Note that this is not how you respond to the AG regarding a legal matter.
The reason this case has received so much news is the girl was almost killed. Turning it into a cry of racism is only validating the AG’s claims.
Note that this is not how you respond to the AG regarding a legal matter.
The reason this case has received so much news is the girl was almost killed. Turning it into a cry of racism is only validating the AG’s claims.
That’s what the AG did.
It’d be like if two people were getting ready to box and a liberal was like, “How did conservative values contribute to this fight?”
In both cases, it’s a stupid assumption. People fight for all sorts of different reasons, so it would seem more prudent to establish the actual cause of the fight first before determining the value system around that cause. The way the AG is opening an investigation into how DEI contributed to the fight presumes an established link between DEI and violence. It’s circular logic: Because there’s a link between DEI and violence, the Missouri AG wants to find out what that link is by opening up the investigation.
The AG did no such thing.
More specifically, did the removal of SRO contribute to the event?
That’s answered quite directly.
Yes, SRO may have prevented the fight by patrolling the area around the school and possibly hearing about it during the day. SRO are a valuable asset.
Even so, what does DEI have to do with an SRO?
DEI is why they eliminated the SRO.