[oh_sigh]

You're assuming the accounting in the article is correct. Maybe it isn't:

> “Nobody can condone someone being thrown into a hot shower and killed,” Rundle said. “We read the same thing everyone else did, but it wasn't until we really investigated that we learned that is not what happened.”

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/katherine-fernandez-rundl...

[uoaei]

I don't see how you can read that and take the word of that attorney general as anything but self-serving CYA bullshit.

Even ignoring for the moment the deferment of local news outlets to government officials' press releases, instead of actual journalism, the story simply doesn't line up.

Plus when your only defense is "you haven't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt (because of all of the attempts to make it impossible to recover evidence)", even though that holds up in the court of law, it is not very convincing to any layperson who knows how crime happens.

Bluntly put, this article and subsequent defense are textbook bootlicking.

[oh_sigh]

Sorry, but I have a standard of not engaging with people who use the term "bootlicking" like this, because I've literally not once in my life seen someone use that term and also engage in an honest conversation.

[iudqnolq]

I feel the same for those who assume as true statements by cops in their own interest, with no evidence, when they deliberately chose not to have any evidence.

[uoaei]

You see one now. Open your eyes :)

Willing to have an honest conversation if you don't derail it with self-aggrandizing, pre-emptive character assassination based on incredibly tenuous associations.

Right wingers love to rail against cancel culture but have yet to fully recognize that they have employed the tactic forever with exactly the deflectionary style as above.

Ready to talk when you are but I won't hold my breath. If you decide to engage please bring something other than a parrot trained on police press releases.