Based on the facts in the OP and parent comment, I was disassembling the race-baiting rhetoric as anti-intellectual and fact-less (which, since you missed it, is itself a fact), to refocus on the original issue.

Meanwhile, double-ironically, you again ignore context and facts, equivocate ("real issue"), and wildly mischaracterize me to make an increasingly invalid point based on a fundamental misunderstanding of my comment.

Which exactly is my false conclusion? Weren't you referring to the real issue? Doesn't the determiner in that mean that there is a only a single such thing? Did you offer any basis for the assumption that it was indeed the single real issue? Those are the assumptions of my conclusion.

It's fair if you wrote "the real issue" and actually meant something else, in which case my conclusion would indeed be invalid, but not writing in clear terms hardly puts you in a position to accuse me of equivocation.

Again, for clarity, I am asserting that the original article focuses on student mistreatment and not race, TechCrunch subverts it, and the parent comment refocuses on it. In other words, the "real issue" was pre-established as the context for and precedes my comment. All my comment served to do, was concisely articulate the issue of the preceding contexts, which is self-evident when reworded to be less generic, "Use of institutional force by the police and school officials to suppress or punish divergent student behavior."

I doubt you could concisely articulate anything if your preceding contexts depended upon it.

Umm.... My "preceding contexts depended upon it"? First, as stated, the preceding contexts were not mine. Second, concisely articulating someone else's stance or summary, or a current context, while not easy, is trivially simple.

Here's an example: Contents of Moby Dick => "A whale fishing allegory about the idolization of man's desires and its limitations."

    You might want to ignore race [...]

    police made repeated mention of his surname.

Now given you are getting all high and mighty bandying around terms like defamation, you going to go calling him a liar?

EDIT 2: Looks like my Edit window timed out. I meant to also update this line as follows:

    Neither the original DallasNews article nor the TechCrunch article
    makes any such assertion about the officer's use of his surname.

EDIT 3: One last time for clarity, the kid felt his name to be relevant (which still does not mean his name was in fact relevant), but did not assert that the "police made repeated mention of his surname", which, apart from the mischaracterizations, was specifically what I was refuting.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10228819

I could have done better however, so in that spirit, here's First Dog on the Moon's take on the event - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2015/sep/18...

Not surprisingly, consistent with your weak intellectual arguments and preceding dishonesty, your comic forwards bigotry and ignorance while ignoring every meaningfully accurate portrayal of the truth.

You're a mouthpiece for hatred and ignorance.