I 100% agree that he should have been treated differently and that the whole situation overall was fishy. What I'm saying is that the anomalies may suggest different things in contexts of different baselines. Was compliance better than normal, worse than normal, or about the same? How did it compare to other places?

I just don't think it is good for public discourse to use out of context statistics, even (and especially) if they are right, because it emboldens others to do the same when they are wrong.