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.

Comments

Not a protest

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Not a protest

[elrous0]

Maybe they were protesting against windows.

Re:Not a protest

[msauve]

"Maybe they were protesting against windows."

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

Re:Not a protest

[arth1]

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?

Re:Not a protest

[msauve]

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

Re:Not a protest

[AmazingRuss]

Fucking windows! Keeping whitey down!

Re:Not a protest

[fustakrakich]

Fucking gravity! Keeping everybody down!

Re:Not a protest

[slashrio]

The question is who were the rioters among the protesters.

Re:Not a protest

[unrtst]

Would you react the same way if someone were killed?

Great point. They're all murderers!

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

Re:Not a protest

[guises]

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.

Re: Not a protest

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[Evil Kerek]

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.

Re: Not a protest

[rtb61]

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.

Re: Not a protest

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, lay off the weed.

Re:Not a protest

[Wrath0fb0b]

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.

Re: Not a protest

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[Orgasmatron]

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

Re:Not a protest

[Boronx]

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

Re:Not a protest

[liquid_schwartz]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[arth1]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[ShoulderOfOrion]

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.

Re: Not a protest

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Not a protest

[EzInKy]

I've been protesting against Windows since 1995.

Re: Not a protest

[arth1]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[Mashiki]

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.

Re: Not a protest

[Rujiel]

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

Re: Not a protest

[negRo_slim]

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?

Re: Not a protest

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Not a protest

[Anonymous Coward]

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

yep.

Re:Not a protest

[SEE]

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.

Re: Not a protest

[dcw3]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[dcw3]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[dcw3]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[Mashiki]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[conquistadorst]

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.

Re: Not a protest

[gnick]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[Bugler412]

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

Re:Not a protest

[Triklyn]

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

Re:Not a protest

[Jason Levine]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[rickb928]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[MatthiasF]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[penandpaper]

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

Re:Not a protest

[msauve]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[Mashiki]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[dave420]

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

Re:Not a protest

[Enigma2175]

'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/...

Re:Not a protest

[stdarg]

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.

Re: Not a protest

[Boronx]

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.

Re: Not a protest

[Bing Tsher E]

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?

Re:Not a protest

[Gavagai80]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[Bugler412]

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

Re:Not a protest

[Green Mountain Bot]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[foghelmut]

Too old and fat to riot.

Re:Not a protest

[Anonymous Coward]

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???

Re: Not a protest

[Sindar By Choice]

because obviously it doesn't happen.

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

Re:Not a protest

[Sindar By Choice]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[penandpaper]

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?

Re:Not a protest

[Dread_ed]

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?

Re:Not a protest

[HornWumpus]

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

Re:Not a protest

[Dorkmunder]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[dingleberrie]

So they were protesting against transparency?

Re: Not a protest

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[butchersong]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[OhPlz]

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

Re: Not a protest

[orgelspieler]

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?

Re:Not a protest

[orgelspieler]

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.

Re: Not a protest

[Anonymous Coward]

agent provacateurs

French: agents provacateur
English: Provokers

Re: Not a protest

[dcw3]

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.

Re: Not a protest

[rahvin112]

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...

Re:Not a protest

[mnemotronic]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[fustakrakich]

Better than fucking without gravity.

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

Re:Not a protest

[HornWumpus]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[MatthiasF]

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.

Re: Not a protest

[Rujiel]

"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?...

Re: Not a protest

[kenh]

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...

Re: Not a protest

[Zemran]

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.

Re: Not a protest

[PlaynBass]

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

Re: Not a protest

[PlaynBass]

"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...

Re:Not a protest

[PlaynBass]

Good points. should be modded up.

Re: Not a protest

[EmptyHead]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[LifesABeach]

And (R) after the trade mark also.

Re:Not a protest

[LifesABeach]

Da

Re:Not a protest

[NG-Buddhist]

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/...

Re: Not a protest

[rtb61]

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.

Re:Not a protest

[Mashiki]

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

Re:Not a protest

[Mashiki]

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.

Next time, try peaceful protests

[elrous0]

Worked for this guy.

Re: Next time, try peaceful protests

[elrous0]

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

Re:Next time, try peaceful protests

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Next time, try peaceful protests

[Gravis Zero]

Worked for this guy.

You do know he got assassinated, right?

Re:Next time, try peaceful protests

[Kargan]

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."

Re:Next time, try peaceful protests

[youngone]

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

Re:Next time, try peaceful protests

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Next time, try peaceful protests

[nine-times]

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.

Re:Next time, try peaceful protests

[93 Escort Wagon]

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.

Re:Next time, try peaceful protests

[ckatko]

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.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

consumer-grade encryption is that

[turkeydance]

upon which one cannot rely

Re:consumer-grade encryption is that

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:consumer-grade encryption is that

[rmdingler]

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.

Re:consumer-grade encryption is that

[duke_cheetah2003]

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.

Re:consumer-grade encryption is that

[ScentCone]

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

Re:consumer-grade encryption is that

[Meski]

Do I see honeyed words?

Frouther Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Frouther Amendment

[YukariHirai]

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.

Re:Frouther Amendment

[EzInKy]

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.

Re:Frouther Amendment

[stealth_finger]

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

Re:Frouther Amendment

[Bing Tsher E]

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

Who didn't see it coming?

Little tolerance or sympathy for vandals

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Everyone should be terrified by this

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:Everyone should be terrified by this

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Everyone should be terrified by this

[nedlohs]

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).

Re:Everyone should be terrified by this

[DigiShaman]

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...

Re:Everyone should be terrified by this

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:Everyone should be terrified by this

[stdarg]

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.

Re:Everyone should be terrified by this

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:Everyone should be terrified by this

[rahvin112]

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

Rioters, not protesters.

[sethstorm]

They crossed the line when they decided to riot.

Re:Rioters, not protesters.

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:Rioters, not protesters.

[stephanruby]

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.

Re:Rioters, not protesters.

[e_pluribus_funk]

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.

Did you read the whole thing?

[rsilvergun]

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...

Re:Did you read the whole thing?

[Jack9]

> 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.

Re:Convict these people for breaking windows!

[ScentCone]

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.

Tea party Republicans aren't good at it

[rsilvergun]

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.".

Re:Tea party Republicans aren't good at it

[Bing Tsher E]

Sadly enough, Gore Vidal was simply a gadfly.

If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking device

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> 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.

counter productive.

[Gravis Zero]

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.

Re:counter productive.

[AmazingRuss]

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

Re:counter productive.

[sciengin]

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"?

Re:counter productive.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:counter productive.

[Gravis Zero]

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.

Re:counter productive.

[e_pluribus_funk]

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.

Re:counter productive.

[stdarg]

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.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:trump won according to law

[ScentCone]

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.

Rioters who destroy property deserve no sympathy.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:trump won according to law

[XeXeN]

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

and the problem is... ?

[doctorvo]

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.

Re:and the problem is... ?

[hyades1]

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.

Re:and the problem is... ?

[doctorvo]

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.

Re:and the problem is... ?

[hyades1]

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. :-)

Re:and the problem is... ?

[doctorvo]

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.

Re:and the problem is... ?

[hyades1]

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?

Re:and the problem is... ?

[doctorvo]

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.

Re:Good

[Frobnicator]

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.

Re:How did they crack the phones

[AHuxley]

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.

Re:trump won according to law

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:Good

[redmasq]

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

Re:United States of Trump

[jedidiah]

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

GOOD

[sproketboy]

NTR

Let's remember what is at stake

[OYAHHH]

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.

Looks very suspiciously like warrantless search

[Tyrannosaur]

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

75 Years? Really?

[Arzaboa]

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.

No I think he's a failure

[rsilvergun]

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...

Re:No I think he's a failure

[fafalone]

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.

Re:No I think he's a failure

[ganjadude]

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

Oh, I should add

[rsilvergun]

I'm _not_ faulting him for his failure. Just lamenting it.

Re: United States of Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

MAGA = Millionaire Asshole Golfing Again

A lot of them didn't

[rsilvergun]

There's plenty of evidence that non-violent protestors are being prosecuted.

That's normal

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:That's normal

[LeftCoastThinker]

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.

Re:That's normal

[stdarg]

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.

Re:That's normal

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:That's normal

[ScentCone]

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.

Re: United States of Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

That would certainly describe Obama perfectly.

Re:If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking dev

[whoever57]

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.

Re:Good

[iMadeGhostzilla]

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.

Re:trump won according to law

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:trump won according to law

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:trump won according to law

[93 Escort Wagon]

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.

Re:75 Years? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: trump won according to law

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Convict these people for breaking windows!

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Making America Great Again!!!

[LostMyBeaver]

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

Re:If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking dev

[Anonymous Coward]

I have ZERO SYMPATHY for these protesters.

75 years is too lenient. They should be lined up and shot.

Re: Rioters who destroy property deserve no sympat

[ShoulderOfOrion]

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.

That is why you ORGANIZE it properly

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:75 Years? Really?

[Arzaboa]

I get it. The process is completely insane as well.

The tree of liberty must...

[EzInKy]

...be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

-Thomas Jefferson

Peaceful protest accomplishes little if anything.

you can't leave after the riot police comes.

[gl4ss]

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.

Re:you can't leave after the riot police comes.

[orgelspieler]

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.

Re:you can't leave after the riot police comes.

[G00F]

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.

Re:you can't leave after the riot police comes.

[PlaynBass]

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.

Ahem

[nospam007]

Calling 911 and asking which phone number appears there and looking at the emergency medical record with the bloodtype does not a cracking make.

lol, seriously?

[intellitech]

Trump and his administration believe in the rule of law.

What the hell have you been smoking?

Re:lol, seriously?

[LeftCoastThinker]

Feel free to cite actual facts. Your libtard bias/innuendo doesn't count for shit in the real world.

Conspiracy is a crime in itself (Not a protest)

[mi]

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.

Re:Burner. Phones.

[Bugler412]

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.

Re:trump won according to law

[Triklyn]

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.

Re: Burner. Phones.

[rickb928]

"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.

Re:Convict these people for breaking windows!

[e_pluribus_funk]

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.

"Cracked"?

[acoustix]

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.

Re:Its about damn time!

[e_pluribus_funk]

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.

Re:USA is the next USSR or China

[e_pluribus_funk]

http://www.relatably.com/m/img...

Re: trump won according to law

[ScentCone]

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.

Proof, though?

[wardrich86]

How can they prove that the owner of the phone was a person caused damage to property?

Re:Proof, though?

[HornWumpus]

Don't have to. If they planned on violence, they are guilty of conspiracy. The planning is likely in the text/tweet/email logs.

Re:Extended...

[s.petry]

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?

Re:trump won according to law

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Good

[stdarg]

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.

Re:trump won according to law

[Bing Tsher E]

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.

Re: trump won according to law

[Boronx]

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.

Re:trump won according to law

[ganjadude]

keep running on "the other side is racist" it just means you guys will keep losing

Re: trump won according to law

[ganjadude]

seems like a lot of lazy people see race or gender above policy and attribute their own latent racism onto others

Re:Good

[Rick Schumann]

'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.

Re: Burner. Phones.

[Dread_ed]

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.

Re:trump won according to law

[jader3rd]

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?

Re: trump won according to law

[jader3rd]

This is one of the best comments that I've seen on Slashdot, and it's currently marked as -1.

Re:Trump kingdom

[iggymanz]

not necessarily, if they had handlers that sent them to riot they should be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.

Re:Good

[HornWumpus]

_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').

Re: If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking de

[HornWumpus]

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.

Re:If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking dev

[HornWumpus]

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!

Re:Extended...

[ShanghaiBill]

... 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.

Re:trump won according to law

[HornWumpus]

50 years from now, she will just be another bullet the nation dodged. Only historians will know her name.

That door swings both ways...

[mnemotronic]

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.

Re:That door swings both ways...

[OrangeTide]

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.

Re:Good

[iMadeGhostzilla]

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.

Re:freedumb

[OrangeTide]

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.

I get it!

[s.petry]

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!

Re: trump won according to law

[ScentCone]

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!

If our leaders refuse to heed protests...

[martinfb]

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!

Re: Burner. Phones.

[AutodidactLabrat]

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

Re: Burner. Phones.

[rickb928]

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.

Re: trump won according to law

[ganjadude]

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

Why Trump?

[MercTech]

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".

Re: Burner. Phones.

[Dread_ed]

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.