Slashdot Mirror


Feds Crack Trump Protesters' Phones To Charge Them With Felony Rioting (thedailybeast.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Daily Beast: Officials seized Trump protesters' cell phones, cracked their passwords, and are now attempting to use the contents to convict them of conspiracy to riot at the presidential inauguration. Prosecutors have indicted over 200 people on felony riot charges for protests in Washington, D.C. on January 20 that broke windows and damaged vehicles. Some defendants face up to 75 years in prison, despite little evidence against them. But a new court filing reveals that investigators have been able to crack into at least eight defendants' locked cell phones. Now prosecutors want to use the internet history, communications, and pictures they extracted from the phones as evidence against the defendants in court. [A] July 21 court document shows that investigators were successful in opening the locked phones. The July 21 filing moved to enter evidence from eight seized phones, six of which were "encrypted" and two of which were not encrypted. A Department of Justice representative confirmed that "encrypted" meant additional privacy settings beyond a lock screen. For the six encrypted phones, investigators were able to compile "a short data report which identifies the phone number associated with the cell phone and limited other information about the phone itself," the filing says. But investigators appear to have bypassed the lock on the two remaining phones to access the entirety of their contents.

465 comments

  1. Burner. Phones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or word of mouth or other old-school methods. The internet is public, remember.

    1. Re: Burner. Phones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Thanks for that five minute hate.

    2. Re: Burner. Phones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OBEY.

    3. Re: Burner. Phones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will OBEY. You will OBEY

      Exterminate! Exterminate!
      {orders the Master Dalek wearing a Donald Trump mask}

    4. Re:Burner. Phones. by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

      A burner won't help if it's confiscated on arrest and they use it to corroborate your location history. NO PHONE is really the only answer here.

    5. Re: Burner. Phones. by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "If you are opposed to a president who is committed to roll back every single socialist policy since 1901 and a president who declares America First, and you resort to violence to express that opposition, you deserve to be ploughed under."

      FTFY.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re: Burner. Phones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too fucking late for these leftists.

      Rightists. The left is ok with using government power to micromanage the economy, ala Lenin and Stalin. It's the right wing who is pissed at the president for interfering with the free market.

      The only way Comrade Trump is ever going to get approval from conservatives is if he stops with all pushing to tariffs, strict limitations on visas, etc. Currently he's anti-free-trade, and that's a problem for us free market advocates.

      So-called "capitalism" without an actual free market is bullshit. Without a free market, who the fuck cares whether the means of production is owned by the government or a few private individuals? Add or remove a meaningless government job title from these people, and you'll see that 1920s Soviet Union and Comrade Trump's desired 2020s America are totally interchangeable.

      The right is pissed about having a communist president. We were supposed to have won the cold war with the USSR, and suddenly a quarter century later, they are beating America again, and not "over there," but right here at home! Expect the 2020 presidential election to be a holy crusade of right wing vengeance, to win America back after the left having been in total control for 4 years. We already miss DINO Obama.

    7. Re: Burner. Phones. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Well fixed, too. That is the metric by which I judge the validity of methods, thoughts, and actions. I don't have to agree with you to deem your opinion valid, you just have to express it without resorting to certain inexcusable activities. Namely, violence and falsehood.

      The only exception against violence would be a nationally organized civilian revolt by the majority, wherein we depose the entire federal government at once and install new leaders from the proletariat. One would have no choice but to go along with something like that, should such a situation arise for whatever reason. Just saying.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    8. Re: Burner. Phones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've literally not heard a single right-wing commentator say what you're saying. Not even once.

    9. Re: Burner. Phones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, new-who lady boy. Go comb your wonderful beard and play with your steampunk fashion accessories.

    10. Re: Burner. Phones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot about your hero rolling back liberty and personal freedoms. Yaaay

    11. Re: Burner. Phones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama, is that you? Why don't you answer my prayers anymore? :( I've been smashing Trumpsters, reporting people to the thought police and burning flags -- please don't forsake me.

    12. Re: Burner. Phones. by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Wrong
      Violence in RESPONSE to falsehood based rule is a moral right, even a duty!
      At least, so says our Declaration of Independence.

    13. Re: Burner. Phones. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Which hero? Whose hero? So many to choose from...

      No, I didn't forget. The previous hero is now known to have done much worse, secretly.

      Trying to indict a President for his abuses is an exercise in one-up-manship. This one we can, possibly, influence. Not many did we have any such hope. But even if you don't believe that, you've merely indicted him for what so many have done. He's wrong on these things, but he's not even exceptional in that.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    14. Re: Burner. Phones. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Agreed. In the first paragraphette I was speaking about citizen to citizen interactions, not citizen to government. The context being a public riot where violence and destruction are directed towards co-citizens and their material property. This is a no-go for me. I can't support this kind of action and will oppose it with whatever tools are at hand.

      The second paragraphette was my in-joke support of the moral right and duty you so aptly point out. If you want to riot in the streets I won't support that. However, if you are directing your violence against the established government to redress a multitude of wrongs you may very well have my support, depending on the intentions, methods, message, and goals communicated by your group.

      Just remember the order of operations with regard to boxes: Soapbox, mail box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Exhaust each in order before proceeding to the next.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  2. Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Prosecutors have indicted over 200 people on felony riot charges for protests in Washington, D.C. on January 20 that broke windows and damaged vehicles."

    "protests ... that broke windows and damaged vehicles."

    So... a riot. Not a protest, a riot.

    1. Re:Not a protest by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe they were protesting against windows.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Not a protest by msauve · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Maybe they were protesting against windows."

      As a trademark, I'm pretty sure Windows should be capitalized.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Not a protest by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So... a riot. Not a protest, a riot.

      Some people being assholes doesn't make the rest rioters.
      Depriving a single peaceful protester of his constitutional right to peacefully assemble and protest is a worse crime than someone else breaking a window.

      Or do you mean to say that all 200 broke windows and damaged vehicles?

    4. Re:Not a protest by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Protip: If you find yourself in a rioting mob, leave.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Not a protest by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Fucking windows! Keeping whitey down!

    6. Re:Not a protest by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fucking gravity! Keeping everybody down!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... a riot. Not a protest, a riot.

      Some people being assholes doesn't make the rest rioters.

      Ahh, but not leaving when asked to leave DOES make them ALL rioters.

    8. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It certainly does not.

    9. Re:Not a protest by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

      Would you react the same way if someone were killed? Perhaps a member of your family?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    10. Re:Not a protest by slashrio · · Score: 1

      The question is who were the rioters among the protesters.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    11. Re:Not a protest by unrtst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would you react the same way if someone were killed?

      Great point. They're all murderers!

      Yeah... that doesn't work either :-(

    12. Re:Not a protest by guises · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What if you find yourself in a protest, with a few people misbehaving? Then what do you do?

      This isn't a rhetorical question, every large protest is this way. People are protesting, after all, because they're angry about something, and with any large group of people there are going to be some with anger issues. Saying, "Just leave." isn't any different from saying, "Just give up. Abandon whatever cause has brought you out here today, protests are an unacceptable form of political expression."

      Allow me to anticipate your response: "So, what, you're saying that rioting mobs are just misunderstood people who have gotten a little overly passionate? So all of that is just A-okay?" No, of course I'm not saying that. What I'm really saying is that rioting is unacceptable behavior whether everyone is doing it or only a few people are doing it, but that when you're prosecuting people it's necessary (it should be necessary) to establish guilt on an individual basis and not merely claim that a person was part of a mob and therefore guilty.

    13. Re:Not a protest by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 0


      The question is who were the rioters among the protesters.

      likely, false flaggers. folks who wanted this to 'look bad' and make the protesters sorry they voiced their opinions.

      very likely, it was all setup and staged to create the image the 'Right' (god, I hate how those misguides idiots stole the word 'right' for themselves; they are anything BUT right!) wanted.

      we have given up being a nation of laws. power is all that matters. and THAT is one of the reasons people were protesting!

      dammit.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    14. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A classic tactic in the US is to give these warnings and orders AFTER having boxed the crowd in from those same avenues of "walk away"

      There is often very little time given between when the tear-gas is fired and when the warnings are given... if any are given at all before the arrests begin.

      That's not even counting the likelihood of agents-provocateurs, something that we see here in Montreal nearly every major protest. Sometimes the first stone is cast by a policeman - sometimes it's even the only stone.

    15. Re:Not a protest by Evil+Kerek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, cause the police instantly started arresting people.

      The people that got swept up had been there for a good while AFTER the rioting started. I'm really sick of the 'it was peaceful except for these 3 people.'. That's horse shit and you know it. That was a full on riot with a ton of people involved. Here's a suggestion: When the rioting starts, you need to leave. If you stick around with the crowds that are running around after being ordered to disperse...guess what? You're a rioter.

    16. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protests are declared to be unlawful assemblies when members of the group start rioting or breaking other laws. As with all things, a few ruin it for the many. Also, the second protesters start breaking the law you would be wise to leave.

    17. Re: Not a protest by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do not have to leave, if you have business there. You are not a slave, law enforcers can no issue arbitrary orders and obtain immediate obediance, they are not slaver overseers and you are not a slave. They can only issue orders they are allowed to issue. They have to prove you broke windos, that you specifically rioted, just being there is not a crime.

      Police do not beat protesters to death, do not charge people with committing a crime unless they have evidence those people did commit a crime. They arrest with minimum force those individuals they have evidence of committing a crime and not others for just being there. Just being in a public space is not a crime.

      This is just another measure to silence the public, to force them to obey, to shut up and vote in pretend election or just shut up and stay home. Obey, do not claim your rights, obey or be destroyed by the state, the legality of the orders is arbitrary, obey or be what, hmm, torture is acceptable to authorities even in public (use of electric whips, chemical weapons, even weapons that will cause organ damage, ears, internal organs from missiles fired from shotguns, high pressure water, grenades. Shut up, obey or die, slave, now that's your message.

      My message, unhappy with your government, than protest the fuckers right out of business. Don't let them bog you down, keep your protest mobile. Law enforce prepare to attack, break up and relocate somewhere else, force the law enforcers to chase their own tales. Mobile protests, very mobile protests are the safest.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dude, lay off the weed.

    19. Re:Not a protest by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, the smart and well organized protest groups have their own security and will warn violent people to behave and, if they cannot be persuaded, forcibly eject them from the group. There are a huge number of benefits:

      (1) By nipping violence early, the (literal) 'mob mentality' doesn't get a chance to catalyze
      (2) By doing it it from within the protesting group itself, there is less reactionary violence against police intervention
      (3) It demonstrates to those watching that the protesters are serious about non-violence and not tacitly condoning vandalism
      (4) It demonstrates to the police that they can keep a safe distance and focus on separating protesters/counter-protesters
      (5) It discourages opportunists that will join any protest as a cover for their pre-existing desire to smash shit (whether for political or just anger issues)
      (6) It encourages people that might not feel safe or welcome in a violent protest to join in. A lot of people won't go out in the streets if people are smashing windows or if they fear being tear gassed by overreacting cops

      So yeah, I don't advocate giving up and prosecuting everyone. Or shutting down the right to protest. But I also don't advocate allowing a very small percentage of the protesters to steal the spotlight and tar the entire thing as violent. Those folks ruin your public image, they ruin your relationship with the city, the police and the mainstream members of the group and they have no right to do so.

    20. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You were there? What exactly happened, but first I have to say that this is a pattern I have seen before:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/police-infiltrate-protests-videotapes-show.html
      http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/08/18/ferguson-rioters-infiltrated-government-provacateurs-source-says-dhs-posing-new-black-panthers/

      And the reason why people are still protesting in the streets like is still 1381 is beacuse the gouverment have not changed the way people participates and the true citizens are still not the majority of people; Up today all goverments now are still some kind of neo-aristocracy with a lot of pseudo-monarchy, just because we have more technology doesn't menas we have a more advanced society, we have the same kings and the sames aristocrats and the same puppets and the militia used as a tool used to make non-practical stupid things that really give more troubles.

      So, what to do if your newborn got severe brain-damage because the whole city water is contaminated because some politician tried to make a buck or two, or your house is blighted because a new mining company is destroying anything with its fumes and emmissions? what to do if some police is harrassing your children in the school? what to do if your health-care provider company left you a life of debt for a bruise? is hard to be calm when you're desperate and in many years you see no change at all.

      But in those cases you're supposed to inquire to your representative, (because we are supposed to live in a representative democracy), but almost all of them have shown no intereset in anything except temselves and their customers (lobbyists and patrons).

      Today there should be lots of technology to help people communicate with the goverment, and lotys of technology helping the goverment to improve the great majority of people's life, but no, they're still playing chess with poeple's lifes for their own vanity.

      In other words: To make your voice very slightly at the same level as an 80 years old crippled millionare that do not need anything you have to be at least 80.00.000.000 people ; If we're talking about a billionare or big company you have to be at least the 90% of the whole country, and maybe is really probably they still won't do anything to fix any problem at all they will just "talk" about it.

    21. Re:Not a protest by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      If by misbehavior you are talking about something criminal, your safest bet is to arrest, detain and turn over to the police.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    22. Re:Not a protest by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are also smart people trying to infiltrate those groups so that they can commit violence in the groups' names and thereby discredit them.

    23. Re:Not a protest by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, the smart and well organized protest groups have their own security and will warn violent people to behave and, if they cannot be persuaded, forcibly eject them from the group. There are a huge number of benefits:

      (1) By nipping violence early, the (literal) 'mob mentality' doesn't get a chance to catalyze (2) By doing it it from within the protesting group itself, there is less reactionary violence against police intervention (3) It demonstrates to those watching that the protesters are serious about non-violence and not tacitly condoning vandalism (4) It demonstrates to the police that they can keep a safe distance and focus on separating protesters/counter-protesters (5) It discourages opportunists that will join any protest as a cover for their pre-existing desire to smash shit (whether for political or just anger issues) (6) It encourages people that might not feel safe or welcome in a violent protest to join in. A lot of people won't go out in the streets if people are smashing windows or if they fear being tear gassed by overreacting cops

      So yeah, I don't advocate giving up and prosecuting everyone. Or shutting down the right to protest. But I also don't advocate allowing a very small percentage of the protesters to steal the spotlight and tar the entire thing as violent. Those folks ruin your public image, they ruin your relationship with the city, the police and the mainstream members of the group and they have no right to do so.

      I guess the anti-Trump protests are neither smart nor well run because all I hear about, even from networks with an obvious agenda like CNN, are antifa causing mayhem.

    24. Re: Not a protest by Zemran · · Score: 0

      What planet have you been living on since the 60s? You are a slave and if you do not know that yet you are a stupid slave. Your freedom was taken away a long time ago and now you will obey the man or you will go to prison.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    25. Re:Not a protest by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Would you react the same way if someone were killed? Perhaps a member of your family?

      Yes. i would feel terrible sadness. Not rage taken out on bystanders. That's such a chimpanzee thing to do.

    26. Re:Not a protest by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 1

      I guess the anti-Trump protests are neither smart nor well run because all I hear about, even from networks with an obvious agenda like CNN, are antifa causing mayhem.

      Correct.

    27. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry. You can live in that world if you want to I choose not to

    28. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't like it in the US? You have the freedom to leave. Use it.

    29. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't know the penalty for breaking a window was 75 years.... I've always been thinking like... seven years bad luck... maybe pay the people back... 75 years though... seems reasonable right?

    30. Re:Not a protest by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      I've been protesting against Windows since 1995.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    31. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coal plants don't have fumes and emissions, since they throw nothing into the air that could cause global warming :p

    32. Re: Not a protest by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Don't like it in the US? You have the freedom to leave. Use it.

      Few countries accept asylum seekers from USA.
      When you make your bed, you sleep in it.

    33. Re:Not a protest by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      likely, false flaggers. folks who wanted this to 'look bad' and make the protesters sorry they voiced their opinions.

      You mean like those peaceful antifa people who beat people over the head with bikelocks, and throw bottles and bricks at people? Yeah it wasn't false flagged, it was deliberate. The same way it was in berkeley, seattle, chicago and so on.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    34. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protip: If you find yourself in a rioting mob, leave.

      In many countries the Police have been caught instigating riots (also Canada and some evidence in the USA) during peaceful protests. If people stopped protesting just because violence began then a) this would enable the police to completely stop peaceful protest and b) it would encourage more violence because the police would see the tactic as useful and successful. So no; peaceful protesters should not stop just because someone else begins a riot. They just should move away and not get involved.

    35. Re: Not a protest by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      Bingo, agent provacateurs are a fact at large protests. Look at the documented cases during occupy or DAPL--there are videos.

    36. Re: Not a protest by negRo_slim · · Score: 2

      Sometimes the first stone is cast by a policeman - sometimes it's even the only stone.

      Got any of that uhhhh source with that ramble?

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    37. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo, agent provocateurs are a fact at large protests. Look at the documented cases during occupy or DAPL--there are videos.

      Show some source with those assertions. It's only common courtesy.

    38. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've given several sources in my comment elsewhere. These are not difficult to find on Google. Obviously most of the sources are from protesters, however in the cases where these have been properly investigated both the media and the actual courts have shown that this really happens (including admissions from various police departments worldwide, once they were clearly caught).

      It appears to be a standard tactic being taught in a number of police riot schools.

    39. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebec-police-admit-they-went-undercover-at-montebello-protest-1.656171

      yep.

    40. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Canada not the US

    41. Re: Not a protest by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      True but you can resist to an extant and continue to struggle and you will be able to resist more and more, maybe you never will earn your freedom but perhaps you will gain it for future generations (you are not free unless you have equal access to democracy and justice).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    42. Re:Not a protest by SEE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, yes, who can forget about how all those angry Tea Party protesters, which of course included people with anger issues, resulting in all sorts of rioting.

      Oh, wait. Apparently it's actually possible to have protests that don't descend into riots. It's not natural or inevitable, it's just an effect of whether the "protesters" are decent people or scum.

      If rioting breaks out at a protest, it's because the "protestors" are choosing to aid and abet violence. There are no innocents at a riot, just co-conspirators. Lock up all the scum.

    43. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, your link shows that undercover police officers exist, wow what a great conspiracy you've exposed. Unfortunately what was asked for was any evidence that police insight violence to spur on other's or justify arresting peaceful protesters. Which you don't have, because obviously it doesn't happen.

    44. Re: Not a protest by dcw3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A classic tactic in the US is to give these warnings and orders AFTER having boxed the crowd in from those same avenues of "walk away"

      With all the media, and cameras in DC, especially during the inauguration, there's little chance that that occurred in this case. There clearly was rioting going on, and there was video shown on the news...google "inauguration riots 2017" videos, there are plenty. So, let's not pretend that this was some trumped (pun intended) up case of the Po Po going wild.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    45. Re:Not a protest by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Hardly the case here, with the inauguration, there were cameras everywhere, and there's plenty of video evidence you can google. So, let's all stop pretending that this situation is anything like those you're pointing to. There wasn't some conspiracy to lock up peaceful protesters at the Trump inauguration, otherwise you'd have a lot more people being charged.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    46. Re:Not a protest by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You insinuate that peaceful protests weren't allowed, which simply isn't the case. You can also find plenty video evidence of actual rioting, but don't let that interfere with your worldview that the government is out to squish your right to peaceful assembly.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    47. Re:Not a protest by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess the anti-Trump protests are neither smart nor well run because all I hear about, even from networks with an obvious agenda like CNN, are antifa causing mayhem.

      Because peaceful protests are uninteresting and not newsworthy in their eyes. Crime gets much better ratings.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    48. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but if they were protesting against trumps legs and broke them it would hardly be considered a protest anymore, would it?

    49. Re:Not a protest by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So if someone turns up to a teabagger protest and lobs a brick through a window, the police should just lock everyone up because those scum failed to prevent it?

      Sounds like an easy way to crush any political movement you don't like by getting its members arrested. It's relatively easy to turn up in a mask, lob a brick and run away without getting caught.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    50. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is when you do an open carry demonstration.
      Agent provacateurs are only used to motivate dispersing it with excessive violence.
      If it is known beforehand that a lot of people on both sides will die if violence ensues then both sides stay calm.

    51. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was at a protest and saw assholes throwing shit at police, if rough bastards up and let them get caught by police.

    52. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Windows 10.

    53. Re:Not a protest by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if someone turns up to a teabagger protest and lobs a brick through a window, the police should just lock everyone up because those scum failed to prevent it?

      If someone turned up at a "teabagger protest" they would simply truss them up and call the police to come and collect them. That's the difference. It might be very difficult with the amount of biases and stereotypes you seem to believe in, but that's what has happened in the past. Just like when those "teabaggers" have held protests, and cleaned up after themselves, and the environmentalists who held a protest the following week made the same area look like a garbage dump.

      You should probably fly to the US and experience the differences first hand, rather then what the media is telling you. They're fundamentally different. Just like how the left-leaning pundits tried pulling a "the berkeley riot was started by right-wingers, and the people burning stuff were republicans." Which was then carried on several prominent media outlets...until they were forced to either publish retractions, or they simply let that lie of a narrative fade away without saying anything else.

      The vast majority of the political left have no problems with groups like antifa hiding in the ranks all masked up, and assaulting people. The vest majority of the political right have a serious problem with masked people showing up and assaulting people. And before you start the "but look at all those masked right-wing people..." I'll remind you that was in response to the police having been told to stand down, and not protecting them, or arresting those who were assaulting them. Why do you think there are multiple lawsuits against the mayor of berkeley right now? And universities over telling police not to arrest those communist agitators -- and yes, they are communist agitators.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    54. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, you only have the right to protest and seek redress of grievances if you have enough money to hire private security AND you can guarantee that your people will catch the cops trying to pull agent provocateur shit and stop them in them in time AND nobody in your group has any beliefs that anybody could disagree with even if those beliefs aren't all related to what the protest is about.

      Unless you're on the right, in which case no rules apply to you, and the cops will actually assist the skinheads who break things and attack innocents (especially women) in front of everybody and on camera. And only the people you unlawfully assaulted will see any consequences!

    55. Re:Not a protest by conquistadorst · · Score: 1

      I guess the anti-Trump protests are neither smart nor well run because all I hear about, even from networks with an obvious agenda like CNN, are antifa causing mayhem.

      Or entirely brilliant? Now they can play the victim story of how their right to protest is being trampled on. Nah, I'm probably giving them too much credit.

    56. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nutjob bringing an assault weapon to a town hall meeting is not a protest. The Tea Party never had any protests because they didn't have anything to protest; the only thing the Tea Party was interested in was maintaining the status quo and continuing to earn the very generous financial backing of the Koch brothers.

    57. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a matter of fact, I do have source(s):
      Google this string: quebec protest police issue boot

      And learn about reality.

    58. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you been texting your co-conspirators about breaking windows? Have you been organizing the attacks on innocent businesses?
      This is for people who worked together to riot and cause damage.
      If your phone does not have that kind of data and nobody has pictures of you trashing things, it will be hard to get a conviction against you.
      It is the people who destroyed property in an organized fashion, that are being sought.
      If you waved your sign, that you made yourself, and then put it into the proper garbage can, you are a protester.
            (I may disagree with you but you should be allowed to protest)
      If you got handed a sign and lunch, paid for by George Soros and then left it in the street, you are a useful idiot and need to rethink your commitments.
          (your group should be billed for the clean up)
      If you flash mobbed with a bunch of people so you could trash buildings and have too many for the police to arrest at one time,
        (you are a criminal and not a patriot)

    59. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black mob / ANTIFA are well known terrorist organizations, if you side with them, don't be surprised you will be seen as part of that group.

      Would you march with other well known socialist-terrorists, the Germans (nazists)? I wouldn't.

    60. Re: Not a protest by gnick · · Score: 1

      Few countries accept asylum seekers from USA.
      When you make your bed, you sleep in it.

      I think a better analogy would be, "You play the hand you're dealt." I didn't choose to be an American (make my bed.) I count myself fortunate that I am an American, but I had no influence over it.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    61. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What if you find yourself in a protest, with a few people misbehaving? Then what do you do?

      Well if few people in your grup start setting stuff on fire, then either you over power them and handle them to police, or if they seem to have the majority of power, then it seems you're joined a rioting terrorists - so leave.

    62. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're gonna bend over and get reamed in your ass, so don't do it. Profit instead.

    63. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes, who can forget about how all those angry Tea Party protesters, which of course included people with anger issues, resulting in all sorts of rioting.

      Oh, wait. Apparently it's actually possible to have protests that don't descend into riots. It's not natural or inevitable, it's just an effect of whether the "protesters" are decent people or scum.

      If rioting breaks out at a protest, it's because the "protestors" are choosing to aid and abet violence. There are no innocents at a riot, just co-conspirators. Lock up all the scum.

      Okay, talk about just wrong, well here is an example. Um Angry people act angry, news at 11. Not all causes of anger are BS. Some are legitimate as are some wars, and yes some expressions of anger are perhaps somewhat understandable, even if not legal or advisable.

      Anger at the lying sack of shit in chief is understandable. Give me any president in my lifetime other than him. He sure as heck is no Ronald Reagan. Bring back some actual decency to the post. Anything goes if it gets him his goal is not right. We are America. We are supposed to have standards.

      Hell Trump's new appointment just suggested that hanging leakers was apparently a okay. It is not. Trump needs to be impeached and removed. Sure I don't like Pence either, but he is still better than Trump.

    64. Re:Not a protest by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

      yes, and up to 75 years in prison for broken windows and damaged vehicles is perfectly appropriate and not "cruel and unusual" right?

    65. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protip: When I'm penetrating your mom's meat curtains, don't just stand there and watch. Leave.

    66. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone turned up at a "teabagger protest" they would simply truss them up and call the police to come and collect them.

      Group beatings at large protests don't generally get described as "truss them up".

    67. Re:Not a protest by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      you'll never get them to say it. media is biased as fuck.

    68. Re:Not a protest by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've been in two anti-Trump protests. Both were large (several thousand people) and both were peaceful. They didn't include acts of violence at all. Both were part of a series of national protests, most of which were peaceful as well. The news showed a couple clips of the protests and that was it. Had there been violence, though, the news coverage of it would have stretched for days. "A bunch of people peacefully protest" isn't very newsworthy. "A group of people rioted" is newsworthy. You could have a thousand anti-Trump protests run peacefully, but the one that has a small group of people rioting will get the news coverage - and thus will paint many people's views of the whole anti-Trump movement as a bunch of violent rioters.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    69. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      teabagger protest

      And we officially ignore you. If you'd like to be taken seriously, act like an adult, not like an 8 year old on a playground. It's called civility, try it out.

    70. Re:Not a protest by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      It took you until NT 3.51 to protest? What, 95 was the breaking point?

      When I installed WIn 95 *upgrade* version, over WFW 3.11, which BTW would need to be rebooted 3-4 times a night accessing AOL via TCP/IP over a 33.6k SLIP connection to my micro-ISP. 95 ran for about 28 days, until I applied the update. After that, usually a week or so before needing a reboot.

      Yeah, my Novell server didn't *need* a reboot for about 15 months, or so, when finally I had to patch something the kernel would not let go of. No, not the IDE driver.

      PS - did anyone really use Wolverine? Even my corporate clients used Trumpet.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    71. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you react the same way if someone were killed?

      Great point. They're all murderers!

      Yeah... that doesn't work either :-(

      Applying that to a war could get interesting. The other army/nation is a giant conspiracy to mass murder - so a collective death penalty is in place.

    72. Re:Not a protest by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      You realize that makes it really easy for the opposition to stop your protest? All they do is send in hoodlums to make trouble and cast a shadow on your protest.

      So, no. I'm not leaving if there are assholes there. The police should be targeting those breaking the law, not everyone on the street.

    73. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying, "Just leave." isn't any different from saying, "Just give up. Abandon whatever cause has brought you out here today, protests are an unacceptable form of political expression."

      It is different because modern protests of this sort have no hope of inducing their desired political change. "Just leave" is good advice because it will allow you to focus your time and energy on actual productive efforts.

      Modern protestors are cargo cultists that have no understanding of the hows and whys that made the civil rights movement successful. They think "taking it to the street" is the first and only step in the process.

    74. Re:Not a protest by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      The women's march that happened the day after the inauguration was peaceful and was reported on pretty much every news network.

    75. Re:Not a protest by msauve · · Score: 1
      If you don't leave, you _are_ breaking the law, whether you throw the brick or not.

      As used in this chapter, the term "riot" means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual...

      --18 U.S. Code Section 2102

      Section 2101 makes it illegal to "participate in" a riot. If you're part of the assemblage, you're a participant.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    76. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your lack of education and preponderance for idiocy I declare you scum, please turn yourself in at the local constabulary

    77. Re:Not a protest by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Group beatings at large protests don't generally get described as "truss them up".

      Let's compare shall we? Can we find a tea party protest where that happened...nope. Can we find it where a antifa/leftist/etc group did that...yep. We can even find the cases where those antifa/leftist/anti-trump protestors have assaulted people for wearing hats that look like MAGA hats.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    78. Re:Not a protest by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      The womens march after the inauguration was seen as interesting and reported on quite extensively. After you get the same protest (anti-Trump) going on and on and on there isn't much that is newsworthy beyond that it happened again. Oh look another anti-Trump protest, I wonder what their message is *rolls eyes*. How many anti-Trump protests do you think I need to see to understand that you don't like Trump?

      I don't care if you protest and that is your right but the times that it does get violent (which has increased) I see apology and justification for violence by the media and people. That is more concerning to me than another anti-Trump rally upset over a tweet. The reason why "a group of people rioted" is more concerning is because they are breaking social norms that we all agreed on.

    79. Re:Not a protest by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So much freedom! It'd be hilarious if not so tragic.

    80. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Absolutely. The law specifically and explicitly states exactly that. You don't have to be smashing windows. Just being there after they ask you to leave legally makes you a rioter.

    81. Re:Not a protest by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2

      'Right' (god, I hate how those misguides idiots stole the word 'right' for themselves; they are anything BUT right!)

      The terms "left" and "right" to denote political affiliation didn't originate in the US, so I don't know who you think "stole" that word. The terms come from the French revolution, supporters of the king sat on the right side of the national assembly and supporters of the revolution sat on the left side.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --

      Enigma

    82. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it would be foolish to associate an entire political ideology with whether they cause violence or are messy, as you are attempting to do. I'm willing to bet that with that kind of thinking, any contrarian evidence I can come up with will be dismissed out of hand. Like the invasion and occupation of Federal property in Oregon by an armed right-wing group who did an awful lot of damage to that property before they were taken into custody. Or the bombing of the Olympic Games in Atlanta in 1996 by a right-wing lunatic.

      Frankly, it doesn't matter who is doing the protesting or rioting. Politicians should be paying attention. The zeitgeist in the nation is toxic. The one thing Americans can agree on is that they are pissed off about the state of things. It's a powder keg. Pouring gasoline on it by attempting to paint half the country as guilty by association is not going to help.

    83. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, so all it takes to silence any protest now is someone from the other side to come and act violent. Then we all have to disperse from our protest according to you. That's great for my authoritarian state - I can shut down any protest whenever I want to! After the police have been caught again and again (google is your friend) starting the violence, you're basically denying anyone the freedom to raise their objections.

    84. Re:Not a protest by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I think it's great. When people are going around in a mob breaking things, it's very intimidating. That's the real issue I think. It amounts to political intimidation and that should be punished very fucking severely.

    85. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or do you mean to say that all 200 broke windows and damaged vehicles?

      I wasn't there and therefore, just like everyone else in this thread, I don't have a clue. But yes, that is what is alleged: the people who got arrested were rioting. Apparently these 200 didn't have time for the protest, or felt the protest was unimportant or should even be opposed.

    86. Re: Not a protest by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? The cops see guns at a lefty protest, it just gets their dander up. They will gladly pull out the real weapons and take care of business. Rightwingers, of course, can march around all day with their rifles on their backs.

      The black panthers open-carried. That did not last long. What you think of as gun rights is only a privilege earned by being a white Republican.

    87. Re: Not a protest by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Wow. An anonymous coward citing comments by an anonymous coward as 'his' own. Do you keep a database of your AC comments? How do you remember which ones are yours? Wouldn't it be easier just to log in?

    88. Re:Not a protest by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      A protest in which 1 or more people rioted. It's very unlikely that 200+ people were involved in the breaking windows and damaging vehicles. The feds will not find evidence to convict 200+ people of rioting, but perhaps they'll find something else on the phones to charge a few with, and at the least they'll make life hell for a year or two for everyone until the legal system plays out.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    89. Re:Not a protest by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

      you know that convicted murderers frequently are paroled in less than 10 years right?

    90. Re:Not a protest by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Interesting that you point this out to the people trying to explain why the GP hasn't seen such stories, and not the GP himself.

    91. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say I decide to fly the US to learn more. Where should I go? Where did you go to learn this?

    92. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Im Modding so posting this anon*

      Ever wonder why these kinds of protests don't seem to happen in Texas?

    93. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox "News"

    94. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which constitutional rights would that be?
      Looks to me like police under the probable cause rules searched the cell phones of perpetrators who were arrested during the commission of a crime and are attempting to use evidence found during their post arrest search to prove additional crimes were committed.
      Standard police work. No one would have complained if the information had been found in brief cases carried by the rioters.

    95. Re:Not a protest by foghelmut · · Score: 2

      Too old and fat to riot.

    96. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was at the protest of the FCC in 2014 for net neutrality. There were probably 30 of us standing outside the FCC building in Duluth Georgia doing nothing more than holding up signs. One person showed up with a bull horn shouting and screaming at every person that walked in or out of the building. He then proceeded to yell and scream at the women in our protest group.

      Homeland security was off in the distance and they were keeping an eye on us. We knocked the bullhorn out of the guys hand for putting it the face of one of us and escorted him down to Homeland Security where 10 of us professed that he was not one of us.

      It turned out that the 5 o'clock news that day found out that he was paid to be there to incite violence in the group.... Who would have though???

    97. Re: Not a protest by Sindar+By+Choice · · Score: 1

      because obviously it doesn't happen.

      Oh yea, obviously.
      Just like the planting of drugs and weapons by police doesn't happen either.

    98. Re:Not a protest by Sindar+By+Choice · · Score: 1

      who can forget about how all those angry Tea Party protesters

      Well, it's kind of hard to riot when the battery in your scooter is dead.

    99. Re:Not a protest by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      GP isn't American so I assume his exposure to US news and internal events are limited. That doesn't change the fact. Just a quick google search shows as much.

      Some sources: USAToday, CNN, Slate, NYTimes, Democracy Now, the Atlantic, NPR, Seattle Times, and Vanity Fair all on the first page and all the time of the inauguration.

      Honestly, the claim GP makes is specious at best because every anti-Trump protest has been widely reported on. I hear about each one everytime on NPR at the very least the same day or next day (sometimes before or all the listed). Just today, protests about the trans ban in the military is being reported on widely and extensively. It's hard not to hear about those protests any time they occur because #resisttrump. Maybe now they are not being as extensive because they are so common it's nearly routine.

      How do you quantify that those events aren't being reported on?

    100. Re:Not a protest by Dread_ed · · Score: 2

      If you are angry while you are protesting you are doing it wrong. If you are protesting to change people's mind, the first rule is to leave your anger at home. Your dedication to your cause is not going to spread to others if you express anger. Those that are as angry as you are already on your side. You need to persuade and to get publicity that ultimately leads to people hearing your message.

      Anger in others is difficult to identify with if you aren't already negatively predisposed to the object of their anger. It has the potential to polarize and offends without regard for content, effectively stopping your message being delivered.

      Organization, message, and publicity work better than appealing to sensationalism. When you run amok serious people won't take you seriously, at least in an ideological sense. They may take you seriously enough to have the police round you up and charge you with conspiracy, but not serious in the ideological sense of things. You will be dismissed as easily as last night's roadkill observed on the way to work: too messy to get involved with, distasteful in the extreme, and I've got shit to do and no time for this. A large showing, a cogent message, and a pretty face (preferably the subject of an undeserving truncheon blow or two) are infinitely better than angry ranting and smashing shit.

      Misbehaving protestors or rioters (pick your phrase) are in many ways helping the position they are protesting against. People on the other side of the protestors will think "See! Those that disagree with us can't even act like rational humans! If they have to resort to violence they can't have a strong position. I could never side with people that act like that. That's un-American!" The thoughts go on and on, and are valid in most cases.

      Therefore, if you are in a group of protestors that are "misbehaving" your first objective should be to extricate yourself from that protest. Your second objective should be to take as many of your friends or other protestors with you as quickly as possible. Violence and destruction of property does not persuade. It won't make your case stronger, it won't get you the converts you want, and it won't play well in the public eye. If you want to make a difference you shouldn't be where the violence is. That doesn't solve anything. It just pushes people into a corner, forcing them to decide whether or not they support your position. And, with such an eloquent delivery of the subject matter as smashing windows and breaking cars, who can blame them for looking at the protestors as fools?

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    101. Re:Not a protest by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      'Conspiracy' spreads like herpes. One text: 'Let's break things...' and the phone owner is going for an extended vacation at state's expense.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    102. Re:Not a protest by Dorkmunder · · Score: 3, Informative

      would you consider the Bundy groups left or tea party right? Cuz they trashed the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Desecrated stuff, left shit everywhere. Oh and they pointed rifles at Agents that confiscated illegally grazing cattle. Sounds like a peace-loving group to me. You are just making things up saying it only happens with leftist groups. Take responsibility would you.

    103. Re:Not a protest by dingleberrie · · Score: 3, Funny

      So they were protesting against transparency?

    104. Re: Not a protest by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      And at the same time lets not pretend that everyone on this block was engaged in the violence and needs to be prosecuted for being in public when it happened. The people that commit ed the violence should be arrested, what happened instead is they arrested everyone while some if not all the people who committed the violence got away (as attested to in the criminal compliant filed as part of the indictment).

      No one that wasn't involved in the violence or who didn't assist those who did deserves to be prosecuted. In fact that's EXACTLY what's happening here and it should scare the daylights out of everyone.

    105. Re:Not a protest by butchersong · · Score: 1

      If I am a member of a group of protesters (a mob) that lynches someone and I take the position that me and most of the others were just there to protest that person living in our community -we didn't actually lay hands on them or anything- is that a legitimate defense? I think I'm still in that case guilty of lynching someone and deserve to go to jail. It is a slippery slope I agree but assuming you have a warrant and prove intent then.. I don't see the problem.

    106. Re:Not a protest by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Seems reasonable to me since the riot was an attempt to incite a revolt.

    107. Re: Not a protest by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Not sure I understand the question. There are all sorts of protests in Texas. There were anti-war protests in 2003, anti-Obama protests in 2008, Occupy protests in 2011, BLM protests in 2016, countless anti-abortion protests, pro- and anti-immigration protests, pro-dildo, anti-ATF, I could go on and on. Some of these ended peacefully, some of them ended with cops beating and arresting people, one of them ended with a fucking sonuvabitch sniper picking off police (who were protecting the protestors!!). What kind of protests are you talking about that don't happen in Texas?

    108. Re:Not a protest by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      You seem to be claiming right-wing protestors would willingly hand over their own to the authorities. I somehow doubt the Bundy's would agree with you. I have never met anybody OK with antifa tactics, and most of my liberal friends are peaceful to a fault. On the other hand, I have seen the nominal leader of the Republican party encouraging people at his rallies to beat up peaceful protestors, offer to pay their legal fees, etc.

    109. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially from the Trump crowd, who live and breathe conspiracies while failing to acknowledge the biggest one in recent history.

    110. Re:Not a protest by gweihir · · Score: 0

      Especially if you live in a police-state, like the US for example. Your rights count for nothing in that case. And you can be sure that very soon, the "rioting mob" will be provided by the authorities, as a sure-fire way to get rid of "protesters" (terrorist, all of them, obviously!) permanently.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    111. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      agent provacateurs

      French: agents provacateur
      English: Provokers

    112. Re: Not a protest by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Is there any evidence that that was the case, is there a link to the indictment? Also, IANAL, but I'm curious if it's truly the no a lawful order for the police to require people to disperse from an area of rioting, and my quick google search didn't clarify that.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    113. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than fucking without gravity. Damned be Newton's third law.

    114. Re: Not a protest by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      The initial ACLU lawsuit involving two of the corralled innocents is available, I suggest you read it for an accounting of what police did. I'd also suggest you read up on the recently appointed DC police captain who's done this before in protests where they corralled a bunch of innocent people and arrested and charged them all without any evidence whatsoever that any of them did anything.

      https://www.acludc.org/sites/d...

    115. Re:Not a protest by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      There are no innocents at a riot, just co-conspirators. Lock up all the scum.

      Are you siding with the brutal regimes that were in power during the Arab Spring protests, riots and revolutions? Are you siding with the English during the original Boston Tea Party and American Revolution? Are you siding with the "segregationists" (a politically correct term for "Klan" or "racists") and state and local governments during the racial protests in the 60s? Are you siding with Nixon, J Edgar Hoover and the military/industrial complex (the original "swamp") during the anti-Vietnam protests?

      True change sometimes requires more than peaceful letter-writing campaigns and grandmothers having cookie bake sales. Even Trump has advocated for the use of violence against those who disagree with him.

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    116. Re:Not a protest by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Better than fucking without gravity.

      Aren't they conducting experiments up there to know for sure?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    117. Re:Not a protest by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Comparing actual time served to maximum possible sentence...you can't be that stupid. The maximum sentence for murder is death or life without parole.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    118. Re:Not a protest by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      Nope. If the majority are there to be peaceful and only a few are being violent, the entire protest is not a riot.

      Nice try extending limited logic on a complex situation, but there's plenty of precedent over the last hundred years against your position.

    119. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you find yourself in a protest, with a few people misbehaving?
      1.) Leave

      2.) Stay and potentially be subject to judgement of your intent/thoughts inferred by person or property to be conducted by regulars/normies.

      Pro tip - the justice system is just a system - it ain't perfect - it ain't magic. It gets stuff wrong.
      I wouldn't subject myself to the diceroll personally.

    120. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come to Berkeley, California. They protest a bit different and tend to throw bricks, rocks, and try to bash people's heads in with bike locks.

    121. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were protesting systemd, I might have a bit of sympathy.

    122. Re: Not a protest by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      "Show some source with those assertions. It's only common courtesy." sure. Occupy https://www.youtube.com/result... DAPL https://www.youtube.com/watch?... G20 (2010) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... G8 (2007) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    123. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your political bent is interfering with your understanding of civil rights and responsibilities.

    124. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teabagger protests were all being bussed in. It's not a real movement, it's a PR firm invention

    125. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, so efficient. Is there nothing you can't pull from your ass?

    126. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to tear them into little pieces and then bury them alive, for breaking windows. (Bury the little pieces we assume, you weren't very clear...) When actual murderers are routinely paroled in less than 10 years. And the other person is stupid...

    127. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Nice strawman!

    128. Re: Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point to a country with better freedoms, then promptly gtfo of the US.

    129. Re: Not a protest by kenh · · Score: 1

      Few countries accept asylum seekers from USA.

      Then don't say you are from USA! Asylum seekers don't need papers, say you're Canadian...

      --
      Ken
    130. Re: Not a protest by Zemran · · Score: 1

      I think it is the fashion now to say you are Syrian even if you are not the right colour or even speak the correct language. I went bush 15 years ago and am in Cambodia at the moment so the reply was stupid.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    131. Re: Not a protest by PlaynBass · · Score: 1

      Great comment, despite the mangling of the spelling and the language. Should be modded up to +5

      --
      PlaynBass
    132. Re: Not a protest by PlaynBass · · Score: 1
      "Coal plants don't have fumes and emissions, since they throw nothing into the air that could cause global warming ;p"

      To be sure, coal plants throw CO2 (carbon dioxide), SO2, (Sulfur dioxide), Hg (Mercury), and particulates into the air. I assume you forgot to add the {sarcasm} tag...

      --
      PlaynBass
    133. Re:Not a protest by PlaynBass · · Score: 1

      Good points. should be modded up.

      --
      PlaynBass
    134. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depriving a single peaceful protester? Like they've been doing to "Trumpsters"? Your masters can't even handle allowing conservative speakers in public. Are you nervous about your cell phone being cracked by law enforcement in the near future?!?

    135. Re: Not a protest by EmptyHead · · Score: 1

      How about not showing up at a "peaceful protest" wearing a mask and carrying a bag full of weapons and fire starting materials? Then we might have some sympathy for you. You're just peddling Antifa domestic terrorist/anarchist propaganda.

    136. Re:Not a protest by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      And (R) after the trade mark also.

    137. Re:Not a protest by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Da

    138. Re: Not a protest by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I have not once in my entire live participated in a protest, well, on the streets, in the digital age, now that's another story and a bagful of weapons and fire starting materials would just, well, destroy my own house. I find the weapons in my brain to be far more effective ie the pen is mightier than the sword.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    139. Re:Not a protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not all people are actually at the protest because they are upset with something. MANY of those protesting are RIOTING, and cite freedom of speech. The fact is, a riot is a riot. A peaceful protest is pretty apparent. Who jumps on a LA freeway to create good? What good can actually come of that? I'm just sayin'

    140. Re:Not a protest by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You mean the Bundy group where the FBI agent is now on trial for falsifying evidence?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    141. Re:Not a protest by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yeah you're not really proving any point here for wide spread violence. You know like how that guy in the DNC was paying people to riot in Chicago, and sorry, no that wasn't fake news. It's why he also quit/got canned.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  3. Next time, try peaceful protests by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Worked for this guy.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re: Next time, try peaceful protests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about these guys?

      Of course, there were riots, and so, maybe they worked?

    2. Re: Next time, try peaceful protests by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      Just remember that coups usually end with a lot of people getting hung. And not the good kind of hung either.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Next time, try peaceful protests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you saying violence is an acceptable form of protest? If so, show me where you live and park your car, I feel like protesting the hell out of you. Are you saying that sometimes those who follow the rules (like Mr King) sometimes get unfairly punished? Then I would agree with you, there are a whole bunch of people with broken windows and smashed up cars who had nothing to do with the election outcome or perhaps even voted against Trump.

    4. Re:Next time, try peaceful protests by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      Worked for this guy.

      You do know he got assassinated, right?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    5. Re:Next time, try peaceful protests by Kargan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, peaceful protesting worked so well for Dr. King. How did that turn out again?

      Oh, that's right. The whole "got murdered in broad daylight" thing.

      But, less sarcastically, what I find to be so noble and admirable about his tactics is that he knew that would happen and incorporated it into his philosophy.

      After the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, King told his wife Coretta, "This is what is going to happen to me also. I keep telling you, this is a sick society."

      --
      Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
    6. Re: Next time, try peaceful protests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who needs a coup?

      Many a man has been wrongfully hanged.

      Sometimes you don't even have the right body

    7. Re:Next time, try peaceful protests by youngone · · Score: 2

      It really didn't work for that guy, he was murdered by someone.

    8. Re:Next time, try peaceful protests by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you saying violence is an acceptable form of protest?

      Sometimes. It depends on your adversaries and what you are protesting against. MLK was non-violent, but he was successful in large part because others were not, and it was clear that the alternative to dealing with MLK was going to be a lot worse.

      But the violence at Donald's inauguration was stupid and counterproductive. Conservatives already view liberals as entitled elitists who refuse to play by the rules. In the eyes of the right, this rioting confirmed all the worst stereotypes of the left. This is not the way to win people over.

    9. Re:Next time, try peaceful protests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How did that turn out again?

      We had a black POTUS?

      It was such an effective tactic it worked beyond his death?
      I don't believe you thought this through.

    10. Re:Next time, try peaceful protests by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's worth noting that Dr. King wasn't really after "peaceful protests". To think he was looking for everything to be peaceful diminishes both how smart and tough the civil rights protesters were.

      The story you were probably told was that MLK and other protesters just wanted to have a nice, peaceful sit-in, and then the police came in and ruined it by getting violent. That's not quite right. It's sort of true, but not quite. They went looking for venues of protest where they'd elicit a violent reaction. Having things turn violent was kind of the point. They wanted the public to see white supremacists beating up innocent black people. They were relying on the idea that there were a large number of Americans who would tolerate smaller injustices against black people (e.g. not being allowed to use a specific water fountain), but who would not tolerate larger injustices (e.g. being viciously beaten by police without any defensible reason).

      So to achieve that goal, it was incredibly important that the protesters weren't violent. Any violence on their part would allow people to excuse the violence against them. If people see the police beating up or even killing violent rioters, most won't be too upset with the police, or feel too much sympathy for the rioters. However, if people see police beating up a nice, respectful, non-violent protester who doesn't even defend himself, then many of them will be upset with the police and sympathetic to the protester. The latter was the scenario that the protesters were trying to create.

      So MLK demanded that his protesters be completely non-violent, but that's not the same as saying he wanted a non-violent protest. If he hadn't wanted violence, he could have had protests in safer ways and in safer areas. He could have protested among people who already agreed with his cause. instead, he protested among the KKK.

    11. Re:Next time, try peaceful protests by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      It really didn't work for that guy, he was murdered by someone.

      No, it did work, mostly... he just didn't live to see the victory.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    12. Re:Next time, try peaceful protests by ckatko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Holy shit you guys have tunnel vision.

      How'd it work out for him? I don't know, why don't you ask your black coworkers that wouldn't be there if not for his protests embodying the civil rights movement?

      Yeah, he got assassinated. All victories are meaningless unless you personally get to gain from them! If only we could go back in time and tell him how "enlightened" you are, and how stupid he was.

    13. Re:Next time, try peaceful protests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit you guys have tunnel vision.

      More like, only because MLK had such tunnel vision was he not merely yet another black man who was assassinated for daring to question the establishment, but we actually saw some actual positive change as a result of his and his colleagues' actions.

      How'd it work out for him? I don't know, why don't you ask your black coworkers that wouldn't be there if not for his protests embodying the civil rights movement?

      How many would-be MLKs were killed in the years between 1868 and 1964? How many protests and riots came and went? There's a reason MLK is so revered--his legacy persevered well beyond his mortal body. This is almost exclusively because of said 1868 to 1964 range. Ie, there was such a long legacy of racism, murder, and oppression that after many failed attempts, one person was able to embody not only an acknowledgement of hardships but also a message that became a crusade. One honestly can't expect anything of that scope out of every protest that occurs.

      Yeah, he got assassinated. All victories are meaningless unless you personally get to gain from them! If only we could go back in time and tell him how "enlightened" you are, and how stupid he was.

      More properly, we could go back in time and push even harder because clearly as much as been gained and as much as the fight has been pushed, we're still very far away from actually realizing MLK's dream. Yes, MLK knew very early on that like Christ the pacifist approach is almost certainly to lead to assassination and he made the choice down that path in the hope that it would have a long-term impact. But people can't readily become martyrs in every cause in large part because today governments work even harder to stifle such attempts. Look at Nelson Mandela, for an example. Look at China for an even better example.

      It's not realistic to expect everyone who protests to be a martyr. Honestly, society in general has moved to believing that protesters that strive to be martyrs are bums because intrinsically the constant arrests and intimidation by police mean an inability to keep any sort of steady work--unless you're a sell out or have some "charity" that backs you. I'd feel a lot differently if "truth to power" meant something. The only power most people today seem to understand is money. Perhaps it's rose colored glasses to think differently of the past, but I guess I await the next MLK to make me change my mind. I do know, few people will follow in his footsteps.

    14. Re:Next time, try peaceful protests by EzInKy · · Score: 0

      Are you saying violence is an acceptable form of protest?

      Violence has been a part of American politics since the Boston Massacre. Our nation was founded on violent protest.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    15. Re:Next time, try peaceful protests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What worked for that guy was the presence of Malcolm X's movement. If you offer a man the carrot or the stick he'll often choose the carrot; if you just offer a man the carrot he'll tell you to go fuck yourself.

    16. Re:Next time, try peaceful protests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many would-be MLKs were killed in the years between 1868 and 1964?

      Estimates are that 4,000 or so blacks were lynched. That isn't counting all the racially-motivated killings though.

      How many protests and riots came and went?

      Lots. The white majority attacked dozens of black communities like Rosewood, Greenwood, Beaumont, Harlem, Paradise Valley.

    17. Re:Next time, try peaceful protests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ugly truth is that MLK is the exception, not the rule. This is why he is held in such high regard, he accomplished a feat that hadn't been matched since Ghandi and hasn't really been matched since. And that was achieving a reasonable change in direction of an entire society without resorting to violence. (Of course he had to die for it.) History is littered with examples of the opposite not the least of which was the founding of the US of A.

  4. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any words of wisdom for the guy above you who pointed out gross incompetence of trump and his alarming similarity to dictators like Mussolini and Hitler?

      Seriously? You don't see a pattern. Is that what you're telling me?

      Or are you, like most republicans, blissfully ignorant of it all, conveniently forgetful of history, and ready to repeat all the same mistakes that came before, all because of your inability to *think* ?

      I'm asking a serious question.

    2. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's okay to destroy unaffiliated people's property because you don't like Trump? And those people that destroyed the property shouldn't be charged and investigated? I'm also asking a serious question.

    3. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So it's ok to trample the bill of rights for some people because some Windows got smashed?

      Gee this is a fun* game.

      *actually dull as he'll.

    4. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it is good to follow normal investigative procedures for people charged with crimes!

    5. Re:Good by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe good.

      Did the investigators get proper warrants? Did they present accurate probable cause statements to magistrates? Did they follow the rules and procedures of law, and ensure the rights of the individuals were protected during the process?

      If so then I agree: Good. The people were accused of some severe vandalism and destruction of property, and people who smash windows and damage vehicles deserve suitable legal consequences.

      However, if the investigators did not follow the rule of law, did not follow the rules protecting individual rights, or otherwise violated the rights of citizens, then the investigators deserve to not only have their entire investigation dumped by the courts but to be fired from their jobs for incompetence. They have had over six full months to ensure they took the relatively simple steps to follow the law, and if they didn't do them they deserve to be blocked from the profession.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    6. Re:Good by redmasq · · Score: 1

      If I had points, I would upvote. There is no point in breaking stuff whether or not there is legitimate reason to be angry. That said, if the investigators didn't follow the proper rules set to protect people's rights, they should (proverbially speaking) be hung out to dry. Beyond that, encryption is a cat and mouse game and the government does have more processing power that an individual citizen. I wouldn't assume anything less that 1024bit is annoying enough to leave the government complaining and a device secure. In a couple of years, maybe it'll need to be 4096bit

    7. Re:Good by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Assuming proper procedure, I think it would be more productive for the actual rioters to be sentenced to community service rather than prison time. That is, if evidence shows the decision to riot was impulsive and not carefully planned.

    8. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you expect a serious answer? Did no one understand what they campaigned on? Rolling us back to the good ol days?

    9. Re:Good by stdarg · · Score: 1

      How so? It's an incredibly dangerous situation. You can't have a functioning democracy when a large group starts using physical violence and intimidation tactics. That's a threat to the very nature of the country.

    10. Re:Good by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      'Proper procedure' can be forced, faked, fabricatred, and otherwise corrupted. All it takes is a conspiracy of law enforcement and symptathetic judges who corrupt themselves by being political -- and it would be far from the first time something like that happenened.

      Add to the list of things to worry about the Trump 'administration' damaging this country with: The creation of a 'secret police'. Or, at least, giving the current 'secret police' more lattitude to do as they wish.

    11. Re:Good by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      _Prison_ for any rioter that brought a molotov, a weapon or was involved in any text conversations about planned violence, arson or vandalism.

      _Prison_ for any rioter that actually struck a person, except in self defense (not 'defense' from 'hate speech').

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:Good by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      If it's premeditated, and/or if they brought weapons and/or hit people then by all means yes, prison. If we think the riot was spontaneous and the destruction was due to uncontrolled emotion but no one was hurt then community service until they repay all the damages and legal and law enforcement expenses.

  5. Don't conspire to riot with your cell phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moral of the story: Don't conspire to riot with your cell phone...and then take it to the riot you planned...

    Seems fairly reasonable to me!

  6. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sure sounds like justice is being served. Next time you want to protest, protest. Don't behave like a criminal and riot.

  7. Unlikely to get long jail time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IANAL but based on my reading of past judgments, the protesters usually do not high jail time. Otherwise, the Oregon Bundy guys would be in jail by now for threatening fed agents. At most they will be charged with misdemeanor unless someone was hurt seriously enough. Otherwise, it will be compensation, community services, probation or a small jail time.

    1. Re:Unlikely to get long jail time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was different, they pointed guns at LEO, were heavily infiltrated by the FBI, and were old and white.

  8. consumer-grade encryption is that by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    upon which one cannot rely

    1. Re:consumer-grade encryption is that by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      consumer-grade encryption is that upon which one cannot rely

      No, it's having violent tantrums as lefty social currency and expecting that since it's put up with in places like Berkeley that it'll all be just fine, since one got that rockin' balaclava shipped Prime from Amazon ... upon which one cannot rely.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:consumer-grade encryption is that by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      consumer-grade encryption is that upon which one cannot rely

      No, it's having violent tantrums as lefty social currency and expecting that since it's put up with in places like Berkeley that it'll all be just fine, since one got that rockin' balaclava shipped Prime from Amazon ... upon which one cannot rely.

      I was with you right up until the Prime Baclava; and though she pales in comparison to the Rib of the same forename, i (just a little i) have been astonished by the reliability of the Bezos iteration of Sears & Roebuck.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:consumer-grade encryption is that by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      upon which one cannot rely

      Really? It says they weren't able to get into the encrypted phones. Only the unencrypted ones with a simple lock screen.

    4. Re:consumer-grade encryption is that by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Mmm, Prime Baclava. Which isn't the same thing as a balaclava. But still.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:consumer-grade encryption is that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must be old because I did not understand a single reference in what you wrote. Guess I need a millenial translator.

      Lawn. Off.

    6. Re:consumer-grade encryption is that by Meski · · Score: 1

      Do I see honeyed words?

    7. Re:consumer-grade encryption is that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, hi run-on sentence! I haven't seen you in a while. How have you been?

  9. Frouther Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it didn't.. What got the Man's attention is when he got folks to boycott the buses. He hit them in the pocket book.

    Protests - marching in the street do nothing. When King protested, the authorities gave him the permits, let him protest, and the protestors cleared out and life went on - unchanged.

    And as far as the Trump protestors are concerned, just what did they think they'd accomplish? Really, what?

    The folks who voted for him dug their heels in - and many still have no doubts.

    The folks who hate him felt good seeing the protests or participated in them.

    The folks who became violent were jerks and hurt their cause. The black hoody folks who smashed shit are just assholes and deserve to have their faces bashed in by the cops.

    And sorry, Trump won according to our laws. Like it or not, he did. We are country of the rule of law and if we start applying them to what is popular only, we will be headed for some serious upheaval and unrest.

    Don't like the situation? Well, voter turnout is still only a fraction of the eligible voters. And if those folks spent the time voting and doing the leg work that the Tea Party Republicans are so good at, maybe they too can make changes.

    But it will be slow and tedious.

    See, those protestor people want a revolution - they want their way to happen overnight. But if they grew up and took their lesson from the Tea Party, they'd see how to do it.

    And now, the Fourth Amendment is yet being shredded even more. All thanks to assholes who don't know how our system works and refuse to work in it.

    1. Re:Frouther Amendment by YukariHirai · · Score: 1

      And sorry, Trump won according to our laws. Like it or not, he did. We are country of the rule of law and if we start applying them to what is popular only, we will be headed for some serious upheaval and unrest.

      A) laws are often unjust in some way, and some notable ones in your country are unjust in some deliberate, blatant and discriminatory ways. B) in many cases where the laws are fairly just, they're selectively applied based on among other things how much fame, political power or especially money one has. And you must not be paying much attention, but you're headed for some serious upheaval and unrest as it is. Applying some laws based on what is popular would actually make that less likely to boil over, the way things are currently.

      Don't like the situation? Well, voter turnout is still only a fraction of the eligible voters. And if those folks spent the time voting and doing the leg work that the Tea Party Republicans are so good at, maybe they too can make changes.

      But it will be slow and tedious.

      One of the bigger problems these days is that what is needed is a quick way of dealing with a problem like "the leader is acting like a dipshit and fucking things up" and the only solution (within the system, at least) is something slow and uncertain like "wait a few years and vote them out (and hope that more people aren't swayed by bullshit again)". And that's leaving aside the problems that your electoral system has which almost seem designed to ignore what The People actually want.

      Not that things are perfect where I live, of course, but our situation is nowhere near as bad as yours.

    2. Re:Frouther Amendment by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      First and foremost, the US is a nation of States, not a People's Republic. To be clear, I was dumbfounded when Trump won the election. I still can't believe people could be so stupid as to elect someone whose positions are so opposed to the welfare of the vast majority of Americans. Still, his opponent was Hillary, probably the only candidate he could have beat.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    3. Re:Frouther Amendment by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      We are country of the rule of law and if we start applying them to what is popular only, we will be headed for some serious upheaval and unrest.

      Ahhh you almost had me until that bit, then the joke revealed itself. Good one

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    4. Re:Frouther Amendment by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      It was Hillary's turn. Just like it was Bob Dole's turn.

      Who didn't see it coming?

    5. Re:Frouther Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi. Protestor here.

      I voted against Trump and I protested his inauguration with my son so that he will remember standing up for our beliefs in face of such a national disappointment. Our protests didn't turn into riots. It was important to give him a lasting memory where talking about letters I've written, votes I've cast might not stick as well.

      Do try not to paint us all with one color. :)

  10. Little tolerance or sympathy for vandals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At least the aren't going after you with the IRS like the Obamanistas did to the Tea Party, who picked up their trash.

  11. Everyone should be terrified by this by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When the violence took place (those involved in the violence should be caught and prosecuted) the FBI closed of an entire city block without warning and arrested EVERYONE within the block (this included people going to work, journalists covering the protest, people legitimately protesting and others but not rioting) and charged every single person with rioting whether or not they have any evidence of rioting. They are trying to charge them all as a group and use the evidence against the handful they have evidence of to convict the rest. This is a massive violation of rights.

    I pray to god a Judge throws this whole case out and lets the guilty get away with it because of the tactics the FBI and Justice are using to convict innocent people of felonies they did not commit by being on a street when a riot they weren't involved with took place. Make no mistake if Justice is allowed to do this, the next time there is something they can call a riot they will be out there arresting every single person again and YOU might be the one caught up in it by being on a block where something happened.

    1. Re:Everyone should be terrified by this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Citation please?

      You sound rather emotionally involved about this for some reason, so if you don't mind can use produce something from a reputable source to back up your claim.

      What you say may well be true, but your comment contains emotional attachment words like "massive violation" and such.

    2. Re:Everyone should be terrified by this by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Informative

      It wasn't the FBI is was the city police. I'm not sure what you class as a reputable source but here's a spectrum of biased ones:

      https://www.usnews.com/news/na...
      https://www.buzzfeed.com/zoeti...
      http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
      https://www.acludc.org/sites/d...

      The anarchists rioted at trumps inaguratio just as they rioted at obama's inaguration. The local police finally had enough, and most likely went too far (as police tend to do).

    3. Re:Everyone should be terrified by this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You state this as if you know, with complete conviction and as if you were an expert, yet in the very same thread, posted before your comment, there is a huge list of reports including links to a lawsuit where people prove they were journalists and legal observers. Do you think we are stupid?

    4. Re:Everyone should be terrified by this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad there isn't some kind of "act" that the police could read before they did this.

    5. Re:Everyone should be terrified by this by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Probable cause does not = evidence. You can be arrested as a POSSIBLE accessory to a crime, but that doesn't mean jack-shit of there's no evidence that an individual was involved (literally they were passing through to get to the office and work).

      Now George Soros on the other hand, that motherfucking POS can eat shit and crawl in a hole...

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:Everyone should be terrified by this by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Did you read the post or the linked news stories in the reply? They are trying to prosecute all 200 people as a group so they DON'T have to show that everyone there was actually involved, they are trying to prosecute them based on being at the location where it happened. Because, obviously everyone there was involved, right? The victims aren't even being given the option to show they weren't there to cause violence because they are trying to use the evidence on the few people they do have evidence on to convict everyone. And if you say you are innocent they are trying to get you to agree to plea deal that's a fucking felony.

    7. Re:Everyone should be terrified by this by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I have to say this fills me with joy. Antifa think they can get away with anything these days because they're on "the right side of history" and all that garbage. Well, not today sonny. Even if you're just part of the crowd, being part of a rioting crowd is what gives it strength even if you're not personally destroying stuff.

    8. Re:Everyone should be terrified by this by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      I pray someday you get to experience schadenfreude because are out and about near a protest that turns violent that you are a arrested and charged like everyone involved in this case. Then hopefully you act like a man and you cheer your own felony conviction instead of whining like a little bitch because it's not fair when it happens to you but other innocent people are fair game.

      BTW you deserve the police state you are cheering and don't deserve the constitution you are spitting on. You're a dreadful human being.

    9. Re:Everyone should be terrified by this by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      You're right, it was DC police, but the prosecutors going along with the abuse are federal Justice. Mod parent up.

  12. Rioters, not protesters. by sethstorm · · Score: 2

    They crossed the line when they decided to riot.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Rioters, not protesters. by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They crossed the line when they decided to riot.

      That almost sounds like something that a protest turned into. No. These clowns planned violence for months - it was their purpose in gathering together. It's a shame that some of their idiotic fellow protesters either were or pretended to be so dumb that they were standing around in the middle of a bunch of them and got caught up. But since the rioters were broadcasting their intentions well in advance, and were dancing around with black masks on smashing stuff ... well, too bad if you hang out with those tools.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Rioters, not protesters. by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      You're saying it like it was a decision that was made. The last New Years celebration I was at. Someone got stabbed and a couple of cars got overturned one or two blocks away from where I was at. Does that mean I should be arrested for what those rioters did?

      Hopefully, they can find videos on those phones, or maybe incriminating texting/chat evidence like "Hey, the guitar shop has just been breached. Go to the guitar shop and grab a free guitar before all the guitars are taken." or "Hey, let's go to Starbucks, I hate Starbucks. Yesterday, they messed up my frappuccino order. The capitalistic scum needs to pay! Let's break all their windows."

      I wish the police luck with their search, but I'm not hoping for much. If I had been the police, I would have just waited for the protesters/rioters to post their incriminating videos on youtube and I would have waited for 4chan do its work filtering, processing, identifying, and doxxing the main culprits.

    3. Re: Rioters, not protesters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the state department crossed the line when they occupied America.

    4. Re:Rioters, not protesters. by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      the "protestors" are the sea the rioters swim in. Without the cover of the protestors, there would be no rioters. Without the rioters, there would be a lot less press coverage of the "protests". It's a symbiosis, and the protestors are hardly innocent. They are not unlike the Muslim Brotherhood vs. Al Qaeda vs. Islam. Sure, the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't, nominally, support terrorism, but the respective groups' goals are identical (the global supremacy of Sunni Islam). The only things they quibble about are tactics.

    5. Re:Rioters, not protesters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But since the rioters were broadcasting their intentions well in advance, and were dancing around with black masks on smashing stuff ... well, too bad if you hang out with those tools.

      Yeah, too bad if you're a reporter and trying to report on these events, or if you actually work at one of the businesses there, or maybe even happen to live there. Scum indeed. Regardless of how you feel about it morally, the same police chief advised the same action many years ago. The result was millions paid out in settlements to people wrongfully arrested.

  13. Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good to see the feds hassling someone other than municipal police.

  14. How did they crack the phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where can I buy the software, I'd never seen an API to the touchscreen interface for PIN entry from the USB port.

    If they don't sell it then there's no capitalism right?

    1. Re: How did they crack the phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have copyrighted content on the phone, then breaking the encryption is a DMCA violation. And we've learned that those have a stiff penalty.

    2. Re:How did they crack the phones by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      End to end encryption has to end at some location.
      The physical hardware the user key?
      Recover key, become the user.
      Read messages as user would have.
      Given the National Special Security Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... activates full cooperation and support a lot more software and hardware might be on offer.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  15. Did you read the whole thing? by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    You know he dies at the end, right? Oh, and while we're linking Wikipedia articles how about this one? Only problem is the use of 'was' in the opening line...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Did you read the whole thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the modern scholars have pointed out that the "Southern Strategy" was a Democrat talking point, and not a real event - and pointed out so persuasively that the New York Times published articles about how the myth is wrong - you might want to consider your arguments.

    2. Re:Did you read the whole thing? by elrous0 · · Score: 0

      You know he dies at the end, right?

      Do you seriously think MLK was a failure because some nut killed him in the end? Do you realized how much he accomplished in the 15 years before he got killed? And his opponents at the time were super-violent. Yet he still beat them again and again without any violence.

      You antifa kids are the world's biggest pussies by comparison. You dumb fucks aren't even worthy of saying his name. You have to resort to violence because you're too clueless to win so much as a game of checkers without it.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re: Did you read the whole thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just deal with oppressive society and never fight back. Stay down like a good little dog.

      I'd rather be shot in the head than serve a master.

    4. Re:Did you read the whole thing? by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      > Considering the modern scholars have pointed out that the "Southern Strategy" was a Democrat talking point,

      Maybe you have confused the events. The Southern Strategy, did occur. The "The End of Southern Exceptionalism" argued it was ineffective (to an important degree), but not that it didn't exist, nor that it was totally ineffective.

      You might want to listen to Lee Atwater's interview, who is more compelling than you or me or Johnson/Shafer.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
  16. Re:Convict these people for breaking windows! by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Informative

    If by "breaking windows" you mean things like "trashing a poor guy's car, the thing he uses to make a living" and whatnot, yeah, convict. Especially since they planned, in advance, to commit violence and then did it. Unlike your Russia delusion, these people actually DID commit crimes, and got caught doing it, violently, on video.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  17. Tea party Republicans aren't good at it by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the mega-donors who created and fund the movement are. Also, they didn't have the Republican lead Congress attacking their main voter turnout organization.

    What's that old Gore Vidal quote? "I'm not a conspiracy theorist - I'm a conspiracy analyst.".

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Tea party Republicans aren't good at it by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Sadly enough, Gore Vidal was simply a gadfly.

  18. If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking device by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> Officials seized (rioters) cell phones, cracked their passwords, and are now attempting to use the contents to convict them

    If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking device to the scene of the crime, then what do you really expect? Cops have been using location, texts and social media posts to pin perps for at least a decade now.

  19. Another use for the data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Discover which of the protesters are transgender so they can't sneak into the military.

  20. counter productive. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    Instead of just charging them with what they did, extraordinary measures are being taken to punish these people. The question is, do you honestly think this will make them more or less likely to become politically radicalized? If history has taught us anything then it's that when you up the ante, opponents will respond in kind.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:counter productive. by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      A trip to rape camp will take the wind out of your sails.

    2. Re:counter productive. by sciengin · · Score: 1

      What exactly would consist as upping the ante?
      They are already trying to murder people for voting for the wrong guy. There is a professor that has been caught on video using a very heavy bike lock to crack skulls.
      What would be "more radicalized" than yelling "kill all whites", "Die cis scum" and many other nasty slogans? Because this is whats happening right now. Backed and emboldened by the mainstream media those domestic terrorists have lost all restraint. Just look up "Berkeley riots" on google (and maybe try to avoid media that are proud of being to the left of Karl Marx).

      Do we load rubber bullets and pepper spray when we send out special forces to neutralize terrorists for fear that they would "up the ante"?

    3. Re:counter productive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's a fucking stupid threat. All "radicalization" can do is empower the right.

      The correlation of forces is objectively on the side of the right in the US; the volunteer military, the police, and the private gun owners are all landslide-majority Trump voters. The only thing that stops the American left from being literally destroyed by them is mutual self-restraint; collectively, choosing to abide by legal and democratic norms.

      If the American left, which in the last year has already spawned multiple riots and an attempt to assassinate Congressmen, is so idiotic that it turns up the violence even further, it can only succeed in one thing; convincing the right to use its guns.

      Seriously, you blithering morons need to stop with this violent crap before you actually convince the right that you are enemies of public order. Because they can put you shitheads in a mass grave, not the other way around.

    4. Re: counter productive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be more convincing if the right wasn't so sanctimonious that they always try to take the moral pedestal, even making up claims about their "Tea Party" protests being somehow cleaner than those of the "dirty" Left, with their evidence being self-serving testimony and insufficient "documentation" from a few selected photographs.

      They already want to use their guns, and it isn't just the sovereign citizens, they were practically slavering over Jade Helm, eagerly enthusiastic over Trump's claims of protesting the election (that he did a reversal on almost immediately), and all too willing to denounce the left over one disturbed man, but mysteriously insisting that we ignore their own "troubled" individuals.

    5. Re:counter productive. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      They are already trying to murder people for voting for the wrong guy. There is a professor that has been caught on video using a very heavy bike lock to crack skulls.
      What would be "more radicalized" than yelling "kill all whites", "Die cis scum" and many other nasty slogans? Because this is whats happening right now. Backed and emboldened by the mainstream media those domestic terrorists have lost all restraint. Just look up "Berkeley riots" on google (and maybe try to avoid media that are proud of being to the left of Karl Marx).

      I'm talking about with these individuals in particular, dummy.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    6. Re: counter productive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might makes right, huh? That won't lead to a military state at all. Nope, republicans have sooo much restraint, they'd kill all these stupid lefties if these pesky laws weren't in the way! /s

      The problem is 'the right' thinks it's perfectly fine to treat humanity like a resource to be exploited, to lie and steal from the working man, and give to the almighty corporation. They also believe in legislating their backwards and oppressive morality. Some day, man. Some day! That corporation you worship will definitely see your greatness! You're just a temporarily-embarrassed millionaire! When you get that money, you won't have to see those tranny fags any more! Nevermind the fact they'll be the people you depend on for society to function in your old age. As long as you can feel smug in your morals and have someone to look down your nose at to villify.

    7. Re: counter productive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, of course it will lead to a police state, you dumbfuck. What did you think I was talking about when I mentioned mass graves, illiterate? That's why it's so stupid of the left to use violence. I'm not talking about morality, you idiot, but tactics. Righteousness doesn't stop bullets, shit-for-brains. It's not that "the republicans have soo much restraint", moron, it's that they have so little. If you convince them (as a collective) that it's time to take off the gloves, it's not their brains that will be spattered all over the pavement, it's your three brain cells that will be. People who see humanity as a resource to be exploited are not going to be goddamn gentle with you dumbasses if it comes to a fight.

      The left has proven it can win elections; the Republicans won the popular vote for President once in the last seven elections. Why the fuck would idiots like you want to make it a fucking war?

    8. Re:counter productive. by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      If you are committing aggravated assault, burning calls and busting up shops, you are already sufficiently radicalized as to be a lost cause. Incarceration isn't being done to win their hearts and minds, but to maintain law and order.

    9. Re:counter productive. by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. More likely they'll realize they shouldn't be caught up in this kind of stupid crap, that there are consequences, and that a 3 year probation with a felony on your record is actually a lot better than a 15 year prison sentence which they might get next time they go rioting.

  21. Re: Not 'hung" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  22. The trans community is safe in this one at least by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's already known that Trump has shown, along with his generals, that the Trans folk are incapable of rising to such levels of physicality and violence because they are continuously worried about their genitals and what's going on with their hormone treatments.

  23. Re:trump won according to law by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Informative

    You keep telling yourself that.

    But Hillary's lack of being crowned as she demanded and expected was just the latest in a series of events that cost the Democrats nearly a thousand legislative seats, both houses of congress, most of the governorships, and millions of two-time Obama voters who were disgusted by Clinton/DNC overt behavior, never mind reading their obnoxious internal communications. Comey didn't cause Hillary to call millions of the people over whom she wanted to preside irredeemably deplorable racists. Neither Comey nor the Russians used mind control rays to cause Hillary to somehow forget to even set foot in Wisconsin to try to tell the people there something vaguely coherent about why she and her husband should once again get the executive power they craved and with which they enriched themselves.

    But please, keep blaming it all on everything except the Democrats' years of snark, sneering condescension and their hatred for the people in flyover country ... you know, the ones who denied her the electoral college.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  24. Rioters who destroy property deserve no sympathy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This mess has nothing to do with Trump.

    The law is the law, and you don't get an exemption to break it because you're upset about Trump ( or anything else ).

    If you riot and trash cars and you get caught, you will be punished, AND YOU WILL DESERVE IT.

    The people who are wondering about encryption should know that ANY encryption you can get at your amateur level can be cracked, though parallel construction may be used to avoid revealing that your encryption was broken. Welcome to the adult world. The government has nuclear weapons and you don't. The government can crack your encryption. Don't conspire to do illegal things and you will have no problems.

    Some of you who frequent this website seem to think life is a contest in which you can outwit the people or entities you don't like. I can tell you from 40 years of practicing law that very few people are able to pull this off. A lot of people think they can, and nearly all of them end up in prison or on the run. Life is hard enough without behaving in ways that society doesn't accept. Truly intelligent people realize this early on and they live accordingly. People who learn the hard way have tough and unpleasant lives. Chew on that for a while and decide whether you want a shitty life or a good one.
    And learn to accept that there are things you are utterly powerless to change. This is the case for all of us humans. There will always be something you don't like, and sometimes you won't be able to do anything about it. People who are adults in the truest sense of the word understand this and deal with it.

  25. Re:trump won according to law by XeXeN · · Score: 2

    Ignoring the fact that Donald Trump didn't make Hillary run an illegal private email server that contained classified information.

  26. Re:If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking dev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're caught by their own nature. Their portable devices are the link they need to the echo chamber they live in. Can't stand not to be connected to it. Can't stand not to collect the kudos they're due for the virtues they signal.

  27. and the problem is... ? by doctorvo · · Score: 1

    Some defendants face up to 75 years in prison, despite little evidence against them.

    Well, and if there is evidence that they conspired to destroy property and disrupt the inauguration with violence, they may get convicted. If there continues to be "little evidence against them", they won't get convicted.

    But a new court filing reveals that investigators have been able to crack into at least eight defendants' locked cell phones.

    So it looks like the question of evidence will be resolved quickly then.

    1. Re:and the problem is... ? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Your faith in the US legal system is so touching! I bet you even believe every defendant has competent legal council, and no prosecutor ever managed to turn a few ambiguous, possibly misleading clues into an overwhelming certainty of guilt.

      I wonder how some Americans can be so stupid and yet manage not to drown from looking up when it rains.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:and the problem is... ? by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      I bet you even believe every defendant has competent legal council, and no prosecutor ever managed to turn a few ambiguous, possibly misleading clues into an overwhelming certainty of guilt.

      A jury of 12 citizens is still a better and more impartial means than the alternatives.

      I wonder how some Europeans can be so stupid and yet manage not to drown from looking up when it rains.

      FTFY.

    3. Re:and the problem is... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your faith in the US legal system is so touching! I bet you even believe every defendant has competent legal council, and no prosecutor ever managed to turn a few ambiguous, possibly misleading clues into an overwhelming certainty of guilt.

      I wonder how some Americans can be so stupid and yet manage not to drown from looking up when it rains.

      .
      .

      I just love "arguments" like yours. The system is imperfect, so therefore all verdicts may be invalid, and the system is unfair ?

      Yeah, right. Life isn't fair. This is not news.

      The system is imperfect. I got screwed by the system myself, so I know better than most people how things can work out in an unfair way.

      But none of this has any bearing on whether those who rioted were guilty. Some of the people caught in the net may not have smashed windows. Some of them obviously DID smash windows. You can be sure all the cases are NOT going to be dismissed. You see, the court system is only partly about justice. A substantial portion of it is about power, and that's what people like you who whine about "fairness" or "justice" always forget.

      A message must and will be sent that the government is not going to tolerate violent riots in Washington. And if a few innocent protesters are sent to prison, that's just the cost of doing business. Those who plan future protests in Washington would be wise to take this into consideration.

      Personally I have NO sympathy for idiots who would protest at an inauguration. The voters voted, the winner was inaugurated, and NO, the losers DO NOT get to smash stuff because their side didn't win. Stay home, get drunk, get laid or go hiking, but going to riot at an inauguration is a temper tantrum and adults don't do that shit, even if they are sure they can get away with it. Why ? Because it's WRONG.

    4. Re:and the problem is... ? by Evil+Kerek · · Score: 0

      *yawn* Like the ACLU isn't going to be all over this. There won't be any lack of defense.

      I'm pretty sure the people that showed up with masks are worth investigating.

    5. Re:and the problem is... ? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Oh, my...you even believe all trials have juries...and that the juries are always 12 people.

      Arrogance, stupidity and ignorance all in one package. You've hit the trifecta!

      And I'm not European, by the way. :-)

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    6. Re:and the problem is... ? by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      Oh, my...you even believe all trials have juries...and that the juries are always 12 people.

      No, I merely believe that Americans have a right to a jury trial.

      And I'm not European, by the way. :-)

      But I am, which is why I recognize your brand of bigotry, whether it is first and or (as you claim) second hand.

    7. Re:and the problem is... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, all CRIMINAL offenses punishable by incarceration of more than 6 months have juries, with 6-12 people. I'm not sure what your point is, are you trying to make to prove him wrong based on some technicality that won't apply in this case? They're looking at more than 6 months, thus any trial they're involved in has to be a jury trial. And it will most likely be 12 members.

    8. Re:and the problem is... ? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I don't believe you.

      Let's start with your lie: "No, I merely believe that Americans have a right to a jury trial.

      Your earlier statement: "A jury of 12 citizens is still a better and more impartial means than the alternatives."

      And how typical...you ascribe your own bigotry and ignorance to others. Truly pathetic. Also, you apparently didn't know the right to a jury trial extends only to the more serious criminal charges.

      Do youhave any other lies handy?

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    9. Re:and the problem is... ? by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      Also, you apparently didn't know the right to a jury trial extends only to the more serious criminal charges.

      Yes, like the "felony rioting" and "75 year sentences" we are talking about here.

      I don't believe you.

      Well, on top of your ignorant, knee-jerk anti-Americanism you obviously also have a problem with reality.

      Why don't you come clean about where you are actually from? Of course, you might simply be an American leftists: they are some of the most ignorant people about the US and how much nicer a place is that pretty much anywhere else on the planet.

  28. Re:trump won according to law by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You totally forgot to mention how her DNC cohorts stabbed Bernie in the back and colluded with her, which is what was shown in those DNC emails. And then when DWS stepped down, Hillary doubled-down on her and hired her to a high position in her campaign, effectively thumbing her nose at all the Bernie supporters.

    As a result, Dem turnout was low, especially among the Bernie-voting demographic. Many of them who did bother to vote instead voted for a 3rd party (which both saw HUGE gains over the last presidential election), or even for Trump out of spite. According to my recollection, if Hillary had gotten most of those 3rd-party votes, she would have won.

    She ran an incredibly condescending campaign, and her supporters were especially smug and condescending. Honestly, I think I'd rather be associated with moronic Trump voters than with the condescending assholes who were vocal Hillary supporters.

    Personally, I voted for Stein. Hillary's supporters specifically told me that they didn't need my vote to win, so I didn't give it to her.

  29. "encrypted" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I don't think those phones were fully encrypted.

  30. Go ahead, make the Feds' day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of just charging them with what they did, extraordinary measures are being taken to punish these people. The question is, do you honestly think this will make them more or less likely to become politically radicalized? If history has taught us anything then it's that when you up the ante, opponents will respond in kind.

    I'm sure the Feds are quaking in their boots that a bunch of hipsters and Prius drivers are going to become radicalized and break bad !

    I mean, since the hipsters and Prius drivers all have tanks and helicopters and Predator drones and surveillance capabilities similar to the NSA, the outcome might really be in doubt, and hipsters could soon be sitting in the Oval Office smoking a fattie listening to some EDM.

    Or, far more likely, some of those hipsters who misbehave badly enough could find themselves in a Supermax prison with life sentences for attempting to overthrow the government. That's the outcome I'd bet on.

    So, radicalize if you like, but be ready for consequences that will be much worse, much longer, and much more unpleasant than you can imagine.

    You need to read some history. Protests can work when they're done peacefully and with purpose. Riots just get you crushed, which is what you asked for when you rioted.

    1. Re: Go ahead, make the Feds' day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if these riots continued in the face of death? What would the US look like if it was rounding up its own people and doing away with them? America already has a shit reputation because it fails to provide for even the basest of human needs. Healthcare, education, infrastructure, and the economy are all going to shit. Americans are connected to the Internet, and are able to learn about the world outside America, and find out what they're missing.

      But you won't acknowledge that because you're too busy compartmentalizing criminals so you don't have to think of them as citizens, or even human beings. A society is only as healthy as its most sick person, and America is terminal.

  31. Re: Convict these people for breaking windows! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, why don't they try vandalizing Mosques, Abortion Clinics and federal office buildings. Trump's cool with that.

    As long as nobody is allowed to canoe past him when he's golfing. That's just wrong. Can't abide it. But he can shut down all reports on right-wing violence.

    But you know what's terrible? You can't solve your problems like Aaron Burr did. Isn't that a pity? Almost as bad as having seven years to tackle healthcare reform while being unable to make it anything but an opaque, secretive process, with the main effect being to increase the number of people without insurance.

    Tell me, is that truly winning? What kind of victory is it?

  32. Re:United States of Trump by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is precisely the kind of distorted nonsense that erodes trust when it comes from "professional journalists".

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  33. GOOD by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    NTR

  34. Let's remember what is at stake by OYAHHH · · Score: 2

    Peaceful protest is one thing, I've done it myself.

    But there was a plot uncovered for an acid attack to occur during the inauguration activities. That is not protest. Certainly not even remotely a peaceful protest planned.

    Since the article is sorely lacking in details as to what is being searched for, they state a "riot", I am sticking with they are looking for the acid attack planners. And that is a worthwhile pursuit.

    If not, guess what, throwing rocks, bottles, and pipes is a worthwhile reason to search a phone. It's no different from searching a home for hidden child pornography, or a knapsack for molotov cocktails or a car for a cache of guns that a suspected criminal might possess.

    If it's felonious behavior, which rioting with acid is, then absolutely search the phones.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
    1. Re: Let's remember what is at stake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With OTP devices that are easy to destroy and even easier to hide, someone can construct a situation where they literally don't know the password and cannot open something.

      How do you get around that? You'd have to establish possession of the security device, prove that it contains the same key that encrypted the main device's contents, prove that the person owns said device, *and* prove that something was done to it to destroy the security device.

      Good luck with that. Only way that's breaking is through quantum computing, and that has a long way to go before we can just crack encryption willy nilly.

      And if they clone the image of the drive, what law allows the government to do that? Without any hard evidence, that's a 4th amendment violation, and anyone could say they were hit with ransomware and chucked the main device.

      If a person was crafty, they could embed the security device into a construction site for a skyscraper, right into the foundation. By the time anyone found it, the 'perp' would be long dead.

    2. Re:Let's remember what is at stake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the article the police is arresting people for rioting using some "guilty by association" interpretation of a morally dubious "conspiracy to riot" law, not for any real crimes like actually destroying cars or actually planning an acid attack. Maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but I really cannot find your charitable reading in the article.

      From my point of view as an outsider who lives far away and never visited the US (and has no plans to ever do so), the US is an authoritarian police state with a heavily armed paramilitary police force that shoots hundreds of innocents every year, a defunct justice system, and a penal system based on systematic and massive human rights violations which are even supported by many people, as evidenced by countless "don't drop the soap" jokes.

  35. Revolution (not the millenial de-evolution) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: It is a revolution (OURS) & we're taking it back from the bs you've been fed is all - accept it, you LOSE, Soros losers...

    * "Seize the youth & you seize the future" yea, sure: UBI, Heroin (TOTAL dependence)... FU, that's what I see.

    (I am PROUD of me & mine for putting the effort out to put a STOP to that crap!)

    APK

    P.S.=> The crap SOROS pays you to "think": IS that that you REALLY think, or, what the infamous "they" TOLD YOU TO THINK, mass media programmable minions - think about it (they've been working you for YOUR LIFETIMES, after all)... apk

    1. Re:Revolution (not the millenial de-evolution) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, its fat useless fuckwit APK ranting his delusions from moms basement again.

  36. Re: I want to penetrate you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound like a Penn State supporter.

  37. Looks very suspiciously like warrantless search by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 1

    Warrantless searching of a person's papers is constitutionally protected. Seems like a really easy way for the charges to be dropped.

    "If investigators were able to crack the phonesâ(TM) passwords within their department or through a contract, they would not necessarily have to file any additional court documents, Jennings said.
    Police appear to have begun searching at least one phone within a day of its seizure, CityLab reported in January."

    "no additional court documents" my eye. Also, a warrant has to specifically denote where the search is to take place, and for what. A, "we will just search through all this person's electronic documents for anything that might be incriminating" is quite a huge over reach even if there were a warrant

    1. Re:Looks very suspiciously like warrantless search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warrantless searching of a person's papers is constitutionally protected.

      Only if that search is "unreasonable". Yes, it is a shame that this vague criteria was included, because it means pretty much anything goes.

      When this United States thing comes apart and we working on MagnaConstitution II: The Death of Feudalism (really!), let us guard against such ill-defined exceptions. They may seem minor and "reasonable" but, in the intervening years, these exceptions will be expanded to the point that there is no longer any real restraint.

  38. Justice served by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From their phone records it is clear that this was not just a protest but an organized conspiracy to cause rioting, destruction, and mayhem where ever they could.

    Just will be served on the scumbags that think that bad behavior is allowed. I recommend that they have mid-day nappy taken away, along with video games, and their internet. Oh May, cruel and unusual punishment as this is all these young wankers do all day, besides wanking off.

  39. Re:trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  40. And thus begins the police state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But of course, most of the republitards I know have no problem with dictatorship, as long as the dictator is a republican.

  41. 75 Years? Really? by Arzaboa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I get it that most folks don't appreciate the rioting. I certainly don't approve by any stretch of the imagination.

    75 years is insane for this. They broke some windows. If the internet wasn't around, they would have used a phone. Conspiracy for some windows breakers? That's ridiculous. Make them fix a few windows and pay a fine. Keep their phones.

    1. Re: 75 Years? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans don't care about rehabilitating offenders. It requires much less thought to assume they're guilty and strip them of humanity. Then if they ever leave jail, fuck'em over even harder so they suffer for the rest of their lives.

      Americans do not know what justice is. The business side of the law brings only misery. It doesn't protect society, it doesn't invest in bettering communities through actual social work, it doesn't do shit except make a old white guys in black gowns feel important and give the public a bogeyman to fear so these same old men can promise to fight them in order to get re-elected.

      The entire process is bought and paid for.

  42. No I think he's a failure by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    because most of what he accomplished is being rapidly rolled back at the first sign of a weak economy. Trump and his AG are _horrible_ for equality and justice but all it took to get them in power was a mess of blue collar guys getting abandoned by the economy. What he accomplished was far too fragile...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:No I think he's a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because most of what he accomplished is being rapidly rolled back

      Yeah, except these days it's the liberals who want to bring back segregation, not the conservatives.

    2. Re:No I think he's a failure by fafalone · · Score: 2

      Oh come on, I hate the orange menace and his evil goblin AG as much as anyone (as my comment history would show), and they represent a great threat to many important areas where we've made progress (the tiny bit of drug policy reform Obama managed inc. civil asset forfeiture (legalized theft), trans protections, womens health coverage, DOJ oversight of local out-of-control police depts, etc), but you can't seriously be claiming that Trump and Sessions are in any way going to move us back to blacks-only bathrooms, lunch counters, and back of the bus.
      The absolute worst you're going to get is encouraging states to have voter ID laws which have a disparate impact on poor voters, which then in turn hurts minorities more because they're more likely to be poor. It does no one any good to discredit grievances about the countless serious abuses of this dumpster fire presidency by claiming they're bringing back Jim Crow.

    3. Re:No I think he's a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because most of what he accomplished is being rapidly rolled back at the first sign of a weak economy.

      I'm not sure you know what MLK accomplished.

    4. Re:No I think he's a failure by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      its not trump doing that its the left. look at the colleges with their "black only" spaces and harvard with their black only graduation. Seems the liberals are all about segregation now

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:No I think he's a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't liberals. They are the left, and they've always been in favor of segregation.

  43. Extended... by s.petry · · Score: 0

    But the violence at Donald's inauguration was stupid and counterproductive. Conservatives already view liberals as entitled elitists who refuse to play by the rules. In the eyes of the right, this rioting confirmed all the worst stereotypes of the left. This is not the way to win people over.

    It also confirmed these issues to the undecided voters and youngsters, who are the ones to look out for in the next election cycle.

    Before I say it.. hold that thought until the next paragraph. Okay, that said: Now that people are paying attention, it's become obvious that that same crowd that a whole lot of people in the Republican party really aren't the Liberty minded conservatives but behave just like Democrats. Some of these long time incumbents are going to have a very hard time in primaries if the right people run against them. Think about it for a minute, if Kid Rock and Ted Nugent both ran for office, Michigan would be farther right than any State in the Union with very vocal representation. While Terrible Ted isn't running, he could and would probably win with little effort. That thought should give the incumbents on both sides nightmares.

    Trump isn't far Right either (which is why I said hold that thought) and quite frankly, barely peeks into the Right. He has a few ideas that are Right leaning, but a whole lot of his platform is far Left "Grow the Government and it's Power" politics with lots of deficit spending. His leadership on ACA repeal shows exactly what he thinks, and it's just like all the others claiming that the Government can solve all of our problems and cure all of our ills. The up and comers won't be very forgiving next election.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Extended... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also confirmed these issues to the undecided voters and youngsters, who are the ones to look out for in the next election cycle.

      Nope. They won't even show up to vote. If they're even allowed.

      Okay, that said: Now that people are paying attention, it's become obvious that that same crowd that a whole lot of people in the Republican party really aren't the Liberty minded conservatives but...

      Nope. Not a single member of that crowd will pay attention to the fact that the Republican party is full of frauds and liars.

      They've had 30+ years to learn. Ever since Ross Perot began his quixotic campaign.. They failed then, they kept failing for the next decade, still failing.

      Some of these long time incumbents are going to have a very hard time in primaries if the right people run against them. Think about it for a minute, if Kid Rock and Ted Nugent both ran for office, Michigan would be farther right than any State in the Union with very vocal representation. While Terrible Ted isn't running, he could and would probably win with little effort. That thought should give the incumbents on both sides nightmares.

      Ted Nugent? That should give the people in Michigan nightmares, that they'd be so willing to vote for nothing more than a screaming celebrity with no wit or intelligence, and severe problems with self-control, responsibility, and poor health.

      I can forgive somebody wanting to vote for say, Carl Edwards, or Dale Jr, but Ted Nugent? That's just asininely stupid.

      Al Franken had a history of witty commentary. Ted Nugent? A history of rage-induced tirades.

      Trump isn't far Right either (which is why I said hold that thought) and quite frankly, barely peeks into the Right. He has a few ideas that are Right leaning, but a whole lot of his platform is far Left "Grow the Government and it's Power" politics with lots of deficit spending.

      The problem here is that you need to get over your false dichotomy of Left/Right political axis. Trump's most significant problems are unrelated to his ill-shaped political ideology. He's a self-aggrandizing fraud, even the best ideas, which he doesn't even have, would rot in his hands.

      His leadership on ACA repeal shows exactly what he thinks,and it's just like all the others claiming that the Government can solve all of our problems and cure all of our ills.

      It shows he thinks he can scream real loud, screw people over, and do nothing effective, but he finds it important that he has something to take credit for doing, even if it is empty and hollow. He'd been having an emotional tirade, blowing a lot of smoke and hot air, and showing he has no intent to resolve things properly.

      I wish I could say it was nothing like all the others, but there are enough people who want to just "repeal" without thinking about what's next, that I can't quite do that, but I can say it isn't all of the others who think like that. They just rejected that idea yesterday.

      They aren't very committed to it though.

      The up and comers won't be very forgiving next election.

      The retention rate will be over 95%, there won't be hardly any changes at all.

      But seriously, you need to get over the false concept of a political axis that doesn't reflect reality. It leads you astray.

    2. Re:Extended... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Your rant against my Ted comments makes no sense. Ted is from Michigan, has a long history of protecting the 2nd amendment and speaking out against the Democratic party. Dale Jr. is from NC and has no such history. We don't have to worry because Ted isn't running, but try to do a bit of thinking and researching before going on stupid rants.

      The problem here is that you need to get over your false dichotomy of Left/Right political axis

      Context is everything. When discussing political leanings (left vs. right), the meaning is and has been Democrat vs. Republican or Big Government vs. Conservative. Your false premise is not my false dichotomy.

      I wish I could say it was nothing like all the others, but there are enough people who want to just "repeal" without thinking about what's next, that I can't quite do that, but I can say it isn't all of the others who think like that. They just rejected that idea yesterday.

      Since it was rejected there really are _not_ enough people who want to just repeal without thinking what's next. Most of those "no" votes were from people who claimed they would repeal and voted "yes" when they had a President they knew would veto the bill. This is where it's going to be very interesting to see what happens with incumbents overall, not just the Democrats.

      The retention rate will be over 95%, there won't be hardly any changes at all.

      Yeah, and Hillary had a 99% chance of winning too. As I said, if the right people start to get on ballots incumbents on both sides are in trouble.

      Your last statement is your 2nd use of the same false premise. "Incumbents on both sides" has nothing to do with a political axis. Did you just learn a new term and feel the need to toss it around so that you can think you are smart?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:Extended... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      ... nothing more than a screaming celebrity with no wit or intelligence, and severe problems with self-control, responsibility, and poor health.

      You just described the current President of the United States.

    4. Re:Extended... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your rant against my Ted comments makes no sense.

      Evidently you choose to offer no substantial rebuttal to what I said. You just seem like you're trying to sputter over it, without actually addressing anything I said. That's probably why you didn't quote it.

      Unfortunately for you, I can requote it:

      Ted Nugent? That should give the people in Michigan nightmares, that they'd be so willing to vote for nothing more than a screaming celebrity with no wit or intelligence, and severe problems with self-control, responsibility, and poor health.

      I can forgive somebody wanting to vote for say, Carl Edwards, or Dale Jr, but Ted Nugent? That's just asininely stupid.

      Al Franken had a history of witty commentary. Ted Nugent? A history of rage-induced tirades.

      If you're having a problem understanding it, let me know, I'll find somebody to explain it to you. Otherwise, I'll just have to accept you won't do anything to actually respond, because you can't choose a better approach.

      Ted is from Michigan, has a long history of protecting the 2nd amendment and speaking out against the Democratic party.

      Ted has a long history of raving like a loon and speaking like a crazy fuck-up, with a tendency towards hyperbole that makes Hulk Hogan look even-tempered. And at least the Hulkster was joking when he said he was running for President.

      Dale Jr. is from NC and has no such history.

      Indeed, Dale Jr. is from North Carolina, but they elect Senators there too, and believe it or not, there WAS a campaign to get Dale Jr. to run for Senate. Same with Carl Edwards, except for being from Missouri.

      You are correct that they don't have the history of Ted Nugent though, to be honest, even Kurt Busch isn't as bad as Nugent. I'm sure they've said stupid things, and Dale Jr. does have documented head injuries, but they aren't so obviously batshit crazy like Nugent or Robert Ritchie.

      We don't have to worry because Ted isn't running, but try to do a bit of thinking and researching before going on stupid rants.

      Try to actually respond to what somebody said, this will require you to do some thinking, and actually engage in conversation as well as making an effort towards reading comprehension. Just declaring "That's a rant" is only a sign of your poor abilities in that regard, I know you rely on it, but it's actually something that makes your posts ineffectual.

      And no, we do have to worry, because you know, it can happen here. At least, according to you.

      The problem here is that you need to get over your false dichotomy of Left/Right political axis

      Context is everything. When discussing political leanings (left vs. right), the meaning is and has been Democrat vs. Republican or Big Government vs. Conservative. Your false premise is not my false dichotomy.

      My actual premise is that the false perceptions induced by your usage of the Left/Right political access contributes to your mistaken approach and leads you astray in your ability to actually offer effective criticism of Trump that really highlights the particulars of his malignancy. Much like your declaration regarding a "rant" above, you are hindered in your ability to respond by such approaches.

      I wish I could say it was nothing like all the others, but there are enough people who want to just "repeal" without thinking about what's next, that I can't quite do that, but I can say it isn't all of the others who think like that. They just rejected that idea yesterday.

      Since it was rejected there really are _not_ enough people who want to just repeal without thinking what's next.

      Oh, just there being a few is quite worrisome enough. In Congress no less. In a country of 330 million, there's quite a few fools, but getting elected to Congress

    5. Re: Extended... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just described the current President of the United States.

      I know, that's what makes s.petry's flawed argument so obviously biased.

      Almost too obvious, he may be a cuckoo himself.

  44. Oh, I should add by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I'm _not_ faulting him for his failure. Just lamenting it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  45. Re: United States of Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    MAGA = Millionaire Asshole Golfing Again

  46. A lot of them didn't by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    There's plenty of evidence that non-violent protestors are being prosecuted.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  47. That's normal by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    we call them soccer hooligans. Every time there's a big event they come out. When my local college sports team won a playoff the same damn thing happened. The difference is nobody threatened them with 20 years in jail because it was pretty damn obvious they were hooligans. Here it's still just as obvious they're hooligans the difference is they were protesting a sitting President who doesn't think once about abusing power.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That's normal by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      If you plan ahead to do violence and then show up and do violence, we don't put up with that shit in the USA. Obama did for 8 years, but that ship has sailed. The best way to deal with rioters and looters is the national guard with live ammunition. Hooligan is just another name for thug.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    2. Re:That's normal by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I bet there are plenty of people who don't go to sports games in countries where "hooligans" are a big problem. They don't want to be involved, and that's understandable. When that happens to the democratic process I think the punishment should be a lot more severe than intimidating people from going to a soccer game.

    3. Re:That's normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kent? Kent State, is that you? I haven't seen you in years! How ya been, buuddddddddddddddddy?

    4. Re:That's normal by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So what are you saying? That the National Guard had been sending emails and social media messages back and forth for months talking about how they couldn't wait to kill some people, but everyone shouldn't forget to wear their black masks? Yeah, great analogy.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:That's normal by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I bet there are plenty of people who don't go to sports games in countries where "hooligans" are a big problem. They don't want to be involved, and that's understandable. When that happens to the democratic process I think the punishment should be a lot more severe than intimidating people from going to a soccer game.

      It's not going to happen as long as the staff and editorial writers in places like Berkeley actually praise the violent leftist thugs who literally beat people bloody and unconscious to prevent words they don't like from being spoken and heard. As long as the left holds sway over the majority of the education experience, their natural instinct to use violent to silence those who don't do proper Good Group Think isn't going to go away. Happily, the rational people still see that sort of lefty fascistic brown-shirting for what it is, and as long as the Democrats keep cheering on the smash-burn-and-beatings foot soldiers of their party, and the rest of the country will continue to refuse to be ruled by a few counties in California and New York.

      I know, not having Hillary as president doesn't feel like enough punishment for the people willing to beat and burn in the name of progressivism, but it's better than nothing. Well, that and a couple dozen felony convictions would be nice.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:That's normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling in the national guard, and the resultant martial law with its attendant suspension of civil rights and liberties, is just incitement for civil war. Government is formed to secure the rights of the populace, deriving their power from the consent of the governed. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    7. Re:That's normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting this weird orange rash after talking to you, and my hairline just lowered to meet my eyebrows. Is that normal?

      You should read up on the shootings again to learn about the oodles of fun that "live ammunition," the phrase you conveniently forgot to focus on, gets you! Also, seemingly tailored just for you, Wikipedia lists the weapons and ammunition used so you can do your own fantasizing. Remember to use a sock!

  48. Re:trump won according to law by wonkavader · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I think that you forgot to add that she's a boring speaker and clearly in the pocket of the the financial industry.

    But " Honestly, I think I'd rather be associated with moronic Trump voters than with the condescending assholes who were vocal Hillary supporters." Really? REALLY? The guy was obviously a sociopath, obviously a moron, and obviously didn't have the best interests of anyone but himself at heart. That was clear from the first month. You want to be associated with people who voted for that instead of the boring business as usual smug woman? "I don't like our home's color. Let's burn it down."

  49. Re: United States of Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    That would certainly describe Obama perfectly.

  50. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do me a favor and copy and paste in the text of the email we should be upset about.

  51. Re:If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking dev by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking device to the scene of the crime, then what do you really expect?

    And if you are actually innocent? There appears to be evidence that innocent people were caught up in the dragnet arrests.

    Stop assuming that everyone who is arrested is guilty.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  52. Re:trump won according to law by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least the Trump voters had good reason to be angry: they were doing poorly economically. They didn't pick very well in their search for someone to alleviate their problems, but to be fair, the mainstream Democratic party (Hillary and friends) really offered them nothing at all. Bernie's camp was the one talking about income inequality, but Hillary's camp was clearly all in favor of it, since the mainstream Dems are so cozy with wealthy elitist donors and of course the financial sector. It wouldn't have made any sense for the rural conservative voters to vote for Hillary; at least if Bernie were on the ticket we would have spoken to them and offered them something (remember, he's quite popular in rural Vermont).

    Hillary's supporters were just plain smug and condescending. Who the hell wants to hang around assholes like that? I'd rather hang around a bunch of dumb, uneducated, but well-meaning hicks than pretentious, smug assholes any time.

    There's a good reason almost no one had a Hillary 2016 bumper sticker on their car, even in the very blue areas I frequent. By contrast, I saw tons of 4- and 8-year old Obama campaign stickers, but very very few Hillary ones. That really says something. I'm sure I'm not the only one totally turned off by Hillary's nasty supporters (just like the AC asshole who also replied to me here: he's a perfect example of those condescending shitheads).

    Your house-burning analogy makes no sense. I'm talking about people and social dynamics here, not house colors. You can repaint an ugly house easily. You can't turn pretentious, smug dickheads into decent human beings.

  53. Re:trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are people on both the left and right fringes that the media uses to sell more papers, draw more TV viewers for news and other politically minded shows, and increase the number of web site links. The media exist for one reason and that is to turn a profit. Large or small every purveyor of "news" shapes their published work to support their editorial line.

    The left and right fringe dwellers have over shadowed all the people who are to busy living their lives to protest every imagined slight the screeching mob is complaining about.

  54. Re:Convict these people for breaking windows! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when did breaking a window, suddenly rise to the level of riot? isn't this a civil offense?

  55. Re:trump won according to law by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    yeah, if you ignore that his narrow victory was clearly pushed over the top by the illegal interference in the election by the head of the FBI, who was using as ammunition against the Democrat contender a set of emails related to emails which were originally made public by illegal hacking of Democrat computer systems by agents of a foreign power.

    This seems almost as silly as the crap Trump says.

    Hillary is a thoroughly unlikeable person...and her own worst enemy. Even now, she somehow polls more unfavorably than Trump. Like a lot of people, I held my nose and voted for her, given the alternative - but let's not pretend she was adored by the masses. Even without the emails the Russians hacked and released, Trump still might have won the Electoral College.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  56. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Stop whining."
    -President Barack Obama, on concerns about election interference, October 2016

  57. Its about damn time! by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Good, it's about damn time that the fascist progressives get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They chose to break the law. Obama and his DOJ were lawless enablers, Trump and his administration believe in the rule of law.

    The rioters conspired to riot, damage property and assault people, now they are facing jail time. Cry me a river. If you want to have a peaceful protest, that is your right, but as soon as you hide your face and start destroying property and assaulting people, you deserve what you get.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:Its about damn time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      fascist progressives

      One of these things is not like the other....

    2. Re:Its about damn time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes!!! Regressives rule!!!

    3. Re:Its about damn time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They chose to break the law.

      And your evidence? The article says only that the feds are "attempting" to charge them, on "scant evidence", and also highlights a few arrests of e.g. journalists that were highly unlikely to have rioted, let alone have conspired to. I guess presumption of innocence goes out the window if they're "progressives", eh?

    4. Re:Its about damn time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump and his administration believe in the rule of law.

      Great! When are the SWAT teams headed to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

    5. Re:Its about damn time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama and his DOJ were lawless enablers, Trump and his administration believe in the rule of law.

      You've got to be fucking kidding me. How on Earth can you say that with a straight face with the crap Trump is pulling? Trump has nothing but contempt and disdain for the rule of law. He's been like that for decades, and being president has only made it worse.

      If Obama had pulled the shit Trump has (like firing Comey when under investigation) sniveling little shits like you would have been screaming to lynch his ass from a tree on White House lawn.

    6. Re:Its about damn time! by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 2

      The antifa people are using fascist tactics of violence and intimidation against 1) a democratically elected government and 2) supporters of that government. In terms of ideology, sure, the antifa people have more in common with straight up 1917 Marxist-Leninists.

    7. Re:Its about damn time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are mistaken. History does not support your assertions.

  58. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what if Obama had done this?

    alt-right snowflakes heads exploding.

    Maybe Trumpkin can re-start investigating white supremacist groups again, since he's letting his #1 base supports run free.

    Let's face it, Trump is a racist fascist. If you disagree ,you don't know what either of those words means.

  59. Uh . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of them ARE comitting felonies. Assault and destruction of property (misdemeanor) are not constitutionally protected rights, no matter how much you might hate someone. Boo hoo, SWJ thugs.

  60. Re: I don't see the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American citizens still have right to due process and protection under the law, even if arrested. Your view of assuming guilt upon arrest is what's wrong with our culture.

  61. We need a snap-phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One you can break in half when the authorities come for you.....

    1. Re:We need a snap-phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One you can break in half when the authorities come for you.....

      If you don't commit a crime, the chance that the authorities will "come for you" is zero.

  62. Re:75 Years? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    75 years is insane for this.

    -

    You don't make it obvious whether you are familiar with the court system in the US. Your response does make it seem that you know little or nothing
    about how the court system in the US operates.

    A scenario which is extremely common is as follows :

    1) The prosecutor stacks up as many charges as he can justify, such that the defendant is facing a horrifyingly long sentence in the event of a conviction as a result of a trial. This makes a strategy for risk mitigation look appealing for defendants who are not either crazy or possessed with the sort of courage that would allow someone to die for his principles. Few defendants qualify. Therefore most defendants will be interested in the process called "plea bargaining", which involves concessions on the part of both the prosecution and the defense.

    2) The process called "plea bargaining" ensues. During this process, the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney discuss a possible deal, which is formally known as a "plea agreement". Usually the plea agreement will feature a reduced sentence in exchange for an agreement on the part of the defendant to plea guilty and not take the case to trial. Via this process, both the defense and the prosecution concede something, so neither side can be seen to either win or lose, and both sides get some benefit. The disposition of the case is decided via this plea agreement, and all that remains is a sentencing hearing, in which a judge decides the length of the sentence the defendant will serve.

    2)a) At the Federal level this sentencing process is impacted by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which are a set of rules that determine the sentence can either be reduced ( shorter time in prison ) or enhanced ( longer time in prison ). Generally the sentencing guidelines are unpopular for a number of reasons. Judges do not like sentencing guidelines because to a great extent the ability of the judge to make a discretionary reduction or increase in the sentence is limited by the guidelines. Also, the very nature of the sentencing guidelines smacks of the sort of thing one would expect from a totalitarian state, which dispenses justice via a machine rather than by a process which involves humans. The attorneys on both sides can and usually will argue for shortening or lengthening the sentence, but to a great extent the length of the sentence is defined by the sentencing guidelines.

    In summation, the probability that anyone convicted of involvement in the riots will receive a sentence of 75 years is low. However a defendant who is either convicted via trial or who enters a plea agreement is not going to get what is euphemistically known as a "slap on the wrist". At least one defendant and probably more than one, is going to do some serious time in prison. And I don't mean six months. I mean they are going to prison for a number of years. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. We will have to wait and see.

    The law re : conspiracy is a subject unto itself. I will say that it's likely the government WILL be able to prove conspiracy, with the help of evidence the phones are likely to yield. Conspiracy laws are appropriate in this situation, because the protests and riots were pre-arranged via communication among some of the participants. If the government can show that a few people are primarily responsible for the arrangements, well, those people are conspirators and they are going to be treated more harshly by the court system because of this.

    This situation is NOT about petty vandalism as you idiotically attempt to suggest in your post ( the implication that it was petty vandalism is something an attorney on either side would laugh at, and the judge would not be amused at such a suggestion either ). These people were acting in a way that disrupted the ability of law abiding citizens in the capital city of the US to peacefully go about their business. And THAT takes it WAY beyond petty vandalism. For this reason, some of those char

  63. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    At least the Trump voters had good reason to be angry: they were doing poorly economically.

    That isn't necessarily a good reason to be angry. Even Ayn Rand knew that. It'd be one thing if they were still angry at the corrupt financial class, but they weren't, were they? (And even if they were, Trump will hardly fix it.)

    They were angry that the world was changing, Main Street shutting down, and Amazon taking over from Walmart. What should Hillary do? Turn back the clock?

    They didn't pick very well in their search for someone to alleviate their problems, but to be fair, the mainstream Democratic party (Hillary and friends) really offered them nothing at all.

    Good for them, it shows integrity, unlike Mr. Carrier-Deal.

    The most she could offer would be blood, sweat, toil, and tears, and even then, with a Congress that would piss itself rather hang use her toilet, it would not be fair to say she could give them something to work to achieve.

    Bernie's camp was the one talking about income inequality, but Hillary's camp was clearly all in favor of it, since the mainstream Dems are so cozy with wealthy elitist donors and of course the financial sector.

    Unfortunately, this is your first really legitimate grievance, but you are about six years too late to bring it up. Obama should have been pushing for prosecutions. Instead, Pelosi cozened him into carrying the bail-out burden.

    It wouldn't have made any sense for the rural conservative voters to vote for Hillary; at least if Bernie were on the ticket we would have spoken to them and offered them something (remember, he's quite popular in rural Vermont).

    He offered a lot of things, but he had no ability to deliver. I'm not sure I can forgive him if he knew that, it still seems distasteful, to make an empty promise that you cannot fulfill.

    Hillary's supporters were just plain smug and condescending. Who the hell wants to hang around assholes like that? I'd rather hang around a bunch of dumb, uneducated, but well-meaning hicks than pretentious, smug assholes any time.

    But they are, in fact, smug, condescending, pretentious, assholes, so what do you gain? That they are dumb and uneducated? That doesn't make them better, or their intentions any less flawed. Lots of people think they mean well, as they rip and tear away at so many things. I'm not sure you can find many people who think the intent is malignant. Even the worst trolls often think they're teaching people a lesson. The capacity for human beings to justify themselves is quite extensive.

    There's a good reason almost no one had a Hillary 2016 bumper sticker on their car, even in the very blue areas I frequent. By contrast, I saw tons of 4- and 8-year old Obama campaign stickers, but very very few Hillary ones. That really says something.

    And I saw very few Trump signs or stickers. Even in a deep red area. Of course, I remember seeing lots of Ron Paul signs, and we know how THAT worked out.

    I'm sure I'm not the only one totally turned off by Hillary's nasty supporters (just like the AC asshole who also replied to me here: he's a perfect example of those condescending shitheads).

    And I'm sure I'm not the only person disdainful of the vacillating pompous arses that you serve to exemplify. You're so desperate to come up with flimsy excuses for your own pretentiousness that you turn around and concoct an even more tenuous excuse to blame Hillary and her supporters.

    There are legitimate grievances about Hillary's campaign, but yours? Are only commendable in that they are less fabricated than Trump's claims.

    Which is like being drier than the ocean.

    Really, almost everything you've offered, I find redoubled on the Trump side of things, with a dose of other qualities of unsavory repute li

  64. Re: If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking de by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, likeminded people from across the globe try to find places where they fit in, where society has failed them via ostracism, ridicule, and harassment. You know, the same thing you're doing right now on slashdot by talking with other nerds.

    Naturally, the feeble minded hate that which they don't understand. If you've never been treated that way, how can you profess to understand what peoples' motives are for accessing the Internet? Would you rather go back to the days where people had no social outlets? That is the alternative for a lot of people. Local communities are not as diverse or as dedicated to a given subject or cause.

    Take older crafts, like knitting, tailoring, woodworking, or even quiltwork. Do you think every town has a group dedicated to those? How about underwater basket weaving? Programming? Literature analysis? Political science? Cryptography?

    The entire point of using the Internet socially is to find others similar to you so you can establish a group you belong to. People who are continually ostracized or harassed become dangerous because this social link is broken and the people in question lose empathy for the group that mistreats them. Without social ties, society itself breaks down.

    I expect a flippant response, but I hope I'll be proven wrong. We can condemn vandalism and violence, sure. But ridiculing someone because their in-group is online is extremely myopic and shows a complete lack of empathy.

  65. Re: Rioters who destroy property deserve no sympat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Civil disobedience is at the core of every successful democracy. It is responsible for the freedoms we enjoy today. Eliminate it and we go further down the totalitarian path.

  66. Re:Convict these people for breaking windows! by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So these guys face up to 75 years in prison for trashing a poor guy's car.

    In other news this week, they report that drunk girl who live-streamed wrecking her car and killing her little sister is facing up to *thirteen* whole years in prison.

  67. Re: Rioters who destroy property deserve no sympat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we should just accept everything and question nothing, huh? Blindly trust a government who's proven to be on the wrong side of morality for its entire existence. Sure, buddy. We're humans, not dogs. What use is life if you never live, never think outside of the box your government gave you? Why should I bother working to support a corrupt society that would sooner see me dead in a ditch than do anything to help me?

    If more people continue to be blocked from enjoying peaceful and comfortable lives, they will begin looking for answers. That's most of the reason people turn to crime to begin with: "normal" society decides they don't want them around, let alone succeeding. So these people turn to crime to pay the bills.

    The solution is to make "success" and financial stability more than a pipedream. Our society fails thousands of people every year, and yet all some authoritarian blowhard of 40 years in the legal system can say is "If they simply lived like dogs we'd be okay with them".

    You're out of touch. I hope that you acknowledged that when you retired.

  68. Making America Great Again!!! by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look up U.S. statistics on prisons.

    Now, be warned... Googling this topic puts out more fantastic and exaggerated headlines than searching for Trump on the NY Times. Well in both cases, let's be honest, headlines in general are generally the best way to misinform a population who don't read the articles with part-truths. Trump hasn't figured out that it isn't fake news that's a problem for him, the problem is, he refuses to read anything longer than a Tweet so he stops after the headline and name of the author. Watching Trump and the New York Times fight is like watching two knuckle-draggers in a boxing ring.

    So... here's the way we make America great again... it's easy.

    1) Decrease unemployment... wait.. why am I numbering... it's the only point I have.

    How do you decrease unemployment the fastest?

    - Increase the number of people who can't work.
    - Increase the number of people required to care for them

    So, if you increase the prison population from about 1% to 2% of adult Americans... you can remove at least a few million people from the job market. You can also increase the number of prison jobs by quite a bit. Not only that, but consider all the additional post-prison jobs like folding laundry that can be made.

    Prisons are profitable as all hell to politicians. Keep in mind that American prisons are not correctional facilities. A correctional facility tries to take a person who made a wrong turn (like running over a few lawyers with a bus... this should't actually be illegal) and then help raise them up to be something more after some time. American prisons are penal facilities. They exist to extract revenge.

    America LOVES REVENGE!!!!

    Nothing has ever gained more votes than revenge... especially when you can combine revenge with righteousness. Nothing has ever made Americans more excited than finding retribution by doing at least 10 times more wrong to someone else than has been done to them! Some asshole bombs you, a friend or even talks about bombing you... that's ok... if every single person involved with a bombing you is dead, we'll bomb your entire country or even your entire religion... and we don't even need to know what your religion is... we'll judge by skin color and guess.

    So... we can work towards making America great again through honesty.

    "You have been sentenced to three years in super-max for paying a parking ticket late. We are placing you in prison, not because you should be there. In fact, you shouldn't even be in this court room. But the US has 4-5 times more people passing the bar exams each year than it can employ. Those people (myself included) didn't actually study anything other than law and most of our jobs have been replaced with software already. In fact, we couldn't even work as paralegals.If we weren't representing the people, the plaintiff or the defendant, we'd be out of work and praying for a managerial position at a local McDonald's. So therefore, we need to keep the court full as much as possible and avoid due process wherever possible as to increase double and triple billable hours.

    In addition, we have recently struck agreements (me, the prosecution and .. the defense) with the privately owned prison system to send more prisoners their way. They aren't concerned about the crimes themselves, they will gladly treat everyone as poorly as possible. They agreed to pick up the majority of the cost of upkeep and maintenance of the court house which leaves more money in the budgets for my raises. They cut a deal with the mayor too and I actually get bonuses now when I reach certain quotas for sending people to specific prisons. I've been asked recently to increase female inmate populations. Apparently this is great for the prisons who have to supply "special needs" but awesome for the Las Vegas community afterwards.

    We also got a great deal from a prison telephone company that my buddy down the hall actually sued. They had to pr

  69. Re:trump won according to law by Boronx · · Score: 0

    *Hillary* ran a condescending campaign?

    "Elect me and your dreams will come true"

    "I'll repeal obamacare on day one"

    He promised to provide better healthcare and reduce healthcare costs at the same time.

    "Only I can fix it".

    Build the Wall!

    The numerous lies about Hillary, Obama, his own past.

    His "healthiest president ever" letter from his doctor.

    Good god, he thinks so little of the American people, and you think Hillary was condescending.

    You guys elected an actual con man.

    He thinks the American people are too stupid to demand he disclose his business connections before becoming president, and he's right!

  70. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good strawman. You're a fucking moron. And in theory I agree with your political leanings.

  71. Re:trump won according to law by Aighearach · · Score: 0

    They'll deny it, but they won't have any better explanation for their behavior.

    Luckily, since they won't even admit it, over time it will really drag them down. It creates a war of attrition against themselves.

  72. Re:If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking dev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have ZERO SYMPATHY for these protesters.

    75 years is too lenient. They should be lined up and shot.

  73. Trump kingdom by XSportSeeker · · Score: 0, Troll

    Awesome, it just shows even more how low Trump's regime is willing to go with this charade of a democracy.
    Unlawful invasion of privacy for incrimination without recourse. Guilty until proven innocent.
    It's the sort of thing I'd expect from dictatorships. You dare to protest against the current administration, a riot happened during the protests, everyone who was detained there automatically loses their common rights because they need to prove themselves innocents - not what any sane democracy would do, which would be innocent until proven guilty. We're not even talking about terrorism charges here anymore people.
    Every idiot who is saying this is good seems to have absolutely no idea of how a democracy works.
    You keep vouching for this type of police overreach, one day it'll come back to bite you in the ass.

    1. Re:Trump kingdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as in Trump you mean FBI/cops/etc that use cell data to get and make convictions for last 16 years ,, i know your DOWN WITH THE GOVERMENT ..but you didnt do anything when obama took all financial data from 80% of minority's in usa -- http://nypost.com/2015/07/18/obama-has-been-collecting-personal-data-for-a-secret-race-database/ -- and when you commit a felony yea they can search your phone .. smashing windows of a federal building is a felony even if it has a starbucks logo

    2. Re:Trump kingdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > charade of a democracy.

      At least these rioters fit perfectly into this charade. They wouldn't know democracy if it bit them in the ass. If anything the left are fascists these days as they try to expunge any wrongthink and attack dissenters.

    3. Re:Trump kingdom by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      not necessarily, if they had handlers that sent them to riot they should be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.

    4. Re:Trump kingdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is not a democracy.

  74. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't realize they were both corrupt than you're seriously deluding yourself.

  75. Re:Convict these people for breaking windows! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drunk girls have no control of themselves and can't be held accountable for anything they do, so clearly she's not a fault for the crash.

  76. Re: Rioters who destroy property deserve no sympat by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Civil disobedience is refusing to sit at the back of the bus, or chaining oneself to a tree. Such an act puts the person engaged in it at risk, but that makes it a noble effort. Rioting, burning and destroying property puts others at risk and is the act of a selfish coward, particularly when done while wearing a mask. Antifa and KKK, same difference. Rioting is not civil disobedience.

  77. That is why you ORGANIZE it properly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    See when we had protest organized back in France, we had two type of agitator in mind : 1) the rioter asshole which take the protest as a boon to riot and plunder 2) some external agitator (sometime the police itself!) which want the protest to be seen as violent and thus send a few element to mix in and start breaking stuff

    So our solution has been over the year the following :
    * start by having a contact with the police, sort of for EMT and rioting
    * protester get the order to detect any misbahvior and not dumbly march
    * any such misbehavior is to be isolated ,e.g. protester are now making a detour around the group or individual, documented (photo) and immediately reported to a special hotline provided by organizer
    * organizer then immediately report the misbehavior, the photo, and possibly position and time

    That worked like a charm, and trust me, back in France we organized more protest in a year than you have had in decades in the US.

  78. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From Whitewater to Benghazi there have been countless investigations targeting Hillary Clinton over the past 25 years.
    Tell me please what was found.
    Nothing. Zero.
    It's the accumulation of stories that makes people say she's "corrupt". If you repeat a lie enough, it becomes the truth. But you'd be hard pressed to mention a single proven act of corruption,

  79. USA is the next USSR or China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about it.

    1. Re:USA is the next USSR or China by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1
  80. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people who whine that they're being treated in a condescending manner never seem to ask themselves if maybe it's deserved.

    I'm sorry but if you voted for Trump, a proven con man who made ridiculous promises, I'm going to treat you like the moron that you are. I'm sorry if it hurts your self esteem and if it contradicts your mommy who always said you were the smartest specialiest little snowflake but at some point somebody's got to break the bad news: there's no way you'll ever be an astronaut like mommy said. You're a waste of oxygen.

  81. Re:75 Years? Really? by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

    I get it. The process is completely insane as well.

  82. Re: trump won according to law by CrybabiesArePeople · · Score: 0

    Seems a lot of people are like "bwaaaa those meanies are calling us racists! We just don't like a black guy as president( or a friggin womin) and don't want black/brown people in our neighborhood!"

  83. The tree of liberty must... by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    ...be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

    -Thomas Jefferson

    Peaceful protest accomplishes little if anything.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  84. Re:trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally, I voted for Stein.

    She's even more in the bag for Russia than Trump. Christ.

    I think I'd rather be associated with moronic Trump voters than with the condescending assholes who were vocal Hillary supporters.

    Nothing about this stance makes sense.

  85. I'd just like to welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of the anonymous coward government agents trolling us today.

  86. RIP American Exceptionalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America, it was a great idea while it lasted.

  87. So if they shot the police, that would be OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it goes ballot box, soap box and ammo box, not sticking "riot" before killing?

    1. Re: So if they shot the police, that would be OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They tried the soap box and lost embarrassingly at the ballot box. Rather than consider that they might be wrong, they opted for violence.

  88. you can't leave after the riot police comes. by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you can't leave after the riot police comes.

    and if the protest was organized, then you will be apparently prosecuted for tens of years in prison.

    basically, feds could get a few stools in there to riot and throw the lot of them in prison for decades? even if there was no bodily harm or whatever even done by any of them except the stools.

    your prison sentences in usa are stupid. 20 year old woman meets a 14 year old "boy" in a bar of all places, potentially 50 years.

    stand near a protest: decades potentially.

    shoot the woman who called 9/11: nothing.

    vehicular manslaughter while drunk: basically nothing.

    and we all know nobody of them is going to do 75 years, its just the usual tactic to get them to confess so evidence isn't needed.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:you can't leave after the riot police comes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can't leave after the riot police comes.

      If I set fire to a car - put me away for arson. If I don't do that - don't punish me just because someone else set fire to some car somewhere.

      That is the way things work normally - why should it be any different at a protest? I may very well join an announced protest and protest peacefully - as is my right. Now, lets say someone else incites a riot. They throw molotov cocktails, set fire to cars, breaks lots of windows. They get the 'mob mentality' thing going really well - so lots of angry people join an attack on the cops and manage to kill a few.

      But lots of boring people like me just stand there and don't do anything illegal. Of course they can't go anywhere - the police surround the whole thing and eventually they win the fights and arrest all. Being arrested under such circumstances would be normal - but why should anyone get a sentence unless it can be proved that they specifically did something? Cameras makes it easy enough to pick out who did what later.

    2. Re:you can't leave after the riot police comes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick tip: if you're at a protest and you see a bunch of people wearing masks, get away. They've masked themselves for a reason and they expect to get arrested. In many places, covering your face at a protest is illegal. Such laws were often put in place to fight the KKK.

      In criminal trials, you have the right to a defense lawyer. If you had a good reason to fail to disperse, you can explain that to the judge. If you caused criminal damage or injured anyone, however, you were a rioter and you deserve the charges of felony rioting.

      Nobody forces you to attend. There are plenty of other more meaningful venues for protest, such as the ballot box. Antifa planned violence from the beginning. They will continue to do so. Do not hang out with them unless you wish to be arrested. You have to be deliberately ignorant of the news at this point to not realize that the people in all black with masks on are up to no good. Trying to blame the police for their actions is completely absurd.

    3. Re:you can't leave after the riot police comes. by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you don't want your employer finding out you were at the protest. Or maybe you fear retribution by your whackadoodle neighbor. There are a bunch of legitimate reasons to peaceably assemble while maintaining anonymity. Just look at furry conventions, or Pussy Riot. Not to mention first-amendment religious freedom to wear head coverings like niqabs or colanders. Also remember that agents of mayhem don't always put on their balaclavas until later on in the protest.

      Claiming that the ballot box is a better way to protest is complete bullshit. When the sitting president was elected by 19.5% of the population, it makes your assertion laughable. In Texas there are no recall elections. When our elected officials do something stupid, the only way to get their attention is to band together in protest. Not that they listen, but it's better than doing nothing until the next election.

    4. Re:you can't leave after the riot police comes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Claiming that the ballot box is a better way to protest is complete bullshit. When the sitting president was elected by 19.5% of the population, it makes your assertion laughable.

      Why? It seems to me that the low percentage makes it easier to overcome. You can't convince even 20% of the voters to support your position with their votes? Clearly, you've failed to make your case to the voters and your political opinions are still minority/fringe positions. But go ahead and throw some more violent tantrums in public. I'm sure that will win them over.

    5. Re:you can't leave after the riot police comes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe you don't want your employer finding out you were at the protest.

      Sounds like you need to grow a backbone, because you obviously don't have one now !

    6. Re:you can't leave after the riot police comes. by G00F · · Score: 1

      I was once in DC, for work, during some protests where police corralled and arrested everyone on the street.

      Once in front of the judge it only took a few min before the arrest was wiped from my record. Most of the people arrested had the same outcome, including those protesting. Although I would imagine they would later press charges against individuals who where let go after reviewing cameras and such.

      Even though I was released with noting on my record I was pissed as hell, it stole almost a day. But the story is that they arrest everyone as a control tactic to clear it out, and sort it out after situation is controlled.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    7. Re:you can't leave after the riot police comes. by PlaynBass · · Score: 1

      I agree that the ballot box is no longer an effective means of protest, as is writing to your representative, with the exception of a very few who may be true statesmen or stateswomen. When the police protect property rights by provoking the angry crowd, they are breaking the law. Any provokers are also breaking the law, even when the laws are so often used to protect the property rights of CAPITAL above the HUMAN civil right of protest, or the human rights of securing "... the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity".

      It's so sad that we must resort to protests in order to gain the attention of our elected representatives or to get proper news coverage. The peaceful protests to protect our water rights should not have been necessary if our Constitution were actually what runs the country. Instead, a totally illegal system of lobbying and an arcane and convoluted system of Congressional rules allow the two-party con to pervert the simplicity and adaptability of our Constitution.

      The fake 2 party politics we now suffer under allows a vote-and-forget laziness to become the norm. Our nation has become a nation of entitled "Me-firsts", lead by a constant barrage of instant media and entertainment in lieu of real news.

      News should not have to be exciting to be reported, but the commercialization of the process and funding of news gathering has devolved into the feel-good pap that defrauds the US people from access to the real news that keeps a government honest and effective.

      All too often, the real news is painted by professional media specialists and political agents to suit the radical agendas and politicial viewpoints of the extremes.

      --
      PlaynBass
  89. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you're wrong out of the gate, why should I bother reading your post further?

  90. Ahem by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Calling 911 and asking which phone number appears there and looking at the emergency medical record with the bloodtype does not a cracking make.

  91. ANTI-Trump 'protesters'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But LOL at the summary writers' pathetic attempt to try to make out that the RIOTERS were somehow Trump supporters by missing out the word "anti"... The entire media uses the phrase "Trump protestors" in order to try to implicate Trump in the RIOTERS' behaviour, somehow...

    It's not our fault if you can't logically defend your political position, and have to resort to violence and threats of violence.

    Who was blocking highways and stopping thousands of people from getting to work? ANTI-Trump 'protestors'. These people are scum, and they know it. They are 'useful idiots', doing the work of the 1%.

    1. Re:ANTI-Trump 'protesters'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should log in, we might as well know you're a cunt.

  92. lol, seriously? by intellitech · · Score: 1

    Trump and his administration believe in the rule of law.

    What the hell have you been smoking?

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    1. Re:lol, seriously? by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Feel free to cite actual facts. Your libtard bias/innuendo doesn't count for shit in the real world.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    2. Re:lol, seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't, why should he?

  93. Re:Convict these people for breaking windows! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intent and conspiracy to commit a violent crime is much worse than even the most stupid criminal negligence.

  94. Conspiracy is a crime in itself (Not a protest) by mi · · Score: 1

    Some people being assholes doesn't make the rest rioters.

    Yep. This is why only a couple of hundred are being prosecuted (with even fewer to be convicted) out of thousands.

    Or do you mean to say that all 200 broke windows and damaged vehicles?

    Being part of a conspiracy to commit a crime is in itself a crime... The few assholes actually breaking windows can be prosecuted for that already. It is to substantiate the conspiracy charge is why the prosecutors needed to crack the phones — the very subject of TFA.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  95. Re:trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy was obviously a sociopath, obviously a moron, and obviously didn't have the best interests of anyone but himself at heart.

    She was also obviously a sociopath and obviously didn't have the best interests of anyone but herself at heart. She just wasn't as obviously a moron, but in retrospect even that's debatable given how moronically her campaign was run.

  96. Trump's our rightfully elected president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: It's no delusion. Delusional (& traitorous) is what goes on from PAID BY "SOROS-losers 'protestors'" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E8kW37Kr4Y/ !

    APK

    P.S.=> I'm just a person who is disgusted by idiots who either can't handle the fact they lost an election OR are paid to act like traitors... apk

  97. So here's an idea whose time has come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a smartphone that automatically deletes its contents if it runs out of power, is shut OFF without entering the lock code, if it detects it's being opened or tampered with in any way...

    Maybe make this an optional setting, that requires user login every (blank) hours as a minimum, or it silently starts wiping itself.

    Or it automatically uploads to the cloud where the info can't be broken into merely because the jackbooted government thugs have possession of your phone...

    Come to think of it, there's probably a way to do this with existing software, with the proper settings...

    But yeah. Anyone else miss the days when our government still at least pretended to be some species of functioning democracy?

  98. Re:trump won according to law by Triklyn · · Score: 1

    she wouldn't have gotten most of the 3rd party votes, libertarian i think did better than green.

    a bunch of those people were running from trump too. but no way in hell would they have voted for the left.

  99. Re:Convict these people for breaking windows! by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

    Sometimes, the law makes an example of you. http://www.ajc.com/news/local/... Jose Ismael Torres and Kayla Rae Norton got 20 year and 15 year sentences for riding down a street with a confederate flag and yelling racial epithets (and allegedly having a gun). Normally, stuff like that doesn't result in 20 year sentences, but every once in a while, a smack down occurs. Rioters have gotten used to being treated with kids gloves for the better part of two decades. Normal Americans are getting sick of their shit, and in some cases, normal Americans and not left-wing agitators still control the Justice system.

  100. "Cracked"? by acoustix · · Score: 2

    How many of these "cracked" phones used fingerprint or facial recognition locks? These authentication types don't need to be cracked. The device owners can be compelled to unlock without cracking the device.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  101. Re:trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump voters are literal morons. They were angry because market forces had made them obsolete. Instead of voting for a candidate that actually outlined plans to retrain them for new jobs, they went for the guy who said "MAGA!".

    Pretty much as expected, because those on the right now seem to have the attention span of a peanut.

  102. Re:If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking dev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing that what they're looking for is conspiracy to riot, if they're innocent there will be no evidence of them planning on going to this and starting to riot. It would just be them planning on going there to protest.

    Look, I'm as upset about police overreach as the next guy, but so long as this is done within the law (they were arrested, so it is), and they didn't coerce the person to supply passwords themselves crapping all over the 5th amendment (it doesn't appear to be the case), then I just can't get angry about this. It sounds like routine police work. Riots broke out at a protest, rioters were arrested, now they're looking to see if rioters went there planning to riot, or if they just got caught up in things.

  103. And I can't handle retarded baboons like APK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I can't handle retarded baboons like APK

    I know you love Trump because his is your authoritarian statist asshole but then I didn't vote for either of the authoritarian statist assholes who were running.

    It figures you would support Trump as his ideas are almost as shitty as yours and he is actually one of the few people who communicates worse than you do.

    So now please tell me about how there is a giant Jewish cabal trying to suppress you some more.

  104. Re:75 Years? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rioting isn't 75 years. 75 years probably comes from taking all of their crimes, prosecuted individually and taking maximum time for each one and adding them up, note that I said maximum, not what they're likely to be given. Breaking one window my give you a maximum of 6 months, note the maximum, and then they broke 150 windows would land you at 75 years. Considering that for these sorts of things, they never serve sentences consecutively, they'd probably be in prison less than a year.

    This is what's called "spin", taking facts and presenting them in such a way to make them sound far worse than it actually is to get a rise out of people. Always remember to think critically. Especially when dealing with anything reported by the "news", since they've all got a narrative they're invested in spinning.

  105. Re: trump won according to law by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You're confusing "things being found" with "things failing to be prosecuted because of the very corruption that the Clintons embody."

    The Clintons' behavior has left a huge wake of OTHER people having the careers ruined, going to jail, killing themselves out of disgust, and of course millions and millions of dollars going right into their personal bank account even while she was Secretary of State presiding over deals with countries that handed her and her husband cash. Your notion that the Clintons aren't corrupt would be cute and funny if we thought you actually believed it, but since you and I both know you're lying, it's not cute, or funny. Well, it's kind of funny. Because millions of voters saw through it and denied her what she demanded. That WAS funny.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  106. Proof, though? by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    How can they prove that the owner of the phone was a person caused damage to property?

    1. Re:Proof, though? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Don't have to. If they planned on violence, they are guilty of conspiracy. The planning is likely in the text/tweet/email logs.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Proof, though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can they prove that the owner of the phone was a person caused damage to property?

      Phones provide VERY accurate data with respect to both physical location and time. Combine that with surveillance video which also uses accurate time markers and is targeting a known location, and you can get very close to sufficient proof that the owner of the phone committed vandalism. Apply a little prosecutorial leverage via threat of a very long prison term, and you can nearly always get a confession which is part of a plea agreement.

      Do you have any other questions ? That one was too easy.

  107. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to treat you like the moron

    And this ladies and gentlemen is why we can't have nice things anymore.

  108. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprisingly, if you spend decades telling a group of people that you don't respect them and have no reason to listen to them, they stop respecting or listening to you too. Every single advancement of human rights has come from stopping the bullshit posturing and dealing with people as people, listening to their concerns and addressing them as adults, and not drunk sports fans. Gay rights finally took off, not because of the in your face "we're queer deal with it m*****f*****s" folks, but because more and more gay people came out to those around them and they were humanized. Gun rights have crawled back from the depths they fell to with the AWB not because of the "It's my right so f*** you asshole" owners, but because of the ones that took to time to educate, and relate with those that had issues.

    There's room for hardliners in any movement, and sometimes you need them to galvanize people to speak out, but if all you do is throw up hard liners and refuse to engage those that don't agree with you, no matter how self evident you think your position is, then all you do is give those people a reason to ignore you.

  109. Re:trump won according to law by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the 'right' has had a grudge ever since 'that black guy' got into office.

    I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 but I remember distinctly the day after the election that CNN and other news talking heads generalize the election to racism. "What we learned last night is that there are not enough racists to defeat Obama.". Any time I disagreed with Obama for any reason during the last 8 years I was called a racist.

    Maybe that grudge is because a lot of people are tired of being called a racist because they vote for the other guy. What is the point in trying to have a discussion if you will call me racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic when we disagree?

    I know more people that are fed up being called *ist because they have different needs and wants from the federal government then actual *ists.

  110. Re:75 Years? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one is facing 75 years, the media gets sentencing rules wrong all the time https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ (and he's written plenty of other articles about it)

  111. /.ers disagree... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

    (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

    I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat

    Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad

    * It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> China imitated me http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ - & u call me retarded?... apk

  112. Maybe Soros should pay you to not suck moose dick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Soros should pay you to not suck moose dick since maybe you need some incentive to quit

    Nah, you love it too much so you'll never give it up.

  113. APK with his moose dick is disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is disgusting is APK and his moose dick addiction.

    Just put the moose dick down APK it will be ok

  114. Re:Convict these people for breaking windows! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So these guys face up to 75 years in prison for trashing a poor guy's car.

    In other news this week, they report that drunk girl who live-streamed wrecking her car and killing her little sister is facing up to *thirteen* whole years in prison.

    America... what a great country!

  115. U WISH u were me you unidentifiable ac troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

    (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

    I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat

    Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad

    * It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> China imitated me http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ - See subject... apk

  116. Re:trump won according to law by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Ignoring the fact that Donald Trump didn't make Hillary run an illegal private email server that contained classified information.

    You are forgetting the outrageous corrupt behavior she was covering up by running an illegal private email server.

    The whole point in running the private email server was to keep her communications as Secretary of State out of the public record. She deliberately thwarted the Freedom of Information Act and destroyed historical records that should have ultimately ended up in the National Archives. Fifty years from now historians will be shaking their fist at the smug harridan.

  117. See APK is a retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup, I called you a retard and then you proved it for all to see.

    No one brought up hosts file retard and I don't think the Chinese decided to copy you as other have done the same thing long before you did and did it better.

    Your retarded ass can only spout off about hosts file or how the Jews are master puppeteers.

    Like always you have a truly retarded way of arguing and will deflect and change the subject as soon as you can't handle the truth.

    You truly are a retard.

  118. Re: trump won according to law by Boronx · · Score: 1

    Donald J. Trump sent a tweet storm yesterday that set the Pentagon on edge because at first they thought it was about North Korea.

    This is a man who spent a year and a half running for president, and has been president for six months, and still doesn't know what a President does. He still doesn't understand that he commands the most powerful military on Earth, among other things.

    This is not surprising. If you voted for this fool, then you are either an idiot, or you weren't paying attention, in which case you're woefully irresponsible.

    There are more than one approach to this problem. One approach is that the millions who have made this serious mistake can look into themselves and think about why they made it and what they can do to prevent it in the future.

  119. Re: United States of Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fair enough, but there is that thing about the pot and the kettle.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/apr/17/who-plays-more-golf-donald-trump-or-barack-obama/

  120. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knowingly elected Trump, knowing full well what I was doing, to stick it to people like you.

  121. Re:trump won according to law by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    keep running on "the other side is racist" it just means you guys will keep losing

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  122. U WISH u were me you unidentifiable ac troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

    (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

    I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat

    Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad

    * Malwarebytes' hpHosts hosts+recommends it

    APK

    P.S.=> China imitated me http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ - & See subject, quit projecting

  123. Re: trump won according to law by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    seems like a lot of lazy people see race or gender above policy and attribute their own latent racism onto others

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  124. I'm LMAO @ U & "your kind" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: It's easy 4 me to do good things others like & use where by comparison you, a "ne'er-do-well" hiding behind unidentifiable anonymous posts, can't manage a FRACTION of what I can (because you're a DO-NOTHING lazy beta miillenial, lmao).

    * Hahahahahaha (that's right - I am laughing my ass off @ "your kind"...)

    APK

    P.S.=> For your reference https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10914329&cid=54891251/ ... apk

  125. No one wants to be you because you are retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one wants to be you, APK, because you are a retard.

    You prove it more and more with each post you make.

    You post retarded responses to everything, even other retards who mock you.

    Like a retard you post the same thing over and over again.

    You write and construct sentences like a retard.

    Keep showing everyone how much of a retard you are APK

  126. More proof of APK being a retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like APK has provided further proof that he is in fact a retard.

    This thread is really getting full of evidence that APK is retarded and should not be allowed to operate a computer.

  127. Re:United States of Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What did any of that have to do with journalism, professional or not?

  128. Re:trump won according to law by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    Honestly, I think I'd rather be associated with moronic Trump voters than with the condescending assholes who were vocal Hillary supporters.

    Really? This is all just team sports to you? It's not about the decisions begin made, but with whom you may be associated?

  129. Re: trump won according to law by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    This is one of the best comments that I've seen on Slashdot, and it's currently marked as -1.

  130. LMAO @ U & "your kind" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: It's easy 4 me to do good things others like & use & by comparison you, a "ne'er-do-well" hiding behind unidentifiable anonymous posts, can't manage a FRACTION of what I can (since you're a DO-NOTHING lazy beta miillenial).

    * Hahahahahaha (that's right - I am laughing my ass off @ "your kind"...)

    APK

    P.S.=> For your re-reference https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

  131. Things APK is better than me at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are right I can't do a fraction of the spamming that you do.

    I also can't construct a sentence as poorly as you do.

    Furthermore I can't deflect and change the subject like you can.

    Finally I don't suffer from any where near the number neurological issues as you do.

    So if I were you I would stop claiming that those are good things and stop demonstrating to the world that you are a retard.

    1. Re:Things APK is better than me at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's laughing his ass off at you hiding while he can show he does well and you can't so I am laughing at you too https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

  132. LMAO @ U & "your kind" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: It's easy 4 me to do good things others like & use - by comparison you, a "ne'er-do-well" hiding behind unidentifiable anonymous posts, can't manage a FRACTION of what I can (as you're a DO-NOTHING lazy beta miillenial).

    * Hahahahahaha (that's right - I am lmao @ "your kind") - you WISH you were me but YOUR weak lazy kind can NEVER, ever be (& you KNOW it).

    APK

    P.S.=> For your re-reference https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

  133. Re: If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking de by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Nobody is condemning them for socializing online.

    They are being condemned for being morons, both for the idiotic cause they support and for their stupidity in supplying the police with clear evidence of conspiracy.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  134. Re:If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking dev by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    nothing but a low-down, double-dealing, backstabbing, larcenous perverted worm! Hanging's too good for him. Burning's too good for him! He should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  135. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you're wrong out of the gate, why should I bother reading your post further?

    You should be thorough and complete for your own sake. Stopping before you finish a post because you're too upset at what somebody said is a perilous route to take. Quite often, that's your fault.

    So why don't you try finishing the post, and giving a more diligent response? I know you already blew your mod points, so you might as well spend your time thinking up a rational reply.

  136. Re:trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 but I remember distinctly the day after the election that CNN and other news talking heads generalize the election to racism. "What we learned last night is that there are not enough racists to defeat Obama.". Any time I disagreed with Obama for any reason during the last 8 years I was called a racist.

    I remember very clearly, how over the last eight years, pretty much every half-baked critic of Obama whined about how they were so unfairly persecuted for being called a "racist" for attacking Obama(which group of critics even included the birthers), and used that excuse to ignore every response to whatever inane thing they were saying. This was not a novel trend, however, as it was already established by the 1960s at the latest.

    This was before CNN was a thing, though. You might not recall it.

    Maybe that grudge is because a lot of people are tired of being called a racist because they vote for the other guy.

    No, that grudge is because a lot of people REALLY do have a problem with self-reflection. They can't admit to their own flaws, so they manufacture an excuse to rationalize how they ignore critics of their criticism. That, and they do have a problem when they elect the Birther-in-Chief, and embrace his own racism and bigotry, or even just claim that Obama created racial divisions in this country. That Ohio Campaign Chair REALLY showed her true colors there.

    What is the point in trying to have a discussion if you will call me racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic when we disagree?

    What is the point in trying to have a discussion if you will fabricate a flimsy and transparent excuse to ignore any disagreement with you?

    And that isn't even getting into the denials that exist for actual racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia. Can't even get half of your critics to acknowledge that birtherism tainted the whole GOP.

    I know more people that are fed up being called *ist because they have different needs and wants from the federal government then actual *ists.

    You're about a century and a half too late to get on that bandwagon. Perhaps closer to two and a half, depending on how you interpret the American revolution.

    The build-up to the Civil War was full of abolitionists being called N*-lovers, and there were the various immigrant-lovers, and before that, were the Indian-lovers, and before that, well, the various parties ranged from King-lovers, to Democracy lovers, and even a few Christians.

    Might want to bone up on your history there.

    You know, unlike the Boaster-in-Chief who thinks he signed a lot of laws.

  137. Legalities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As much as I hate those fascist and communist that like to call everybody else a fascist, This has no validity unless the feds had a legitimate warrant issued by a seated judge. If it was done in any other way, then the evidence has no weight.

  138. Re:trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She ran an incredibly condescending campaign, and her supporters were especially smug and condescending. Honestly, I think I'd rather be associated with moronic Trump voters than with the condescending assholes who were vocal Hillary supporters.

    Hillary supporters were just so cocky and douchey, oh and hypocritical, too. How dare anyone even allude to anything that may be interpreted as objectifying a woman, but let's totally make fun of Trump's hands, hair, skin, voice, etc.

    The night I heard Trump won... goodness, I was elated and laughing manically. I don't agree with all of Trump's positions (actually talking about illegal immigration for once is great though; something like 1 in 30 people are here illegally, which is crazy and unacceptable), but I was beyond excited to see the annoying-as-shit Hillary supporters (many Reddit users, celebrities, media) eat crow.

    Those rioters in San Jose who beat up Trump supporters and fought with cops? Fuck you. All the media channels that misrepresented Trump's speeches (e.g., Trump hates all immigrants and minorities)? Fuck youuuu. All the celebrities who told me I was on the wrong side of history and I'm a bad person if I don't vote for Hillary? Fuck youuuuuuuuu.

    And those Hillary supporter types are still extremely annoying and douchey today, so I'm looking forward to 2020. Hopefully they get another "devastating" election and finally turn to some introspection.

  139. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a long vacation, Hillary. Attempting to 'correct the record' on internet forums will make for a very unhappy retirement.

  140. Re:trump won according to law by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    50 years from now, she will just be another bullet the nation dodged. Only historians will know her name.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  141. freedumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how I never thought I would see this stuff in America, not in my life time. Now it's jst Merica, land of the stupid, with a dictator at the helm.

    1. Re:freedumb by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      We used to throw people in prison after we suspected of sympathizing with communism after convicting them in a secret court. And it should not be shocking to you that America makes some terrible mistakes that run counter to freedom and the Constitution. It should be shocking that we never seem to learn from those mistakes, and that about 30% of the population will argue that anti-freedom behavior is totally justified.

      Not to set up a strawman, but flip through archives of forums like /. and others during the Occupy movement, you'll find a few that argue the solution is to "put a bullet through [protester's] head". There is a vocal minority of people who find totalitarianism very appealing.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  142. That door swings both ways... by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    Officials seized Trump protesters' cell phones, cracked their passwords/

    I wonder .... just extrapolating from events, how much worse can this get?

    President Bezos today ordered the Justice Department and FBI to seize the phones of people who have posted negative reviews of Amazon. If the owners are found to have made disparaging comments, they can be charged with collusion and domestic terrorism. While that may seem like a stretch, Amazon is now the official sole-source supplier of the US Government.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re:That door swings both ways... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Officials seized Trump protesters' cell phones, cracked their passwords/

      I wonder .... just extrapolating from events, how much worse can this get?

      Debtor's prison. Hard labor for people requiring medical services while unemployed. I can think of a lot of plausible ways things can get worse. Maybe such thought experiments motivates people to act, but it makes me depressed.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  143. Good plan, but don't blame the victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are a women out late at night, make sure you are not provocatively dressed.
    If you're black, avoid racist areas of the country.
    Common sense, but no one should have to live in fear of what might be done to them if they are at the wrong place and wrong time in the USA. We are a country of laws and must expect that justice will be done both for the guilty and the innocent.

  144. Re:Convict these people for breaking windows! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right! It would have been impossible for her to consent to drive.

    Thanks AC. You gave me a good laugh.

  145. I get it! by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Your ad hominem trumps all other logical abilities! Simply brilliant, why didn't I think of that? That is your whole argument against Ted, despite the dozens of 2nd amendment interviews which are actually good interviews I can find in less than 2 seconds of web searching.

    Here ya go. You are a fucking waste of a human being and debate like a turnip. I WIN!

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:I get it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your ad hominem trumps all other logical abilities! Simply brilliant, why didn't I think of that? That is your whole argument against Ted, despite the dozens of 2nd amendment interviews which are actually good interviews I can find in less than 2 seconds of web searching.

      You contradict yourself, since you falsely protest over "ad homimen" but then declare I should look at interviews to observe him. In other words, you want me to assess his character.

      Of course, it's those very interviews where Ted Nugent's antics are quite apparent

      Sorry, but the fact is, it is entirely valid to assess a person's actual demeanor, and no, it wouldn't take long to find Ted Nugent's ranting hysteria on display.

      And an amusing irony in that Ted Nugent is prone to engaging in the same behavior which you purport to oppose. He might be fine, for simply criticizing them, but his problem is that his manner is irrational and prone to hyperbole, which leads him astray.

      That's why he is a terrible choice, for advocating anything. He's just too intemperate. You might genuinely be fawning over him, I don't know, but you might be faking it too. Your argument here is certainly fake though.

      Here ya go. You are a fucking waste of a human being and debate like a turnip. I WIN!

      Now this, actually shows your lack of an effective argument very clearly. Which again, is very similar to Ted Nugent's own behavior.

      You should really work hard to change yourself, that's where your failures originate.

      Start with getting over your false reliance on the political compass, you might find it'll be easier to rid yourself of than you may think. You're not as bad off as Archangel Michael, ScentCone, Mashiki, Bartles, or others.

  146. Re: trump won according to law by CrybabiesArePeople · · Score: 0

    Problem is, does either of us have proof/measure of what we assert? Me I donâ(TM)t tbh. My point of view is that YES there are gender/race inequalities and bias in our societies, and that some people ARE racist even if they deny vigorously. "some" is a better word than "a lot" that I used earlier since I canâ(TM)t prove "a lot", especiaÄly wrt voting decisions. Oh btw it is my opinion that some policies have a racist nature/undercurrent/component so there, we can disagree again ;)

  147. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh Stinkbone, the only thing funnier than your Wile E. Coyote level obsession with the Clinton's is your butt-buddy's preposterous claims about millions of illegal votes. Is it so hard for him to stand the fact that he was less popular than she? He has to live with the asterisk for the rest of his life.

    But hey, you don't have to stick with your authoritarian violence with Kent State, there's also Tiannemen Square, MacArthur's assault on veterans in DC, and the famous Odessa Steps sequence from the Battleship Potempkin. Putin can probably send you a copy of that movie.

         

  148. Re:trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The relentless grudge match to repeal ObamaCare regardless of what it does to millions of people and the Republican Party's anger about each and every action - to the point that each must be systematically repealed regardless of implications tells me that racism is not a completely unreasonable conclusion to make.

  149. Re: trump won according to law by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    It's so fun when you change the subject because you don't like the point being made: it's not about Clinton, it's about GP's hypocrisy and lying. The GP made it about Clinton, and since the entire media panty-knotting since November has been entirely about how angry they are that not all Americans obeyed and voted for the Clintons, it's worth pointing out when yet another person (like the GP) is still working their hardest to revise history ... for what, it's never clear - mostly, one presumes, to avoid having to ever, once, talk substance of any kind. Sort of like you!

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  150. Bye bye :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully prison teaches them some valuable life lesson.

  151. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's so fun when you change the subject because you don't like the point being made: it's not about Clinton, it's about GP's hypocrisy and lying. The GP made it about Clinton, and since the entire media panty-knotting since November has been entirely about how angry they are that not all Americans obeyed and voted for the Clintons, it's worth pointing out when yet another person (like the GP) is still working their hardest to revise history ... for what, it's never clear - mostly, one presumes, to avoid having to ever, once, talk substance of any kind. Sort of like you!

    Sorry SkankGnome the subject of the allegations against the Clintons was brought up by another poster in 54888981, with the allegation of corruption on both parties, unfortunately, as pointed out in 54889073, they've produced nothing actionable on Clintons, despite 30 years of trying.

    You're just upset over that continued string of failures, and are failing to remember the point:

    If you repeat a lie enough, it becomes the truth. But you'd be hard pressed to mention a single proven act of corruption.

    Yes, we know you want to revise history, and yes, the reason for it is QUITE clear, you're still as torn up over that failure as Trump is over his electoral inadequacies. You'd love to send in the tanks to roll over anybody who points out your failings. It gets your panties in a knot, and you keep getting trapped in it. You can't stand that, so you lash out like a toddler.

    Much like Trump, who still wants to try to distract from his own offenses by yelling about Hillary himself. Like yours, his reasons are clear.

  152. They are rioters. Not protesters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They came with weapons and face masks. They planned on committing violence.

    I may not like some things. But if you want to assemble and wave signs, fine.

  153. If our leaders refuse to heed protests... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Here in the USA, our right to protest has relevant, important feedback for our leaders.

    If our leaders refuse to heed protests, then they are NOT qualified to lead in the USA! Period!
    To attack protests as they did in this case, is to act like other nation states that our foreign policy frowns upon!

    IF our "leaders" refuse to heed the message that ever-growing protests are working to get across, then the next step is obvious!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  154. Re:trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know Moscow is less developed in some ways that most places in the West, but I'd hardly call it flyover country.

  155. Re: trump won according to law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are so disingenuous in your responses and are so detached from the group of people you are talking about (Trump voters and Bernie voters), that I'm not even going to take the time to pick apart your shit. I hope that maybe some day you can open your ears to other people at some point.

  156. Re: trump won according to law by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    actually i do agree with that for the most part. I dont believe in "unconscious racism" you either have the intent or you dont. but i do believe that some policies were instituted for racist reasons

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  157. Why Trump? by MercTech · · Score: 1

    Why is Trump even mentioned in an article about the prosecution of rioters? Can't anyone do a straight up report without inserting fake causality.
        Why is it newsworthy that a State's Attorney subpoenas phone records and email records to check for conspiracy in those arrested for crimes against the public?
        No wonder the bozo in chief keeps asserting "fake news".

    --
    NRRPT/RCT