Let me ask you this, would you like to see Tate lynched, murdered?

Since you imply that, it would only be logical for you to take that into your own hands. Have you never heard that the public branding of a person may well lead others into strange fanatical acts and they become assassins because public opinion gave them the necessary impetus to do so? Since your article and comments imply such, you would have to become an avenger on Tate. If you can't or won't, you seem to approve of others might doing it for you. At the very least, harm him as a person and thereby damage his economic and social existence (character assassination). What interest do you have in supporting this?

You do not give the benefit of the doubt, which goes against every jurisdiction that we people who call ourselves civilised have given ourselves. Where a court has already taken up the matter, it is not your business, for if it were, courts would be superfluous. Which is followed by my question, do you give a shit about jurisprudence?