I find the first question to be irrelevant because it's similar to questions that rape victims are often asked. they're often questioned why they would go somewhere where it would be considered unsafe with the implication that going somewhere unsafe makes them at fault for any victimization they should receive.

and of course that's ludicrous in my opinion because as long as you have a right to be somewhere then there is no legal justification for someone committing acts against your person.

Hell, the Ahmaud Arbery Case is an example of just that happening. people saw someone who they didn't think was supposed to be there and attacked him. in fact even the trayvon Martin case was about that.

so I think this whole idea needs to just be thrown away unless we decide to create a legal precedent about permissibility of geographical boundaries and how that relates to validity of rights