You've consistently wanted to believe this throughout the thread, and yet continue to be wrong. I'm sure that won't stop you. He committed a crime. He was held for that crime. And then found guilty and sentenced for that crime. Just like a citizen of that country would have been. Not sure what about that is so difficult for you to grasp though.
Is he? I see much more vitriol in threads about celebs cheating their partner or something, this is about violent assault and rather than vitriol there's been a lot of defense and even justification for his actions (in previous threads atleast). Haven't seen any "Asap Rocky canceled" posts either. I really don't know where you're seeing all this alleged vitriol towards him, atleast more than is deserved. He and his group assaulted someone, they broke the law, so it's not "vitriol" if people are satisfied that he got convicted or thought that he should be. It wouldn't be vitriolic to even think that he got away too easy, especially considering we have people who earlier have defended his actions are now saying that this was still a win for Rocky. Maybe the sentencing was indeed bit too lenient (generally I think Nordic countries are when it comes to violence).
1) If they were swedish residents they would most likely not have been deemed a flight risk and probably wouldn't have been put in jail at all. Suspended sentence are common for first time offenders in assault cases so the outcome could just as well have been that he wouldn't have served any time at all.
If this is a W, then there was almost no chance of an "L". I still wouldn't count being declared guilty and convicted a "W". Kinda low bar.
That the prosecutor was not able to prove that someone beat the victim with a bottle could probably be considered a win for Rocky if you believe that he did in fact use a bottle. Otherwise the sentence seems like the most likely outcome. If Rocky considers it a win or not is hard to tell, his Swedish lawyer claimed that he was disappointed with the verdict.
Yeah, I'm familiar with the bolded but I got the impression from court info that actual serve-time was a possibility here (could just have been words). The 'non-resident' aspect specifically stems from comments made by the judge. I'll post a quote from the Guardian so no bugger needs to google translate the thing.
(7th para from the bottom)
Well if the judge said that then I guess the court reasoned like that in this case. It bothers me somewhat though that they use that line of reasoning since it implies that the judges prejudices affects his sentences.
I will make you privy of something that will blow up your mind.
I mean he's a criminal with clear evidence of his wrongdoings.
It's more a misunderstanding of how Swedish sentences aren't barbaric, so they see that he pays a fine and has a suspended sentence and think 'got off easy' when in reality, that's how most justice systems SHOULD operate for a first time offender.
