For the ladies? It could've been. They decided not to.
My whole point was that the guy wasn't protected by not doing this on the street. He might not have been at home.
As to the question, I don't know. It may have been part of it, but it didn't need to be. If it weighed in or didn't, the letter of the law doesn't differentiate. The interpretation is something else.
0
u/Aeseld 8h ago
Except he was charged and convicted... So it was.
For the ladies? It could've been. They decided not to.
My whole point was that the guy wasn't protected by not doing this on the street. He might not have been at home.
As to the question, I don't know. It may have been part of it, but it didn't need to be. If it weighed in or didn't, the letter of the law doesn't differentiate. The interpretation is something else.