Don’t mind me, just trying to summarize the timeline of your argument.
1 He is a multi-millionaire (100K being 1% = 10mil)
2 He is part of a millionaire family
3 He is eligible to inherit huge amounts of money in the future; includes a honest side-note on how he may not get some big sum precisely because of what he did. Which i do appreciate but its weird to keep pursuing the argument.
4 We are now at he lives comfortably, much more then most. Which says nothing about the means for legal defense in a case like this where the state is part of the problem and people sometimes directly funded by millionaires to make certain choices.
Prediction for the next argument will be he eats avocado toast every day without even needing to pull on his bootstraps.
I’m not sure how you’ve misunderstood, I think my argument was pretty clear: The wealthy don’t need handouts.
That depends entirely on the mathematical ratio between the handout, the wealth level of the received and the potential costs and losses they may face.
I find myself reasonably well off some would consider me wealthy and i don’t have 100K sitting around, That would still be life changing money to me.
Someone who has a single million is insanely wealthy to me. That is a fuck you amount that no one should just have… But if you look at the price for lawyers in high profile homocide cases these can easily go up into multiples millions, suddenly that insane wealth is zero + debt, do they still not need handouts?
This doesn’t justify wealth it points to another breach on the wall. Legal defense is a system in favor for the ultra wealthy, the most money wins so usually state and corporations. Our guy is a shrimp.
You have failed to show that he is wealthy. Yes we know he comes from a well off family. Yes we know he seems to have been living comfortably up until his arrest, but that doesn’t make him wealthy
So we’re not failing to see your argument, we are disagreeing with one of your assumptions
