That is correct - but you seem to confuse two things, as I gather from your previous posting re. the apparent inconsistency in my postings. If one were arguing a criminal case at a trial, the above would certainly apply, at least for most reasonable people. But we are certainly not arguing at a criminal case trial here. Instead we are arguing different political philosophies, using a criminal case decided by others as a mere illustration of arguments that we are making. So we need to make a clear distinction between arguing a criminal case at a trial, and arguing an abstract philosophical or theoretical position, and be fully aware that what we are arguing the latter NOT the former here.
As I see it, the argument between the political philosophies that we are actually arguing here has two dimensions. The first dimension is epistemological and pertains to the mode of explanation. The position that I am taking is that causal explanation and personal culpability are two very different things and should not be mixed. Stated differently, I do not believe that one should refrain from reaching certain factual conclusions solely on the grounds that such conclusions are inconsistent with ethical or ideological principles (e.g. that it is "blaming" or "exonerating" the wrong kind of crowd).
The second dimension is the ontological one and pertains to the role of systemic determination vs. human agency. The position that I am taking is that either one provides only about half of the explanation, but of course the actual ratio varies considerably from case to case. I also believe that social scientists (especially sociologists and anthropologists) are prone to the social over-determination fallacy i.e. giving way too much weight to systemic determinants of behavior while ignoring human agency. Economists and moralists, otoh, are prone to the individualist over-determination fallacy, but there are very few of those on this list, I gather.
Once you take the above into account, there is not contradiction or fallacy in my position. That is to say, most people would consider it wrong to decide a criminal case based on one's philosophical or ideological considerations rather than facts established during the trial. Likewise, it is equally wrong to use specifics of a particular case - and the emotions it evokes - to argue (especially by launching ad hominem attacks) a philosophical, political or theoretical position. Furthermore, most people would agree that there is a distinction between faith and facts, ethics and science, what is and what ought to be - albeit we may disagree whether one should trump the other and under what circumstances. But whatever one's position on this, one should at least be able to state the cause-and-effect relationship, the ethically desirable relationship, and compare the two before deciding in favor of one or the other.
That is why I have no problems pointing out to human agency in attributing causal factors of particular outcomes - especially when we are arguing philosophical positions - and I have very little concern how that squares with this or that moral imperative of blame attribution. But that is very much different from passing a "guilty" (or "not guilty") verdict in a criminal case trial.
This pretty much sums up what I have to say on the issue, and it is well past my willingness to continue this discussion. The only reason I replied is that you took the time and effort to post a bone fide argument rather than an ad hominem "shot from the hip" , so I wanted to reciprocate.
Wojtek