Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sat Sep 19 11:24:11 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / Portland
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 10:51:31
So... what's this stuff going on in Portland?

Can you imagine if unmarked federal officials in camo were picking up individuals in unmarked vehicles without any explanation, reading of rights etc under Obama?

Habebe
Member
Fri Jul 17 10:54:35
What?
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 17 10:58:19
Seb is reading left wing conspiracy sources and getting confused.

In reality, there are some bored teenage anarchists(as there always are in portland) who are rioting and occasionally are arrested by both local and federal cops.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jul 17 11:01:45
Can you imagine if local governments in Democratic strongholds were enabling and encouraging riots and mob rule in order to progress a radical Marxist agenda under Obama?
Dakyron
Member
Fri Jul 17 11:04:57
Cross Portland off the list of places I would ever move to or even visit. Those people are batshit crazy.

sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 17 11:15:19
The suburbs are nice. But ya downtown has filthy hippies, bums, crowds, and crime.
Paramount
Member
Fri Jul 17 11:16:03
http://www...hread=86133&time=1594892527889
Rugian
Member
Fri Jul 17 11:16:31
Visiting Portland in 2018 was an eye opener. Homeless people are absolutely everywhere, set up in tents on downtown city streets, and they're extremely aggressive. Drug use is out in the open. Some sections of the city are okay but there are definitely areas that you'd need to avoid at night.

And the weirdest part is that for some reason the locals tolerate it. Youd think that people would be calling for a crackdown on such filth, but nope. Probably because everyone of means lives out in the suburbs.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jul 17 11:19:19
Oh and since this is a political thread...

If the Democrats win in Noveber then the entire country will end up looking like Portland. The way the Democrats have run the Left Coast into the ground should serve as a massive warning as to what their policies lead to.
Dakyron
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:09:50
"Visiting Portland in 2018 was an eye opener. Homeless people are absolutely everywhere, set up in tents on downtown city streets, and they're extremely aggressive. Drug use is out in the open. Some sections of the city are okay but there are definitely areas that you'd need to avoid at night.

And the weirdest part is that for some reason the locals tolerate it. Youd think that people would be calling for a crackdown on such filth, but nope. Probably because everyone of means lives out in the suburbs. "

You just described SF.

"If the Democrats win in Noveber then the entire country will end up looking like Portland. The way the Democrats have run the Left Coast into the ground should serve as a massive warning as to what their policies lead to. "

True. Just hoping that Trump doesn't drag the Senate down with him, to provide some opposition to the Biden presidency.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:18:18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

Don't look like cops to me. And Washington post doesn't really sound like a conspiracy theory site to me.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:18:41
Oh great. Douchey WP doesn't let you link direct.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:20:00
http://www...eral-arrests/%3foutputType=amp
TJ
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:24:54
"Douchey WP doesn't let you link direct"

It is an increasing situation and not just with WaPo.

Link to the article is in the most read section on the bottom right when you click on your link.
TJ
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:27:49
Success! More than one way to skin a cat. Commendable.
Habebe
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:28:09
Just take sebs link and scroll down to the third link.

"
Oh great. Douchey WP doesn't let you link direct."

Sure sign of a conspiracy theorist site.


I shouldn't have to point out that last part was a joke, but I kind of do.
Habebe
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:28:10
Just take sebs link and scroll down to the third link.

"
Oh great. Douchey WP doesn't let you link direct."

Sure sign of a conspiracy theorist site.


I shouldn't have to point out that last part was a joke, but I kind of do.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:30:08
Seb
Member Fri Jul 17 10:51:31
"Can you imagine if unmarked federal officials in camo were picking up individuals in unmarked vehicles without any explanation, reading of rights etc under Obama?"

Obama used drone strikes to murder US citizens who weren't even formally accused of any criminal wrongdoing in Yemen. Did you complain about that? When their families filed a civil suit and Obama asserted state secrets privilege to prevent the litigation, did you complain about that?

The feds should throw in free helicopter rides. Most communists have never been in helicopters so it would be a nice treat for them.
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:31:46
Wapo is far left these days. If those bums didnt want to get beat up by cops, they wouldnt shine lasers in their eyes.
Habebe
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:34:00
Loves the Pinochet reference.
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:36:57
"And the weirdest part is that for some reason the locals tolerate it."

Weenie leftists think they are being "compassionate" while everyone sane lives in the burbs. Thus the filth and crime perpetuates itself in the urban cores, dedpite the vast wealth of these west coast cities.

The burbs are really nice though :)
Rugian
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:38:00
WaPo literally changed its headline to "Democracy Dies in Darkness" after Trump won in 2016.

Not saying the story here is fake, but they're definitely coming at it from a certain angle.
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:39:50
And lets be honest, the filth and petty crime of west coast bums is still orders of magnitude safer than the violent rapes and murders of sebs migrants and other urban cores populated by BLM.
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:41:11
Wapo has been neglecting to mention the rioters have been shining lasers in cops eyes for the last two months.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:42:57
Renzo:

I complained about drone strikes when they started being used way back under Bush.

But if you are prepared to kill people with a drone on the basis they are in what you've declared a warzone because you've identified then as combatants even if they are carrying no official insignia and not engaged in combatative activities, solely on the basis of intelligence, then I don't see why you'd distinguish between ones holding American passports and not. If drone strikes are a legitimate method of war, and you can declare individuals enemy combatants, and that to are allowed to kill enemy combatants as though they were enemy soldiers in war (at least when they are in a notionally defined warzone) then it follows you can do it to American citizens.

Quite different when you are violating clear constitutional laws domestically to citizens.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:50:43
Seb
Member Fri Jul 17 12:42:57
"Quite different when you are violating clear constitutional laws domestically to citizens."

Lulz. US citizens are entitled to due process abroad. Their families are also entitled to due process in the courts after their loved ones are murdered. These were much more serious constitutional violations than these vannings (even assuming the reporting from Portland is accurate).
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 13:08:13
So, you are entitled to due process abroad if you are a terrorist, but you are not entitled to it at home for political protest?

Is that right?

Not *that* interested in the fine distinction that America uses to justify exactly who it can political assassinate abroad. That just makes you a war monger.

But this stuff at home determines whether or not you are a free democratic state.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jul 17 13:11:29
Sam Adams
"The burbs are really nice though :)"

Great weather and plenty of hiking opportunities too. It's a shame the cities are in such poor order.
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 17 13:20:35
Its easy to avoid the city cores though. Especially with larger burbs filling in for that function. Bellevue WA, for example, is pretty much what every city wishes it could be.

If you want a night on the town, go to bellevue, not seattle.

Seb, lets not confuse rioters and vandals with political protest. If you throw a rock at a cop, you are rightly arrested.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Fri Jul 17 13:21:05
Seb
Member Fri Jul 17 13:08:13
"So, you are entitled to due process abroad if you are a terrorist, but you are not entitled to it at home for political protest?"

Should be entitled to both.

"But this stuff at home determines whether or not you are a free democratic state."

If you can murder citizens abroad and cover it up using state secrets privilege, then you aren't a free country. The President unilaterally taking the country to war (e.g., Libya) is also more dictatorial than these vannings.

In the Portland matter, the media will force DHS to answer questions about who these figures are, what authority they were operating under, whether there was probable cause to make arrests, etc. Wouldn't be at all surprising if the early media reports have blown this way out of proportion as they have with so many other stories.
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 17 13:31:33
Indeed renzo. These are us marshals defending a federal courthouse and arresting some vandals that attacked it. The vandals are mostly being charged with minor crimes and released. It is blown way out of proportion.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Jul 17 14:16:23
"in what you've declared a warzone"

When did Congress declare war on Yemen?
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 14:40:23
Sam:

Very little evidence rocks were thrown in some of these videos. You've got these fellas pulling up and grabbing people with no event.

Then releasing them hours later without charge. Which they wouldn't do if they had an assault charge to bring.

Forwyn:

Indeed, making any attack on anyone there a straight up war crime, and also arguably a contravention of the powers of congress to declare war, both illegal under US law given that ratified treaties are part of US law.

The moment you accepted that loophole, you left the door wide open for the govt to make the next step of declaring "war" on it's own citizens in a foreign country using the same arguments with only a tiny extension.

It's only a short step from there to here.

So that's the ratchet: cheer it on when your party is in power and engage in whataboutary to justify the extension. Step step step.

I find your national preoccupation with procedures - as a form of yardstick for whether the govt is doing the right thing - over ethics and principal amusing at the best of times, it's naught but a displacement activity and trivially easy to subvert. When you throw in this mewling partisanship over who started it in I just shake my head.

Your system is rotten and has been for a long time because your culture is rotten, hypocritical and incapable of introspective reflection. Well into the late stages of decadence and decline. I hope you can renew yourself somehow, but half of you here are the driver of the national senescence, and refuse to even take responsibility for it.

I mean, I'm not even a US voter and your reflexive argument to raising a clear constitutional violation worthy of some tin pot latin american dictatorship is "but but but whatabout OBAMA!!!" as though that was some excellent argument.

You guys are fucked. It's going to end up like that Simpsons episode where they vote for one of the two alien overlords; itself a riff of the old Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy joke about voting for alien space lizards unless the wrong alien spacce lizards get in.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 14:42:17
Forwyn:
I should say, when I said you .. OBAMA!!! I was referring to you plural, which I suppose a bit unfair as it lumps you with Renzo.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jul 17 15:12:06
"Indeed, making any attack on anyone there a straight up war crime, and also arguably a contravention of the powers of congress to declare war, both illegal under US law given that ratified treaties are part of US law."

At the risk of adding to the whataboutery...we heard a very different line of reasoning from you back when the US went and attacked Libya.

Renzo Marquez
Member
Fri Jul 17 15:15:46
Seb
Member Fri Jul 17 14:40:23
"The moment you accepted that loophole ..."

Seb
Member Fri Jul 17 14:42:17
"Forwyn:
I should say, when I said you .. OBAMA!!! I was referring to you plural, which I suppose a bit unfair as it lumps you with Renzo."

Are you implying that I accepted the illegal war in Libya, murder of US citizens in Yemen, etc.? I didn't. I railed against those things extensively on UP. The US press didn't because they were Obama fellaters. But Trump is lidurally Hitlah because federal authorities detained some folx.

If they wanted to go after his worst abuses, they would focus on illegal strikes against Syria, assassination of Soleimani, and continued support for Saudi Barbaria in Yemen. But they generally support those things.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Fri Jul 17 15:21:51
Seb
Member Fri Jul 17 14:40:23
"I mean, I'm not even a US voter and your reflexive argument to raising a clear constitutional violation worthy of some tin pot latin american dictatorship ..."

What exactly is the clear constitutional violation? We have no idea what actually happened in Portland. We do know that the media was quieter when much more serious (even assuming you are 100% correct about what happened in Portland) constitutional violations have occurred in the past. If murdering US citizens and covering it up with state secrets privilege is fine, then vanning commies ain't no thang.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 15:57:51
Rugian:

The intervention in Libya had a UN mandate, very different from blowing up people in Yemen, for example.

Renzo:

Ok, so why are you going on about Obama then?

Well, there's videos of these camouflaged guys picking people up without any reason (apperently simply for being at protests), and putting them into cars, no reading of rights etc.

So theres 1st (free assembly and free speech) and 4th (due process)
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 15:59:34
"If murdering US citizens and covering it up with state secrets privilege is fine, then vanning commies ain't no thang."

And if vanning commies ain't no thang, then helicoptering fascists ain't no thang. And if helicoptering fascists ain't no thang, shelling liberal cities ain't no thang. Etc etc.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 15:59:44
Hence, your fucked.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 16:00:19
You prefer to have the partisanship over the principle.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Fri Jul 17 16:01:53
Seb
Member Fri Jul 17 15:57:51
"... people up without any reason ..."

You don't know that.

"... reading of rights ..."

Miranda warning is not required to arrest. You watch too much TV.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Fri Jul 17 16:02:25
Seb
Member Fri Jul 17 16:00:19
"You prefer to have the partisanship over the principle."

Incorrect. Also, lulz @ your attempts to justify the Libya disaster.
kargen
Member
Fri Jul 17 16:17:25
Renzo I think reading the Miranda rights is required when making an arrest. It is not required when detaining a suspect. Once you tell them they are being arrested you then read them their rights. People can be detained without being arrested.
I'm not 100% sure on this but I think that is how it works.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Fri Jul 17 16:25:59
kargen
Member Fri Jul 17 16:17:25
"I'm not 100% sure on this but I think that is how it works."

It does not work that way. Miranda relates to custodial interrogation. If the law enforcement officials ask questions while a suspect is in custody without giving the warning, then statements are inadmissible. Not required to arrest.
TJ
Member
Fri Jul 17 16:38:39
As i understand: no Miranda and nothing said by the detainee prior the reading of rights is admissible in a court of law. All officers should be aware of that being true. It seems that there was never any intention to charge the detainee.
TJ
Member
Fri Jul 17 16:39:20
I agree with RM, obviously.
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 17 16:45:28
TJ
Is it legal to arrest someone without a charge? That seems very odd beyond such things as protective custody and whatnot.

That the charges might be revised or dropped alltogether later is fair enough.
Borthas
Member
Fri Jul 17 16:48:39
Sure glad that 2nd amendment is protecting people from government tyranny..
TJ
Member
Fri Jul 17 16:51:25
It appears the officers reasoning was for a cooling off period. They can detain for a given period without charging. I'm not a lawyer, but some situations seem to be a reasonable approach. I think Justice Warren has written a SC opinion on the exact situation.
kargen
Member
Fri Jul 17 17:10:12
Renzo is correct in custody and subject to interrogation is when they need to be read.
TJ
Member
Fri Jul 17 17:10:55
Ok, I've done a little research. As to your question jergul. It isn't legal to arrest without a charge. Could they have charged the individuals, probably so. It is difficult to say anyone was provided benefit. It probably has to do with local orders above the police pay grade.
TJ
Member
Fri Jul 17 17:19:24
"That the charges might be revised or dropped alltogether later is fair enough."

I suspect that is what happened, but we'll probably never know for sure.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 17:36:25
So, explain to me then the due process in detaining someone, which is a major infringement on their rights.

I find it utterly bizarre that the police can detain people in this way without informing the individual why they are being detained and without having to at the very least explain probable cause.

If it's allowable under your Constitution in such generalised circumstances your Constitution doesn't really afford you very much liberty at all.

You have unidentified state officials apparently grabbing people with no real mechanisms for accountability. They don't identify themselves, they don't explain the reason for the detention. What mechanism then could be used for anyone (the detainee or a third party) to challenge being detained?

You are relying on the compliance of the officials to release them at some point.

You can argue about whether Miranda rights are triggered or not here - and exactly what I mean by procedural obsessions that divert you guys - but the principle is being walked over.

The focus on Miranda rights is because the very idea that police it paramilitary forces acting in lieu of police could detain an citizen on US soil for any other reason than to conduct a police investigation was kinda unthinkable. The focus is around due process and trial so the threat was always around interrogation and incrimination, not arbitrary detention, which is what is apparently happening here.

Forwyn
Member
Fri Jul 17 17:37:37
"Borthas
Member Fri Jul 17 16:48:39
Sure glad that 2nd amendment is protecting people from government tyranny.."

Lol. Leftcuck shitholes don't count.

http://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/28514

A. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess or carry a firearm, in or upon a public place, including while in a vehicle in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the firearm.

B. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess or carry a firearm and that firearm’s clip or magazine, in or upon a public place, including while in a vehicle in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the clip or magazine.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 17:42:36
In the UK the police have to inform you *why* you are being arrested *and* inform you of your right to remain silent.

You seem to be focusing on the right to remain silent, which implies you accept the idea that the police or state does not need to justify the actual act of detaining someone.

If they have no intention to question - the justification here for not reading rights - then that implies they are not detaining people for law enforcement activities (or they would need to allow for that as part of building a case).

This because, Iirc, failure to read rights at point of detention and attempting to do it later means any subsequent interview can be questioned in court as there is a window where the individual could be coerced without knowing their rights.

So the question then becomes, what right does the state have to detain someone if they clearly don't believe that person to have committed a crime?



Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 17:46:52
Either way you look at it, in practice it amounts to the power of arbitrary detention, and starts to remove the checks that makes it hard to illegally disappear someone without practical grounds for challenge.

You need transparency and accountability here, and if the accounts are accurate, it seems that all the mechanisms and features that have been out in place over time: badge numbers, reading of rights, statement of suspicion etc are all being circumvented. You ought to be worried.
TJ
Member
Fri Jul 17 18:02:11
I already corrected my original statement about detainee's. It is illegal to hold without charging and it is illegal to interrogate without being read your rights.

That is the catch "and if the accounts are accurate,"

I suspect the accounts aren't accurate, but even suspecting isn't substantiation.
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 17 18:07:32
"Very little evidence rocks were thrown in some of these videos. You've got these fellas pulling up and grabbing people with no event."

There is plenty of rock throwing and laser eyes going on from the anarchists. But thats cut out from what they post on twitter of course.
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 17 18:09:37
"Sure glad that 2nd amendment is protecting people from government tyranny."

Being arrested for throwing things at cops and then released a few hours later with a minor assault charge is such tyranny.

Lol dunce.
kargen
Member
Fri Jul 17 18:19:16
"You have unidentified state officials apparently grabbing people with no real mechanisms for accountability."

Nah they were identified by agency. They no longer have names on badges because of doxing problems putting officers at risk.
There is accountability. Multiple layers of it.

"You are relying on the compliance of the officials to release them at some point."

This is true in any country in the world. You have to rely on the authorities to act on that authority as the law allows. Different countries have different laws but the citizens of every country rely on compliance of the law.

"So the question then becomes, what right does the state have to detain someone if they clearly don't believe that person to have committed a crime?"

They can also detain with the intent to diffuse what they think is a dangerous or destructive situation.
We also have the new virus protocol where circumstances where they would be charged with a crime they are not being charged now. Some cities with this policy do get all information they can with the idea they will arrest and charge later when it is safer to do so.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jul 17 22:13:36
the Oregon governor asked Chad Wolf (DHS) to remove the gestapo forces & he refused... how does that sit w/ you & your party of state's rights?
kargen
Member
Fri Jul 17 22:44:44
So long as the federal forces are protecting federal buildings and other federal assets and enforcing federal laws they are within their rights as a law enforcement agency.

Outside of that if the governor wants the rest of his state to burn that should be up to the state and local agencies to figure out.

There is some overlap in jurisdiction between federal and state agencies. ICE is another example.
TJ
Member
Fri Jul 17 22:46:04
You might want to check on jurisdictional responsibilities. The DHS is protecting federal assets not State. If they overstep the Governor has a legit complaint.
Habebe
Member
Fri Jul 17 23:04:59
Didnt the Bundy's and Waco get federal agents too? Right wing groups het the feds called too.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jul 17 23:48:29
"So long as the federal forces are protecting federal buildings..."

that explains this CBP statement put out about the viral video of guy kidnapped by anonymous forces:
http://twitter.com/CBPMarkMorgan/status/1284256882467766272
stating the guy was suspected of attacking "federal agents" -or- "federal property"... so apparently he has no idea, just tossing out every reason that might make it remotely legal... god forbid he should look into it rather than just make shit up to cover their asses
(plus claiming there was a large violent mob necessitating the kidnapping... no mob seen in video which shows a pretty broad sweep)
earthpig
GTFO HOer
Sat Jul 18 00:33:01
So, here's what's happening with these "vannings."

The amalgamated federal law enforcement agents are identifying people wearing "black bloc" type attire. Claiming "oh yeah I recognized that guy, he threw a beer bottle at us" or whatever, and detaining them.

Take them back to the station, mirandize and arrest them. That lets you search them. If you find a laser pointer, weed, or whatever, boom you charge them. Get some federal agent to make some bullshit up about "oh yeah I certainly saw that exact individual pointing a laser pointer at me," document it, date-stamp the statement from trusted federal law enforcement who never lie, boom there you go.

If you don't find anything, then you go ask them to say things implicating themselves, people are stupid so some will talk about how they "only" threw one rock, not realizing it's a legally admissible confession. If they say incriminating shit, boom you charge them.

If you don't find anything, and they do not self-incriminate, then they are released.

I will let the silence of the "small government" civil libertarians speak for itself.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jul 18 01:50:14
so using the ole 'you fit the description' against white people... in black clothing... how disturbing
earthpig
GTFO HOer
Sat Jul 18 01:56:47
@tw - Yes, I recognize that irony. Whatever shit they are doing to black and brown people today, they will be doing to white people tomorrow. It's a rock solid safe assumption. And just another reason why we should always be skeptical of additional "policing."
Habebe
Member
Sat Jul 18 02:03:03
I really want this to be OK, cause you know commies and pinkos.

BUT this at least sounds bad even if its technically legal.

Im.also withholding judgement though until I reas up.on it more.
The Children
Member
Sat Jul 18 05:48:17
"So... what's this stuff going on in Portland?

Can you imagine if unmarked federal officials in camo were picking up individuals in unmarked vehicles without any explanation, reading of rights etc under Obama?
"

>> proidboys/ kkksupremists kidnappin unsuspecting demonstrators who look 2 be alone.

these men r then never heard from again.

absolutely it is scary and disgustin.

The Children
Member
Sat Jul 18 05:50:12
it all over the frikkin internet.

these guys werent military nor do police wear military unrecognizable unis...

look at how amateuristic it all went down. one was slumpin behind a little, they never tied him up, just grabbed him and left becoz they wanna kidnap asap and be gone outta there.

Seb
Member
Sat Jul 18 08:35:22
Kargen:

The report specifically says they aren't carrying unit insignia. So the agency isn't identified.

"This is true in any country in the world"

No, because you'll know which officers arrested you, from which agencies, and for what reason. If you or who you were with when arrested don't know that, there's no way to challenge the arrest.

Cherub Cow
Member
Sat Jul 18 08:44:13
[earthpig]: "I will let the silence of the "small government" civil libertarians speak for itself."

That sort of line/argument has been making the rounds on some social media, but it holds no water. It usually propagates through false Venn diagrams, like equating the NRA with freedom fighters. Local to UP there may be some hypocrisy, but online libertarian conversations have been raging about police brutality from the beginning of this (and not just r/Libertarian, where most people just go to trash Libertarian straw men). In practice, nuance happens: people can be pro-gun, anti-rioter, anti-destruction of private property, and also anti-secret-police. But those article links haven't been "trending" because they don't fuel pre-election polarization, which always seeks to de-legitimize any position which does not mean a vote for one of the big two U.S. parties. "A vote for [the candidate that actually represents your individual politics] is just a vote for [the other guy!] So [vote defensively instead of with rational self-interest!]"

...
Following the Twitter link from UGT (Arrest video, http://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1284076816504885250 ) and the CBP statement:
"You will not see names on their uniforms b/c these same violent criminals use this information to target them & their families, putting both at risk"

That *is* a valid point, but it was implemented in a short-sighted way. Having *completely* anonymous officers violates public trust. The officers *should* be protected from doxxing (the Internet lynch mob does indeed ruin lives asymmetrically to the actions taken by their targets), but that protection has to be in a limited capacity. Like, the officers still should be identifiable **to citizens** through a filter. That filter can simply be designated numbers on their uniforms that citizens can use to report them if needed. The organizing authority and an impartial legal authority (third party) would have the decoding list (numbers next to names) so that accusations can be investigated. But with no identifying marks whatsoever, officers remain unaccountable both to the public and to their own organization... (Within their own ranks, they could simply say, "That wasn't me / Not sure who that was." I.e., excessive plausible deniability) A counterpoint would be that riot officers with identifying numbers could be targeted more easily by violent protesters ("Hey! Let's all get #3!"), but that falls back on riot tactics: police noticing that a specific officer is being targeted and putting that officer out of reach within formation.

And like someone on the scene pointed out with that "Use your words!" mantra, it's also a problem, yet again, to see officers not using voice commands or explanations. That is never good. It's not a matter of legality; it's about transparency, communication (being understood), and deescalation. If police can only be understood once the dust settles (which happened only after the detained individuals could tell their stories), then they have [inadvertently?] fueled more entirely avoidable backlash.

Also a problem: a point I made with the George Floyd video was that people on the scene should have had the will to *act* against the injustice. In Floyd's case, a drop-kick would have worked (it could stop the choking immediately and then cause enough of a distraction that officers change positions to address the new threat), but here.. multiple anonymous officers making a silent arrest of a citizen in an unmarked vehicle.. that's an escalation scenario — on the part of citizens. If a capable citizen (e.g., armed and trained) wants to respond to that level of injustice, it requires a level of force that the officers may not want to see. Their silence costs them PR, *and* it can cost them on the spot. That is a cost of government escalating tactics like this without looking at the immediate, on-the-ground optics. Ground leadership failed here. Something simple like ordering a few hundred numbered velcro number tapes could solve this issue, but ground leadership will probably just keep up the full retard policing.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Sat Jul 18 09:04:24
http://www...border-patrol-portland-arrest/
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Sat Jul 18 10:47:39
http://www...igation-into-use-of-force.html
Pillz
Member
Sat Jul 18 11:32:42
Lol
earthpig
GTFO HOer
Sat Jul 18 14:17:04
@CC - Fair points. Reason.com has been publishing some pretty good stuff too.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jul 18 15:31:31
numbers is probably a good idea

although w/ them completely covered head to toe including helmet, mask & sunglasses, add calling them by numbers, it's pretty close to stormtroopers :p
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 18 15:44:10
It may be a good idea, but full anonymity is probably a design feature, not a bug. There is probably some electronic identifier for federal use.
Pillz
Member
Sat Jul 18 16:06:25
Police in Greece have been operating without personal identification for a while when in riot/vanned situation for years afaik
Paramount
Member
Sat Jul 18 16:29:39
” For days, federal agents in unmarked cars have reportedly been snatching Portland protesters off the streets. On Thursday, video emerged of federal agents clad in camouflage fatigues and unspecified “police” patches apprehending one such demonstrator and placing him in an unmarked vehicle.”


Imagine if this happened in China? Rugian would declare war.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jul 18 19:42:24
Paramount, That is routine in China.
Pillz
Member
Sun Jul 19 01:43:11
So 4 federal agencies are in Portland to protect federal property. They're arresting people for damaging federal property (arson etc) and then tacking on assault of a federal officer for resisting/people who try to intervene.

Lulz
CrownRoyal
Member
Mon Jul 20 13:18:53
http://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1285270380127629315?s=20

Speaking of pseudo libertarians who, for some shocking reasons said nothing about you know, libertarian concerns over portland issue, took idiot rand a few days to gin up his courage, but here he goes.

"We cannot give up liberty for security. Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will."
hood
Member
Mon Jul 20 13:41:49
Local authorities should be rounding up federal agents at will.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jul 20 14:01:28
this is a balding navy vet... (Chris David)

http://imgur.com/gallery/PAq5DIg
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jul 20 14:02:43
Trump says he's going to send his brute squads to many other cities
http://twitter.com/thehill/status/1285244981322690560

maybe they'll 'monitor' polling stations like that black guy in Philadelphia Fox shows every election
Renzo Marquez
Member
Mon Jul 20 14:14:53
Sounds reasonable to me.
Pillz
Member
Mon Jul 20 16:35:49
Local police have a responsibility to uphold the law and prevent destruction of property, including federal. Federal officers have the right to pursue suspects in connection with crimes on or against federal property and agents.

Youre all so fucking butthurt
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jul 20 16:52:09
a bit more of the start of that criminal assault on the Navy vet... shows a shove of him first
plus his interview
http://twitter.com/Tazerface16/status/1285319987100442624
Pillz
Member
Mon Jul 20 17:15:34
Supposed to disperse when they say disperse.

Standing by yourself gets you knocked.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 20 17:26:02
How can any of you think that ghost recon bs is legit.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 20 17:27:34
Pillz
You are citing my third pillar of US foreign policy, but applying it domestically: "Now look what you made us do".

The pillars are meant as warnings. Things are seriously fucked up when policies can be defined the way I do.
Pillz
Member
Mon Jul 20 17:38:30
Arresting and releasing rioters isn't valid criteria for that pillar.

Now, if Seattle PD opened fire on rioters rather than abandoning their precinct then you'd be right.

Or if those rioters never saw the light of day again.

This is just trying to deter regular folks who don't want a criminal record or federal charges but do also work at Starbucks and majored in studio art or art history or women's studies or whatever.

To this in 2 or 3 more cities and people will be deterred.

It will flip and become exponentially counter productive to have attempted should loss of life occur, however.

But you know it doesn't matter how, why, or who, just that it happened. Although how that makes any difference for the US I am not sure.

Russia and RT have been applying pretty heavy pressure on that front for years now, and made significant progress both within the US and abroad. But Russia can't take a US regime change initiative in the US and nobody else can do shit either.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 20 17:41:25
Pillz:

Do these federal officers have the right to order people to disperse if they are not on federal territory?

From the sounds of it they only have the right to protect federal property and pursue people for federal crimes, or assaulting federal officers.

So where does their power to disperse citizens come from?

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jul 20 17:49:38
assaulting a person isn't the procedure to deal with failure to disperse (even if they are allowed to demand dispersal)

but good luck identifying any of those criminals

i don't even see the generic 'police' patches that the kidnappers wore (but video quality isn't great)
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 20 18:02:43
It's sad really. At least Chamberlain appeased to rearm. You guys are more like quisling or Vichy France: collaborators, only they had little choice.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jul 22 01:26:18
so the explanation for the kidnap victim was that he was seen "in a crowd in an area" where -someone- aimed a laser pointer at officers

so that's what led to being shuffled into a rental van by anonymous forces

(it's at 36:30)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XTYITCtFlc&t=2190

he also cites the large mob idea of why the victim needed taken away, claiming 'as they approached him' they spotted this alleged mob & that's why they took him to van... i see no indication those 2 goons had any intention other than to abduct the guy from the start
www.yeswecansong.com
Member
Wed Jul 22 05:33:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzHE_SY334o
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share