2 ms·
OP title is not backed up by linked article whatsoever. The article says nothing at all to that effect. The article says this, however, which I don't really un
by realfeel78 3y ago
OP title is not backed up by linked article whatsoever. The article says nothing at all to that effect.
The article says this, however, which I don't really understand:
> He suggested one of the chat's other members could have warned the police, but if that were the case, that other member would have to be charged, not Verma.
Can anyone help explain this?
- yellow_lead 3y agoI believe the part you are asking about means: Verma did not make a threat, but a private joke in a group chat, so he's not liable for the police reaction. If his friend is the one who informed the police, while knowing it was a joke, the friend should be charged instead.