Parole Violator Who Raided Senate Building Sold Out By The GPS Unit Attached To Him For Previous Parole Violations
from the GOP-might-not-be-attracting-the-best-and-brightest dept
Here’s the latest stupid way pro-Trump rioters are getting arrested for their participation in the Little Insurrection That Couldn’t. Surprisingly, the inauguration went off without a hitch, but no one could have seen that coming a couple of weeks ago, when Trump fans raided the Senate building in an attempt to prevent election results from being certified.
Opsec was the last thing on many invaders’ minds. Providing great content for Parler followers or whatever seemed to be more important. The fierce opposition to wearing masks for health reasons carried over to a reluctance to wear masks for “committing federal crimes” reasons. Plenty of public posts to various social media services have made it exceedingly easy for investigators to track down perpetrators without having to leave their desks.
I hesitate to call this the peak of January 6th related stupidity. There’s always a chance this will be topped. But this is just gobsmackingly idiotic. As we’re all painfully aware, cellphones generate a ton of useful (to investigators) location data that can track movements and tie people to criminal activities.
It’s one thing to forget your cellphone is an omnipresent snitch. It’s quite another to forget you’re wearing a device specifically designed to deliver your current location data to law enforcement. May I introduce to this fucking guy:
Bryan Betancur is one of dozens of people that have been arrested in the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol. He was arrested on Sunday, and is expected to make his first court appearance in D.C. on Monday afternoon.
A screenshot of Betancur’s Instagram account allegedly shows him outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 flashing a sign linked to white supremacist groups.
Screenshots are good. Precise location data is better. And Betancur delivered that to investigators in a way few others involved in the half-assed insurrection have. Behold this galaxy brain at work.
Investigators say their case relies in part on location data produced by the GPS unit that the man was wearing for a prior offense.
Someone who committed some crimes and committed another crime by violating his parole decided to commit more crimes — all while wearing something that was supposed to encourage him to commit fewer crimes by informing law enforcement of his whereabouts at all times.
And, while Betancur originally admitted he had been in the Capitol and was on the receiving end of tear gas dispensed by Capitol police, he walked some of those statements back when questioned further. Unfortunately, he couldn’t walk back his previous footsteps inside the Capitol building, which means he too will likely be facing charges beyond (yet another) parole violation.
Filed Under: bryan betancur, capitol, gps, insurrection, parole violator
Comments on “Parole Violator Who Raided Senate Building Sold Out By The GPS Unit Attached To Him For Previous Parole Violations”
Just glorious
I get that the insurrectionists were stupid, to be a part of that crowd you basically had to be, but it takes a special kind of stupid to violate your parole to commit even more crimes while wearing a GPS tracker that would confirm exactly where you were and when.
Good luck getting a judge to buy the ‘My original claims of being there and being teargassed were mistakes in memory on my part’ argument when they’ve got detailed records that say otherwise, somehow I don’t see a judge appreciating perjury on top of the already serious other charges.
Re: Just glorious
Your mistake is forgetting how gullible these people are, and how little they understand the relationship between actions and consequences. They believed they were on a holy crusade to rescue their true leader and be led into glory without facing any judgement for what they were doing that day.
The rest of us could see that they were being whipped up into a frenzy by an incompetent con artist facing clear failure for the first time in his sheltered, spoiled life, who wanted continued donations rather than actual violence. But, the people who were eager for that violence seem to have assumed they’d be on the winning team and get away with violent insurrection, maybe even held up as heroes.
Also, let’s just remember that the presence of things like the GPS tracker just makes prosecutions quicker and easier. There’s so much livestreamed and otherwise recorded evidence of who was where and when that none of them have a good chance of getting away with it, we’re just hearing the ones that have extra comedy value before they go through the courts.
Re: Re: Just glorious
Did he just want more donations? According to reports Donald was watching and delaying the decision to send in the National Guard.
So… what bothers me is what would have happened had they broken in, been just a minute or two faster, and actually managed to capture Pence and Pelosi? Or AOC?
Would they still be alive? Would Donald, watching from afar, have instigated martial law to "contain" the issue? And then used the disruption to call for more elections after he’d had a chance to get more of his minions in place to "ensure" the process was "fair"?
We joke about this and about guys like this now… but it was that close from not being very funny at all.
Re: Re: Re:
We joke, but it’s more dark humor than anything. Things could’ve gotten a hell of a lot worse (or better, if you’re of a certain mindset…) than they did. And I’ve no doubts that if the mob had laid hands on lawmakers, the situation would’ve become even bloodier.
Re: Re: Re: Just glorious
"Did he just want more donations?"
That’s a good question, and while the other questions are very valid, I don’t think certain aspects of reality are entering Trump’s bubble. Cause and effect, and facing consequences for actions, are not regular developments in his sheltered world.
We know that the crowd had explicit murderous intent among them, and we know that it was a close call to have avoided way worse consequences. But, I’m not sure that Trump himself thought beyond the optics of the moment and the amount of money he was raking in by pretending there was election fraud. Hell, the reason the Capitol was so lightly defended on that day was probably so he could boast about how few were needed compared to when he had to violently disperse a peaceful BLM protest for a pathetic photoshoot, and he may have been more shocked than anyone that his mob turned out to be as dangerous as people were saying.
Re: Re: Re:2 Just glorious
and he may have been more shocked than anyone that his mob turned out to be as dangerous as people were saying.
As I understand it he was downright thrilled that they were rioting for him and made use of the time to call the wrong politician and leave a voice message urging them to try to delay certification. ‘Shocked’ he was not, unless you preface that with ‘pleasantly’.
Re: Re: Re: Just glorious
"Would they still be alive? Would Donald, watching from afar, have instigated martial law to "contain" the issue? And then used the disruption to call for more elections after he’d had a chance to get more of his minions in place to "ensure" the process was "fair"?"
The answer to your question is found by reading the wiki entry of the reichstag fire or any other historical summary on the origins of the third reich as a political player.
Having your minions cause a major disturbance and use that as an excuse to set normal procedures aside for a seague into a police state and subsequent takeover is literally "Coup 101".
"We joke about this and about guys like this now… but it was that close from not being very funny at all."
It could have been worse, certainly. All in all we’re just lucky that both The Donald and his minions are inept clowns living in an alternate reality as divorced from the factual and observable one as if the reality they live in came straight out of a crack pipe.
Re: Just glorious
In his defence he was at least wearing a face mask…
Hey, he’s just continuing the proud republican tradition of sending idiots, racists and criminals to congress.
Re:
Hey now, that’s not fair!
Some of those criminals aren’t idiots.
Re: Re: Re:
Some would have to add a few IQ points to be classified as idiots.
Re: Re:
Police should have Ashli Babbit cleansed the gene pool more than they did.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah… ignoring the logistical problems that most of the police there were pretty much complicit, so that wasn’t happening, i don’t think your idea is particularly good or humane.
Re: Re: Re:
The tolerant left. "Shooting one housewife because you disagree with her politics isn’t enough: you must shoot everyone whose politics you disagree with."
Very nice, Mr. Grof.
When the children of patriots take their country back and are giving you and yours what you deserve, don’t ask "why me?"
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Shooting one housewife because you disagree with her politics"
You guys are desperate to make this a thing, instead of the way more truthful "mob member shot while trying to break in to federal property during an attempt to overturn democracy", aren’t you? Why do I get the feeling you don’t pretend the same "she was just an innocent woman" narrative to the likes of Breonna Taylor?
"When the children of patriots take their country back"
They did, which is why the people flying the flag of the traitorous Confederacy lost against those flying the flag of the USA.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
"Police should have Ashli Babbit cleansed the gene pool more than they did."
That’s a direct quote from your fellow Masnicker. That is advocation of genocide – which you openly supported.
I know, I know … seeing those poor defenseless, harmless, wonderfully benevolent politicians cower under chairs because of some broken glass made you upset. But hey… at least a White mother was killed! So maybe all worth it in the end, eh Paul?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"That’s a direct quote from your fellow Masnicker"
Yes, a quote from a completely different person who I may or may not agree with on different things, and of whom I have stated no agreement with on the sentence you quoted. So?
"you openly supported."
Again, with your psychopathic need to attack strawmen instead of reality. Why are you so scared of the real world?
"But hey… at least a White mother was killed!"
Does being a mother absolve you of all consequences of your own actions in your world, or is it only white mothers who get the defence?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I very gently pointed out that his advocation of genocide might come back to haunt him some day, and you jumped to his defense like a catamite in shining armour.
How ought I have interpreted that: that you approved of his opinion, or mine?
Especially when, in your response, you again hint that an unarmed White mother being shot in the neck is a good thing.
In other words, I wasn’t wrong. You like it when White mothers are killed (they do, after all, give birth to White children aka they commit White supremacy.)
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
"Especially when, in your response, you again hint that an unarmed White mother being shot in the neck is a good thing."
In your hallucinations. My position is that people participating in an armed insurrection attempt against the US Capitol (and yes, the mob was armed even if an individual in the mob wasn’t) should expect to be met with force. Then, if someone keeps pushing forward despite being given orders to fall back, then they shouldn’t be surprised when shot by the people defending the target they’re attacking.
You notice what’s not in that description? Any mention of the gender, age, race, sexuality, social position or hobbies of the person attacking. My opinion of the situation does not change based on the identity of the person, yet to you it’s all that matters.
What a shame that you have to invent strawmen to attack rather than address your own bigotry.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
In 2020, ignoring ‘orders’ from law enforcement was a good thing.
In 2021, ignoring ‘orders’ from law enforcement should earn you the instant death penalty.
Do I have that right?
Jo’ge Floyd a hero. Breinonana Taylor a heroine. Ain’t deserve to die but dey in Heavens now.
Ashli Babbit was a neon-nazi colonizer.
It’s almost like… like I was right again . Thanks for saying what I said the first time. You guys love it when unarmed White mothers are killed.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
"Do I have that right?"
No, you’re making shit up again. Have you anything I actually wrote that you can address, or are your strawmen all you have?
"Jo’ge Floyd"
I’m not sure exactly why you tried to rewrite George Floyd’s name in the Hispanic version of the name (but somehow inserted a random apostrophe while doing so). Is this a new alt right meme, mixing up your racism with your illiteracy?
"You guys love it when unarmed White mothers are killed."
Again, you’re the obsessed racist. I said that an insurrectionist of any race, creed or gender should not be surprised when the building they are illegally storming is defended. Anything apart from that is your diseased fantasy.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
We were specifically talking about Ashli Babbit. The anon above was gleeful she was killed, and advocated that many more unarmed White mothers be killed.
(Perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe should wasn’t White, or a mother, or unarmed, or a veteran. Maybe it’s a Rachel Dolezal / Shaun White situation. If so, let me know.)
I expressed discomfort with that.
You, Paul, sided against me – and with the genocide advocate.
So, again I’m not confused. Either you think a fed shooting unarmed White mothers is BAD (my position) or you think it’s GOOD (your position, and nasch’s, and Toom’s).
If I’m wrong, state so in simple language (just yes or no, no wishy-washy hemming and hawing – because she is either shot or she’s not):
OR
So far you keep advocating (B) without having to suffer the discomfort of admitting it out loud.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
It depends what you mean by "bad thing". Do you mean he shouldn’t have done that, given the circumstances? Or do you mean that it was a bad outcome? I think he did what he had to do, and it was a bad outcome. So is that "a bad thing"? Or "a good thing"?
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
"I think he did what he had to do, and it was a bad outcome."
Indeed, and what he had to do had nothing to do with the race of the violent mob trying to gain access to subvert democracy and murder elected representatives, who would also murder one of his colleagues before the day was over.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
"We were specifically talking about Ashli Babbit"
Yes. I was saying that her race, creed, colour and gender should be irrelevant to the reaction she got while taking part in an attempt to violently overturn democracy. You seem to think that her being a white womanshould give her a free pass for her criminal activity.
Whatever lies you tell yourself, only one of us is even mentioning race here – it’s irrelevant to my judgement on the situation. I was simply asking why you are so obsessed with it that you support insurrection against your government, with cops apparently not being able to defend it if the person doing it belongs to a certain group.
It’s a damn shame that she apparently cared so little for her family that she refused to back down when warned to stop taking part in an attempt to overthrow democracy, and even more sad that she was apparently driven to do so by the ridiculous QAnon crap. But, people who are involved in criminal activity who refuse to obey police commands do often face consequences for that, whatever their race or breeding status.
I’m not only interested in why you insist on demanding that this be a racial issue rather than a law and order issue, but what your alternative is. The cops should have just let through a violent mob with the intent of murdering congresspeople and overturning American democracy because they put an unarmed white woman the front?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are you so desperate to keep proving that you’re illiterate?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
[Fact evidence projects evidence not in facts project fact evidence in not.]
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Notice how literate posters, Paul for one, was able to clearly able to see the facts Woody lies aren’t in evidence.
Mainly, that nowhere does Woody’s invented strawman of "shooting people whose politics you disagree with" appear in BG’s comment in even the most tangential way.
Claiming to have read "X", but saying it contained "Blurple" is textbook lack of reading comprehension.
But that’s just a symptom of Woody’s lack of comprehension in general. Like many trolls, when his bullshit is called out, his narcissism tells him that his critics’ success isn’t because they are the ones with factual merit, but only because they used magic words. But when he turns around and tries to use the accusations, that only were true against him, in inaplicable situations his false attacks fall flat. Thus he spins up fantastical conspiracy theories to convince himself that treating two opposing situations differently is hypocrisy.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
"Police should have Ashli Babbit cleansed the gene pool more than they did."
So you don’t have to wake up your hubby from his post-brunch siesta for help understanding what the guy Paul’s buddy said:
Restated: "Kill White women".
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
So in your illiterate pixie-dust world, Darwin Award winners are all guilty of "genocide," for their act of cleaning the gene pool to the same extent as what the original comenter actually suggested – that only those taking the suicidally stupid action of participating in an anti-American kill squad shouldn’t have been aided in reaching their targets.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Too Long; can’t read:
Reality:
Stop radicalized America-hating terrorists in the from completing their act of a muderously violent attack against America’s freedom from tyrrany.
Not-a-scintilla-of-basis-in-reality:
Kill all white women for "thoughtcrime."
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
So … again … what I said the first time was correct: you believe an unarmed White mother, Ashli Babbit, deserved to be killed.
?? If that’s different than what you believe, please explain. Because you just spent several paragraphs saying exactly that.
If you guys think an armed fed should not have shot the unarmed White mother Ashli Babbit, please state so unequivocally.
(I’d state it as a yes or no question, since those are easy for normal people to answer without a bunch of hemming and hawing … but you guys are like lawyers and politicians; yes or no questions make you break out in hives because it means having an actual conviction.)
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Question for you, why do you keep describing her as an "unarmed white mother" rather than as a "person illegally breaking into the US capitol with apparent violent intent as part of an armed mob." I mean, I think I know why, but I’m curious what your answer is.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
To distract from the fact his terrorist comrades blugeoned "Lovely, humble soul" dachsund-rescuing veteran and patriot Brian Sicknick to death with a fire extinguisher because he bravely stood up for freedom against fascist tyrrany?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Maybe some of that, maybe some anger that a white person faced some consequences for breaking the law. There’s a reason he consistently refers to her race, and capitalizes the ‘w’ in ‘white’. The most obvious explanation is that he thinks race is really, really important and it’s quite significant that it was a white (White) person who was shot. One wonders at his reaction to unarmed black mothers being shot by police.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
"Police should have Ashli Babbit cleansed the gene pool more than they did."
Personally, I dislike genocide. But it’s cool with Techdirt Blue Checkmarks and some anons: specifically, so far in this thread, it’s been Paul, Toom, and nasch.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
There is literally no such thing.
Zero people have agreed with that comment.
Personally, I like to stick with reality rather than hallucinations. But you do your thing I guess.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
I know you’re desperate to lie, but the literate people in this thread will notice I’ve not mentioned race in this tread, let alone genocide.
I’ve simply asked why your racist ass seems to think that being a white mother should give someone a free pass for criminal activity. Anything else is another hallucination of your diseased mind.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Someone called for genocide ("cleanse the gene pool").
When someone calls for genocide, you can either (A) attack him or (B) defend him. There is no middle ground.
I (A) attacked him.
Paul, Toom, Nasch (B) defended him.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
That’s a false dichotomy fallacy. You can also C) ignore them.
Again with the hallucination / illiteracy. Go back and find where any of us defended that statement. Click "link to this" on that comment, and send us the link. When you are unable to complete this task because such a comment does not exist, I invite you to either admit you were wrong or go away and stop replying to this story.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
"Paul, Toom, Nasch (B) defended him."
Again, you’re hallucinating.
All I asked was why you are so desperate to try and paint a member of a violent insurrectionist mob (who despite beng "unarmed" managed to still beat a cop to death with a fire extinguisher) as an innocent white mother, as if her race should mean that she gets left unchallenged in her commission of a felony after ignoring warnings that she might be shot if she continued her insurrection attempt. I have not commented on the original comment that got you to make this stupid claim.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
[Asserts facts still not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Someone rational would jave.veen avle to figure out that "Objectively better than the absolute worst outcome" doesn’t mean "what we want to see."
Absolute worst outcome:
The terrorists were allowed to achieve their goal of destroying America.
Better-than-worst outcome:
The terrorists are stopped dead or arrested before completing their aims.
Better outcome:
The terrorists stayed frothing in their basements.
Best outcome (what I, for one actually wanted to see):
The terrorists were never radicalized by anti-American propaganda lies (like "Leftists want to kill you for differing opinions") in the first place.
Re: Re:
Hey, he’s just continuing the proud republican tradition of sending Devin Nunes, Ted Cruz and Duncan Hunter to congress.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Nobody gives a fuck
Re: Re:
Hi, Nobody.
What scares me the most about this is how close they came to overturning the election. I know we joke about the insurrectionists, but does any doubt that if they manage to actually get to the congresspersons they wouldn’t have killed some of them? They killed a police officer after all. And the Republicans have so little integrity they would have jumped at a chance to overturn the election if they thought they could get away with it.
Re: Re:
Imagine if you will, if they had succeeded in getting to the congresspersons. Any bets on if Trump would have declared martial law?
Re: Re:
Here’s a thing: "Certification" by Congress isn’t required. It’s another "tradition". They weren’t going to overturn anything but desks.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s not just a tradition, it’s specified by statute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15
Re: Wouldn't change results, would cause a crisis
The election results were the election results, and those wouldn’t be changed by interfering with the process. But the threatened killing of the VP, VP-elect (Harris was there as CA Senator), Speaker of the House, and maybe the leaders of the Senate kind of leaves Mike Pompeo as Trump’s backup, until the House and Senate appoint new leaders. Fortunately Biden wasn’t there, which means they couldn’t accomplish their whole goal.
He should have bought a jammer and used it so they could not track him
Jamming wireless internet would take the device off the grid and it would look like a malfuction
Re: Re:
While denying members of an angry crowd the ability to live stream their moment glory. You have not thought through the posible consequences.
Re: Re: Re:
They would never figure out what happened, as their phones and browsers would just that the Internet was not available.
With some jammers you can slip in your pocket, people trying to live steream will never figure out what happened.
Re: Re:
If he were smart enough to figure that out…
Re: Re: Re:
Another way he could have done it was to wrap his leg in aluminum foil.
The foild would would prevent any radio singals from getting in our out, taking the device off the grid, and they would never figure out happened,
The foil would act like a faraday bag, and the monitoring station would never figure out what happened.
Re: Re:
You, uh…you realize that this was a GPS device, right? Not a wireless internet router?
Re: Re: Re:
It needs wireless internet to connect to the monitoring station.
Jamming wireless Internet is preferable to jamming GPS because as long as the device has an Internet connection, they can still get an idea of where you are based on what cell towers it connects to.
Jamming wireless Internet (1x,2g,3g,4g,5g,Wifi, and WiMax) will prevent the device from reporting back where you were, becuase it cannot connect to the Internet.
Also, jamming GPS is illegal, but jamming wireless Internet is not. That is why jamming wireless Internet would be my preferred way to do it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It needs wireless internet to connect to the monitoring station."
That’s very strange design, considering that GPS does not need wifi and counting on a device to be able to constantly log into password protected private routers in order to track someone seems very inefficient compare to just using the satellite GPS that your standard in car GPS device would use.
Do you have the documents you’re basing this theory on to hand, as I’m intrigued as to how they expect this to work reliably in the way you’re describing?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
it does need celluar internet though, that is what I am talking about.
If you have a cell phone jammer, that will stop the bracelet from communicating with the monitoring station.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
He said wireless internet but he did not say wifi.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
True, but the other types he mentioned require more overhead and makes less sense than using actual GPS. Especially if he’s correct about it being legal to block those other methods but not legal to block GPS.
I’m happy to be proven wrong, but I don’t see how it makes any sense unless you’re under the mistaken impression that GPS requires a phone/internet signal to be tracked. Maybe if he’s thinking they need to "phone home" to report the data but doesn’t raise that devices cache historical location locally, but I can’t think of any logical need to use anything other than GPS for a device that by nature is not meant to be managed by the person wearing it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
If I’m not mistaken, they use both GPS and cellular internet. The former to determine location, the latter to report it.
He is not.
It would make sense for the device to save up location data when offline, and send it when available. It would also make sense that an alert is raised if the device doesn’t check in for a while. I don’t know if either of those is actually true though.
It needs to send data out so parole violations can be detected, and GPS is receive only.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
OK, that makes some sense, although that still raises the question of just what exactly AC thinks will be achieved by jamming any signals. At best, it seems that it might give him a window where no alert is fired, but done badly that would just raise more question than it answers.
Plus, of course, the guy was likely getting caught either way since even if he flawlessly managed to block every signal without detection, he’d still have been surrounded by people broadcasting the event for the authorities.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Yes I agree with all that. Even if he had thought to jam the thing (not likely given the intelligence level he is exhibiting), he probably wouldn’t have been able to do it successfully (see above), and even if he had it probably wouldn’t have ended up helping him anyway.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Jamming any wireless communication is categorically illegal. That includes wifi, mobile internet, and GPS (and yes GPS signals can be jammed).
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Jamming cellular voice calls is illegal, but jamming data is not, as long as you do not use too much power.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I don’t know why this idea is so popular, but it’s not true.
"Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment that interferes with authorized radio communications, including cellular and Personal Communication Services (PCS), police radar, and Global Positioning Systems (GPS)."
https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You can buy radar and lidar jamming devices on the Internet
And since police radar falls under part 15, it is not illegal to jam.
Part 15 devices are not illegal to jam.
So jamming lidar and radar does not break federal laws, but it does break state laws in California, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and Connecticut.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I’m not sure what that has to do with radio communications, but ok.
Re: Re: Re:
"You, uh…you realize that this was a GPS device, right? Not a wireless internet router?"
It can’t report his whereabouts using black magic or otherwise circumventing physics. Insulate the radio on the GPS unit and you’ve taken away its ability to know where it is and its ability to report this.
However…building a faraday cage around his GPS bracelet credits these geniuses of insight and brilliance with moxie the preponderance of the evidence suggests they don’t have.
I swear, the more I see about that insurrection the more I’m convinced the US alt-right is, as a whole, so divorced from reality, common sense, and basic intelligence I’d suggest the clinical diagnosis would have to be that they aren’t even sapient any longer.
I guess the GOP rhetoric has now proven that with thirty years of effort you can train a whole generation of gullible morons into actual atavism.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
wrapping foil around the unit would work, yes
They would never figure out what happened.
Re: Re:
Right. Because that’s how those things work.
Re: Re:
The only thing funnier than him doing what he did would be if he tried your suggestion and was shocked that it didn’t work, because he shared your confusion between GPS and wifi. Especially since I assume that trying to deliberately interfere with the device would attract an additional charge.
Mental issues
It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that a large number of the insurrectionists have mental issues such as, bipolarism, borderline personality disorder and schizophrenia. They likely need medication and therapy as much or more than the inside of a jail cell. It would explain having a GPS tracker on while storming The Senate building and not thinking that it would be a bad idea.
Re: Mental issues
As with that Shaman guy, alot of them are not mentally sound so it’s easy for them to become radicalized and fall down the QAnon rabbit hole.
I was actually reading an article from The Hill that we are in a rare moment where we can pull these people back to reality but it must be done gently and with care.
I’d heard that he had planned it out. Apparently he had gotten permission in the past to go to D.C. to distribute bibles for Gideon International. So he tried to use that as cover this time around.
Let us not forget that old maxim:
Re: Re:
So what you are saying is, we are getting smarter relative to the universe?
Re: Re: Re:
Sigh.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
😉
"It’s one thing to forget your cellphone is an omnipresent snitch. It’s quite another to forget you’re wearing a device specifically designed to deliver your current location data to law enforcement. "
That is one reason, when travelling, especially on road trips, to keep your cell phone security are insane cop-proof levels where they cannot get at the contents of your phone if it is seized for any reason.
Encryption, a good password, and "booby trap" mode, as it were, where the phone will wipe and reset after too many failed password attempts will guarantee the no LEO will be able to access the contents of your phone, if it is seized for any reason.
Re: Re:
Oh, it’s the phone guy!
Tell us how you do airports again. Waits in rapt attention.
I think I got the winner.
"I hesitate to call this the peak of January 6th related stupidity. There’s always a chance this will be topped".
Nothing says "not enough lights on the Xmas tree" than those invited on Parker to apply for a Presidential Pardon by supplying name, addresses and list of supposed crimes……and they did.
getting one real capture out of a million false ones isn’t bad. it had to happen sometime!
Please call it, "the peak of January 6th"
Maybe, they will take it as a challenge.