3 ms·
Well, if we insist on being pedantic rather than charitable, from your link: > Those who were convicted were freed by higher courts and had their convictions o
by toofy 8y ago
Well, if we insist on being pedantic rather than charitable, from your link:
> Those who were convicted were freed by higher courts and had their convictions overturned or pleaded guilty on lesser charges
It would seem they plead guilty to lesser charges. If it would make you feel better, I can amend my original post to say “...none of the original charges stuck...” Would this make you feel better?
- ikeboy 8y agoGiven that, as you quoted, a shockingly high number of charges was applied to a small number of people, it's quite likely whatever charges they pled to were part of what they were originally charged with. I don't think your characterization captures what happened given people ended up serving reasonably long sentences. When I hear "no charges stuck" I think nobody got convicted - even a conviction later overturned isn't quite consistent with that. If you want to make the point that the charges were baseless, sure - but that's not the only thing you're saying and implying. I think the original post is misleading. Charitability is something to be applied to arguments where reasonable interpretations may be stronger. It's not something to be used to defend misleading factual claims, which are properly pushed back against.