Police in Several US Cities Used Facial Recognition To Hunt Down and Arrest Protesters (arstechnica.com) 254
An anonymous reader quotes Ars Technica:
Law enforcement in several cities, including New York and Miami, have reportedly been using controversial facial recognition software to track down and arrest individuals who allegedly participated in criminal activity during Black Lives Matter protests months after the fact. Miami police used Clearview AI to identify and arrest a woman for allegedly throwing a rock at a police officer during a May protest, local NBC affiliate WTVJ reported this week...
Similar reports have surfaced from around the country in recent weeks. Police in Columbia, South Carolina, and the surrounding county likewise used facial recognition, though from a different vendor, to arrest several protesters after the fact, according to local paper The State. Investigators in Philadelphia also used facial recognition software, from a third vendor, to identify protestors from photos posted to Instagram, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.
Similar reports have surfaced from around the country in recent weeks. Police in Columbia, South Carolina, and the surrounding county likewise used facial recognition, though from a different vendor, to arrest several protesters after the fact, according to local paper The State. Investigators in Philadelphia also used facial recognition software, from a third vendor, to identify protestors from photos posted to Instagram, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.
Finally! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sick of these entitled crybabies ruining our cities.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a big difference between using FR to identify a known criminal, and using FR to scan crowds of mostly innocent people.
In this case, the police have photos of rioters and need to ID them. I don't see a problem with that. They should be identified. FR just makes the process more efficient.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
Catching and putting away ACTIVELY CRIMINAL PEOPLE IS more important.
Because if you allow that sort of crap to happen with no repercussions, society breaks down.
This is why these asshole practice Black Bloc.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. People who disrup legitimate protest activities should be identified and face penalties.
Protest activities including non-violent civil disobedience should not be subverted by violent disruptors. That includes both unprofessional police behavior and violent looting, arson, and assault.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm none to keen on a society with such a high rate of incarceration, with such a high rate of police brutality, with such a high level of racism. But I'll probabbly be marked down as a troll, for saying so, perhaps by the same gentleman who post swaticas to ever fucking slashdot article.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a number of good reasons not to have machine guns in war. First and foremost, troops tend to dump an entire mag at a go, rarely hitting anything. Single shot and burst fire are far more effective in *MOST* combat scenarios. And, apart from the psychological effect on the enemy, it is better to actually still have ammo to fire, rather than pulling a mag dump.
The North Vietnamese mastered the fine art of firing a few shots at a US squad, then quietly ducking behind cover and retreating, while hug
Re: (Score:2)
There aren't any international treaties banning the use of machine guns in warfare, so hey, let's have at it!
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue here are the chilling effects this could have on protesting in general. There are many times where society deems a protest justified, but politics does not. In those cases, knowing that it's no longer possible to protest anonomously could make people fearful of repercussions, and thus less likely to protest.
When people are less willing to fight injustice, society suffers.
Re: Finally! (Score:2)
Agreed. But the arrested "protesters" were throwing rocks at the cops. That's not peaceful protest, that's violence. In plenty of other places they'd have been shot. On balance, I'll come down on the side of FR although the potential for abuse is clear and should be subject to scrutiny..
Re: (Score:2)
It's awfully hard to get a consistent reputation if you're anonymous. ;)
Merely pointing out the paradox of asking a man in a mask who he is.
Re: (Score:3)
Same here.. Over 90 days of "protesting". Gimme a break!
Who wants to visit Seattle or Portland? I won't get near the place because the police aren't allowed to maintain law and order in those cities.
I have zero sympathy for their cause. They've protested way too long to be constructive. They are destructive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A sub human animal threw a deadly weapon at me while I was doing my job protecting law biding citizens and their property.
Fixed that for you.
Re: Finally! (Score:3)
If we all agreed that they were "doing their job", we wouldn't be here would we?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. Prople who riot, loot, and burn are disrupting protests. We have a long tradition of non-violent protest and disobedience as practiced by followers of Ghandi and MLK.
Thugs who take advantage of ongoing protests to riot, loot, and commit arson should be identified and removed. Any trained protest facilitator can tell you that.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
Are we talking in the United States, or in any democratic Republic anywhere?
In the United States, the Freedom to Assembly was originally included to support groups (such as the Sons of Liberty, or in some cases even local government councils) that had been prohibited by the British Crown (see: Coercive Acts/Intolerable Acts) from meeting in large numbers in any capacity - even if they weren't protesting. Is isn't specific to protests, though most modern cases involving the invocation of the Freedom of Assembly do involve protests. It could be seen as an abuse of a Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom to "peacefully" assemble in a way that is maximally disruptive for people around them - people that might be innocent bystanders who have nothing to do with the matter being protested.
To repeat, though, the Constitutional Freedom of Assembly is NOT specific to protests. It guarantees your group's right to public meetings, conventions, or anything of the sort. It isn't a Constitutional guarantee to harass people, be a mindless pawn in someone else's scheme intended to disrupt lawful government, loot/burn/destroy, or anything else typical of modern "protests".
Re: (Score:2)
In any democracy. Protesting, i.e. causing disruption, it's a vital part of the democratic process. When elected representatives don't address your issue and the issue is big enough to warrant the burden protesting places on you, protesting is the next non-violent step.
Sometimes there are other options like suing the government (requires funding) or standing for election yourself (tends not to be very good for national or urgent issues).
Protest is a safety valve. If it is ignored things can get really bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Illegal mass protests are not vital in a proper democracy with plenty of legal ways to get attention. If you want to have a big parade with jaywalking and noise pollution, get a permit, like any other parade.
Protesters should be aware of the fact they are getting a privilege to protest and that it's not a right and they can very easily outlast their welcome. Here in my corner of commie Europe protests in fact require a permit. Media darlings like BLM support parades can get away protesting without a permit
Re: (Score:3)
Illegal mass protests are not vital in a proper democracy with plenty of legal ways to get attention. If you want to have a big parade with jaywalking and noise pollution, get a permit, like any other parade.
And if the government decides to ignore you and refuses to grant a permit, what do you do?
Protesters should be aware of the fact they are getting a privilege to protest
Pure oppression, that's exactly what totalitarian governments everywhere say. Only in places like China is protest considered a privilege and not a right.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Someone else rioting and breaking the law DOES NOT REMOVE MY OWN FUCKING RIGHTS.
Stop conflating the two. When someone else throws a rock, that does NOT give you a legal basis to declare me a rioter. I don't lose my rights because someone else a crime. When I commit a crime myself, then you can get handcuffy.
Or are we back to guilt by association and it's okay to hold people for crimes they didn't commit?
Re: Finally! (Score:3)
Actually, the moment that comtinual violence by multiple members occurs during a protest it ceases to be peaceable. Which means the assembly is no longer covered under the aegis of the US Constitution. So next time when you see people throwing shit, destroying property, or trying to burn down buildings, frog march their ass to the nearest cop.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Finally! (Score:3)
Quote the right in question bitch. Oh that's right, it's peaceably assemble, emphasis on peacably. So the moment that shit starts getting thrown at the cops or counter-protesters, the moment that windows start breaking and cars get overturned, the moment stuff not owned by the protesters themselves gets set on fire, it ceases to be peaceable. And when the majority of the protesters in the vicinity just sit back and let it happen, they can under no circumstance claim goo faith in attempting to peacefully pro
Erm, "protesters"? (Score:5, Insightful)
The headline says "protesters", but the summary describes people who would normally be classified as "rioters". It mentions "individuals who allegedly participated in criminal activity", including "throwing a rock at a police officer".
The Philadelphia Inquirer article? Smashed a cop car.
The South Carolina article? Arson, robbery, rioting, etc.
Actual protesters tracked or arrested by facial recognition? I think zero, or very close to zero.
Re:Erm, "protesters"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agrred. A better headline: "Police use facial recognition to find and arrest criminals".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Only if you believe the police. We have seen them lying about this stuff repeatedly. Standard advice when interacting with a cop is not to say anything because they could twist it into a charge. If you do anything to slightly inconvenience them, like asking if you are free to go, that's "resisting arrest".
Did a judge approve putting people on the facial recognition database or can the police just put anyone they like on there, brutalize them and lock them up for a bit and then drop any potential charges? Or
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actual protesters tracked or arrested by facial recognition? I think zero, or very close to zero.
Because why would the police bother? It's extra work, and protesting is completely legal, and they're obviously using video as evidence which would only show the person is not guilty of anything illegal.
Re:Erm, "protesters"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Protesting is legal.
Sure!
Assaulting and killing people? Defacing and destroying property? Rioting? NONE OF THESE ARE LEGAL.
Re: (Score:2)
They are protesting because they want those rules to apply to the cops as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but you don't stop criminal behavior by engaging in criminal behavior.
PERIOD.
If you want to protest? PROTEST.
If you're going to burn shit down? Eat a fucking bullet.
There's been protestors let go (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh and literally hours of footage of them pepper spraying & shooting peaceful protestors or sometimes just people sitting on their poaches.
Yeah, they'll pick off a few rioters after that fact, but always after the fact. Cops love rioters because they give them an excuse to clamp down, get more power and more funding from scared suburban voters.
Re: (Score:3)
To put it another way if you hung out with terrorists and then
You're missing the point (Score:4, Interesting)
The media focuses on the rioters. The Cops focus on the protestors. The Cops don't go after the rioters until after they've done their damage. That way guys like you get angry and it derails any attempts at police reform.
Remember, the goal here is to fire a lot of these guys and replace them with non violent social services. That means a lot of bad cops out of the job.
Ask yourself this, if a few rioters in the midst of the protestors means all protests are bad, what does that say about the police?
I should add (Score:2)
Ever wonder why a cop can have a wrap sheet longer than any perp and still manage to kill an unarmed black man who's begging for his life? That's how.
If we suddenly and drastically reduce the number of police officers then the shitty ones will wash o
A Mysterious Pile of #baitbricks has just appeared (Score:2, Informative)
and This [duckduckgo.com] and
I wild conspiracy theory has appeared:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
Yes, bricks have been used during uprisings since historical times.
But nope, the bricks haven't been planted by police force trying to push protesters into giving them excuses for violence, nor are a big coordinated effort by Antifa Corporation (inc) to prepare stashes of ammunitions for rioters.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok holy shit. I went to the snopes site, and the ads were for freaking shipping containers. I just watched yesterday the episode of Dexter on Netflix with the famous "Surprise, mothereffer!", which was shipping container-heavy.
Has Netflix parsed out out all the stuff in its shows, and sends that off to your AI-generated advertising profile?
There is no reason for tailored ads to me to show that, and there is certainly no reason for generic ads to be pushing for shipping container sales to randos on the Int
Re:There's been protestors let go (Score:4, Informative)
"Failing to obey a legally given order by law enforcement is illegal. They were legally arrested."
No. You can't trespass people from Public space, they own it.
They were decently treated (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They were given an illegal order in violation of their Constitutional rights.
It wasn't a legal order. And everything from that order forward should be fruit of the poisoned tree. They also need to bring lawsuits and demand damages for the violations of their rights, as well as demanding that the responsible prosecutors charge the police with A&B with deadly weapons, unlawful arrest and imprisonment, violations of Constitutional rights, intimidation of witnesses, and more.
Re: (Score:2)
True that. Very poor subject indeed.
What's the problem again? (Score:3)
The police used facial recognition technology to find people who may have been involved in criminal activity.
What's the problem? It's not sporting?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I could dump a few quadrillion mod-ups on you....
Re:What's the problem again? (Score:5, Insightful)
So when the cops beat people, steal their shit, and burn buildings down, it's more okay than "left wing morons"?
I don't think you understand the rule of law, at all.
Philadelphia would like to have a word with you about that (literal) bomb they dropped in 1985. [www.witf.io]
This isn't whataboutitism. This is the group you're actively comparing to another group, so why do you like police more when they commit those activities than yoi do "left wing morons?"
Now, I'm picking an old and brutal incident to drive my point home, but there's no shortage of more recent violence by police officers.
Re:What's the problem again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, used against looters and vandals it sounds good.
But what about when it is used to suppress peaceful demonstrations? In many totalitarian regimes they go after those demonstrating against the government after the protests, making them disappear in the night.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken
Re: (Score:2)
You''re basically arguing "What if".
We burn that bridge when we come to it.
So far, it hasn't happened.
Re: What's the problem again? (Score:2)
Is it being used to suppress peaceful demonstrations in the US?
If it is, it's doing a pretty shitty job.
Also: Do you think using a quote from a virulent, life long anti-Semite is persuasive?
Re: (Score:3)
Whoooooosh.
You entirely missed GPs point. You label someone a scoundrel and then any action you take seems eminently justified.
Authorities know that people protesting authorities' illegal acts can be labeled scoundrels, incarcerated, deprived of their rights. Then the authorities can get on with business as usual, protecting property for the ultrarich, by any means "necessary", illegal or otherwise.
Subhuman, criminal, scoundrel...don't you see how these are terms used to dehumanize people so that you don't
Re:What's the problem again? (Score:5, Interesting)
Strangely though the cops didn't seem to like it when protesters used facial recognition on them. A few months back at one protest someone with a megaphone started googling the cops in attendance and reading out the list of complaints against them. Surprising how many had previously been investigated for violence.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with social media is there are too many lynch mobs willing to pass judgment before all evidence is considered. I find it easiest to understand people when I replace the word 'justice' with 'revenge' in social media posts.
Re:What's the problem again? (Score:5, Informative)
Derek Chauvin had a long list of complains against him, many of which were investigated and found to be true.
You would have a point if genuine complaints actually had some effect but it seems that often they are just ignored even when people are being murdered.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it easiest to understand our 98% guilty plea rate (with only 2% going to trial federally) when I replace "justice" with "slavery" in our economically driven ptison system.
We have a total of about 7 million people sucked into the machine. It needs to stop. 2.3 are actively incarcerated, and the rest are paroled or probationed, generally with a stipulation to participate in a particular "community service program", such as the people forced to sort clothes for the Salvation Army so that they can undere
Entirely the wrong word (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe you were looking for the word rioters. You know, the people burning down those cities.
Be honest to protect rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you guys really want the word "protest" to be understood to include arson, looting, and destroying property? Protect the right to protest by refusing to redefine "protest" to mean obvious criminal activity. We don't want to lose our rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Small number of people? This small number of people as you put it destroyed, looted or burned at least 1500 homes and or small business in my local community. The cited source is quite liberal for your reference. People were terrorized all over the community with violence by rioters using violence.
https://www.startribune.com/mi... [startribune.com]
Across the country rioters have been using fireworks (sometimes commercial grade), bricks, railroad ties, baseball bats, knives and guns as weapons. Cars and buildings have been se
Why do that? (Score:2)
Why do that when you have 4chan?
no problems here (Score:2)
I have no problems with using facial recognition to get rioters and looters as long as they make double sure they have the right person before acting on the info.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, there HAVE been cases of mistaken identity.
Once that's verified, the people are let go.
It's not like they're kept in prison for crimes they didn't commit.
They are not the A-Team.
I would be willing to bet (Score:3)
Had the message been:
" Wearing a mask while protesting helps protect against the use of facial recognition technology. "
vs
" Wearing a mask while protesting helps prevent the spread of CoronaVirus. "
We would have been hard pressed to find a person who wasn't wearing a mask I think.
You misspelled "rioter" (Score:2, Insightful)
* If you assault police [battleswarmblog.com], you're not a protestor.
* If you commit arson [battleswarmblog.com], you're not a protestor.
* If you loot a store [battleswarmblog.com], you're not a protestor.
These are not subtle distinctions, these are bright clear lines.
#BlackLivesMatter is a radical Marxist organization [battleswarmblog.com]. dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism and American constitutional order. This remains true no matter how politically inconvenient it is for the left to admit it.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo.
The only reason this has gone on is because it's politically convenient for these quisling public officials.
Hope they remember that when they've ejected from office and prosecuted.
Re:You misspelled "rioter" (Score:5, Insightful)
What if, while protesting peacefully, police attack you, and you defend yourself with equal force?
Re: (Score:3)
What if, while protesting peacefully, police attack you, and you defend yourself with equal force?
Then you are no longer peaceful and have just given the police justification. You have proven to the public that the rhetoric about you is correct and you have lost their sympathy. You have become the thing you say you are against; a lawless thug.
MLK knew this and the protests he organized behaved in a way to show they were better than those they were protesting.
BLM and Antifa aren't interested in changing the course of society. They literally want to overthrow the current regime and install themselves a
Re: (Score:2)
Riots and reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Hunting down criminals is the job of the police. It seems reasonable that they use all available tools.
But the deeper reasons remain. Why are there protests, why are there riots?
I don’t think there’s any question that the USA suffers terribly from racism, both current and historical. The very organisation of the education system seems designed to maintain this. The police system is busily converting itself into a military force, aligned against “the enemy”. Which, oddly , seems to be the very citizens it is sworn to defend.
None of this sounds good unless you are in the rich one percent, or point one percent. And it sure as heck isn’t good if you are born black, poor, and in a ghetto, with no obvious means to escape or better yourself. Rioting is perhaps hardly surprising.
I’d be happy to see the brilliant work done by the countless genius geeks of this world, and indeed the USA, being put to work to better society.
Chasing down criminals and rioters is all very well, but making a better society that doesn’t feel the need to riot would be gold.
Facial recognition... (Score:2)
Think about it a little, even a pair of nanoseconds will do. Every crime that proceeds into eye witness or victims reporting they recognize the perp is relying on Facial Recognition. The only new thing is the already higher reliability of machine facial recognition as compared to the average person's personal recognition. I am not in bed with the recent trend one could summarize as, "Let's make crime safer for the criminals."
{^_^}
Here .. let me fix that headline for your ... (Score:2)
they're no longer protesters (Score:2)
And the problem is ... ? (Score:2)
Is it because the protestors in question won't associate the arrest with what they did, like we are told is the case with pets?
This is an important application of the technology because while there is concern by some that Pres. Trump won't relinquish the office if he loses the next vote, you can be sure that his opponents will not accept if he wins. They can be counted on to violently riot in the streets and so this kind of technology will see a lot of use.
Protestors? (Score:2)
How intellectually dishonest can you be? Protestors don't loot, destroy and burn down over 1500 homes and small businesses just in one metropolitan area. Here's a citation from a quite liberal news source. By the way the vast majority of these victims were minorities, and a significant portion were immigrants.
https://www.startribune.com/mi... [startribune.com]
https://www.joplinglobe.com/op... [joplinglobe.com]
As for those who claim it was okay because insurance covers their damages, standard insurance does not cover civil unrest, especially f
Not protesters, CRIMINALS (Score:2, Insightful)
The summary nearly misinforms in order to try to get a political point across.
These were not simply "protesters" but people behaving criminally at a protest, whose actions were harming property or other people, and which could have led to escalation by law enforcement that could have hurt far more people.
I believe this misinformation is deliberate.
Lying is wrong, whether a president does it, or some poster on a meaningless tech board.
Good on them (Score:2)
Actually surprised that swathes of the protesters didnâ(TM)t self-convict themselves by means of selfies.
Criminals != Protesters && Protesters != C (Score:2)
These aren't "protesters" being tracked down; these are people who committed crimes. Crime is not a protest; it's just crime.
It is disappointing to see the typical extremist drivel show up on this thread, though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Be interesting to see if some of the people who get busted turn out to be of the red hat wearing” persuasion (and I don’t mean Linux).
This has already happened: https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Play stupid games (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a good first-person account of how violent rioters/criminals use "peaceful" protesters for cover [crimethinc.com], either with or without their help, as well as their other tactics.
Legally speaking, once the rioting starts (and the police declare it a riot and tell people to evacuate the area), it's time for the "peaceful" protesters to quickly leave the area and go protest elsewhere, rather than turning themselves into human shields for the people with weapons and firebombs.
But while there may be an obscure person on the right trying to inflame a protest, back in reality there are large numbers of left-wing rioters who work together every night in many cities. They aren't inciting already peaceful protesters, they're using them for cover against the police to perpetrate their violence and destruction.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but at this point, it has been nearly 90 days.
THREE MONTHS.
At this point, anyone showing up for one of these events knows EXACTLY what's going on.
So I have NO sympathy when the tear gas and rubber bullets go flying.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the system we've had for over a hundred years now... seems to have been managed so far.
"Looked at me funny" isn't a legit excuse, but any violence is. Declaring a riot is for the benefit of peaceful protesters. It's an explicit warning that because of violence by some, they need to go elsewhere (even if just a few blocks away) because the police are going to start arresting people and they don't want anyone peaceful caught up in the resulting fight. Also makes it so "we didn't know people were throwing
Re: Play stupid games (Score:2)
You have to compare options with others the police actually have. Do you prefer that they stand there and be attacked and never do anything no matter what, or charge into the crowd without any warning to go after the attackers?
What's your better option for them?
Yeah, violent rioters can spoil peaceful protests. Then ideally, they get arrested and get due process, and then put into jail.
Btw, the fantasy of groups of false flag violence to end protests is not common in the real world. Opponents are more likel
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, the only abuse is coming from the whackaloon rioters.
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh it's Trump supporters rioting."
Wow. MASSIVE tinfoil there.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm under no illusions that all the rioters are there to send a political message.
If so, they've failed.
Their tact has pushed it from grudging support to "Fuck you, eat a bullet".
I just seriously doubt it's people on the right doing false-flag.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" Be interesting to see if some of the people who get busted turn out to be of the red hat wearing” persuasion (and I don’t mean Linux)."
Well, they obviously weren't wearing any masks, so your point is interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in China, they aren't burning things, assaulting people, killing people, etc.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's used to collect ideas of who to suspect, then perhaps good, but dangerous. If it's used to arrest people, then bad. There's a very high error rate.
Even when used properly it's dangerous. Perhaps using this kind of evidence should be banned, just like using illegally acquired evidence. That's a difficult question. But facial recognition has in the recent past been used to arrest and charge people without validating that it actually was the person identified who was in the photo. And it's been clearly wrong. So it's only potentially valid use is identifying people to do further research on.
I can't tell from the summary whether this is a problematic use or an evil one. (Well, evil..."Got to get that arrest percentage up" is evil, even though not malicious.)
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
They obviously didn't wear masks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Police in Several US Cities Used Facial Recognition To Hunt Down and Arrest Rioters"
"Peaceful protesters" don't block highways, don't vandalize, don't drag people from the cars and beat them, don't burn down buildings, don't murder 8 year old girls at an illegal road block [bluelivesmatter.blue]
Re: Well... (Score:2, Troll)
Iâd rather have people protesting for their right not to be mistreated and murdered by the police than to have people taking it lying down with the boot of a police officer on their neck. Or knee, as it were.
Iâ(TM)d rather have people on the street acting out for justice than to let the police go unpunished for breaking into the wrong house unannounced and in plain clothes then opening fire on a man and a woman scared to death at the ambush of unidentified intruders.
Re: (Score:2)
An example of effective change is initiative 940 (police de-escalation and lowering the bar for prosecution of police misconduct) passed in wa state a couple year ago, which required various groups (activists, l
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you do't mention BLM opening fire on a scared family and murdering an 8 year girl at one of their illegal roadblocks
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Blocking a highway, stopping and dragging people out of their cars and beating them, is fucking violence, you POS
Re: Well... (Score:3)
It is however completely fucking moronic and darwin award worthy, especially when done at at night with no flares or other hazard markings 200 yards out from your location.
Re: (Score:2)
"alleged criminal activity"
I remember the old days (Score:2)
Facial recognition is horseshit. Now the cops can't even take the time to plant drugs on people.
Re: (Score:3)