Fighting back against a perceived threat does not automatically grant the threat justification in their violent actions, nor does it remove legitimacy from the coyote for defending itself from a perceived threat.

Rittenhouse entered the woods, laid a trap, approached the trapped animal, was bitten, and shot the trapped animal. Then he said “It was self defense! They were hunting me!”

It’s ludicrous that this was upheld in court.

I’ve only recently made the switch to Lemmy, and for what it’s worth, I’ve been using Apollo for Reddit the entire time. It’s fairly easy to set up if you check out r/sideloaded or r/apolloapp over on Reddit. Might make your money-job a bit less frustrating to work on :)

A hunter in the woods lays a trap. A coyote walks by and gets its foot caught in the trap. The hunter approaches and the coyote bites the hunter.

You feel the coyote was unjustified?

I remember when I was a freshman in high school, I worked at a McDonald’s. For whatever reason, I owned a Burger King t shirt. As a 14 year old, I thought it would be funny to wear the Burger King shirt to work. I figured it would annoy my boss and might get a few reactions out of other people. It didn’t work, but there were no real consequences because of it.

You really can’t see how Rittenhouse did a similar thing? He went to a protest knowing he was diametrically opposite, politically, to people actually protesting and he did it with a big ass gun. Like my Burger King t shirt, this was very clearly sending a message of “I am your enemy.” And the message wasn’t on a harmless shirt, it was on a deadly big ass gun.

You really truly believe he had no intention of killing? Are you dumb?