571
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
571 points (97.2% liked)
News
23305 readers
3821 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Wow. Made it 42 years and thought "I need to murder a child"
To be fair, it was a toddler.
/s in case that wasn't obvious.
Also, "possible hate crime"? It clearly was. Getting really tired of these bullshit headlines that don't actually say what happened. The "alleged" for the crime since they haven't been convicted is already in the headline, that's fine, I get he legal distinction there, but then say what's actually alleged and don't try to hide the reality of what's alleged. This is clearly a hate crime, there's no question of that. It's not an alleged possible hate crime, it's just an alleged hate crime.
"Alleged" is what the DA has charged.
"Possible" is what the DA might add to the charges.
The opinions of the reporter, who is not a lawyer much less a prosecutor, are not helpful.
If the DA hasn't added that already based on even this limited public information, I question their ability to do their damned job. There's nothing "possible" about this being racially motivated, which clearly makes it a hate crime. The initial charges should have been for a hate crime and adjusted to remove that if necessary.
But it's Texas, they don't want to prosecute white people for being racist against anyone brown, that sets a precedent with the public they don't want.
The DA also has access to non-public information, including potential exculpatory evidence.
Can't imagine what sort of exculpatory evidence there could be for someone asking where someone is from, then trying to drown their child, and beating them with their hijab. There is a pretty damned cut and dry racial motive there. Unless the white woman was secretly Muslim somehow it seems pretty straightforward.
Or... the simplest explanation is that it's a smaller suburb of Dallas-Ft Worth where the largest ethnic group by far is white, in a district that went 62.2% Republican in the 2022 election, and the government officials don't want to publicly denounce racism like that because that's what the citizens in that area expect of their government.
Not being able to imagine something doesn't mean it can't exist.
Suburbs don't prosecute, the county DA does. This county voted for Biden in 2020, and it prosecuted 42 hate crimes in 2022.
You're right, and Presidential elections don't do a good job of showing anything about local matters. Gotta look at the local elections. Since you brought it up...
In the 2022 general election the County Clerk, Criminal District Attorney, Constable, District Clerk, and County Judge elected were all Republican. In fact, the only race not won by a Republican was one of 2 open County Commissioner seats, which a Dem barely won with 51.5% of the vote.
Notice that Criminal District Attorney, Phil Sorrells (R), was just elected in 2022. Prior to that, he was a Judge for Tarrant County Criminal Court Number 10 for 25 years. I'd be willing to bet if someone went back through his criminal sentencing over those 25 years it would show certain, shall we say, biases in those sentences, they almost always do. Sometimes that quack does come from a duck after all.
The previous DA was also a Republican, so it's clear that Republicans are capable of prosecuting hate crimes.
And I'd be willing to bet that Tarrant County charged as many hate crimes in 2023 as in previous years.
I never said they weren't capable. I'm just saying that this prosecutor seems to be choosing to not prosecute something seemingly obvious, which just makes them look incompetent. If they want to appear that way to the public, that's their choice.
Nothing prevents them from saying that they aren't going to prosecute it as a hate crime due to exculpatory evidence, instead they seem to be intentionally leaving it in a grey area. Especially since this apparently happened a month ago according to the article. Plenty of time to figure out something so core to the issue. It just makes them look complicit in allowing hate crimes when the public evidence is so glaringly obvious for it.
The thing that prevents them from saying that they aren't going to prosecute it is that they are still considering prosecuting it.
Deciding on a charging strategy takes a lot more thought than posting a hot take.
EDIT: And let's not forget that she is most definitely being charged with attempted murder, so no matter what the DA decides she's gonna have a bad time.
Publishers have to use the walking on eggshells language even when it’s obvious what happened because of libel laws. You’re not guilty until convicted in a court of law. Until that point, everything is allegedly, possibly, appears to be.
I know. I already addressed that. That's not where my issue is. My issue is they're not only saying allegedly but also a possible hate crime when it is clearly a hate crime.
Instead after looking more, it looks like that's because the DA has unofficially chosen not to prosecute it as a hate crime for whatever baffling reason. A month after the event and they've not filed charges for a hate crime. It doesn't take a month to figure out whether a white person fighting with a Muslim in a headscarf about being American, then attacking their children and beating them with the scarf, constitutes a hate crime.
So instead it makes it look like a prosecutor that doesn't want to prosecute a seemingly slam dunk hate crime as a hate crime, for whatever reason.
It's a CYA thing.
Wow, nothing deniable about that at all