I hunt too often for that to fit, son. I also kill pests too often.
Are you familiar with the notion of reductio ad absurdum? It means that you follow a flawed premise to its logical, but ridiculous, conclusion. Let's see how that works.
Now, according to you your buddy nopoulos should get a pass because his roommate schloss is a rapist. Where do you draw the line? May I remind you of the Villasca axe murders, in which an entire family plus two neighbors were literally chopped to pieces in their beds? Would that crime allow freeing schloss? How about mcvey's destruction of the Murrah federal building? Would that allow the unknown Villasca axe murderer to get a pass on his crimes? And would belle gunness's murders of her beaus allow mcvey a pass on his crimes?
I do not much care what the crime is -- beating a kitten or murder -- you will always -- always -- find somebody who thinks that the criminal should escape justice because somebody else has done something worse. So where do you draw the line? What crime is so heinous that you, personally, are not able to countenance it and you will clamor for the accused to face justice?
You have a choice to draw a line, above which the state will prosecute the criminal for their crime and below which they won't; or to not draw a line, and to have the state prosecute all crimes. Where do you put that line, or do you?
I chose not to draw a line, son.
--Al
