There seems to be information missing from this story:
1)If Mr. Leidecker's actions were not criminal acts at the time he engaged in them, on what basis did the prior court convict him?
2) Regardless, it should be emphasized that:
a) Mr. Leidecker does not appear to be denying that he engaged in this behavior but rather that, when he did so, it was not a crime.
b) Mr. Leidecker therefore prevailed, but only via a technicality.
Mr. Leidecker, in my humble opinion, still behaved like a jerk.
Because I'm not impersonating anyone, I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to say that.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.