It’s only a multibillion dollar fraud, so it’s fine for him to fly first class. Imagine if instead he’d been caught selling loose cigarettes on a street corner.
It's really about cost benefit.
I believe the point being made was the wildly disparate proportion of justice (even assuming pre trial treatment and “innocent until proven guilty”) with regards to the crime and harm caused. Petty crime? Violent treatment. Billions of dollars of white collar fraud? Business class and lounge access.
It’s highly unlikely that there’s some individual out there that’s in charge of both situations, saying “yes we should murder petty criminals, and also let fraudsters fly first class”.
So, yes this dissymmetry is unfair, but it’s also unfair that the sun will eventually expand to swallow the earth, and that’s about as connected to SBF as Garner is.
What a bizarre straw-man. Of course there is no individual. There are numerous democratically elected policymakers. What difference does that make?
> but it’s also unfair that the sun will eventually expand to swallow the earth, and that’s about as connected to SBF as Garner is.
Bizarre thinking again. Both men were arrested for non-violent crimes.
They would both be presumed innocent until proven guilty. What would be wrong with either person flying first class?
Why do you assume this?
Throwing out an incident that happened 8 years ago where a cop used an illegal chokehold while trying to subdue someone during an arrest is a troll.
I described what is supposed to happen, and what happens most of the time.
Not very relevant to those for whom it doesn’t.
> and what happens most of the time.
This blithely elides the possibility that it’s not random who it happens for and who it doesn’t.
Have you considered that there are those for whom it happens most of the time, and those for whom it doesn’t.