The speaker navigates the delicate balance of revolution, explicitly distancing himself from the actions of September while notably skirting any condemnation of the killings that took place. This ambivalence suggests a complexity in his position, as he neither criticizes nor fully embraces the violence, indicating a strategic avoidance of direct responsibility. Furthermore, he treats Roland and Buzot with apparent indifference, as if they do not warrant his attention in the broader context of the revolutionary upheaval.

He argues that the actions taken during the revolution, including the illegal events of August 10 and the Bastille's storming, are justified within a revolutionary framework. Essentially, he posits that breaking the law is inherent to the revolutionary process, positioning themselves not as simple enforcers of law but as architects of a new societal order. This perspective raises questions about the legitimacy and moral implications of revolutionary actions, challenging the boundaries of legality in times of profound change.