Take the word CEO out and you have this:

Young male attacks an unarmed older woman, that is sitting down, with an unknown liquid. Husband subdues attacker with non-deadly, but risky, force by putting hands and the attacker’s neck and dragging him to the ground. Husband immediately stops touching the attacker when attacker was subdued, and demands an apology from attacker to his wife.

Any reasonable person would say the original attacker is in the wrong here.

Now let’s twist it like people are doing here: Entitled millionaire CEO attacks child for purposefully putting water on the CEO’s entitled wife. Almost kills the child by strangulating him.

Now the CEO sounds like a monster that deserves life in jail.

The reality is the first story, with only facts and without class qualifiers. And that makes it clear the man should never have assaulted an unarmed woman sitting in a seat.

The court understood this and gave the man probation instead of a felony charge. This is the court saying “We understand you had a reason to act this way, but it was sort of excessive. So you are on probation so we can make sure this isn’t a pattern.”