Hyper Static Union wrote:
Yeah except they weren't doing that so stop giving unethical idiots credence here.
How about not calling people idiots who may be on this thread?
Might be nice (see Matthew 5:22).
Dear diary, today I learned that sentences before and after another sentence have no impact on the context of that sentence.
Dear diary, today I learned to make it clear what my actual position is when writing on blogs.
Disgusting analysis and from a research club mod of all people. Sheesh. I should have figured that you would try to find a way to justify this unethical behavior.
Well, that wasn't nice (same with the rest of your comment). You really need to be more careful with your words, you could seriously offend someone. I don't know if you're trolling or not, but anyway, it's hard to tell.
And I'm not trying to "justify" anyone. I was only pointing out that to an ordinary first-time reader of your article (like me), it simply does not appear to say what you said it does. I'm not disputing the fact that the people who used this quote were unethical (I can't really do that, because i don't know the situation exactly).
Finally, let's actually look at those "sentences before and after":
Sentence before: This is because, especially in murder cases, police are often “able to find the evidence needed even without witnesses.” 
Sentence after: However, in the status quo when eyewitness testimony is allowed, serious cases create pressure “to get justice for the community” to solve the crime.
Hmm, maybe I can't read right, but I'm not seeing anywhere where you took back your original statement that there were downsides.
True, you said "however, we make up for it by discouraging hastiness." That isn't the same as saying "I take it back, it won't make it harder to identify anyone."
There's a difference between saying "x is a problem with my plan, but y outweighs it" and saying "critics say x is a problem with my plan, but actually it isn't." The thing simply isn't clear.
There's not really any debate to be had here. If the author of a piece says he sees an ethical problem with how his work is being quoted, generally the author should have final word on how his piece is used.
If the author says his own article says something which it clearly does not seem to say, I think I'm entitled to point that out.
Obviously I can't question his intent, but I can point out that his writing does not properly convey that intent to the average reader.
_________________Check out my new website!
"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014