Yeah, but all evidence suggests Rosenbaum didn’t view Rittenhouse as a mortal threat, at all. That’s where the narrative falls apart, I think. Because I agree that a reasonable person would have perceived him that way, but Rosenbaum was not a reasonable person.
It depends if you are trying to basically just say that what he did was dumb and leave it at that, or if you are trying to make a case that what he did was illegal. Crane seems bound and determined to keep beating this dead horse that it was illegal. Note his next post about this. Basically, he’s trying to make the case that Rittenhouse provoked the attack and thus couldn’t claim it was self-defense. Unfortunately for Crane, even if that was true (i.e. Rittenhouse provoked the others because of the way he was dressed, carried the gun, and had a scary demeanor…or maybe dementor), it STILL doesn’t work out, because by Wisconsin law, even if you provoke someone it can still be self-defense depending on later actions. And in this case, the fact that he was being chased after trying to run away and only fired when cornered is compelling evidence of self-defense…in fact, it was so compelling that the jury agreed with the defense.
Again, none of this stuff gets into how wise or unwise Rittenhouse was, or how scary he looked, or whether he should or shouldn’t have been there…it comes down to Wisconsin law and how they interpret self-defense. Crane just doesn’t seem to want to get any of that.
Agreed, and in that case Rosenbaum (by reason of insanity) was not committing an unlawful act, so the privilege of self-defense did not apply.
Wow…that is some convoluted logic there. The amount of logical contortions you are going through to ‘prove’ that there was no self-defense is truly epic and I feel that you should win this argument just because of that. Sadly, it doesn’t work that way, so, still a fail. But I don’t think anyone can fault you for trying…and trying…and trying.
It’s the whole ‘lead a horse to water, try and force it to drink then beat it to death halfway across while trying to change riders and check its teeth to see if it’s a good deal!’ thingy, but with a recursive diamond that resets everything back to the lead the horse to water part endlessly…sort of like a western Groundhogs Day but with horses and water.
That doesn’t make sense to me. If a crazy person attacks me, I don’t get to defend myself?
That’s not how self defense or criminal insanity work.
Well gosh, but upthread it was all about the majesty of legal terminology. Stuff like reasonable, prudent and self defense. But, unlawful act doesn’t count? Read the law as posted upthread.
Is wearing a t-shirt proclaiming your membership at a martial arts school or boxing gym inherently aggressive? How about wearing a muscle shirt that shows off how pumped your arms and shoulders are? Suppose you’ve been doing some landscaping or carpentry and you’re carrying a large brush knife, or a sledge hammer? Maybe you’re on your way home from the Renaissance Fair in costume and wearing a sheathed sword.
In other words, at what point does simply making yourself stronger and more capable than average become an implicit threat?
No. It doesn’t work that way. If you want the legal technical reason, it comes down to an excuse vs. a justification.
Insanity is an excuse. The person did an unlawful act, but it is excused. Insanity doesn’t make it lawful for a person to murder another. It may, in some narrow circumstances excuse it.
True instances of self defense make what you do lawful, because it is a justification defense. So things can get complicated if multiple people are taking action in (legitimate) self defense. Insanity is not like that
Most of the examples you listed fail my test for various reasons. Basically what it boils down to is when you’re deliberately flashing around a tool whose primary purpose is to kill and that tool can kill someone in an instant, that crosses my threshold for what should be considered socially acceptable behavior. But someone holding a knife or a sword is going to freak me out no matter how they’re using it. Those are also dangerous weapons. They just aren’t as efficient as guns. The problem with guns is that they are incredibly fast and easy to use, and they are used on a regular basis to escalate conflict that has no reason to introduce a lethal element. All it takes is one second of bad judgment to kill someone.
I’d turn this question around. Why are guns so much better than knives and clubs and LARP swords to make yourself “more stronger and capable”? Clearly there’s something unique about them that aficionados find advantageous.
Well gun owners wouldn’t fight so hard to protect gun ownership if they weren’t better than the alternatives for many reasons. I’d say the two main advantages are that they don’t require much physical strength, and that they are ranged weapons that allow you to stay out of arms reach of an assailant.
FWIW, I think that a drawn or held at the ready gun is over the line, which as I said upthread is why I wish people who carried long guns would do so in scabbards. And if there truly were such a thing as a Star Trek phaser set on stun, that would obviate 99+% of any reason to carry a deadly weapon.
But, it removes unlawful from Rosenbaums’ act.
My point is that the law is ambiguous. Though not as absurd as the wording of SYG laws, It’s still completely ambiguous. Of course if you stay within the rigid legal terms of art you can wend your way through it but it is sentential nonsense. The law requires the attacker to be committing an unlawful act. The case of insanity excuses the attacker. Perhaps his body then becomes a machine without a driver.
BTW - what unlawful act was Rosenbaum committing? Littering?
No. It absolutely does not.
OK, how so?
Also, what was the unlawful act?
I will try one last time.
-
This is a red herring, because you don’t look back at an act claimed to have been in self defense and decide, based on after-the-fact conclusions as a matter of objective fact that a person was or was not facing an unlawful use of force. The standard is whether the person claiming self defense believed they were facing an imminent use of unlawful (here, deadly or capable of inflicting grievous bodily injury) force, and that belief was objectively reasonable under the circumstances known to the actor.
-
Because insanity is an excuse defense, and the acts committed are still considered unlawful, but excused it would not matter if the person asserting self-defense was expressly aware that the person imminently about to use force against him was a legally insane person, acting under the influence of their insanity. The use of force would still be unlawful even if it would (later) be excused (not made lawful) due to insanity.
-
I’m not going to get into a debate about what Rosenbaum’s illegal act was or wasn’t. I have my views about the case, which I’ve posted some of, but I’m not interested in second-guessing the jury. I will say this: Remember that the prosecution had the burden, so the jury had to decide if the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not believe that Rosenbaum was about to unlawfully use (deadly or gbh) force against him. (First degree charge) And for second degree that, if he had such a belief, it was unreasonable under the circumstances.
That doesn’t make any sense no matter how many times it’s repeated. Why weren’t all the other folks present with guns the victim of random attacks if the presence of a gun is, for sake of argument only, sufficient to justify assault? Why aren’t people, in general, attacked merely for possession of any item that can be used in a lethal attack? Is it because your initial premise is not objectively true?
So if a crazy person is trying to rape or murder you by your assertion and application of logic you have no legal or moral ‘privilege’ to act in self defense? That assertion must be rejected as well. First on the grounds that self defense is not a ‘privilege.’
Probably worth adding 4) the standards for the legal definition of insanity are pretty stringent, and don’t just require that the person in question is acting non-rationally. They have to be so detached from reality that they’re unable to recognize that they’re doing something wrong. Trying to attack an armed person with your bare hands because you honestly believe that you’re bulletproof, and that the bullets will bounce off of you, wouldn’t qualify for an insanity defense, despite being clearly non-rational. Nor would it prevent the armed person from arguing self defense if they shot you to prevent you from assaulting them.
According to a theory of social psychology called the “weapons effect,” the mere sight of a gun inspires aggression. In 1967, the psychologists Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage wrote, “In essence, the gun helps pull the trigger.” Their methodology had flaws, but later studies verified their premise. In one U.K. study, people were more inclined to assault a police officer who was visibly armed with a Taser. Brad Bushman, an Ohio State researcher who served on President Barack Obama’s committee on gun violence, told me, “We’ve found that it really doesn’t matter if a good guy or a bad guy is carrying the gun—it creates the bias to interpret things in a hostile way.” Citizens who openly carry firearms “think that they are making the situation safer, but they are making it much more dangerous.”
This is from the same thorough, objective, informative New Yorker article I linked to upthread. All bolding mine.
Sure. And that also folds back into 1 and 2.
-
No one is responsible, in the moment, for accurately determining whether the person attacking them has or does not have an insanity defense.
-
Even if the person being attacked has perfect knowledge that their attacker is in fact legally insane (say, the treating psychiatrist, who happens to also have a J.D., of the attacker) it still would not mean that the person being attacked would have to conclude that it is lawful for the attacker to harm them.