LogFAQs > #960162748

The only reason the food thing is an issue is because you would be committing it not as a property crime but as an act of violence on the PERSON you were STARVING. Therefore, the scenario you're laying out is not even a property crime at all; it's a violent crime against a person. Your scenario does NOT support your argument. It supports the argument of the opposition, which is that the life of the person you would be starving matters more than the property.

Your OWN argument is a ceding of the point you think you're making, because your scenario doesn't lay out a property crime; it lays out a crime against a person's body.

To add to this, my point is that if you want to illustrate that there are property crimes worth gunning people down over, you need to lay out a scenario that does not also include a violent crime committed against a person, because otherwise your argument is not being made.

Even if you do manage to make your point? It's irrelevant to the case in question. Rittenhouse was the instigator and the escalator, and his victims were not engaging in property crimes when he killed them. Why the fuck you're trying to make this argument (and really, really poorly) is beyond me.

---

Hi