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.
According to a press release from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the mother appeared to be visibly Muslim, as she was wearing a hijab and modest swimwear to the pool at the time of the incident.
Police said Wolf also asked the mother if two of the children in the pool were hers before allegedly attempting to grab one of them, a 6-year-old boy, who was able to get away.
Wolf also allegedly snatched the mother’s headscarf off while she tried to save her daughter and beat her with it, according to CAIR.
She was charged with attempted capital murder and injury to a child. … The Euless Police Department has recommended that the incident be considered a hate crime and the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office is currently investigating it
“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.
“Possible” is what the DA might add to the charges.
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.
If the DA hasn’t added that already based on even this limited public information
The DA also has access to non-public information, including potential exculpatory evidence.
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.
