Re-read what I wrote, word for word. It was written because most people here seem to be confused about the law - ie they think even if someone did what they sa

Re-read what I wrote, word for word. It was written because most people here seem to be confused about the law - ie they think even if someone did what they say they are somehow protected. They are not. No one was derided because it was a hypothetical Legal cases are often considered in this fashion - assume the accusation is correct on the facts about a hypothetical person - what is the law? Else you waste a lot of time and money figuring if someone did something only to realize "ok he did that, but as it happens, that's totally fine!". Once you are certain the claim is actually problematic, then you turn to the facts - did the person in question do it?