I'm sorry, but there really is not much substance here, IMHO. A protester was marked with UV ink after being arrested. The article is literally 4 paragraphs about it, with most of it being the protester retelling the harrowing story of being "violated" by the ink. Maybe there is a significant civil rights violation in place here. I don't know. What I do know is that I didn't get much value from clicking the link, and I doubt many others here will.
This is pretty bad. It's hard to tell as the protestor was unable to witness the actual act but it sounds as if was applied with a tool designed to allow the ink to permeate the skin rather than sit atop.
It's a pretty vile act to carry out on someone against their will.
3 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 15.1 ms ] threadIt's a pretty vile act to carry out on someone against their will.