There’s actually a much more accurate fleshing out of analogy that could be made – helping a friend in a violent situation, and enabling them to do violent criminal things but still trying to stop them once it came to the point of killing, and what crime you’d get charged with for that – but that construction would lead in the direction of nuance, so juicy doesn’t want that.
If you supply someone with a weapon that you know will be used to kill their spouse, you will be charged with murder.
Unsurprisingly, this isn’t true.
There’s actually a much more accurate fleshing out of analogy that could be made – helping a friend in a violent situation, and enabling them to do violent criminal things but still trying to stop them once it came to the point of killing, and what crime you’d get charged with for that – but that construction would lead in the direction of nuance, so juicy doesn’t want that.
US: Here’s a bullet. Please don’t use it to kill a child.
Israel: I’ll do what I want.
Israel shoots a toddler.
US: Oh, why’d you do that?! Here’s another bullet. This time, please only use it for legitimate self-defence.
Israel: That was self-defence.
Israel shoots a baby
Bystander: Stop that!
US: (to bystander) Mind your own business. (to Israel) Here’s another bullet. Now please, no more kids.
Israel shoots pregnant mother
…
…
Is that nuanced enough for you?