The Internet based media has been busy trying to spread the word that this was a DV issue and not a RF one. The problem I have with that is what I'll call the police credibility gap. We know, because they've flat out admitted it, that they can, will, and do lie if they think it's in their interests. The thing is that trust is funny like that. Once it's been broken it is neigh on impossible to get it back and it will never be 100% ever again. In this case, I would even expect them to lie under the premise that it may dissuade others from rising up against them in the future.
Sorry, Police, but you can't be trusted and we don't trust you due to your own earned reputation.
Sorry, Police, but you can't be trusted and we don't trust you due to your own earned reputation.
Somehow the idea that "law enforcement" would have tools, devices, privileges, etc that are prohibited to those they are supposed to serve strikes me as being in total opposition to the founding principles of this nation. On several occasions I have argued that standing police are a violation of the constitutional and other principles. This is a practical example of why I believe having standing police is a violation. The antidote is to return justice to being a function of The People and not the State.Honestly I didn't know that blocking devices, which would be a felony for us regular civilians to use, were so small, cheap, ready-to-use, and readily available to LEO these