The story as written gives the impression that the plaintiff was on trial in 2007. And Monti is named the ‘victim’ throughout the article. It was only subsequently that it came out that the opposite was true regarding the 2007 trial. I see no reason to be sorry for misinterpreting that.
As for the term ‘criminal’, again, it was a ‘he said-they said’ situation, and regardless of who was attacked it was a criminal act. I’m not a court of law, and if I see something I believe to be criminal, I’ll call it as such. And no apologies. I’d have said the same if it had been Monti that the story implied. ArmstedFragg wants to label me biased. I suspect he’s an illegal-alien supporter.