I don't understand this ad hominem. Why should the policeman not be allowed to enjoy his retirement. I would assume that he has done his job hundreds of times and has provided justice in more than the vast majority of his cases.
But yes. For a mistake in which all(!) parts of the system have completely failed, for that then the pawn is to be punished.
In a time of cancel culture, mobs on the net, cyber bullying and death threats by idiots online, I wouldn't talk to a reporter either.
At least that's how I can imagine the thought process. And there may be another aspect. I don't know, but my pop culture "education" would make me fear that I might expose myself to the risk of a lawsuit for damages if I were to admit a mistake instead of the police officer.
Because in my opinion he is not to blame. But he does bear part of the responsibility. And he should own up to it. Unquestioningly. But I know too little whether he would make himself personally vulnerable.
In this respect I would not go from the refusal to comment on the case to deny him the enjoyment of the pension.
> I don't understand this ad hominem. Why should the policeman not be allowed to enjoy his retirement.
I think the issue is the contrast between having ruined someone’s life and the “fuck off and let me enjoy myself” reply. And the utter lack of empathy this betrays. A simple acknowledgment and possibly an apology for having caused so much hurt would have gone a long way.
In today's culture, a simple apology might have set him up for a year-long social media shitstorm including doxxing. So I can totally relate to why he refused to talk to the press.
If he wants to communicate an apology to the people who deserve one, then he can do that, but the public isn't owed the satisfaction of an article about it. Somewhere over the last 10 years people got the idea that when A harms B, then C deserves to hear them apologize so they can write a review of that apology on social media. It's a bad impulse. You're not owed anything here.
To me, the most troubling part is this: "State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle maintains her office held its ground against outside pressure, and took the time needed to do a thorough investigation."
It should not have taken months to see that the original conviction was flawed, so I suspect this is a paraphrase for the state attorney holding her ground until the evidence against her position was overwhelming. Once reasonable doubt has been established, continued incarceration begins to look increasingly like a kidnapping, the longer it goes on. Where is the justice in that?
But yes. For a mistake in which all(!) parts of the system have completely failed, for that then the pawn is to be punished.
In a time of cancel culture, mobs on the net, cyber bullying and death threats by idiots online, I wouldn't talk to a reporter either.
At least that's how I can imagine the thought process. And there may be another aspect. I don't know, but my pop culture "education" would make me fear that I might expose myself to the risk of a lawsuit for damages if I were to admit a mistake instead of the police officer.
Because in my opinion he is not to blame. But he does bear part of the responsibility. And he should own up to it. Unquestioningly. But I know too little whether he would make himself personally vulnerable.
In this respect I would not go from the refusal to comment on the case to deny him the enjoyment of the pension.