And you admit that your focus on this case is because you are worried that the rights of "white people" are being infringed.
You've got to start reading other people's posts more carefully, or else stop trying to intentionally misrepresent other people's positions. It is a pervasive problem with your posts. It isn't persuasive, and it gets in the way of real discussion of issues. When I talk about the context within which an issue arises, that is exactly what I am talking about, nothing else. It is a either a reading comprehension problem or intellectual dishonesty to attribute such a statement to represent my own personal view. I make my personal views clear in my posts. Perhaps you don't accept my own views as the basis for debate because they are harder to criticize than views you wish to attribute to me?
Despite the fact I'm merely repeating myself, my concern (which happens to be the same concern that noted far right conservative group the ACLU has
) is that government should not be shutting down free speech, or enabling groups that would effectively shut down the speech of others, regardless of the unpopularity, immorality, or offensiveness of that speech. The unpopular and offensive speech of white nationalists is just ONE EXAMPLE of such speech. THE most important element of a democracy is the ability to speak out in opposition to the policies of the government of the day. Democracy can't survive without it. Of course, that also entails that others can speak out against those views in turn.
And it is idiotic to expect that DA to publicly release all their information before trial. Except disclosure to the defense, it never happens and it takes a pretty big ego to think that the DA must satisfy you before the charges can stand. The only times I've ever seen things released is when they are looking for more witnesses.
Your observations are simply incorrect. The police have a role that goes beyond just completing criminal investigations. In North America, our local police forces are not "secret police". The police are accountable to the public through various political structures. That's one of the reasons they have press conferences to discuss their activities. It bolsters public trust (which in turn is good for the police, because it reinforces the utility of public spending in this area) to report on productive police activities. Put another way, it helps the police as an institution and it fulfills their accountability to the public to provide information to the public concerning important investigations. Contrary to your belief, these press releases/conferences are not all tactical.
Police forces understand this. That's why they are happy to report when they make progress on investigations and/or make arrests. Conversely, it is embarrassing to them to admit when they haven't made progress. They are also happy to tell the public why they are so sure that they've made arrests that will hold up in court.
You actually have their motivations backwards. The only time they withhold information that supports their actions is when releasing it would compromise their ability to gather further required evidence.
And you might want to look up what a grand jury is and the role the people play in determining if there is enough evidence to continue the case.
I didn't think you were a lawyer. Certainly no signs in your previous posts that you are. It takes a pretty big ego to lecture people on the law if you aren't a lawyer. In fact, it's ridiculous.