a block away, and I wouldn’t be speeding there, so it’s ok.”
Pointing your weapon at protestors makes it pretty clear the “mob” would be defending itself. Like when Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz.
And I don’t think that makes sense. The only way he could protect anyone from a riot would be to use the gun—to shoot people. And the only reason to think you need to protect anything would be if you think they have weapons.
It makes far more sense to think that he hoped to go in and be a “hero” and shoot “the bad guys” who were harming “his” neighborhood.
And, @Martin_Hyde: it makes a lot more sense that Rosenbaum thought that the kid with the gun was a threat, and was defending himself. But the dead don’t get self-defense rights in the US.
Jury disagreed. Again, if Rittenhouse wouldn’t have been illegally attacked by a member of the violent mob then no one would have got shot. This is classic victim blaming. We have every right of freedom of movement. The presence of a politically motivated violent mob does not negate that right however much it inconveniences those who benefit from the chaos.