> The very next section if the article describes what the police version can do I understand what it can do. What I care about is what it did do. You might jus

> The very next section if the article describes what the police version can do I understand what it can do. What I care about is what it did do. You might just as well complain about police use of military-style armored vehicles. Did you know they can mount guns on those or even run people over? The way in which things are used matters. In this case, a tool (effectively a high-tech speaker system) that has both offensive and non-offensive uses was used in what appears to be a non-offensive way as an announcement system, but because the same equipment can be used offensively someone's trying to do what I'll call "crap-stirring" here. "Crap-stirring" like this reflects badly on both the people doing it (e.g. Muckrock) and the people who fall for it.