What exactly are you arguing for? That the coyote should avoid traps? That the hunter shouldn’t be laying traps if they don’t want to get bitten? What is it?
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!”
“Brandishing” a weapon isn’t a crime in Wisconsin. Even if it were, it wouldn’t justify vigilantes attempting to kill him.
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?
What exactly are you arguing for? That the coyote should avoid traps? That the hunter shouldn’t be laying traps if they don’t want to get bitten? What is it?
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.
Ah now I understand. I agree.