3 ms·
Right. So my logic is faulty based on arrests that weren't reported, are unverifiable, and as far as I know don't exist? Ok. I say your logic is faulty based
by j_baker 16y ago
Right. So my logic is faulty based on arrests that weren't reported, are unverifiable, and as far as I know don't exist? Ok. I say your logic is faulty based on twice as many imaginary crimes where no arrest was made because there was no news article.
- zaidf 16y agoSo my logic is faulty based on arrests that weren't reported, are unverifiable, and as far as I know don't exist? Yep, it's faulty because you're assuming that just because you're not aware of something, that something doesn't exist. It may or may not exist. In this case, I feel it's a reasonable assumption that there have been e-commerce related arrests that didn't make it in the media simply because they are no longer novel or newsworthy. It counters your suggestion that in order to get a similar arrest you must first be featured in a major publication. I disagree. Example: People get busted on ebay all the time; only a small percentage of it gets reported somewhere and even a smaller percentage makes it to any big media. You can do a search on sites that archive court records to see volume of such arrests.
- j_baker 16y agoOk, I see what you're getting at and I agree. My point was that this should have been one of those cases. It should have been stopped when it was just a petty criminal being an ass and not a national issue. I mean this guy was willing to talk about his case to the New York Times. He couldn't have been that good at doing this.