Eeyore
Regular Member
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...rman_examining_the_roots_of_vigilantism_.html
This is a classic example of a "journalist" reaching a conclusion and then misreading or ignoring facts in such a wasy as to support their conclusion. She tries to say that the recent shootings in Tulsa were indirectly encouraged by SYG, even though SYG clearly doesn't apply to these circumstances. And of course, everything has to be racial. She even finds a university professor to imply that SYG laws will encourage the wholesale slaughter of blacks because, since all [armed] white people assume all blacks are criminals, they can shoot them and then claim self-defense to get off scott-free. Since both premises in this syllogism are ridiculous, the conclusion is also ridiculous. And this guy is a PhD.
Obviously, both the writer and the professor are ignorant of the actual workings of the law. Fortunately, many of the comments following the story reasonably point out her logical absurdities.
This is a classic example of a "journalist" reaching a conclusion and then misreading or ignoring facts in such a wasy as to support their conclusion. She tries to say that the recent shootings in Tulsa were indirectly encouraged by SYG, even though SYG clearly doesn't apply to these circumstances. And of course, everything has to be racial. She even finds a university professor to imply that SYG laws will encourage the wholesale slaughter of blacks because, since all [armed] white people assume all blacks are criminals, they can shoot them and then claim self-defense to get off scott-free. Since both premises in this syllogism are ridiculous, the conclusion is also ridiculous. And this guy is a PhD.
Obviously, both the writer and the professor are ignorant of the actual workings of the law. Fortunately, many of the comments following the story reasonably point out her logical absurdities.