“The reason this point is such BS is it is basically the same thing as saying that the Waco incident was a-ok because the majority of the task-force was NOT charged with murder [and as far as I know no-one was convicted thereof].”
No, it isn’t the same as anything else. My comments apply only to what I commented on.
You can play with your strawman by yourself.
It’s not a strawman; the point is that taking the sentence to be proof of the seriousness of the crime is not correct-thinking.
In logic there is a fallacy of thinking that if A implies B, and B is true then A *MUST* be true. This is the case only in certain circumstances, but not all. As an example consider “If it is raining then I am wet.”
If you are wet, then it is indeed possible that it is raining, but you could also be taking a shower, or in the yard when the sprinklers went off. The ONLY way that you could tell that it was raining from the state of your being wet is if there is no other way in which you could become wet, then the statement “if I am wet then it is raining” is implicitly part of your rule-set.
This is DIRECTLY applicable in your argument.
You are saying “IF the crime was serious THEN he would get 11 years; he got 11 years so it must have been serious.”
The Martha Stewart case is another example, she went to prison for “lying to a federal agent,” NOT insider trading; but that particular law is so vague that statements which might be misconstrued by the agent are considered ‘lies.’