Jump to content

Portland "officers?"


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 548
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just got myself a nice blackout Sprinter van and some military surplus fatigues. Be heading up to Portland this weekend to "arrest" some pretty young ladies. The drive up should give me plenty of time

Yeah, Dog loves to conflate conversations to make it look like he is making a point. It's his usual tiresome distraction technique. He  can't say that he is against the secret police in Portland becau

If they are conducting lawful federal business, no.  If they are not conducting lawful federal business, yes.  Arresting peaceful protestors is unlawful on its face, and anyone doing so - local - or f

Posted Images

Hope somebody’s head rolls for this.

Talk about retarded.

Its got Miller’s stamp all over it.

57 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

If Trumpsters like the idea of a banana Republic, I like the idea of an Inquisition.

Remember going to a visiting show in the castle above Palma de Mallorca it had on display the torture instruments used in the Spanish Inquisition, those folks were some really sick and twisted fuckers operating with the tacit approval of the Catholic Church.

Ya don’t like our brand of Christianity?

Well then we’re going to have to kill you real slow while inflicting the max pain possible.
Donnie would have a heart attack before you could get the disembowlment device close.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:

Hope somebody’s head rolls for this.

Talk about retarded.

Its got Miller’s stamp all over it.

Remember going to a visiting show in the castle above Palma de Mallorca it had on display the torture instruments used in the Spanish Inquisition, those folks were some really sick and twisted fuckers operating with the tacit approval of the Catholic Church.

Ya don’t like our brand of Christianity?

Well then we’re going to have to kill you real slow while inflicting the max pain possible.
Donnie would have a heart attack before you could get the disembowlment device close.

FB message from Democrat Mark Gamba, mayor of Milwaukie OR on fed troops in Portland


Mark Gamba 
37m 
Despot Trump has sent federal police to a city without the invitation from that city's Mayor nor that state's Governor. According to many reports by serious news agencies: "Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14. Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off." Seriously people??? Are we all so young we forget what happened in Germany, or Argentina or dozens of other countries under the leadership of a despot? This is America, and we are allowing this to occur on our streets. I guarantee that in every one of those countries there was a "legitimate reason" being touted. A line needs to be drawn and needs to be drawn right now. That line will not be one made up of lawyers. Despot Trump couldn't care less about the law, to him it is something to be gotten around. If I were Governor right now, some staffer would be working really hard to talk me out of calling up the Oregon National Guard and having them surround the protests FACING OUT- there to protect the protesters from the minions of the despot. How bad will we allow This to get? The very thing that the right wingers fear the most is happening, it's just not happening to them. Remember - the rule of law only protects you if the person with the physical power over you also believes in the rule of law. Despot Trump does not.
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This fuckery needs to get exposed and shut down STAT (!)

I may be a bit a bit "extra sensitive" living sorta near the vicinity, on the on the north side of the big river; if this behavior  is  federally "legitimized" in Portland, things are going to turn to real shite in the near and genuine boonies in the PNW.  There are many supportive elk who've not publicly ventured out from under their rocks...yet. Scary stuff.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mike G said:

Is this normal?

 

It shouldn't be ... but then charakters like that were seen in D.C. a few weeks ago and whoever authorized or ordered it, got away with it:

Who are These Guys and What are They Doing in America?

So, once these "shadow operatives" are established, why not further use them? Same principle as constant lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Dog said:

 

I watched the whole thing, just to be aware of what you felt needed to be heard.  I commend Officer Jackson and wish him well in his role as Community Engagement Officer.  My hope is there can be more of that and less of the militarization we've seen.

I am wondering what message you intend by sharing that video in this thread started about seemingly anonymous, unaffiliated, and unaccountable "law enforcement individuals"?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

I watched the whole thing, just to be aware of what you felt needed to be heard.  I commend Officer Jackson and wish him well in his role as Community Engagement Officer.  My hope is there can be more of that and less of the militarization we've seen.

I am wondering what message you intend by sharing that video in this thread started about seemingly anonymous, unaffiliated, and unaccountable "law enforcement individuals"?

Distraction and deflection.  

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I watched the whole thing, just to be aware of what you felt needed to be heard.  I commend Officer Jackson and wish him well in his role as Community Engagement Officer.  My hope is there can be more of that and less of the militarization we've seen.

I am wondering what message you intend by sharing that video in this thread started about seemingly anonymous, unaffiliated, and unaccountable "law enforcement individuals"?

I thought it was worth seeing the guy, It is off topic so I probably should have dropped it in a different thread.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Dog said:

I thought it was worth seeing the guy, It is off topic so I probably should have dropped it in a different thread.

Bullshit.  You're trying to justify fascism because policing is hard.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is some seriously fucked up right wing fascist bullshit.  Most of America is too stupid worrying about wearing a fucking mask at the goddam grocery store than actual Constitutional rights being obliterated right before their eyes.  

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why aren't people fighting back against those fake "LEO". No marking only camo, rental cars and kidnapping people. Any group could be doing that. Any proof its not a neonazi or KKK group? Fight back, make a citizens arrest and let the truth out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

Why aren't people fighting back against those fake "LEO". No marking only camo, rental cars and kidnapping people. Any group could be doing that. Any proof its not a neonazi or KKK group? Fight back, make a citizens arrest and let the truth out.

Why are you calling them fake?

Khaki is not camo.  It's just a utility uniform.  There seems to be a lot of demand for LEOs at present and the usual number of police aren't going to be able to stand that pace for long.

Deputizing other trained personnel on a temporary basis seems reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

Why aren't people fighting back against those fake "LEO". No marking only camo, rental cars and kidnapping people. Any group could be doing that. Any proof its not a neonazi or KKK group? Fight back, make a citizens arrest and let the truth out.

The fact that neither the Administration nor any of the Faithful here are objecting should tell you who is likely behind it.

If it appeared that BLM was behind it, you can be certain there'd be screaming from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Why are you calling them fake?

Khaki is not camo.  It's just a utility uniform.  There seems to be a lot of demand for LEOs at present and the usual number of police aren't going to be able to stand that pace for long.

Deputizing other trained personnel on a temporary basis seems reasonable.

If they don't have ID and they touch you, you are absolutely allowed to shoot them in the face as long as you say "I'm in fear for my life, these are clearly ex-cops!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

The fact that neither the Administration nor any of the Faithful here are objecting should tell you who is likely behind it.

If it appeared that BLM was behind it, you can be certain there'd be screaming from them.

See?  Saorsa's cool with folks who are anonymous making US citizens "disappear".  Just like they do in Banana Republics.

10 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Why are you calling them fake?

Khaki is not camo.  It's just a utility uniform.  There seems to be a lot of demand for LEOs at present and the usual number of police aren't going to be able to stand that pace for long.

Deputizing other trained personnel on a temporary basis seems reasonable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Why are you calling them fake?

Khaki is not camo.  It's just a utility uniform.  There seems to be a lot of demand for LEOs at present and the usual number of police aren't going to be able to stand that pace for long.

Deputizing other trained personnel on a temporary basis seems reasonable.

Deputies carry fucking badges.

Time for some concealed carry folks to make this into a major incident.  Maybe then Trump and his folk will be held accountable.

You pull up to a van and jump out in camo to grab me without ID, my wife is going to pepper spray your ass and I'll finally find out how quick I can get to my ankle holster.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

If they don't have ID and they touch you, you are absolutely allowed to shoot them in the face as long as you say "I'm in fear for my life, these are clearly ex-cops!"

Agree however I suspect these anonymous guys are just itching to blow away anyone wishing to defend themselves in this manner.
Intimidate seems to be the MO

Sounds like the locals need to swat them and see what comes of that especially considering no ID.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swimsailor said:

This is some seriously fucked up right wing fascist bullshit.  Most of America is too stupid worrying about wearing a fucking mask at the goddam grocery store than actual Constitutional rights being obliterated right before their eyes.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:

Agree however I suspect these anonymous guys are just itching to blow away anyone wishing to defend themselves in this manner.

There are no movements without martyrs, unfortunately.  There's also an awful lot that smart mayors can do about the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

There are no movements without martyrs, unfortunately.  There's also an awful lot that smart mayors can do about the situation.

Too bad so many Mayors fail.

Should we attribute that to party?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swimsailor said:
2 hours ago, Dog said:

I thought it was worth seeing the guy, It is off topic so I probably should have dropped it in a different thread.

Bullshit.  You're trying to justify fascism because policing is hard.

Dog (and all his elk) are convinced that True Power is harsh... violent... oppressive. How can you be sure you RULE people unless you beat the fuck out of them, kill a few? And in between, force them to do demeaning painful things?

Right now, there are a lot of Americans who will not stand for that kind of shit, so thy have to do it under cover. But little by little, the disguise is coming off.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tweet so it must be happening.    I heard that the feds have sent in DHS officers to protect federal buildings.  The director of DHS was in Portland yesterday to try and work with the local government.  I'm guessing the vans pulling up and grabbing protesters is more likely vandals getting arrested for damaging federal property.

 

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2020/07/homeland-security-head-calls-portland-demonstrators-violent-mob-defends-federal-officers.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Joker said:

It's a tweet so it must be happening.    I heard that the feds have sent in DHS officers to protect federal buildings.  The director of DHS was in Portland yesterday to try and work with the local government.  I'm guessing the vans pulling up and grabbing protesters is more likely vandals getting arrested for damaging federal property.

 

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2020/07/homeland-security-head-calls-portland-demonstrators-violent-mob-defends-federal-officers.html

Homeland security shouldn't be involved unless specifically requested by the state. It's a local and state issue.

It's not like Marines defending an embassy on foreign soil. If the Federal building is in danger of being defaced, they should work within the confines of the Tenth Amendment, and request what they need through the state.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Homeland security shouldn't be involved unless specifically requested by the state. It's a local and state issue.

It's not like Marines defending an embassy on foreign soil. If the Federal building is in danger of being defaced, they should work within the confines of the Tenth Amendment, and request what they need through the state.

Every federal building I've been in is staffed by federal officers,  so actually it is like an embassy.  They have every right to defend federal property.   Unless the state decides to pay for any damage they have zero say in telling the feds how to operate to protect those properties. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Every federal building I've been in is staffed by federal officers,  so actually it is like an embassy.  They have every right to defend federal property.   Unless the state decides to pay for any damage they have zero say in telling the feds how to operate to protect those properties. 

Bullshit.  Federal officers still have to identify themselves.  There still needs to be a crime committed.  Constitutional rights aren’t suspended just because federal cops are present.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:
21 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Every federal building I've been in is staffed by federal officers,  so actually it is like an embassy.  They have every right to defend federal property.   Unless the state decides to pay for any damage they have zero say in telling the feds how to operate to protect those properties. 

Bullshit.  Federal officers still have to identify themselves.  There still needs to be a crime committed.  Constitutional rights aren’t suspended just because federal cops are present.

Yep.

For example, if you're a rancher who is pissed off about not being allowed to graze your herd for free on taxpayer-owned land, you're actually allowed to occupy federal buildings and destroy federal property and even shoot at federal officers (hitting them seems to still be frowned on).

Of course, those were WHITE people who were fighting for WHITE rights.

Just a coincidence, of course.

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the outrage from our 2A tough guys? Don't they know that these secret police will in six months be working for Biden's communist regime? Might take your guns in no-knock midnight raids.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, The Joker said:

 Unless the state decides to pay for any damage they have zero say in telling the feds how to operate to protect those properties. 

Whether the state decides to pay for any damages has zero bearing on the federal governments sovereignty over its own property, which is absolute.  Their right to interfere with people off their property is very much subject to state law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Whether the state decides to pay for any damages has zero bearing on the federal governments sovereignty over its own property, which is absolute.  Their right to interfere with people off their property is very much subject to state law.

We agree

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swimsailor said:

Bullshit.  Federal officers still have to identify themselves.  There still needs to be a crime committed.  Constitutional rights aren’t suspended just because federal cops are present.

Bullshit yourself there is no federal statute which requires them to identify themselves. 
As Clean said they might be subject to state law, but very few require officers to identify themselves. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Bullshit yourself there is no federal statute which requires them to identify themselves. 
As Clean said they might be subject to state law, but very few require officers to identify themselves. 

OK, this sounds patently stupid. If what you say is true, any dick with an attitude could grab you and throw you in the car, and you best not defend yourself in the off chance that it's LE.

Please cite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:
7 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Bullshit yourself there is no federal statute which requires them to identify themselves. 
As Clean said they might be subject to state law, but very few require officers to identify themselves. 

OK, this sounds patently stupid. If what you say is true, any dick with an attitude could grab you and throw you in the car, and you best not defend yourself in the off chance that it's LE.

Please cite.

This is what happens when you genuinely beee-LEEEVE that any bullshit you can make up happens to be a CONSTEE-TOOSHUNNULL RAHT !!!

Gov't law officers don't have to identify themselves as such!

They can arrest you anywhere, any time, for any reason... you might be an illegal alien, you might have vandalized Federal property!

They can detain you for any period of time!

Etc etc etc

Although why they would bother to arrest you, or detain you, when they have the absolute right to simply kill you any time, for not obeying their orders fast enough, makes little sense to me.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have allowed ICE to act this way for years, so why should we be surprised 

when they start doing it to the rest of us ?? 

ICE grabbed over a hundred people from a local greenhouse business over a year ago, 

and we still have NO INFORMATION about who was detained, or what the charges were' 

no police report, no names of arresting officers 

That is your banana republic right there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/204.635

(1) A sheriff’s deputies shall be appointed by the sheriff in writing and continue during the pleasure of the sheriff. The sheriff of any county may appoint deputies in the county for the purpose only, and with authority only, to receive and serve summons and civil process in any suit or action. A certified copy of the appointment of a deputy sheriff shall be filed with the county clerk, and the person appointed shall, before entering upon the duties of the office, take and file with the county clerk the oath of office.

(2) A sheriff may also, by special written appointment, authorize any other person to do any particular act. A certified copy of such appointment shall be filed with the county clerk, unless indorsed upon the process, order or other paper so authorized to be served or executed.

(3) A deputy has the power to perform any act or duty that the principal has, and a person specially appointed to do a particular act has the same power in relation to the particular act authorized. The principal is responsible for the conduct of such deputy or person specially appointed except as provided in subsection (4) of this section.

(4) In counties having a civil service system covering deputy sheriffs, the sheriff shall not be responsible for the conduct of deputy sheriffs or persons specially appointed as provided in subsection (2) of this section. [Amended by 1963 c.331 §12]

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Joker said:


There is no federal statute requiring federal officers to identify themselves

You  guys are so sure you’re correct
prove me wrong 

That's not how it works. You make a statement, you back it up. A quick google showed they do not UNLESS they are arresting you, searching you or asking you to move on. They can lie, say they aren't a  cop, etc. All well known police powers. You know, like lying to General Flynn to get him to lie. Like that. Totally legit.  Throwing you in the back of a rental car? An arrest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

 

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/204.635

(1) A sheriff’s deputies shall be appointed by the sheriff in writing and continue during the pleasure of the sheriff. The sheriff of any county may appoint deputies in the county for the purpose only, and with authority only, to receive and serve summons and civil process in any suit or action. A certified copy of the appointment of a deputy sheriff shall be filed with the county clerk, and the person appointed shall, before entering upon the duties of the office, take and file with the county clerk the oath of office.

(2) A sheriff may also, by special written appointment, authorize any other person to do any particular act. A certified copy of such appointment shall be filed with the county clerk, unless indorsed upon the process, order or other paper so authorized to be served or executed.

(3) A deputy has the power to perform any act or duty that the principal has, and a person specially appointed to do a particular act has the same power in relation to the particular act authorized. The principal is responsible for the conduct of such deputy or person specially appointed except as provided in subsection (4) of this section.

(4) In counties having a civil service system covering deputy sheriffs, the sheriff shall not be responsible for the conduct of deputy sheriffs or persons specially appointed as provided in subsection (2) of this section. [Amended by 1963 c.331 §12]

 

 

 

How do you know they are deputies if they offer no id?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Clove Hitch said:

How do you know they are deputies if they offer no id?

The Riech don't care. They're white, they think they are immune.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

That's not how it works. You make a statement, you back it up. A quick google showed they do not UNLESS they are arresting you, searching you or asking you to move on. They can lie, say they aren't a  cop, etc. All well known police powers. You know, like lying to General Flynn to get him to lie. Like that. Totally legit.  Throwing you in the back of a rental car? An arrest.

That is how you and others demand it works.  I feel no need to back up something I know is fact.  Here is your big chance to be a PA hero show the statue that requires federal officers to identify themselves when detaining someone.  
 

If I’m wrong I’ll be happy to admit it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me how this is within their jurisdiction of "protecting federal property". They are operating entirely outside of the law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/17/portland-protests-federal-arrests/

When several men in green military fatigues and generic “police” patches sprang out of an unmarked gray minivan in front of Mark Pettibone in the early hours of Wednesday morning, his first instinct was to run. He did not know whether the men were police or far-right extremists, who frequently don militarylike outfits and harass left-leaning protesters in Portland, Ore. The 29-year-old resident said he made it about a half-block before he realized there would be no escape.

Then, he sank to his knees, hands in the air.

“I was terrified,” Pettibone told The Washington Post. “It seemed like it was out of a horror/sci-fi, like a Philip K. Dick novel. It was like being preyed upon.”

He was detained and searched. One man asked him if he had any weapons; he did not. They drove him to the federal courthouse and placed him in a holding cell. Two officers eventually returned to read his Miranda rights and ask if he would waive those rights to answer a few questions; he did not.

....

Pettibone said he still does not know who arrested him or whether what happened to him legally qualifies as an arrest. The federal officers who snatched him off the street as he was walking home from a peaceful protest did not tell him why he had been detained or provide him any record of an arrest, he told The Post. 

“Arrests require probable cause that a federal crime had been committed, that is, specific information indicating that the person likely committed a federal offense, or a fair probability that the person committed a federal offense,” Orin Kerr, a professor at University of California at Berkeley Law School, told The Post. “If the agents are grabbing people because they may have been involved in protests, that’s not probable cause.”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Tell me how this is within their jurisdiction of "protecting federal property". They are operating entirely outside of the law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/17/portland-protests-federal-arrests/

When several men in green military fatigues and generic “police” patches sprang out of an unmarked gray minivan in front of Mark Pettibone in the early hours of Wednesday morning, his first instinct was to run. He did not know whether the men were police or far-right extremists, who frequently don militarylike outfits and harass left-leaning protesters in Portland, Ore. The 29-year-old resident said he made it about a half-block before he realized there would be no escape.

Then, he sank to his knees, hands in the air.

“I was terrified,” Pettibone told The Washington Post. “It seemed like it was out of a horror/sci-fi, like a Philip K. Dick novel. It was like being preyed upon.”

He was detained and searched. One man asked him if he had any weapons; he did not. They drove him to the federal courthouse and placed him in a holding cell. Two officers eventually returned to read his Miranda rights and ask if he would waive those rights to answer a few questions; he did not.

....

Pettibone said he still does not know who arrested him or whether what happened to him legally qualifies as an arrest. The federal officers who snatched him off the street as he was walking home from a peaceful protest did not tell him why he had been detained or provide him any record of an arrest, he told The Post. 

“Arrests require probable cause that a federal crime had been committed, that is, specific information indicating that the person likely committed a federal offense, or a fair probability that the person committed a federal offense,” Orin Kerr, a professor at University of California at Berkeley Law School, told The Post. “If the agents are grabbing people because they may have been involved in protests, that’s not probable cause.”

Completely agree.  If that’s actually happening then heads need to roll. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Bullshit yourself there is no federal statute which requires them to identify themselves. 
As Clean said they might be subject to state law, but very few require officers to identify themselves. 

If they don't identify themselves when they threaten your safety, you can shoot them in the face legally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A point that has not been raised yet, and which is likely the 

scariest thing of all . .  

Is asking where are the morals, professional oaths and common decency of all 

the LOE's and government officials who are going along with this ?  

When the governor of the state tells them to leave, they really need to do so Asap. 

If the Drumph ordered them to stuff screaming people into blazing ovens, I'll bet the would do it. 

Your Reich at work  

And what happened to all those principled states rights GOPPERS ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Completely agree.  If that’s actually happening then heads need to roll. 

It's simply amazing what you'll trust as 'truth' from your proven liar in chief, and yet from multiple eyewitness, first hand accounts we get "if that's actually happening..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, The Joker said:


There is no federal statute requiring federal officers to identify themselves

You  guys are so sure you’re correct
prove me wrong 

unless they want to be shot and killed by folks legally asserting their right to self-defense, they do have to identify themselves.  You will find that in every handbook and policy manual for every law enforcement agency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, inneedofadvice said:

It's simply amazing what you'll trust as 'truth' from your proven liar in chief, and yet from multiple eyewitness, first hand accounts we get "if that's actually happening..."

If it’s happening - as they describe. The guy was read his Miranda rights which indicates there is a bit more to the story. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

A quick google showed they do not UNLESS they are arresting you, searching you or asking you to move on. 

That's because if they make you scared for your personal safety or touch you without identifying themselves, you can throw a leg triangle over their their head and choke them out and kill them without legal repercussions.  The guy standing behind the unidentified cop can see what's going on, and if he is scared for your personal safety, he can come over and throw a rear naked choke on the cop and kill him without legal repercussions.  Or just shoot him in the back of the head.

it's pretty simple: In America, in all states, if someone puts you in imminent fear of your life, it is a defense to criminal culpability that you killed them while you fear such harm to be imminent.

Here's the crazy part: Even if the cop identifies himself, someone who shoots the cop can still get off if the cop didn't identify himself early enough in the process; i.e. if the circumstances dictate that the cop knows the identification might not be likely to be believed.  It's why police shoot first and ask questions later when they serve 'no-knock' warrants.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Standing by for this

You didn’t cite the statue because you can’t.  It may be in the handbooks, it may be good policing, but it is not required by federal law. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did anybody claim there was such a statute? 

Alan claimed (correctly) that a cop who doesn't identify himself risks resistance (that they won't be able to prosecute as "resisting arrest"), event o the point of deadly force.   

I'll add that there's also a risk the arrest gets thrown out on 4th amendment grounds (depending on the exact circumstances), and/or that the cop doesn't get QA if he's sued (depending, again, on the exact circumstances).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, The Joker said:

You didn’t cite the statue because you can’t.  It may be in the handbooks, it may be good policing, but it is not required by federal law. 
 

Statue?  You are truly a moron. Should he have cited the Thinker, Rodin, or Michelangelo's Pieta.  How stupid does one have to become before they look in a mirror and acknowledge it.  

 

Hint, like any 8yo, you meant statute, a state law.  DUMBSHIT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, frenchie said:

Where did anybody claim there was such a statute? 

Alan claimed (correctly) that a cop who doesn't identify himself risks resistance (that they won't be able to prosecute as "resisting arrest"), event o the point of deadly force.   

I'll add that there's also a risk the arrest gets thrown out on 4th amendment grounds (depending on the exact circumstances), and/or that the cop doesn't get QA if he's sued (depending, again, on the exact circumstances).

 

Post 37 

Quote

 Federal officers still have to identify themselves.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Statue?  You are truly a moron. Should he have cited the Thinker, Rodin, or Michelangelo's Pieta.  How stupid does one have to become before they look in a mirror and acknowledge it.  

 

Hint, like any 8yo, you meant statute, a state law.  DUMBSHIT

Actually we are talking about a federal law   Thanks for the spelling correction 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Actually we are talking about a federal law   Thanks for the spelling correction 

Are specific laws usually passed for something that should be in the process manual?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Are specific laws usually passed for something that should be in the process manual?

Yes   This discussion started because a poster stated that they have to identify themselves   It just so happens that I recently read a story were the Dem's are proposing a law requiring them to do exactly that - it stands to reason that if there is a law being proposed it is not currently required.

Here

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Yes   This discussion started because a poster stated that they have to identify themselves   It just so happens that I recently read a story were the Dem's are proposing a law requiring them to do exactly that - it stands to reason that if there is a law being proposed it is not currently required.

Here

I don't know who said they 'have to' identify themselves.  They definitely do not have to identify themselves unless they want to be shot in the face justifiably when someone reasonably defends themself.  If the officer is not assaulting anyone, they don't have to self-identify.  Many jurisdictions do indeed require officers to provide their name and badge numbers when asked either in city code or police manuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Post 37 

 

So... if I was to say something like, "a cop needs reasonable cause or a warrant before they can search my apartment"... in your mind, I'm claiming there's a federal statute to that effect? 

Because... I wouldn't be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Why are you calling them fake?

Khaki is not camo.  It's just a utility uniform.  There seems to be a lot of demand for LEOs at present and the usual number of police aren't going to be able to stand that pace for long.

Deputizing other trained personnel on a temporary basis seems reasonable.

After they have come for the "protesters", what happens when they come for you?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

Statue?  You are truly a moron. Should he have cited the Thinker, Rodin, or Michelangelo's Pieta.  How stupid does one have to become before they look in a mirror and acknowledge it.  

 

Hint, like any 8yo, you meant statute, a state law.  DUMBSHIT

The libruls tore down the statue because they hite our hurtage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Joker said:

It's a tweet so it must be happening.    I heard that the feds have sent in DHS officers to protect federal buildings.  The director of DHS was in Portland yesterday to try and work with the local government.  I'm guessing the vans pulling up and grabbing protesters is more likely vandals getting arrested for damaging federal property.

 

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2020/07/homeland-security-head-calls-portland-demonstrators-violent-mob-defends-federal-officers.html

These Guys: "I'm an independent thinker and a patriot who values individual liberty. The government exists first and foremost to protect the liberty of its citizens, and thus it's first and highest obligation if it must infringe on that liberty, is to announce its reasoning at the earliest possibility, which is why were have things like habeus corpus, requirements to charge within 24 hours, and laws requiring the police to announce themselves and state the reasons for an arrest. Above all else, the state must be kept small in its reach, and any attempt to expand its powers must be questioned by brave Patriots like me."The news: "Uh feds from unknown agencies are jumping out of vans and wordlessly hauling people away, without identifying themselves, identifying their reason, or even saying whether the person is under arrest. The people aren't being read their rights until hours later, and they're not being charged with anything, just thrown in a cell."

These Guys: "What's important is to trust the government. I really trust the government! I'm sure they have a good reason!"

 

 

It takes your breath away.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I don't know who said they 'have to' identify themselves.  They definitely do not have to identify themselves unless they want to be shot in the face justifiably when someone reasonably defends themself.  If the officer is not assaulting anyone, they don't have to self-identify.  Many jurisdictions do indeed require officers to provide their name and badge numbers when asked either in city code or police manuals.

The principle of individuals who represent the state having to identify themselves goes back hundreds of years. It's why the Geneva convention requires soldiers to wear uniforms. It's why the police (with exceptions) have to announce themselves when serving a search warrant. 

Like the requirement that police give a reason for detaining you if you ask, there's not a specific law like "USC 1.0: police got to say they r police' - but case law has established that search and seizures (infringements on an individual's 4th amendment rights) must be reasonable. There's some leeway there - like when a self identification might endanger the officers - but the idea that it's in any way reasonable or constitutional for a state agent to wordlessly drag a pedestrian into an unmarked vehicle and zoom away is simply absurd.

I don't mean to be rude, but if you took even a basic civics course you should know this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprising to see the usual suspects so willing to forgo our civil liberties, well as long as it's those guys, you know the bad guys. You know, those protesting illegal police actions. No irony here, no siree bob.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

If the officer is not assaulting anyone, they don't have to self-identify. 

Also, um, if you don't think physically grabbing someone while visibly armed and dragging them into a van qualifies as assault (the whole 'seizure' thing mentioned in the fourth amendment) I don't what to tell you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, d'ranger said:

Not surprising to see the usual suspects so willing to forgo our civil liberties, well as long as it's those guys, you know the bad guys. You know, those protesting illegal police actions. No irony here, no siree bob.

Libertarians? TEA Party/Limited govt States’ Rats folks? Where are they for this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

100% Venn overlap with the “defend Hong Kong” righties and the “gubmint can’t tell me what to do about COVID-19” rightie dolts.

There are plenty of "defend Hong Kong" lefties and anarchists too. It's not just a left-right thing, it's a human rights, social justice thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

They don't teach civics in Russia, but he did learn how to derail a conversation about the Trumpian Gestapo without anyone noticing.

This thread is indeed a prime example how the trolls easily occupy 60-80% of the posts with their game.

Fuck them. Flick them. This is not the time for playing hide and seek with deliberate arseholes.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grog said:

This thread is indeed a prime example how the trolls easily occupy 60-80% of the posts with their game.

Fuck them. Flick them. This is not the time for playing hide and seek with deliberate arseholes.

 

The best we can do here is ignore them and not quote them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Libertarians? TEA Party/Limited govt States’ Rats folks? Where are they for this?

These Border Patrol/Customs guys aren't packing AR15s...and neither are the protesters! 

 giphy.gif

 

Link to post
Share on other sites