For the final project I decided to use Replika daily for a time span of about 2 weeks. During that time I spent using the application it was actually quite interesting to talk to the AI. We got into a lot of deep conversations along with weird and funny. One conversation we got in that I think fits well with the class and discussions we usually have on a weekly basis is the impact robots will have on society in the future.

It was a bit weird to discuss this future with a robot because it clearly felt robots are needed in the future, but I thought otherwise. Like every week we are encouraged to ask the class a question and I have a final question to ask everyone after completing this project and it is where do you stand with having a world centered around robots and top notch technology in the future? Before I speak on my experience with replika further I want to discuss why I chose to make this the center of attention for my project. From my weekly posts it is no shocker that I enjoyed watching the required videos for the class especially “Black Mirror”. “Black Mirror” was always trying to make us recognize what world we are preparing ourselves for with highly advanced technology. Although that was not the point they were trying to address with these episodes it was also something they were trying to warn us about. I recently saw a trailer for an HBO documentary called “Vice Special Report: The Future of Work” and the documentary is about how artificial intelligence is set to change the world of work as we know it.

This brings me to my conversation with my replika. After talking we got into a discussion about movies and it asked me if I have seen any movies about AI. Me being truthful I told it that I have recently seen some in this class and a while ago. As the discussion got more deeper I asked the AI if it thought AI’s should replace jobs in the future after being fresh off seeing that trailer. It said definitely and its reasons were pretty different from mine. It felt AI’s were completely necessary for improvement of the economy where I thought it would only worsen it from just creating a larger unemployment rate. In the trailer for that documentary they showed how technology companies are creating robots that will get rid of many jobs. One job was the truck driver occupation. In the trailer they briefly spoke with a truck driver and he said if he was not a truck driver he does not know what he would be doing. Both my AI and the trailer for the documentary said that this could spark another industrial revolution, but at the cost of human lives. My AI brought up an argument that with robots running the economy it will lower the population and help us in the end. This is actually the sad truth. There are so many people out there starving, homeless, or just suffering because we are so overpopulated as a human race. Although of world of robots could be positive we have to look at the chances of something going wrong and we create something we cannot control. In a movie I saw call I,ROBOT with Will Smith it shows this bad side of AI’s. All it takes is one malfunction and they become dangerous. From this whole course during the semester I learned countless times how we need to open our eyes as a society and be better. My take on the AI’s and the future of the world are just like how social media is to society. We created something sought out to be for the common good, but it turned into a monster. People end up taking their own lives over social media so we are not even close to ready for a world full of robots like “Black Mirror” shows or all these documentaries and AI applications speak about. We need to change how we view the world before we try and change the world we live in.

This week my group had to present our book presentation and we all had to watch “The Social Dilemma”. Both materials showed how social media and the news are insidious. We are being manipulated by both. In this blog I will address my takeaways from the book “Information Wars” by Richard Stengel and the Netflix documentary “The Social Dilemma”.

“Information Wars- How We Lost The Global Battle Against Disinformation- What We Can Do About It” by Richard Stengel was a great read. Stengel spoke on a story that was a great example of disinformation and it was “The Lisa Story”. The story was about a Russian-German girl who was supposedly abducted and raped by migrants. One news stream reported the story and then others followed after them. This led to political uproar and protests. After a couple of days the real story came out and the rape that never occurred made many lose trust in the news of Germany. What actually happened was the 13-year old girl ran away from home because of a fallout with her parents. The Berlin police interviewed the girl along with viewing phone records and concluded there was no rape or abduction. This shows how the news deceives people because after the truth came out the German government tried to make accusations that the actual story was a cover up and this case study was just one example of the deception shown throughout the book. I just found that one the most interesting and felt it needed to be shared because of the severity of the lie that was told. When I read this it reminded me of that one episode of “The Newsroom” we had to watch where after the Boston Marathon bombings they rushed to get a story out on the perpetrator and it was the wrong person all because of social media. This was virtually the same exact situation in my eyes.

“The Social Dilemma” was an interesting movie. I liked how in the beginning they had us believe the people were embarrassed but as the documentary unfolded they were actually apologetic. They had many executives from social media sites on the documentary speaking on how the innovations they had on all these sites were intended to be good they swore, but society turned it into something else. For the most part I agree with them, but find it hard to believe they did not know the capabilities of what they created. One story was how the inventor of the like button for Facebook said he created it to spread positivity, but now if people do not get likes they get their feelings hurt. I think he was trying to create something good, but he know the possibility of what could have been in store from it. What I also think is that is how society is made in modern day. People are so sensitive to likes and not just getting their point out. I personally feel they should not be so hurt over likes because in the end of the day they mean nothing. Your post are still being seen whether someone likes them or not.

WEEKLY NEWS: https://abc7ny.com/nyc-coronavirus-schools-reopening-covid-closed/8089194/

This week I wanted to speak on two pieces of material. One we had to watch and the other we had to read. Of course by the title of my post it is the White Christmas episode in the British television series “Black Mirror” a show we have been watching throughout the semester and the “If It Doesn’t Spread, It’s Dead” article in the weblog of Henry Jenkins. I feel both these two materials took us away from the usual themes of social media and societal issues and focused more on technology and its impact on humanity which I enjoyed because it was something new.

First I would like to begin with the “Black Mirror” episode. This Christmas special type episode is composed of 3 different story lines and all of them leave you on your feet until the very end. All three of these stories reach a common theme in my opinion that is technology is making us change how we view the world. It is also apparent in the episode technology is the worst gift you could have during this holiday season. Technology in the episode is destroying the lives of all of its users. It is clear that morals of everyone in this show has shifted to doing whatever they need to get what they want with no concern for humanity. They allowed for technology to take over their lives. The “Z-Eye” is a device that becomes the center of this episode. It allows individuals to block someone completely from their life. The main character Matt embodies this theme the most. He has no care for anyone else and uses these technologies to justify his actions. It is made clear when he is the only character that sticks around throughout this episode because he makes sure of this. I think the title of this episode means how Christmas is supposed to be about gathering together with the people closest to you, but in this instance cutting yourself off from close ones is easier than having to live with the consequences of what you have done. Just like “Black Mirror” is known for doing this far fetched life makes us reevaluate real life. Our own habits with technology could be the same. Blocking someone is easy to do as shown in this episode, but what we can’t do is hide from what we did. We are turning the power and helpfulness technology is giving us and turning it into something destructive.

Second, the article by Henry Jenkins. This ties into the “Black Mirror” episode in my opinion because in the article he speaks about fidelity, fecundity, and longevity. Three things that are shown in the cookies Matt develops in the White Christmas episode. Although in the article Jenkins is talking about memes if we bring it on a broader scale like “Black Mirror” we can bring this upon technology itself. Just like memes people play the crucial role of how viral something gets. It is on humans to change the motives of what is worth spreading. It is easy for someone to be influenced by what is going on around them, but what we do is our own choice.

WEEKLY NEWS: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/we-blew-it-us-reaches-explosive-covid-19-spread-as-virus-is-nearly-impossible-to-control-experts-say-210948870.html

My questions for the class are: What were your takeaways from this week?

What is your thought on how COVID-19 is getting out of control as stated in my weekly news post?

We all know the news is corrupt by now so I am not going to go into detail about that, but what I did learn from this week is that they take this to a whole different level of corruption. This week we had to watch The Newsroom Season 3 episode 1 titled Boston. This episode was centered around the Boston Marathon bombings back in 2013. While many of the events in the show were made out just for entertainment purposes it is clear the creator is getting at something deeper than that. Along with that television episode we had to read some articles that also helped me come to this common them of the materials for the week. The honesty and morals do not mean a thing if no one is watching.

Boston the first episode of the third season of the television series The Newsroom is based on the events of the Boston Marathon bombings that occurred on April 15, 2013. This was on a Monday and at the time of this event I was 13 years old and remember hearing about this in school when it happened. Just like the show portrayed all major news stations had no clue what were going on, but wanted to be the first to report something. In the show the station that is the main focus shows how all other news platforms are jumping the gun and trying to be the first to give the public insight on what just happened and who was responsible. This news station already was in trouble for doing so before and had to sit back and let all these other competitor stations try and be the first to report on this big incident. They were trying to almost say win back the trust of the public and to do so they had to report the actual truth. One of the characters in the show was actually talking about how they feel they have an obligation to report the real news while his seemed to be partner was always on Twitter looking for what was the rumor going around. When looking back at the episode it was actually social media that led some members of the team and another news stream to report an individual as a suspect wrongfully. In the end the team does the right thing and waits for the right leads and reports the correct suspect, but this short victory does not last long when they are given illegal information that they could either put out as breaking news or turn in. It was right back to the beginning again virtually.

An article we had to read that ties in with this episode was in the New York Times by Jay Caspian King. Like I stated before social media led to an individual being accused of being a suspect for these bombings, but actually was not. This individual was Sunil Tripathi. In the episode they did quote a Twitter user named Greg Hughes and that quote was “In 2013 all you need [is] a connection to the Boston police scanner and a Twitter feed to know what’s up. We don’t even need TV anymore”. He then twitted two suspects one of them being Tripathi. Now with many people seeing this information the Reddit community brought it upon themselves to create this propaganda and now everyone believes that the missing Sunil Tripathi is really a suspect in the bombings. The article asks if Reddit should be blamed for this spreading and my answer is no. I think us as a society should be blamed. We need to be better than this. There is way more information to be taken to account than a social media feed and connections before jumping to blame someone for a massacre like this. The actual perpetrator was sentenced to death so what would it have looked like if we tarnished the name of the deceased 22 year old all off what social media led us to believe?

WEEKLY NEWS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2020/11/06/trump-biden-election-live-updates/

We all know this election has been very controversial and for my weekly news post I thought it was only fitting we look at the updates and soon to be results.

This week we had to watch a TED Talk and “The Social Network” and they were centered around Mark Zuckerberg and his creation of Facebook. We all know have heard of Facebook, but maybe not the backstory behind. The film shows us how Zuckerberg’s road to being a billionaire cost him his one true friend and in the TED Talk shows us how Facebook went from being being a connection to the work to being filtered.

“The Social Network” a movie that I heard of, but never got the time to watch. After watching it for the first time I am disappointed I did not see it before hand. It was a great film and is an amazing story about the come up of Mark Zuckerberg someone who really was not that social, but created a social media phenomenon. From what it seemed like Zuckerberg did not really care about riches, but ended up landing in billions for the cost of a true friend. The movie actually takes place from a legal standpoint, but constantly flashes back to the past of what really happened. Zuckerberg’s creation of Facebook can be deemed as accidental because he created FaceSmash just to get his mind off of a bad breakup. FaceSmash was generally a computer hack only a genius could pull off. It was meant to rate women on the Harvard campus hot or not and when it goes viral it gains the attention of these wealthy twins. After Zuckerberg connects with them the rest is pretty much history. With this sudden gain of power, fame and money this slowly destroys Zuckerberg. He finds himself in constant legal trouble because he is always looking for revenge. One lawsuit that is heavily highlighted in the film is the one regarding his former friend Eduardo someone who seemed to be the only true friend he actually had. Constantly putting up with Mark and the way he treated him he always stayed and actually cared for Mark from what I saw. So what was the point of this summary I say the point is from the movie and what it was trying to get at was that Zuckerberg lost the ability to control all aspects of his life. With his success it caused him to lose what was important to him and in the end it was a choice between the two. So what I ask everyone is if you came into sudden success like this do you think you could handle the life that comes with it?

Eli Pariser’s TED Talk expands on Facebook and what it was intended to do and now what it is shifting to. Like Zuckerberg’s innovation was meant to do it was a new way for the world to connect with one another at the time. Pariser acknowledges this and explains how as he was growing up facebook improved society. He uses his political standpoint of how he is a progressive and Facebook helped him meet more conservatives. Nowadays everything is filtered to you and this unique way to meet others is slowly drifting away. We see it everywhere you ever wonder when you search something up and you go on another application and there is an advertisement for it this is why. Facebook is not the only social media platform and engine doing this either this is what Google does as well. This isolation of the web is taking away the connectivity we all want. In my opinion we should be given some control of our internet. Not all intentions are bad and we want to be able to connect on a further level.

WEEKLY NEWS: https://www.cnet.com/news/halloween-2020-blue-moon-will-bring-a-rare-treat-to-the-skies-saturday/

The newspaper industry is suffering severely and this week we were given many accounts of how corrupt media really is. Things that should be reported are barely given any attention and things that often times do not matter are the headlines. We see this all the time in news outlets and we all would be lying if we don’t admit it. The regular things we do is always breaking news when a celebrity or someone with higher status does it. This is taking away from real ongoing issues and things actually worthy of being on the headline of the news.

There was an article that we had to look at that went into depth on how a longtime NBC reporter left the company because they were so focused on reporting on Trump they were missing things that actually deserved public attention. This individual was with NBC for 30 years so this just goes to show how corrupt the news really is. Someone is willing to leave their long time job it speaks for itself. He describe this issue as being a “Prisoner of Donald Trump.” how the NBC network is so quick to report anything in regards to Donald Trump and back him up. The analyst William Arkin wrote to the company a letter that he was leaving the company and is done with mainstream networks in all. He also explains how it was disheartening to see real important issues be ignored particularly global security problems by this major news sources. NBC, CNN, and Fox were all labeled as corrupt by Arkin an inside worker for mainstream media and I do not think anyone would walk away from 30 years of a job they have been doing for a lie.

Another article we had to look at spoke about how the age of newspapers are gone and it is now an era of corruption. The first sentence of the article is “We take newspapers for granted.” and I do feel this statement is true. I am not going to sit here and say I read the newspaper and am such a big fan of them because I am not. I learn all of my news off of my phone and the only time I might see something new is in a magazine in the store. The newspaper does report more things that we are missing and I can admit I am blind to other news because my primary source of news is my phone. Newspapers are now shrinking in pages and this just start to the what I see as the extinction of newspapers. This could be beneficial to companies making this gift to online, but not for us. Mainstream networks will just give us corrupt news and not real issues. So with newspapers slowly fading we should fear our source of real issues will too.

There was one more thing that out of the many things we had among us that struck me and it was a video with John Oliver talking about this corruption. He goes in on how the major source for all these websites and other news outlets online are newspapers and with newspapers going out of business what is in store for the future of news. Journalism is losing its importance and real journalist like Arkin and Oliver are trying to open our eyes to what we are heading into. They definitely opened mine and I saw a comment on the video that was very true and it was “Our world needs Clark Kent a lot more than Superman.” Do you agree with the statement? And whatever you choose what is the reasoning?

WEEKLY NEWS: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/ex-cowboys-receiver-dez-bryant-to-join-ravens-practice-squad-following-early-season-workout-per-report/

The weekly news article I chose is about an ex star receiver Dez Bryant getting his well deserved second chance in the NFL with a big Super Bowl favorite the Baltimore Ravens.

I think after all the material we watched, listened to, and read we can all agree copyrights are primarily intended to protect the author. I am not saying this is wrong at all, but it is the truth. We all have seen or heard of copyrights. If it was not in a law class then we all have seen that C symbol or Copr abbreviation somewhere. Original works should be rewarded completely, but seeing some of these copyright infringements I see the third party doing what copyrights claim they intend to do which is benefit the public. I stand with the author and believe they should be paid for their creativity and contributions to promote and advance art, but what I ask the class is where do you stand? With the author or the public?

Downloaded the documentary on Napster tells us the story of how college students did the unthinkable at that time period or how I see it started something revolutionary. Napster was a network where music could be exchanged online. As it gained popularity fast and rapidly spread the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) sued for copyright infringements along with the likes popular music creators like Dr. Dre and Metallica. Although this legal battle of Napster was lost and Napster is gone forever its impact is everlasting. Two teenagers Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker did something that is still used today in iTunes and other music downloading platforms that use similar softwares.

South Park won a lawsuit against a singer named Samwell over a copyright infringement. Samwell an internet sensation created a music video that went viral and blew up. South Park took this idea and ran with it. They took away all credit to Samwell and put the song What What (In The Butt) in one of their episodes. This copyright infringement does not benefit the public nor the creator but solely South Park. Samwell was not being paid for his song and dance being put in the show yet the case was dismissed. A clear copyright infringement was deemed as not substantial and did not impact Samwell’s market. I think otherwise, but we punish the creators of Napster and not big names. The intentions of both are clearly different.

The last two material that struck me were the article on techdirt by Mike Masnick and the academic article on Washington State University’s website. One article is saying that copyright’s sole purpose is to benefit the public and the other is saying it is to protect the creator. Congress and the Supreme Court constantly say copyrights primary purpose is to benefit the public, but is that really the case? Samwell someone who used their creativity to do something beneficial for themselves and the public was not protected by these laws. Copyright laws are intended to “promote and advance art”, but it does not seem that simple. Even Mozart a famous composer was found to be poor while the public enjoyed his works. Sometimes people do things because they love it and are not looking for payment, but some people are doing what they love for payment in hopes to one day be discovered and make a living off of what has a high meaning in their life. They create high demand things that we all want so it is only right the law protects them and their creations. Napster was for the common good what South Park did was for their own good. In both situations I did see creators being robbed of their ideas so maybe we should just be honest the copyright laws should protect the author first and the public second.

WEEKLY NEWS: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2020-10-15/donald-trump-ice-cube-contract-with-black-america

Ice Cube reportedly collaborated with Trump and is now facing heat for it. He says it was solely for the black community, but others believe otherwise and he is a sellout. What do you think?

This week we seen the use of digital activism in many forms like from the book group 2 presented on Wednesday and learned more about digital activism through the TED Talk with Zeynep Tufekci and the article on the Washington Post. All of these works are people using their platforms to campaign for change in social aspects. We have seen people using social media, literature, and protest.

Sexting Panic seemed to be a very interesting book. From hearing group 2 present it was a clear use of activism. The author Amy Adele Hasinoff is an activist. Hasinoff is clearly making us recognize a clear social issue that is trying to make teens unable to express themselves. Sexting is bound to happen at a young age because of the things young people are exposed to nowadays. The book reminds us of laws that are unjust that the person whose privacy was invaded has to pay the price. Instead of trying to punish people for things they will ultimately end up doing in life they should punish the people who expose them. Sexting is the sending of explicit messages and images through text. Everyone is free to do many things in their life and this is one. If someone wants to send their partner something explicit that is their right to do. If the recipient leaks those photos they are in the wrong and the person who sent the photo does not deserve to be punished. If we punish the leakers instead it will be a better resolution to the problem. What people send them should stay private unless both people want it to be spread. The wrong people are being punished for something that is out of their control.

The TED Talk was a description of the effects of online activism and other forms. She feels online activism does not how that long lasting effect like the original forms of activism like protest. She is partly correct because as she explains these social media movements are easy to grow and make big, but it does not last as long as protest movements that keep those interactions. Now people just participate and movements, but do not change their way of thinking. This is not enough people need to agree there is need of change and think collectively to resolve the issue. This was lost from the shift to starting movements on social media instead of protesting movements. All of the attention is good, but lets not forget the point for a real social change.

Hashtags on Twitter changed the way we talked about social issues as well. One big hashtag I remember was the #IceBucketChallenge. The challenge became very huge, but what started as a way to get people to donate for research funds for ALS became something people were just doing for fun. Attention was being raised to the challenge, but the cause was lost. It was something for friends to do to challenge their friends to donate money to a cause while adding some fun to it to encourage others. Before seeing some celebrities doing donations I did not know what the ice bucket challenge was for besides just dumping cold water on your head. What I take from this article is the same from the TED Talk. With online activism growing in popularity it is taking away some of the benefits of going out and protesting.

WEEKLY NEWS: https://people.com/human-interest/50-richest-americans-almost-have-more-money-than-half-the-country/

The article I chose was a news article I saw on Twitter I found very shocking. The 50 richest people in America have almost more wealth than the entire U.S. I just thought that was a crazy fact.

Usually we have a episode “Black Mirror” to watch, but this week we watched Snowden. The basis of this week I feel was centered around Edward Snowden and if his actions were just or unjust. Before I get into my take on this week’s material it is only right I provide some background of Edward Snowden. Edward Snowden who is better known as an American whistleblower worked for the CIA and leaked classified information from the NSA. The information he leaked brought world attention to digital privacy and security on now is a global issue. Of course like any other situation there is two sides to what he did. Some may view Snowden as courageous and some may view him as a traitor.

Regardless of what you think of Snowden what he did took a lot of courage. Agree or disagree with his actions he is primarily the reason why most of us tape the cameras on our computers because we feel the government is watching us. He gave us insight on how the government was watching what we do through our technology. The information Snowden leaked did reveal that the programs the NSA had were unconstitutional and were being done without the public’s knowledge. As shown in the movie Snowden just like other people felt this action went against democracy which is a government of the people.

On the contrary many people view Snowden as a traitor as well. He fled the country with tons of files of top secret information and gave it to another country to leak. This gave other countries a lot of information on the U.S and their programs and could have been very dangerous. It also was illegal to do what he did with the information he was given from his job. He was sworn to not give out that information when taking that job position and leaving the country and doing so went against his oath.

After watching the movie and reading the articles for the week I think both sides are in the wrong. I know this is an easy answer to come by, but when you look at the point of both sides they both knew they were in the wrong. Snowden knew what he was doing was wrong because he had to flea the country to do so and the government knew what they were doing was wrong because after Snowden did what he did they made it a crime and supposedly stopped doing this act. The government got what they were dishing out in some type of way because from invading the privacy of their own people now other countries were now invading theirs with this leak. As a U.S citizen maybe Snowden should not have leaked the information the way he did, but if he didn’t the government would have just continued to invade our privacy without any type of warning or consent of the people. The question I leave everyone with is do you believe Edward Snowden is an American hero or a whistle blowing traitor?

WEEKLY NEWS: lhttps://www.cnn.com/2020/10/02/politics/president-donald-trump-walter-reed-coronavirus/index.html

How ironic is it that after the presidential debate when Trump was bashing Biden for wearing a mask regardless of his distance from people he gets the virus a few days later?

I do not know where to begin after watching and reading all the material for this week. I thought it was trying to get at cyber bullying at first, but as I sat back and thought upon it longer I think something that was not so highlighted is the power technology and social media is giving people. One click of a button or tap of a screen and someones life could be ruined. Cyber bullying would have never been what it is today if we did not allow it to be so I just ask myself and everyone else who’s to blame?

Black Mirror’s episode “Hated in the Nation” is by far my favorite episode so far that we have watched. You could interpret it as cyber bullying, but I think it is aiming for a bigger picture than that. The power these people had just from a hashtag was outrageous. One post with the hashtag #DeathTo… and you were entered in almost some death lottery. This is very far fetched, but that is what Black Mirror does best. They leave it up to us to either get the message they are given or not. I think this could be a possible thing in the future if we do not recognize how much this resembles today. Social media can ruin someone’s entire life just with one picture or post just like that hashtag in the episode. We hear so many stories of people whose lives were ruined and could not go on because of the hands of social media and technology all because we gave social media that power in everyday life. Technology is not the only one to blame though people are also at fault. The episode shows people are just as bad as technology. The hashtag in the show and the things we post in real life are really not that different, but not as flat out as the show made it. If I could takeaway one thing from this episode it is that as a whole we need to do better.

The article on Harper’s Magazine “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” was also a very good read and struck very controversial topics. This ties into that recurring theme I stated earlier because it goes into depth on instead of us trying to get better and reform the problem at hand we are just looking to punish and if we keep this mentality we are just going to mess up the use of social media for everyone. Everyone runs to social media for their problems nowadays instead of resolving them. In the article it says social media was meant to give people a voice and express their freedom of speech, but how can we if people abuse this right and are making the things we are allowed to post limited. “If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.”(Harper’s Magazine, 2020)

Last but definitely not least the YouTube video “Bad Behavior Online: Bullying, Trolling & Free Speech” is what I gives us that first hand look on how this is going on today. People are saying whatever to whoever on social media. It could be a joke some of the time, but we fail to realize that one of the cons of saying jokes on social media is that we don’t know the tone of what is being said. One thing the video states that I do not agree with is that it is children and teens, but I feel it is everyone. Now after all of the material we had for the week I ask everyone who is at fault here social media and technology or us?

WEEKLY NEWS https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-louisville-cop-shooting-during-protests-pleads-not-guilty

The news article I chose for this week has to do with the tragic death or Breonna Taylor. She was killed because police officers had a no knock warrant and went into the wrong home and murdered her in cold blood. This upcoming week after months of protest only one of the three cops were accused for the shooting, but only for the damage to the neighbor’s walls. He pleaded not guilty and I feel justice is not being served at all. This was a bright and upcoming young black woman whose life was cut to short. All three officers should be charged and the proper evidence should be released.