I don't want to disagree with what you're saying, I just want to disagree with your methodology here. Just one point:
How can you start up ad hominem attacks on the woman here, "repeated problems with the law", while completely (and I'm hoping not knowingly) omitting all that similar information about the officer? I don't understand.
How can you be so slanted in your presentation? Let me just fill in the details, from your link [1], that you dropped:
Officer Bovell said that the police department’s Internal Affairs
Division had suspended him for five days without pay, docked him 25
vacation days, rescinded his second job as a bank security guard and put
him on probation for a year. He said that in addition to the three
tickets that he was penalized for, he had also fixed three other parking
tickets.
How can you start up ad hominem attacks on the woman here, "repeated problems with the law", while completely (and I'm hoping not knowingly) omitting all that similar information about the officer? I don't understand.
How can you be so slanted in your presentation? Let me just fill in the details, from your link [1], that you dropped:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/nyregion/officer-stands-by...