theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone
consumerrights.wiki/w/Common_Questions,Arguments,&_Responses_when_discussing_Flock_Surveillance
theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone
consumerrights.wiki/w/Common_Questions,Arguments,&_Responses_when_discussing_Flock_Surveillance
I suspect you are attacking the article’s lack of awareness and precision, but I applaud them for not echoing the fascist government’s carefully crafted and fictitious propaganda narrative.
The government attempted to illegally and unconstitutionally search a person’s personal property. They had no cause, no suspicion, and no warrant. There was no evidence to begin with and no evidence to delete. What a person does with their own property and data is not the business of the government outside of due process. No evidence was deleted because nothing was evidence. The accusation is a work of fiction meant to punish someone for exercising their rights in the face of abuse.
Uhhhh nope, I was attacking the article’s notion that few people know that destruction of evidence is illegal, as I said.
How could you possibly know that?
For evidence to possibly exist, you need to be charged with a crime first. Evidence exists within context of a charge. No charge - no evidence.
LOL what!? So you’re saying law enforcement has never obtained evidence without first charging someone with a crime!?
E: if you’re downvoting this, you are a moron. You cannot charge someone with a crime without any evidence. The evidence comes first.
I’m saying you cant “destroy evidence” if you haven’t been charged with anything since at that point it isn’t considered evidence.
This is just complete insanity. You live in a fictional universe. That’s not how any of this works.
“Ah yes, that piece of paper you wrote something on a week ago and threw away that we have no idea what was on it? That is actually now evidence, and since you disposed of it you are now being charged with destruction of evidence.”
The way things are going it might actually become that way. And then you’ll see true insanity.
But it wasn’t a week ago. He was actively being investigated for a crime at the time.
You have a right to not incriminate yourself. Being investigated for a crime implies probable cause, which this instance lacks unless I’m misreading the article.
No he wasn’t. He was being harassed because he protested cops previously. They had nothing on him. They still have nothing on him.
It was a targeted harassment search into a political nuisance, not an actual warranted investigation. There was no charge. They let him walk away. Can’t have evidence if there was no crime.
There is no difference, legally.
Can’t know if there was a crime if the evidence was destroyed. Imagine if a corporation were being investigated for some sort of crime and they just went and deleted any evidence of it. Does your statement still apply?
If there’s no suspicion of a crime, there’s no legal search. So no evidence to gather.
ok but…there was. Regardless of whether it’s legitimate.
No there wasn’t.
You should read the article again. The suspicion was CSAM.
Based solely on the fact that he protested the cops hq. That was their excuse after their illegal search attempt. If there was an actual suspicion, they’d have a warrant and be searching his property, not just holding him up at the airport for a few minutes.
Are you always this easy to fool? We all know this admin isn’t going after actual child abusers.
That was the alleged suspicion. They were fishing because they don’t like that the guy is against cop city.