496
Even State Department-funded Human Rights Watch admits that authorities combine legal and illegal methods to obtain convictions: https://text.hrw.org/report/2018/01/09/dark-side/secret-origins-evidence-us-criminal-cases
Combining dragnet surveillance with device hacking is intended in the design of both tools. Hence, State Department-funded Signal dupes you into handing over your identity as part of the population-centric mapping. In custody, your phone will be hacked when it is taken away if it's important.
https://xcancel.com/hannahcrileyy/status/2034273723667161480#m
Insane bullshit.
I have a kit with me every day of my life, and I've had to refill it many times due to using it on others.
It would be pure coincidence that I happen to be carrying a first aid kit on any given day, and if I'm going to a peaceful protest I'm bringing my trauma kit because the entire fucking world knows how cops treat protesters.
If you were ever in such a situation, I'm sure your lawyer would present the fact that you always have a first aid kit with you to challenge it's relevance. People who know you could be brought in to testify as such.
On the other hand, if you don't generally carry a first aid kit but brought one to the protest alongside the other listed items, it does seem indicative of intent.
There was just a news story that Denmark was (among other activities) stocking up on blood supplies in Greenland. That's not an unusual thing for a military to do, but it's pretty obvious that they were preparing to fight US forces. That's obviously not a crime, but the logical connections to intent are similar.
I agree that bringing a first aid kit to a peaceful protest is not evidence that someone is planning violence.
I disagree that bringing a first aid kit along with explosives and assault weapons to a planned confrontation is evidence someone was attending a peaceful protest.
You completely dodged the actual question. Is a first aid kit evidence of planned terrorism?
I'm saying by focusing on the irrelevant first aid kit you are playing into the hands of those who seek to discourage the use of private messaging apps.
I agree. You are the one that made specific comments about what carrying a first aid kit means for evidence that are completely irrelevant to the trial.
you agree it's a distraction but continue to bring it up ๐ค
At this point you're just trolling ๐
They didn't dodge anything. They answered your question quite clearly. The answer is context matters.
A first aid kit alone is not proof of that. The commentor did not claim that nor did the prosecution of the case. When taken in context with the other evidence and the actual actions they were able to use it as supporting evidence.
Now in my opinion their actions were based, but obviously illegal. If I were on the jury I would have let them walk, but that's all beside the point.
The fact that anyone is even debating the (completely irrelevant) first aid kit means the disinformation campaign is working.
Shockingly I can proccess more than one view at a time. While I thought the first aid kit discussion was interesting I'm still aware of other factors of the case, I'm still aware that Trump is a child rapist, and I'm still aware that we are invading Iran.
Discussing something isn't falling for a "disinformation campaign".
Continuously steering a conversation away from the big important facts and towards irrelevant details is called "flooding the zone with shit" which yes, is a type of disinformation campaign.
And it only works if regular people take the bait.
No it doesn't
Depends on context. Is a fire extinguisher evidence of planned arson? Depends, was it just sitting there on its own or was it found next to a pile of fire accelerant, a box of matches, the blueprints to the nearby currently burning building, and a piece of paper with "Arson Plan" written on the top and "don't forget fire extinguisher, just in case!" scrawled on the side? Obviously this is hyperbole, but I think my point is equally obvious.
I don't think it was a question, really