Trump foes blame victim          

Basic truths can be stated concisely. Here's one:

Within hours of accused assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks's (fortunately vain) attempt to murder Donald Trump, some contended that the magnetic candidate himself bore blame for the bullets fired his way. 

Included in that number were Democrat politicians, journalists, and celebrities. Morning Consult reported  that 38% of respondents to its post-attempt poll also blamed the Republican icon.

But homicidal plots are not justifiable responses to constitutionally protected speech one finds offensive. Not in a civilized society, where the exchange of ideas should be open.

Courtroom sharks commonly levy the "causal effect" argument against women who bring rape charges. They insist victims of sexual attacks had brought those on themselves.

Chosen attire or behavior are blamed as motivational. Actual perpetrators of violent predations are wrongly exempted from primary culpability.

While the causal effect theory can be valid in cases of incitement to imminent lawless action, it has no validity here. Entrapment and false advertising also are not protected. 

But speech a listener simply doesn't care for still enjoys legal safeguard. In instances involving such expression, guilt for a listener's subsequent criminal actions belongs solely to the perpetrator. Wicked impulses may have originated due to phenomena like appearance or speeches. But those don't tear dresses or pull triggers. Individuals do.

One cannot reasonably aver personal responsibility is negligible; that people are machines incapable of processing stimuli healthily and without harming others.

Disproving the causal claim in Trump's grievous situation is an easy task. One has only to point out that millions of others heard the same rhetoric and did not subsequently commit heinous deeds.

Those who assigned blame to Trump were doubtlessly already prejudiced against him for unrelated reasons. Given that, they found illogic meritorious.