You know, it was you that decided to drag your personal situation into the conversation, not me. Be offended, or not—I’m indifferent.

You know, I look forward to the day this unjust system that you blindly and stupidly trust bites you, too.

And if that day comes I still won’t resort to violence…or even consider it.

Good luck.

When exactly did I say that I would resort to violence, or considered violence, or advocate for it, or suggest it?

You are commenting about legal avenues not going your way on a thread literally about the concept of a violent response being justified for people when normal legal avenues don’t go your way.

Well I mean that's nice for you but I'm not sure how it responds to the question asked - when did I say anything about violence being justified? I merely responded to your ignorant and empirically incorrect fantasy-world assumption that the legal system is always right.

At no point did I say the legal system is always right. I suggested that in certain situations it might be right and in those situations resorting to violence because you feel aggrieved at a legal loss would not be an appropriate response. Frankly, some people are guilty and some people are legally responsible.

I suggested that if you are having difficulty finding an attorney willing to take your case on contingency, there might be a reason for that. I stand by that. You are asking a person to take a risk on your behalf who has evaluated the environment and didn’t like the odds.

  > At no point did I say the legal system is always right

First you made the incorrect assumption that we live in a disney-style fantasy world with "If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a 'why'."

Then you made the totally unwarranted assumption that "If the case was truly just I suspect you could find pro bono or contingency legal services to handle your appeal"

  > I suggested that if you are having difficulty finding an attorney willing to take your case on contingency, there might be a reason for that

No, you made an assumption based on zero information and chose to incorrectly insinuate that the case is not just.

  > You are asking a person to take a risk on your behalf who has evaluated the environment and didn’t like the odds.

But "evaluated the environment and didn’t like the odds" doesn't actually have anything to do with the case being just, does it? There's a million possible explanations why someone might choose not to donate their time for free. Like for example "I'm aware of just how corrupt this system is based on my previous experiences and so I choose not to waste my time and energy on this".

It’s remarkable how much you have personalized what started as a conceptual conversation.

Good luck resolving whatever it is you are dealing with either legally or by finding a way to cope with the outcome, just or not.

And it's almost impressive, in a sad way, how indifferent you are to everyone else on the planet, and how prima-facie ridiculous your fantasy world assumptions are when given more than two seconds thought. But I'm not here for that sort of "discussion".

Unfortunately however since you have no response to any of the points I actually made, I'll just have to say that I hope you run into someone just as horrible when the corrupt system chews you up and spits you out too.

You criticize my “indifference” and then in the next breath hope for some sort of sadistic vengeance on me.

With virtues like that, I think your opinion of what is just or not should be viewed with suspicion (and I do). Your condemnation is meaningless.

"sadistic vengeance"? I don't know what you're talking about - you yourself claim that you're merely "indifferent". If you're not being a condescending ass, then how is what I wished for "sadistic"? I think you just your entire premise.