Yes, that's what I am saying. But you are moving the target. I am not saying he should have voluntarily gone to the police. I am saying that a person who destroys physical evidence of a murder is a bad person, deserves significant jail time, and is not domeone I want on my favorite team, no matter what his talent or age or naive level. It is a very bad crime. It thwarts justice and deprives loved ones of the victim a potential shot at closure. If he had really been a non participant and did nothing fine. But to take the affirmative step of destroying physical evidence about a murder? Screw him. Bad person. I don't think this is a hard call and seems something all reasonable citizens should agree on.
We will have to disagree here. I have never witnessed a murder, but if i did at 23 years old, I would not expect that I would react rationally, and if I did not would not consider myself a bad person.
You don't really know what he destroyed. It could have been an attempt to hide that he was there, which is not really evidence in a crime. We just don't know.
Regarding moving the target, I do not understand how you can say you wouldn't expect him to go to the police, but think that covering up is horrendous.
If your argument is that he owes it to the victims family to not destroy evidence (which Im not necessarily disageeing with) is has to be just as wrong to not report the crime.
The only reason to draw a distinction is that reporting it could make him a suspect, and it is a reasonable possiblility that this was exactly why he destroyed whatever he did.
If Hernandez is brought in and tells them everything he knows and states that he broke the security system and phone because after witnessing his friends murder, he was in shock and afraid it would look like he did it, and then cooperates completely, is he still a bad person?
People are trying to judge him without knowing the facts.
There will be plenty of time to judge him when we know them