• Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    10 months ago

    No it’s not. You need to have a trial to have legal precedent. You can’t base a legal precedent on “Those other times were the same I reckon.”

    Lazy, wrong bullshit like this gets 7 upvotes, how? Brigading.

    • Arete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yup you’re right of course. It was a throwaway reply to someone clearly arguing in bad faith. While it isn’t legal precedent, it is a fairly compelling defense.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s one of most basic things about Law that merelly “somebody else did the same and got away with it” isn’t at all a valid defense.

        The act itself is lawful or unlawful, quite independently of other people having done the same and gotten away with it.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        It is not in any way compelling unless you’re just looking for excuses. Take your bad faith genocide apologia to someone gullible enough for it.

        EDIT: Also just take a moment to notice how fucking wild it is that “Yeah, I was totally wrong but the other guy was also wrong I reckon so it’s fine also I think what I said was good actually,” was their defense. That sure was a bunch of words they said.

        Again, the fact anybody liked this comment is a definite sign of brigading.