To understand why Routh's actions could be considered an attempted assassination under federal law, even though he did not fire his weapon or get physically close to Trump, it's important to examine the legal definition of a criminal attempt.
In criminal law, an "attempt" to commit a crime occurs when a person:
- Has the specific intent to commit that crime, and
- Takes a substantial step toward completing the crime, even if they ultimately fail or are prevented from carrying it out.
The key elements are the person's criminal intent and taking a substantial step that goes beyond mere preparation.
This definition comes from the Model Penal Code, which has been widely adopted in U.S. federal and state laws. According to 18 U.S.C. § 351(c), which covers attempted assassination of major presidential candidates:
"Whoever attempts to kill or kidnap any individual designated in subsection (a) of this section shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life."
A substantial step is an action that strongly corroborates the person's intent to commit the crime. It does not necessarily have to be the last act needed before completing the crime, but it must be more than simply making plans or preparations.
The U.S. Model Penal Code states that a substantial step must be "strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose." Examples given include:
- Lying in wait or searching for the contemplated victim of the crime
- Reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the crime
- Possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, at or near the place contemplated for its commission, where such possession serves no lawful purpose
According to the criminal complaint and indictment, Routh allegedly:
- Wrote a letter months before the incident clearly expressing his intent to assassinate Trump and offering a $150,000 bounty to anyone who succeeded in doing so
- Traveled to Trump's golf course in Florida on September 15 with a loaded rifle
- Positioned himself in the bushes near the course with the rifle for nearly 12 hours
- Aimed the rifle in the direction of a Secret Service agent who was protecting Trump
If proven, these actions would likely constitute "substantial steps" under federal law. Here's why:
- The letter provides strong evidence of Routh's specific intent to assassinate Trump
- By traveling to the golf course with a loaded rifle, getting into a concealed position near Trump, and aiming his weapon, Routh took deliberate actions that went well beyond merely planning an assassination
- These steps, especially in light of the letter, powerfully corroborate that Routh intended to assassinate Trump and was actively working to make that happen
Importantly, the law does not require that Routh actually fired the weapon or got within a certain distance of Trump. The focus is on his intent and the substantial steps he took.
I understand this legal standard may seem counterintuitive or confusing to some people. In everyday speech, we often think of an "attempt" as coming very close to achieving the planned action - like a kicker attempting a field goal but missing just short.
However, the legal definition is broader than the colloquial one. Rather than focusing on how close the person came to succeeding, it focuses on whether the person intended to commit the crime and took substantial actions toward that end.
The rationale is to allow law enforcement to intervene and hold would-be criminals accountable before they can complete the crime. For very serious offenses like assassinating a former president, the law seeks to prevent and punish even uncompleted efforts.
The alleged letter stating Routh's plan to kill Trump is a crucial piece of evidence. It helps establish his intent very clearly. Without compelling evidence of intent, it would be harder to prove his actions at the golf course amounted to attempted assassination rather than just troubling behavior. Prosecutors will use the letter to show Routh's actions were not random or aimless, but specifically directed at assassinating Trump.
In summary, while Ryan Wesley Routh did not shoot his gun or get physically close to Donald Trump, his alleged actions could still legally amount to attempted assassination under federal law based on:
- His stated intent to assassinate Trump
- The substantial steps he took toward that objective by traveling to Trump's location with a weapon, positioning himself to take a shot, and aiming his rifle, even though he never fired
Under the relevant statutes, these actions cross the line from mere preparation to active attempt. The indictment suggests prosecutors believe they can prove Routh's actions fit the legal definition of attempt.
I hope this explanation helps clarify why Routh is facing these very serious charges even though, in a colloquial sense, he did not come close to harming the former president. The law casts a wider net around "attempts" in order to prevent and punish those who move decidedly toward completing a crime. It does not require the suspect to reach the brink of carrying out the offense.
Citations:
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.675704/gov.uscourts.flsd.675704.21.0.pdf
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_International_Golf_Club_shooting
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Wesley_Routh
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_murder
[5] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-charged-apparent-trump-plot-wrote-assassination-attempt-court-rcna172199
[6] https://www.axios.com/2024/09/24/trump-attempted-assassination-ryan-routh-charged
[7] https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/resources/pattern2003/html/patt2uwk.htm
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt
[9] https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/attempt.html
[10] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-assassination-attempt-investigation-ryan-wesley-routh-florida/