I think that aggression is predetermined by a person's genetics. I think that somebody can become aggressive just due to genetic history. But I do not think that it should be used as an excuse if some of them get in trouble with the law due to their aggressive nature.
I think there could be genes that correlate higher with aggression, but correlation is not causation. A person is responsible for whether or not they are aggressive. Choose not to be aggressive except when the situation calls for it. It's your responsibility not genes not other people's responsibility, it is up to you.
All people are born with a predisposition toward violence. This could either be a fostered trait, or suppressed. Typically nurture can overwhelmingly be blamed for aggressive nature. There are examples of nature being the culprit, but even those cases involve family displacement and dysfunction by default. More often aggression is just a trait that is not predetermined by genetics.
Aggression is not predetermined by genetics. Aggression is learned from example, taught by others who demonstrate it, or even encouraged in some societies. So many factors go into what children learn as they grow. If they are taught love, compassion and kindness, they will be loving, compassionate and kind. If they are taught aggression, rudeness and violence, they will learn how to be aggressive, rude and violent.
It is my opinion that aggression is not predetermined by a person's specific genetic history. In most cases aggression can be attributed to a number of factors in a person's environment such as personal relationships, professional relationships, drug use, and other adversity. Aggression is more of a situational tendency in my opinion.