Hey, a Balitmore prosecutor even "you know who" would like!

[Bronzeage]

If there is a complaint where the investigating officers and the prosecutor think that there is no credibility or merit to it, it would be malfeasance to take the case further. See Nifong, Mike.
Anybody can file a criminal complaint at a police station. That does not mean it will be taken further if it lacks merit.

"Equal protection under the law" is a pretty explicit term. If you want to argue that some people are more equal than others, there is precedent for that.

That does not mean what you think it means though.

Yes, I must be confused about the concepts of "equal", "protection" and "law". When they are strung together in a sentence, they don't actually mean that all citizens are equally protected as a matter of legal standing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Instead of talking about the thread topic, you are attacking the poster. That's classic ad hominem.

No, that's not what ad hominem refers to.

And it's quite funny, coming from you, since you spend a lot of time bringing up things in threads that are not part of or related to the OP, but it's something you want to talk about some more.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Instead of talking about the thread topic, you are attacking the poster. That's classic ad hominem.

No, that's not what ad hominem refers to.

Doesn't ad hominem mean attacking an argument or dismissing an argument because of who is making it? That seems to happen to Derec and others on this board all the time. Mere childish insults isn't ad hominem, but ad hominem does happen here on a routine basis, including in this thread.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, that's not what ad hominem refers to.

Doesn't ad hominem mean attacking an argument or dismissing an argument because of who is making it? That seems to happen to Derec and others on this board all the time. Mere childish insults isn't ad hominem, but ad hominem does happen here on a routine basis, including in this thread.

Yes, a personal attack is not ad hominem unless it's used as the reason that the argument is invalid.

You're wrong because you're ugly, would be ad hom unless their ugliness somehow impacts on the argument. Like if the DJ says 'Only the sexy people on the dance floor' then it's pertinent that the dancer is not sexy.

On the other hand, just pointing out 'You're ugly' isn't ad hom.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That seems to happen to Derec and others on this board all the time.

Does anyone actually say, "You're wrong because you're Derec?"
Or is Derec's contribution to a thread dismissed because it's nothing new, nothing nuanced, and not terribly on-point for what the thread was about in the first place?

Not wanting to participate in an argument because of the person m is not the same as ad hominem.

 

[dismal]

That seems to happen to Derec and others on this board all the time.

Does anyone actually say, "You're wrong because you're Derec?"
Or is Derec's contribution to a thread dismissed because it's nothing new, nothing nuanced, and not terribly on-point for what the thread was about in the first place?

Not wanting to participate in an argument because of the person m is not the same as ad hominem.

Those not wanting to participate should try not participating.

Personal attacks are against forum rules, I think. Unless you're a moderator or a lefty.

 

[Bronzeage]

The "ad hominem" in question was not an ad hominem. Derec asked for the public to grant prosecutors the privilege of speaking publicly about criminal cases, in this case the character of an alleged rape victim, with a swift and sharp reaction from the public. In other words, he is pleading for us to let people who agree with him go unchallenged.

No more than you can make the kind of post you create, and be immune to the reactions of the people who read them.

My statement is not any kind of ad hominen attack. It is a simple answer to his question. This statement could be applied to any person here with equal validity.

 

[Derec]

The "ad hominem" in question was not an ad hominem. Derec asked for the public to grant prosecutors the privilege of speaking publicly about criminal cases, in this case the character of an alleged rape victim, with a swift and sharp reaction from the public. In other words, he is pleading for us to let people who agree with him go unchallenged.

Wrong. I was asking for the opposite, that prosecutors be allowed to discuss the merits of the case (and credibility of the accuser) privately with investigators, without the conversation be made public.

 

[KeepTalking]

The "ad hominem" in question was not an ad hominem. Derec asked for the public to grant prosecutors the privilege of speaking publicly about criminal cases, in this case the character of an alleged rape victim, with a swift and sharp reaction from the public. In other words, he is pleading for us to let people who agree with him go unchallenged.

Wrong. I was asking for the opposite, that prosecutors be allowed to discuss the merits of the case (and credibility of the accuser) privately with investigators, without the conversation be made public.

When discussions of the accuser include things like calling the accuser a "conniving little whore", that shit needs to be made public.

 

[Derec]

When discussions of the accuser include things like calling the accuser a "conniving little whore", that shit needs to be made public.

I disagree. People should be able to be frank and direct and not have to beat around a bush.

 

[KeepTalking]

When discussions of the accuser include things like calling the accuser a "conniving little whore", that shit needs to be made public.

I disagree. People should be able to be frank and direct and not have to beat around a bush.

They can be frank and direct without being vulgar and insulting. They work for the public, and if they are talking about those whom they are supposed to be working for like this, we have the right to know about it. If I were caught talking like this about my boss, or our clients, I would be fired.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does anyone actually say, "You're wrong because you're Derec?"
Or is Derec's contribution to a thread dismissed because it's nothing new, nothing nuanced, and not terribly on-point for what the thread was about in the first place?

Not wanting to participate in an argument because of the person m is not the same as ad hominem.

Those not wanting to participate should try not participating.

Well, yeah, if Derec brings up one of his trigger issues yet again, people deciding not to be sidetracked into that, and saying so, are not participating in the derail and are not engaging in an ad hominem.

Personal attacks are against forum rules, I think. Unless you're a moderator or a lefty.

It's also against the rules to discuss moderation, isn't it?

 

[Bronzeage]

The "ad hominem" in question was not an ad hominem. Derec asked for the public to grant prosecutors the privilege of speaking publicly about criminal cases, in this case the character of an alleged rape victim, with a swift and sharp reaction from the public. In other words, he is pleading for us to let people who agree with him go unchallenged.

Wrong. I was asking for the opposite, that prosecutors be allowed to discuss the merits of the case (and credibility of the accuser) privately with investigators, without the conversation be made public.

Let's look at this case, and see how the conversation became public.

After a Baltimore woman reported her rape to police, the prosecutor on the case shared his thoughts with an officer. “I am not excited about charging it,” the unnamed official wrote in an email. “This victim seems like a conniving little whore.”

“Lmao!” the officer wrote back. “I feel the same.”

The Justice Department unearthed the exchange in a sprawling Aug. 10 report on the Baltimore Police Department, which found rampant discrimination against black residents, a tendency to use excessive force and a rash of illegal arrests.

Toward the end of the 167 pages was another bombshell: Officers frequently dismissed or mishandled sexual assault complaints. They often neglected to interview suspects or send DNA evidence to laboratories. Between 2010 and 2014, authorities tested rape kits in just 15 percent of adult-victim sexual assault cases.

The Justice Department concluded that “gender bias” had infected investigations. “In their interviews with women reporting sexual assault,” investigators wrote, “BPD officers ask women questions such as ‘Why are you messing up that guy’s life?’ ”

This was not a conversation. It was an email sent from an government email address to another government address. This means it is a part of the official records of the case. Your defense of this prosecutor is without grounds or merit.

 

[RavenSky]

Wrong. I was asking for the opposite, that prosecutors be allowed to discuss the merits of the case (and credibility of the accuser) privately with investigators, without the conversation be made public.

It's not as if every conversation of every prosecutor in every municipality in the U.S. is required to be public record. This email exchange became public because the entire Baltimore justice system is under investigation for exactly the type of behavior this particular email exchange illustrates.

The Justice Department unearthed the exchange in a sprawling Aug. 10 report on the Baltimore Police Department, which found rampant discrimination against black residents, a tendency to use excessive force and a rash of illegal arrests.

Officers frequently dismissed or mishandled sexual assault complaints.

The Justice Department concluded that “gender bias” had infected investigations. “In their interviews with women reporting sexual assault,” investigators wrote, “BPD officers ask women questions such as ‘Why are you messing up that guy’s life?’ ”

Anyone who is not a misogynistic racist will find this alarming.