Unfortunately, leftists rely on Americans ability to empathize with the plight of the vassal states in the world which have been pillaged and destroyed in service of the most prosperous and advanced societies. It is obvious at this point that Americans do not have empathy and will gladly accept the state of the world as long as they don't have to witness the injustice of it.
Except the defense has shown that the police blocked opening an additional lane even after the protestors specifically requested it for emergency traffic, and in fact blocked more lanes unnecessarily.
> Defense attorneys argued that many of the risks to people stuck in traffic could have been mitigated — including the traffic itself — if the median had been moved to open a fourth lane on the southbound side. They said a protester designated to communicate with the CHP specifically asked for that to happen to allow emergency vehicles to access anyone who needed one.
> Northbound traffic was also stopped by the CHP as a multitude of emergency vehicles responded to the bridge, which defense attorneys pointed out would have created the same type of risks the prosecution said people were experiencing because of the protesters.
So he wasn't proven guilty in a court of law, and everything that you're saying is conjecture based on your non-expert opinion? "Guilty until proven innocent," was it?
> Gatestone Institute is an American far-right think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim articles.
> The organization has attracted attention for publishing false or inaccurate articles, some of which were shared widely.
> The Gatestone Institute has been frequently described as anti-Muslim, regularly publishes false reports to stoke anti-Muslim fears, and has published false stories pertaining to Muslims and Islam.
The US and Israel have repeatedly claimed that schools and hospitals are legitimate military targets with no evidence. A highly partisan think tank which is known for putting out misinformation is not a valid source.
If you're going to destroy hospitals and target civilian infrastructure and kill children, you should be accountable on a world stage and provide evidence. Unless you would you accept Iran bombing elementary schools in the US because they claim to have intel that there are terrorists hiding under them?
There are MANY examples of Iranian backed terrorist organizations doing this (which I thought might be too indirect), but here's something more recent [1].
Regardless, left leaning news reports things that make them look good and the opposition look bad. Right leaning news reports things that make them look good and the opposition look bad. Both are needed to find truth because they're all biased for profit corporate entities owned by 6 different billionaires that will only report what's convenient for that bias.
And no, I have no trust in the claims of the Iranian government. Do you? Who do you believe does?
Doubt that anyone is concerned with a random person catching a portion of your face while they're taking a picture in public. Instead, it's opposition to being tracked over time by a centralized entity like a private company or government agencies.
No, we should build the massive, privately-owned, nationwide surveillance apparatus with taxpayer money! It's for science, after all! We have no data on whether or not cameras covering every square inch of space, hooked up to a centralized surveillance database is actually good for society. We need to conduct this methodologically and scientifically. We'll be able to come to an objective conclusion with enough testing!
That PR article doesn't answer the questions, and raises more:
- Why didn't SPD commission an independent study?
- What kinds of crimes were studied? Is this catching jaywalkers or homicides?
- Only mentions arrests. What about convictions? How are victims receiving justice?
- Where's the data and the reproducible methodology?
- How many people were tracked who didn't commit any crime at all?
There's so much wrong with that article that it's hard to come to any verifiable conclusions about the efficacy of the program. And again, doesn't answer any of the original questions.
The general sentiment in the thread is that this is too powerful a technology in the hands of unqualified law enforcement. In the same way that I don't trust federal law enforcement in the post-Snowden era, I don't trust local law enforcement with mass surveillance tools.
reply