Discussion in 'Current Events' started by NewsVine_Mariyam, Sep 7, 2018.
Who says the organization is filled with racists?
As a REAL black person, give us what you know about Haitians.
You're gonna need to be a little more specific and a tad more relevant. What the Texas Rangers did in say, 1870....doesn't have much relevance to this case.
You're offering us the overgeneralization fallacy. And this after a litany of 'cover up' indications that didn't indicate a cover up.
Why do I need to be more specific? I think history is pretty specific. Yeah it does have relevancy but thats not the last time they have a racial issue.
Because you're using the overgeneralization fallacy.....offering us vague and general reference to some 'history'. While giving us nothing on the relevance to the specifics of this case.
Just like the use of a grand jury wasn't an specific indication of a 'cover up'.
Or a 36 hour shooting to arrest wasn't a specific indication of a 'cover up'.
Yeah history is the best indicator of present and future behavior. You dont have to believe history is relevant but that wont stop me from believing it is.
That's more overgeneralization fallacy. It works better when applied to specific people. But not broader, more generalized groups.
If you have something specific that indicates that the Texas Ranger leading the investigation is a racist, present it. But you don't. You're offering us vague allusions to 'history', while offering us nothing actionable, nothing relevant to this investigation.
Nor can you offer us a single specific indication of a cover up. With your every 'example' providing zero indication of a cover up.
I dont' know enough about the grand jury process to comment on it but I do know that anything done is secret is pretty much suspect.
That's how FISA warrants are obtained, that's how the FBI uses national security letters to get our financial, cell phone, insurance & maybe even our medical records, and in my state they have what are called "secret warrants" which police detectives have used to obtain evidence that they normally would not legally be able to get their hands on. Evidence presented to a judge in secret, the subject/victim/defendant has no right even know of the precedings let alone contest them or any of the evidence presented against him therein, etc.
My understanding is that any time our government is conducting business on behalf of the people it represents, the people have a right to know what they're doing with very few exceptions generally regarding open investigations and national security concerns. As a member of several disenfranchsed groups, I at least understand what Asclepias is saying.
One last thing, anyone else who shot and killed someone in a state without a stand your ground law and was not claiming self-defense would have spent Friday, Saturday & Sunday in jail while they figured things out and finally set bail. This officer was allowed to remain free and from what I've read she was able to bail out pretty much immediately.
Obscure law used by prosecutors is ‘sneak-and-peek stuff’
Washington justices OK warrantless review of bank records
The use of a grand jury isn't indicative of a 'cover up'. There's been zero indications of a cover up. For crying out loud, they charged her. If they'd exonerated her, perhaps you could make an argument. In fact, this case has been text book of what you're *supposed* to do when an officer shoots someone, especially when there is a racial component.
The charges have been reasonable and timely. The investigation was given to an outside law enforcement office. And the Dallas PD is keeping the public informed.
And the officer isn't 'anyone else'. If she was, we wouldn't be talking about her. They also wouldn't have given the case to the Texas Rangers. The involvement of the officer and the calling in an independent investigative team added about 48 hours to the case.
There is so far, zero indication of a cover up.
Separate names with a comma.