Charges Dropped Against Man Who Beat, Spit on 83-Year-Old Korean American Woman

[Cassandros]

A man accused of attacking an 83-year-old Korean American woman in White Plains, New York in March will no longer be prosecuted for the alleged crime, as investigation of the case continues.

This week, the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office dropped charges against Glenmore Nembhard, saying there was simply not enough evidence to indict him.

Read it here

So they were able to use surveillance cameras and find witnesses to arrest the guy... but not enough to actual punish the guy?

That seems unlikely, but maybe. Especially with this gem:

Aspects of Nembhard’s identification, it said, would be inadmissible and unusable in court.

Which naturally leads to the obvious question: what in the hell did they do to find the guy that couldn't be used in court? Something technically illegal?

Regardless, hope the woman is ok.

[Antknot]

Facial rec

[Cassandros]

Good possibility.

[AnalHamster]

A witness who won't testify is probably more likely than a vast conspiracy with AI monitoring all of us all the time. But you never know. Those jew globalists are sneaky like that.

[Cassandros]

A witness who won't testify is probably more likely than a vast conspiracy with AI monitoring all of us all the time. But you never know. Those jew globalists are sneaky like that.

Once again, instead of just having a decent discussion --> you opt to lie about what's been said and try to misrepresent the entire discussion and people having it.

The article literally says, "Aspects of Nembhard’s identification, it said, would be inadmissible and unusable in court." (cite in OP).

Its not as if "Thousands of US police officers and public servants have reportedly used Clearview's controversial facial recognition tech without approval." (cite)

[AnalHamster]

A witness who won't testify is probably more likely than a vast conspiracy with AI monitoring all of us all the time. But you never know. Those jew globalists are sneaky like that.

Once again, instead of just having a decent discussion --> you opt to lie about what's been said and try to misrepresent the entire discussion and people having it.

The article literally says, "Aspects of Nembhard’s identification, it said, would be inadmissible and unusable in court." (cite in OP).

Its not as if "Thousands of US police officers and public servants have reportedly used Clearview's controversial facial recognition tech without approval." (cite)

You understand this whole clearview conspiracy thing had only been raised by you right? All the da has said is part of her case is inadmissible, which can happen for many reasons, most commonly just a cock up in procedure by police.

If they had used clearview, that actually doesn't mean it would be inadmissable. It is widely used by law enforcement in the US, but not the EU where that would be illegal. The main defense against them is currently coming from companies like Facebook which are suing for using 'their' data in a way they don't approve. Legislators are mostly ignoring the issue for now at the fed level, though a few places like San Francisco have acted to ban its use at their level. Not aware of new york having any similar measure.

[Cassandros]

A witness who won't testify is probably more likely than a vast conspiracy with AI monitoring all of us all the time. But you never know. Those jew globalists are sneaky like that.

Once again, instead of just having a decent discussion --> you opt to lie about what's been said and try to misrepresent the entire discussion and people having it.

The article literally says, "Aspects of Nembhard’s identification, it said, would be inadmissible and unusable in court." (cite in OP).

Its not as if "Thousands of US police officers and public servants have reportedly used Clearview's controversial facial recognition tech without approval." (cite)

You understand this whole clearview conspiracy thing had only been raised by you right? All the da has said is part of her case is inadmissible, which can happen for many reasons, most commonly just a cock up in procedure by police.

If they had used clearview, that actually doesn't mean it would be inadmissable. It is widely used by law enforcement in the US, but not the EU where that would be illegal. The main defense against them is currently coming from companies like Facebook which are suing for using 'their' data in a way they don't approve. Legislators are mostly ignoring the issue for now at the fed level, though a few places like San Francisco have acted to ban its use at their level. Not aware of new york having any similar measure.

You understand you are the only one trying to manipulate the conversation to make honest questions into conspiracy claims... right?

Of course you do. It what liars and wannabe spin-doctors do.

I never made the claim that facial rec was the reason that the mans charges were dropped under the pretense that 'aspects of his identification are inadmissible', I merely said it was a possibility and linked proof that use of such tech is not allowed.' Hence, its a reasonable possibility.

To strengthen this, "The results of facial recognition software might not be admissible evidence—but the police are allowed to use them to generate admissible evidence" (https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/14/ok ... ware/]cite). In this specific case the police used the local and approved FIS department; and not a service from a free trial through a third party without proper approval by superiors.

So even the proper facial recognition software is, by itself, not admissible in court. Hence, again, its a possible reason these charges where dropped. It might not be the only reason, but a factor non-the-less.

Now, will you show some integrity and apologize for being a tool, bail the thread and lick your wounds... or are you going to keep making shit up and lying like a little bitch?

[AnalHamster]

It is allowed, you ignorant tit. It is being widely used by law enforcement across the US. As always you are attempting to deny reality to try and fit your starting conclusions.

[Cassandros]

So you once again choose the third option... cute.

Predicable and intellectually tragic, but cute nonetheless.