So the DA has to reassure passengers who witnessed a woman being raped on a train that they won't be prosecuted for something that's not even a crime because the police whipped everyone into a frenzy where they're probably terrified of vigilante attacks. cnn.com/2021/10/21/us/…
How the police *do not* help solve sexual assault cases. By discouraging witnesses from coming forward.
Also, I really hate the way media are still not accurately reporting this story - the headline makes it sound like the DA has decided not to prosecute bystanders that they could and maybe should prosecute, when that's not the case at all.
These tweets may not make complete sense if you don't know the back story. This is an excellent thread.
My first tweet should have said "may have witnessed" because the entire point is it is not even clear that people did witness anything, certainly not the entire incident, and probably did not fully understood what they saw. Contrary to the now debunked police narrative.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If RBG taught us anything it is that we have blind faith in liberal icons at our own peril.
For the record, I think RBG was racist and that Justice Sotomayor is a million times better jurist.
I also know she joined in this decision upholding child slavery (in which notorious conservative Justice Alito dissented). news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/su…
So much ignorance in this tweet. Cruz is talking about the "Australian government" but quote-tweeting the chief minister for the Northern Territory who is enacting a mandate specific to the territory.
It's a part of Australia where almost half of the population is Indigenous.
The Northern Territory is under the control of the Labor party; the federal government is under the control of the Liberal Party, which is completely misnamed because it is a conservative party.
Despite having one of the most vulnerable populations in the world, the Northern Territory has had zero COVID deaths.
Dayton PD coming up with every reason to justify horrifically brutalizing a human being.
Facts. First, you cannot search a vehicle based on someone's criminal history. That would give police a license to stop and search anyone with a record.
Second, it means absolutely nothing if a police dog sniffs cash and supposedly detects it has been in the presence of drugs. 90% of US bills have cocaine residue on them. nationalgeographic.com/science/articl…
Third, they claim they saw Mr. Owensby leaving a "known drug house" I guess to bolster their justification for the search.
Really? OK. So they must have seen Mr. Owensby had no use of his legs. This just makes it all so much worse.