Seriously. "Tainted" Yes, that is what you have, the idea that a violation of the approved way of getting a gun, is more important than mob violence led by a pedophile.
It's not only the illegality of his obtaining the gun, but everything which occurred after as a result of him having it. If he didn't have the gun, it's unlikely he'd have been there that night. His parents are failures. He's a 17 year old kid. He should've been in Antioch, not Kenosha.
And, again, unless everyone involved knew the one guy was a pedophile it's not at all pertinent to this conversation...
Your position is that the not having the gun legally, is more important than the mob violence we can see with our eyes on the video clips.
Not at all. I believe that all aspects need to be looked at and considered. I consider the fact that this child; and he is a child, is completely fucked for the rest of his life. He's fucked because he stupidly obtained a firearm illegally and then decided it would be a good idea to put himself in harm's way.
And you might want to consider the severity of how he got the gun, because it's going to be central to the prosecution's case...
That is the question for society. To side with the young man defending him self with a "tainted gun" or the violent mob that attacked him.
This isn't an "either/or" situation. I see a mountain of "wrong" on both sides, and not a single sliver of "right". You, on the other hand, have convinced yourself that only one of them was in the wrong. Well, that's not reality...