You ask for a charitable interpretation of OP, but don't give a charitable interpretation of the response.
To demonstrate, even if OP didn't mean to imply the interpretation as everyone sees it, it's highly upvoted and natural to interpret it as such.
The fact that it's upvoted demonstrates that many people do agree with the perspective of that interpretation. In other words, even if the interpretation is not correct (a very dubious claim), it's clearly a popular perspective. Yet you're not willing to engage with it.
The popularity of a comment does not change its meaning.
---
[1] In fact, I would like to point out that the alternative criticism I have just proposed (the one on which you are commenting) is essentially the same one you yourself made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32428259
It would appear we're actually of the same opinion on the substance of the parent comment, so I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Is it at all possible that you may have projected a little bit?
"The relevant question is not whether this person did something reprehensible or wrong or even harmful, but rather whether the police's actions were proportional, or whether there was a legal basis for an arrest... Or even whether the current legal framework is how it ought to be."
The goal in the above paragraph is to:
- neutralize any unfair rhetorical impact of the parent comment
- allow for the parent comment to be read charitably
- argue directly to the relevance of the point, and help refocus or reframe the discussion
Now query whether I'd be successful at any of this... But I think that's how I would approach it!