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.

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?