If I am out in the woods with a rifle the presence of that rifle isn’t sufficient to reasonably claim you fear for your life or that you are under attack. Similarly, if I am in a location where open carry is legal then open carry is not a sufficient threat.
Now, I am 100% sympathetic to the problems that this causes and I do wish, though it’s an entirely different topic, that folks would exercise a lot more discretion with how they exercise certain rights.
Bolding mine:
Sanford Police Department’s homicide detective Christopher Serino recommends Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. Zimmerman “failed to identify himself” as a concerned citizen or neighborhood watch member on two occasions that night. Serino reports that he thought Zimmerman’s head injuries were “marginally consistent with a life-threatening episode, as described by him, during which neither a deadly weapon nor deadly force were deployed by Trayvon Martin.”
You aren’t really trying to turn this into a Zimmerman thread…are you?
Take a piece of thin brisket or plate, cut out the ribs nicely, rub it on both sides well with two large spoonsful of pounded saltpetre; pour on it a gill of molasses and a quart of salt; rub them both in; put it in a vessel just large enough to hold it, but not tight, for the bloody brine must run off as it makes, or the meat will spoil. Let it be well covered, top, bottom and sides, with the molasses and salt. In four days you may boil it, tied up in a cloth with the salt, &c. about it: when done, take the skin off nicely, and serve it up. If you have an ice-house or refrigerator, it will be best to keep it there. A fillet or breast of veal, and a leg or rack of mutton, are excellent done in the same way.
That’s instructions for curing beef from The Virginia Housewife, and is equally irrelevant to the things you’re randomly quoting without context or substance.
I re-bolded/un-bolded your post to focus on what I was trying to get at in my extreme hypothetical scenario.
Who is saying “No” in your core American self defense? It’s all perspective, right?
Whether Ritter was the aggressor or not is ultimately decided by a jury months/years later. If they decide he was the aggressor, Ritter cannot legally act in self defense (right?). If they decide Ritter was not the aggressor, he can act in self defense. If Ritter was not acting in self defense when Ritter intended to shoot and kill the person, that’s murder and he is in the process of committing a felony. Again, not known whether the intentional killing was justified or criminal murder until months/years later.
For me, it’s not to ask a what if for a particular scenario, but to draw out what appears to me to be problematic. It seems weird that you could have some mass shooting incident that the law justifies. I’m wondering whether this legal framework is pragmatic - it’s difficult for a jury, with lots of information and days/weeks to ponder that information, to be able to determine whether someone was an aggressor, acted in self-defense, whether it was reasonable, etc. Now try and do that in the “fog of war” in a couple seconds.
Maybe you’re bigger take away, how often does this occur in real life, is a good take away, too. And these laws are the best (least worst?) way to handle with it.
I appreciate your responses. They have been very informative, as have others.
Essentially everything to do with a self-defense claim entirely comes down to the discretion and judgement of a jury. Much of our criminal law system works that way, yes. It is quite literally the jury’s job to listen to a self-defense claim and decide, based on the standards a judge will instruct them on, if they agree that the circumstances of the killing constitute self-defense. It is not an entirely objective standard, it is subjective by design.
You are saying you need more than someone’s feels about being threatened to kill someone.
We ONLY have Zimmerman’s word on feeling threatened and he got away with killing Martin.
I just provided a cite that the Sanford police did not believe Martin employed deadly force nor had a weapon. We only have Zimmerman’s word on it and some minor injuries.
More, he was told NOT to leave his car but he did and sought out that altercation.
But, in your view, that’s fine. Martin’s death was acceptable.
Rittenhouse sought out these problems. He created the situations he found himself in and then complains he was at risk so had to defend himself.
If the law allows that then anyone can insert themselves into a fraught situation, provoke people and then kill them to defend themselves.
…how?
You control what you do. I control what I do. If you were bent on provoking me, what exactly could you do to make me stop being a law-abiding citizen with no interest in starting a fight?
I agree that our laws are not well suited to a society where everybody walks around armed (concealed or especially open). My personal solution for that wouldn’t be to change the laws though.
No, what I have said is simply saying the words “I felt threatened” is not some sort of magical talisman. A jury has to evaluate if you were in reasonable fear of death or bodily harm. A jury is not bound to find that you acted in self-defense simply because you utter the words “I felt threatened”, they are required to evaluate the evidence and determine if you had a reasonable fear.
We also have the corroborating evidence that showed Martin was shot essentially at such close range the gun’s barrel was basically touching his skin, and that the angle the bullet entered suggests he was shot from below. A position that is hard to explain via any mechanism other than “Martin was on top of Zimmerman.” We then have Zimmerman’s statement to police that Martin was assaulting him and was on top of him on the ground striking him with his fists. The jury had the physical evidence available that very closely corroborates that, and had photographic evidence of the injuries to Zimmerman’s face and head. I.e. the jury had more to go on than just one man’s word, they also had physical evidence.
I would agree the Sanford police did not believe Zimmerman’s self-defense claim, neither did the State’s Attorney or he would not have been prosecuted. But in our system of justice neither a police officer or a prosecutor gets to decide who is or isn’t guilty, and who has or hasn’t exercised lawful self-defense. That decision is left up to a jury, who decided that Zimmerman had acted in self-defense.
This is not relevant at all to Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. You do not lose the right to self-defense simply for being “unwise”, you must be committing some sort of aggressive action, or be present in a place you are not legally permitted to be–more specifically a private residence or etc that you’ve entered unlawfully. Simply going to confront someone that a police dispatcher told you via phone not to confront, does not create a situation in which you have violated the law or are barred from occupying the public streets or sidewalks.
I’ve never said that, but my view of it has nothing to do with the law.
I said very early in this thread that for many people on this forum, this case would seem just like the Zimmerman case. Their “common sense” “feelings” that someone just shouldn’t be allowed to walk around as a neighborhood watchman while carrying a gun, or to confront someone when a dispatcher tells them not to, has to mean something damn it. From a legal perspective it just simply does not. The fact that Rittenhouse was behaving unwisely to walk around the streets of Kenosha with an AR-15 strapped to his shoulder, to extinguish fires and act as a “paramedic” and as security for businesses, was very unwise. It may have even been illegal in that it violated curfew (but the judge threw that charge out), and that he wasn’t old enough to legally have purchased the gun. However those minor crimes do not affect an underlying self-defense claim. If he had burst into someone’s private home with his AR-15, then that’s a very different matter. He didn’t. He was walking down the public sidewalk of an American city, he does not lose his right to self-defense for that action.
We live in a generally free country, people are free to insert themselves into “fraught situations” as much as they want. As for provocation–that can actually affect a self-defense claim, but in complex ways not necessarily worth delving into. We have video evidence from aerial surveillance showing Rittenhouse moving away from Rosenbaum and Rosenbaum pursuing him, which means whatever Rittenhouse did Rosenbaum was pursuing him, Rosenbaum could have chosen to have stopped that pursuit at any time. Those motions are highly indicative of Rosenbaum being the aggressor. Ironclad proof? Nope. But the jury doesn’t need ironclad proof to decide the circumstances jive with Rittenhouse’s claim he had a reasonable fear for his life.
FWIW this is the standard he George Zimmerman jurors were read in court:
Martin was doing NOTHING illegal.
Zimmerman was told not to leave his car. Zimmerman did.
Zimmerman created a tense situation then shot and killed the person who he created the tense situation with.
Zimmerman got away with it.
What part of that sequence of events are you ok with?
Rittenhouse likewise went and inserted himself into a situation and then shot several people. But that’s all ok?
You quoted, but then didn’t answer, my question. Like, you weren’t even close. I’m genuinely not sure why you bothered with the copy-and-paste.
Zimmerman created the situation that led to Martin’s death.
Full stop.
That has no particular relevance under the law without a number of specific, aggravating factors.
I guess you are.
The “witness” feared for his life and therefore rightfully pursued the shooter. Had he shot and killed Rittenhouse he (the witness) would probably not be charged.
So, Martin could have killed Zimmerman and been deemed innocent?
The people who Rittenhouse killed could have shot him and have had just as much basis for a self defense claim?
Basically, everyone could kill anyone in these cases as a matter of self defense? Person who shoots first wins?
It is a legal possibility, but almost certainly not from the video played in trial. Rittenhouse was running through and ultimately away from the crowd towards the police line when the witness chased him down. Obviously the witness could have hypothetically tried to make a self defense case, but the video evidence is against him.
I can’t speculate on how a case that was never litigated would turn out. But the law isn’t rote rules that work like a mathematical formula. Twelve individual jurors instructed by one individual judge, all with variations in perception and judgement, have to judge a specific case. The outcomes of those cases will not always be identical or follow a specific script.
Clipped out all the Zimmerman/Martin stuff.
Are you saying you believe he provoked the people he shot into attacking him, and further, are you saying he made that provocation specifically so he could shoot them? If so can you outline what he did to provoke them?