Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Not that there are actual examples of this, but...
Stabbing someone actually has more defences and/or excuses (defence, in a fight, drunken brawl, accident when acting tough). And holding up a store is often spur of the moment stuff.
This required him to decide to record someone without their knowledge (someone who presumably trusted him), and then, later, deliberately decide to share it. To me it's more low-down.
|
I think the major difference is also that there are actual consequences that occur with the other acts. Most people who are okay giving a second chance to reformed criminals do so after they served their time and showed they have changed. It doesn't start with "Well he admitted to it yesterday, so let's get him a jersey and a multi-million dollar contract today" it's closer to "He made a mistake, but if he serves his time, it's better for society that we give him the chance of one day being a productive member of society (often with a scarlet letter in the form of a criminal record) instead of locking him up for ever."
In this case, the guy got off lucky that he just had to pay a fine (oh and the chief of police also works for the same team...). And now we're talking about a privilege that 99.9999999% of the world will never have in the form of being drafted by a professional sports league.
I think I can safely guarantee that if another prospect was charged with a stabbing during a liquor store robbery last week, not a single poster would be saying what he did wasn't that bad, stabbings happen all the time and the teams should still draft him. There would be major red flags. We would all agree about how heinous the action was, question his character, and certainly would not be defending the stabbing it or downplaying it like we saw here.
But according to our friend here, there isn't even a need for a second chance. What he did was completely normal in hockey culture and therefore we can't judge him at all.