327
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
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 🤔
At this point you're just trolling 🙄
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 important and towards irrelevant details is called "flooding the zone with shit" which yes, is a type of disinformation campaign.
No it doesn't
I don't think it was a question, really