Jump to content

Portland "officers?"


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

A federal officer has no power to enforce state law, at least no power beyond that of a plain old citizen.  

They are enforcing federal law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

1 minute ago, Rok Dog said:

They are enforcing federal law.

Like if your civil rights are violated.  I can drive a truck though that.  Good luck.

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

Is trespassing on federal property a state law?

 

State and federal, but it depends.  Federal trespass (misdemeanor) only applies on Federal property.  If the feds are just renting space in an office building or multi-use development, they have no jurisdiction on the bounds of the property beyond that which any other tenant has.  In that case, only entering the unit after being expelled or forbidden entry would trigger the right to arrest. 

State trespass statutes apply anywhere in the state, including on federal property.

Is there any evidence the protestors trespassed?

 

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

The street is my property and they have my full approval to enforce the law there.

The law doesn't care.  You probably think you can approve or disprove what the government spends your money on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Breamerly said:

I highly recommended you guys disengage with dog and his pals.

First demanding proof, then refusing to acknowledge it when it's provided, is a straightforward tactic of obfuscation, with the ultimate goal of avoiding having to personally change.

On a system-wide/societal level, it's a tactic used to gum up the gears of social discourse and civil society in general as a distraction, while in the background rightists move ahead with their agenda of destroying the institutions of civil society.

They are obviously wrong. Screamingly wrong. And what they want us to do is scream back.

Instead get busy organizing/supporting organizing in your own community, and fucking overwhelm these people - these fools whose ignorance is so deep that they would happily embrace their own doom in the form of naked proto-fascism, so long as the Big Macs keep flowing and they can get to work/the football game without any delays - in November.

The only thing they deserve, the moment they show an unwillingness to engage and grapple with the facts on the ground, is derision and mockery.

Alt right bullshitters are not interested in thoughtful rational discourse. They are looking to waste their enemy’s time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

A federal officer has no power to enforce state law, at least no power beyond that of a plain old citizen.  

Depends on the State.  Oregon, like some others, has legislation explicitly allowing fed officers to enforce state laws.  But there's rules, of course, which these clowns aren't following.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

How would you feel if Obama had done this to the Proud Boys? They caused a lot of violence.

- DSK

At the least it might have fucked up his poker night.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, frenchie said:

 

Depends on the State.  Oregon, like some others, has legislation explicitly allowing fed officers to enforce state laws.  But there's rules, of course, which these clowns aren't following.

If someone (or a group of someones) is wearing unmarked combat-style uniforms, brandishing weapons, has no identification and is harassing and assaulting citizens on the street, I would assume that is fully in the local police departments right to treat them as threats to civil order and terrorists or para-military and arrest, detain and/or shoot them if they resist.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2020 at 6:04 PM, badlatitude said:

Another version:

Oregon Public Broadcasting reports:

Blinded by his hat, in an unmarked minivan full of armed people dressed in camouflage and body armor who hadn’t identified themselves, Pettibone said he was driven around downtown before being unloaded inside a building. He wouldn’t learn until after his release that he had been inside the federal courthouse.

“It was basically a process of facing many walls and corners as they patted me down and took my picture and rummaged through my belongings,” Pettibone said. “One of them said, ‘This is a whole lot of nothing.’”

Pettibone said he was put into a cell. Soon after, two officers came in to read him his Miranda rights. They didn’t tell him why he was being arrested. He said they asked him if he wanted to waive his rights and answer some questions, but Pettibone declined and said he wanted a lawyer. The interview was terminated, and about 90 minutes later he was released. He said he did not receive any paperwork, citation or record of his arrest.

“I just happened to be wearing black on a sidewalk in downtown Portland at the time,” Pettibone said. “And that apparently is grounds for detaining me.”

And if you saw that scenario on your CrimLaw exam, you’d probably call it an arrest. Nonetheless the U.S. Marshalls Services insists that, “All United States Marshals Service arrestees have public records of arrest documenting their charges. Our agency did not arrest or detain Mark James Pettibone.”

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, some Gestapo shit. Or as Oregon Governor Kate Brown described it, “political theater from President Trump [that] has nothing to do with public safety.”

 

 

Trump has spouted off a few times about "Antifa", and the conspiracy theorists always show shots of them wearing black. 

 My guess is this these feds have been tasked with actually finding some Antifa, arresting someone who spouts off about Antifa while in custody, which would be useful for campaign fodder. The moment this guy asked for a lawyer they deemed him useless. If they actually suspected him of a crime they would have kept him.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Trump has spouted off a few times about "Antifa", and the conspiracy theorists always show shots of them wearing black. 

 My guess is this these feds have been tasked with actually finding some Antifa, arresting someone who spouts off about Antifa while in custody, which would be useful for campaign fodder. The moment this guy asked for a lawyer they deemed him useless. If they actually suspected him of a crime they would have kept him.  

Trump is determined to keep his Confederate, Ku Klux Klan, Proud Boys allies mollified. I agree with you, Antifa is painted as the bad guy. I have a feeling Portland is just a dress rehearsal for a bigger target, Trump desperately needs to be seen as presidential, and solving big law enforcement problems puts a feather in his cap. Civil rights, victims, and the wrong target are inconsequential.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here it comes.

“Meadows says the Trump administration is readying a new executive order to expand the federal takeover of cities”
 
2mz3ke3d_normal.jpg
 
 
Dan Friedman
 
@dfriedman33
Meadows says the Trump administration is readying a new executive order to expand the federal takeover of cities based on alleged lawlessness: "Attorney General Barr is weighing in on that with Secretary Wolf, and you'll see something rolled out on that this week." https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1284906924740423681
 
 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rok Dog said:

At some point either the police put a stop to the violence a destruction of property,  the Feds do it,  or other fed up  citizens will do it.  The latter won’t end well.

Yeah, bring on the feds, there's graffiti!

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

Trump has spouted off a few times about "Antifa", and the conspiracy theorists always show shots of them wearing black. 

 My guess is this these feds have been tasked with actually finding some Antifa, arresting someone who spouts off about Antifa while in custody, which would be useful for campaign fodder. The moment this guy asked for a lawyer they deemed him useless. If they actually suspected him of a crime they would have kept him.  

My kid went shopping today, masks, and 6 ft separation - but she was wearing black. Do I need to have her start wearing pastels in order to avoid the thugs, err, feds?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Here it comes.

“Meadows says the Trump administration is readying a new executive order to expand the federal takeover of cities”
 
2mz3ke3d_normal.jpg
 
 
Dan Friedman
 
@dfriedman33
Meadows says the Trump administration is readying a new executive order to expand the federal takeover of cities based on alleged lawlessness: "Attorney General Barr is weighing in on that with Secretary Wolf, and you'll see something rolled out on that this week." https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1284906924740423681
 
 


 

But wait! There's more! With a free set of Ginsu knives!

Quote

President Trump and top White House officials are privately considering a controversial strategy to act without legal authority to enact new federal policies — starting with immigration, administration officials tell Axios.

Between the lines: The White House thinking is being heavily influenced by John Yoo, the lawyer who wrote the Bush administration's justification for waterboarding after 9/11.

Yoo detailed the theory in a National Review article, spotted atop Trump’s desk in the Oval Office, which argues that the Supreme Court's 5-4 DACA ruling last month "makes it easy for presidents to violate the law."

  • The president has brought up the article with key advisers, two Trump administration officials tell Axios.

Yoo writes that the ruling, and actions by President Obama, pave the way for Trump to implement policies that Congress won't.

  • Some could remain in force for years even if he loses re-election.
  • Yoo — who next week will be out with a new book, "Defender in Chief," on Trump's use of presidential power — tells Axios that he has met virtually with White House officials about the implications of the ruling.

What's next: The first test could come imminently. Trump has said he is about to unveil a "very major" immigration policy via executive order, which he says the Supreme Court gave him the power to do.

{snip}

Trump told Chris Wallace in an interview for "Fox News Sunday" that in addition to replacing DACA with "something much better," he's also going to be unveiling a health care plan within two weeks "that the Supreme Court decision on DACA gave me the right to do."

Bend over and roll up your arms.

https://www.axios.com/trump-executive-orders-supreme-court-daca-3d369f16-d9db-4e39-b8a0-946e670797b2.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

But wait! There's more! With a free set of Ginsu knives!

Bend over and roll up your arms.

https://www.axios.com/trump-executive-orders-supreme-court-daca-3d369f16-d9db-4e39-b8a0-946e670797b2.html

Stunning. Piss off Latinos, blacks, fire up the fringe right, and instant riot. Martial law, lockdown, no election. Simple?

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

Just a wake up call for those who think the british police don't have guns.  It was from a single stabbing incident.

Got you to do a little research though.  The checkerboard cap on the one bottom right was a clue.

 

Where the fuck did that come from?  Was someone talking about British po-po?

Or, was this a lame attempt to distract?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rok Dog said:

The street is my property and they have my full approval to enforce the law there.

You sound like Mr. McCloskey.  He was wrong about his role in protecting the neighborhood/street.  So are you.

He is also a liar.  So are you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frenchie said:
4 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

A federal officer has no power to enforce state law, at least no power beyond that of a plain old citizen.  

Depends on the State.  Oregon, like some others, has legislation explicitly allowing fed officers to enforce state laws.  But there's rules, of course, which these clowns aren't following.

Then there are the joint task forces, so useful in enabling "equitable sharing" when it comes to drug war loot.

52 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

But wait! There's more! With a free set of Ginsu knives!

Quote

President Trump and top White House officials are privately considering a controversial strategy to act without legal authority to enact new federal policies — starting with immigration, administration officials tell Axios.

I suspect that the sad fact is he has the legal authority. Just declare another emergency and the Power of PANIC kicks in, enabling pretty much anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

State and federal, but it depends.  Federal trespass (misdemeanor) only applies on Federal property.  If the feds are just renting space in an office building or multi-use development, they have no jurisdiction on the bounds of the property beyond that which any other tenant has.  In that case, only entering the unit after being expelled or forbidden entry would trigger the right to arrest. 

State trespass statutes apply anywhere in the state, including on federal property.

Is there any evidence the protestors trespassed?

 

 

C597033B-27FF-47BD-BDEF-4760C9010EBB.jpeg

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

Stunning. Piss off Latinos, blacks, fire up the fringe right, and instant riot. Martial law, lockdown, no election. Simple?

Your already doing very well down there, you've managed to get 4, out of your seven.

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

They are enforcing federal law.

What did this Navy vet do to deserve a vicious beating by your thug heroes ? 

The vid is nauseating - hard to watch that hero take on for all of us

(Note that there was no arrest, no police report, no ID of the fed thugs) 

Vets For Peace 

ScreenShot2020-07-19at10.02.54AM1.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

What did this Navy vet do to deserve a vicious beating by your thug heroes ? 

The vid is nauseating - hard to watch that hero take on for all of us

(Note that there was no arrest, no police report, no ID of the fed thugs) 

Vets For Peace 

ScreenShot2020-07-19at10.02.54AM1.png

I don’t know.  I wasn’t there.  We’re you?

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

I don’t know.  I wasn’t there.  We’re you?

Duck, dodge & deflect 

Did you watch the vid? 

And oh yeah, learn how to spell 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2020 at 2:14 AM, Clove Hitch said:

So why aren't they wearing ID?  What do they have to hide if it's all above the board?   

If  guys in combat gear with no ID tried to put your wife in a rental car what would you do?     

 

Now if guys in combat gear with no ID in Mexico tried to put your wife in a rental car what would you do?

That's a different part of the discussion, and you're right - riot gear w/no ID and unmarked vehicles policing is wrong too.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2020 at 8:57 PM, badlatitude said:

Game changer?

 

WTH, the feds have brought in a Stryker to downtown Portland, presumably for use against protestors?
 
 
@itsmaregine
My friend just sent me this pic that’s across the Portland Bureau of Transportation. Wonder what it’s for.
 
 
Image
 
 


 

Anchorman That Escalated Quickly GIF | Gfycat

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Saorsa said:
15 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

What was with the pic from Sussex, UK?  

Just a wake up call for those who think the british police don't have guns.  It was from a single stabbing incident.

Got you to do a little research though.  The checkerboard cap on the one bottom right was a clue.

Stabbings carried out in large public spaces are often attended by armed police due to the amount of radicalised incidents that have happened over the last few years.  On previous occasions, they've managed to kill or maim multiple people. An armed response unit or 3 is normal and has been for quite a few years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bus Driver said:
15 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Just a wake up call for those who think the british police don't have guns.  It was from a single stabbing incident.

Got you to do a little research though.  The checkerboard cap on the one bottom right was a clue.

 

Where the fuck did that come from?  Was someone talking about British po-po?

Or, was this a lame attempt to distract?

He fucked up....................again and is trying to backtrack as normal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Keith said:
12 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Stunning. Piss off Latinos, blacks, fire up the fringe right, and instant riot. Martial law, lockdown, no election. Simple?

Your already doing very well down there, you've managed to get 4, out of your seven.

Been saying that he'll win the election one-way or another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's a different part of the discussion, and you're right - riot gear w/no ID and unmarked vehicles policing is wrong too.  

this is not about wrong.  this is about the federal government breaking the law.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you sir for using facts and not rhetoric to come to a conclusion.

There is literally only one response to this tactic that will not encourage Trump to immediately send in more: Bring the cameras, bring the cavalry, and take 'em straight to jail. 

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

Thank you sir for using facts and not rhetoric to come to a conclusion.

There is literally only one response to this tactic that will not encourage Trump to immediately send in more: Bring the cameras, bring the cavalry, and take 'em straight to jail. 

Serious question - do the state and local cops have the authority to detain federal officers acting at the direction of the President?    We agree that the feds are over stepping, but I don't understand how this would legally play out.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin has a few more months to play with us. After that, we will fight back. Fuck Trump and anyone who supports his crimes. If you see a Trump flag flying, know who the enemy is. This shit is getting a little too real. We cannot give the dorks in  fucking camo, in our cities an excuse to use force on us. Protest peacefully, we will have an election in three months. The Reich is losing and they know it. Be safe out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Serious question - do the state and local cops have the authority to detain federal officers acting at the direction of the President?   

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 federal - should be arrested and sat in a cell while it is sorted out. And if they resist, they need to be tazed or shot, just like any young black man.

Whether the president directed a certain action is not relevant to whether said action is lawful.  

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Serious question - do the state and local cops have the authority to detain federal officers acting at the direction of the President?    We agree that the feds are over stepping, but I don't understand how this would legally play out.  

This is probably why the Oregon AG has filed a lawsuit over federal actions in Portland. Even if local police could detain federal officers, would they even want to? A direct confrontation would not bode well for city or state officers, the feds bring overwhelming access to the might of the federal government.

Edit to add: I would enjoy seeing some federal cops removed to an unknown location, the explosion from the Trump admin would probably damage itself permanently.

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

This is probably why the Oregon AG has filed a lawsuit over federal actions in Portland. Even if local police could detain federal officers, would they even want to? A direct confrontation would not bode well for city or state officers, the feds bring overwhelming access to the might of the federal government.

Edit to add: I would enjoy seeing some federal cops removed to an unknown location, the explosion from the Trump admin would probably damage itself permanently.

When I responded earlier - the only thing I'd read on their deployment was that they were being deployed to protect federal buildings from damage by looters because the local PD wasn't constraining that behavior.  If they'd simply done that?  I'd be OK w/it.  What's been going on since is way outta bounds, and anyone who respects local autonomy oughta be very upset. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

When I responded earlier - the only thing I'd read on their deployment was that they were being deployed to protect federal buildings from damage by looters because the local PD wasn't constraining that behavior.  If they'd simply done that?  I'd be OK w/it.  What's been going on since is way outta bounds, and anyone who respects local autonomy oughta be very upset. 

They can protect buildings while wearing identification. Why don't you have a problem with no identification on their uniforms, while acting under color of authority?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

When I responded earlier - the only thing I'd read on their deployment was that they were being deployed to protect federal buildings from damage by looters because the local PD wasn't constraining that behavior.  If they'd simply done that?  I'd be OK w/it.  What's been going on since is way outta bounds, and anyone who respects local autonomy oughta be very upset. 

I thought Portland was a dress rehearsal, and it appears I was correct. He's going after immigrants next, which will probably play well with his supporters. I don't think he earns any points with that move. If he wanted to be a hero president ,he would try to do something about Chicago, but that doesn't play well with gun addicts.

 

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

A direct confrontation would not bode well for city or state officers, the feds bring overwhelming access to the might of the federal government.

 

There are thousands of city and state cops on the ground and not thousands of federal officers. The cops have military vehicles, the feds have rented grand caravans.  If Oregon believes in freedom and democracy, it's time to take a stand everywhere, not just in fucking court.  

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

I thought Portland was a dress rehearsal, and it appears I was correct. He's going after immigrants next, which will probably play well with his supporters. I don't think he earns any points with that move. If he wanted to be a hero president ,he would try to do something about Chicago, but that doesn't play well with gun addicts.

 

What are you referring to? 

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

There are thousands of city and state cops on the ground and not thousands of federal officers. The cops have military vehicles, the feds have rented grand caravans.  If Oregon believes in freedom and democracy, it's time to take a stand everywhere, not just in fucking court.  

For the time being, I am happy to see the crowds of mothers who stand facing outward to protect protesters. The backlash if any were hurt, would solve this problem quicker.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

OK - what you wrote in the prior post sounded like something else had happened since confirming your suspicion. 

More than allegations in the press. The Prez said as much in his interview with Wallace. That the DACA ruling gives him great power, and he's going to use it to take over the dem cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The most astounding thing to me about all of this - Portland especially, but the broader Floyd/BLM protests in general - is realizing that there's actually a large chunk of the population that sees protests as at least somehow suspicious, and many seem to view it with deep anger/resentment/scorn.

Add generally very minor property damage or civil disobedience into the mix - blocking a road or a few acts of graffiti and broken windows - and people go ballistic. Suddenly all protesters are "violent thugs" committing "treason" and on and on. As we've seen on this thread, graffiti on a federal building is enough to make some people basically throw out the constitution.

To me this is basically outing yourself as a huge buffoon who has no understanding of history.

Historically, protest is as American as apple pie, and we venerate protesters and people who stood up to oppression. The tea partiers caused a lot more damage than a few broken windows. Unionists (the folks who gave us the weekend) and anti-British protesters would literally haul opponents into the street and tar and feather them. And MLK didn't break windows, but he sure blocked traffic.

Skeptics of todays protests will of course say that there's a difference, and try to paint historical movements as being somehow more 'pure' or 'just' - which is of course a bullshit standard since it's one that can really only be applied in hindsight.

I think taking this stance is outing yourself as a dope who only really cares about being inconvenienced. You'd like people protesting very real injustices to stay out of the way of your trip to WalMart or whatever. You, in other words, think that personal convenience is more important than protesting injustice, and that individual instances of lawlessness (say, 20 broken windows over the course of a 20-hour protest attended by 2,000 (or 10,000) people warrant quashing the liberties and protest-voice of every person in attendance.

American history is littered with much more violent acts of protest by people we call heroes. In response to things like the stamp act, colonists rioted, burned buildings, destroyed property, and killed British government workers/agents. At the tea party colonists destroyed nearly $2,000,000 worth of tea. But a few cop cars get burned, and suddenly a whole segment of the American population is ready to say protest shouldn't happen at all, or should be so confined and constrained as to be utterly neutered ("stay on the protest corner, please" or "the free speech zone is over there, in the alley behind the courthouse").

In fact, that attitude itself is the most un-American of all.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Breamerly said:

The most astounding thing to me about all of this - Portland especially, but the broader Floyd/BLM protests in general - is realizing that there's actually a large chunk of the population that sees protests as at least somehow suspicious, and many seem to view it with deep anger/resentment/scorn.

Add generally very minor property damage or civil disobedience into the mix - blocking a road or a few acts of graffiti and broken windows - and people go ballistic. Suddenly all protesters are "violent thugs" committing "treason" and on and on. As we've seen on this thread, graffiti on a federal building is enough to make some people basically throw out the constitution.

To me this is basically outing yourself as a huge buffoon who has no understanding of history.

Historically, protest is as American as apple pie, and we venerate protesters and people who stood up to oppression. The tea partiers caused a lot more damage than a few broken windows. Unionists (the folks who gave us the weekend) and anti-British protesters would literally haul opponents into the street and tar and feather them. And MLK didn't break windows, but he sure blocked traffic.

Skeptics of todays protests will of course say that there's a difference, and try to paint historical movements as being somehow more 'pure' or 'just' - which is of course a bullshit standard since it's one that can really only be applied in hindsight.

I think taking this stance is outing yourself as a dope who only really cares about being inconvenienced. You'd like people protesting very real injustices to stay out of the way of your trip to WalMart or whatever. You, in other words, think that personal convenience is more important than protesting injustice, and that individual instances of lawlessness (say, 20 broken windows over the course of a 20-hour protest attended by 2,000 (or 10,000) people warrant quashing the liberties and protest-voice of every person in attendance.

American history is littered with much more violent acts of protest by people we call heroes. In response to things like the stamp act, colonists rioted, burned buildings, destroyed property, and killed British government workers/agents. At the tea party colonists destroyed nearly $2,000,000 worth of tea. But a few cop cars get burned, and suddenly a whole segment of the American population is ready to say protest shouldn't happen at all, or should be so confined and constrained as to be utterly neutered ("stay on the protest corner, please" or "the free speech zone is over there, in the alley behind the courthouse").

In fact, that attitude itself is the most un-American of all.

I thought America was much more civilized now, then so many years ago..  No?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Breamerly said:

I suppose it looks that way to us... but maybe not to a black fellow with a cop's knee on his neck, no?

Its always looked a mess, from up north here.

I had hoped your American culture had solved that issue back with MLK, so many years ago, sadly, I guess not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Keith said:

I had hoped your American culture had solved that issue back with MLK, so many years ago, sadly, I guess not.

Most Americans like to think so, but as we are learning now many of the people in question (black folks) do not.

Personally, I'm actually a bit ambivalent about quite a few of the things the protesters are calling for. And I think that the left can be censorious and obnoxiously PC-police-ish in its own fashion. But that fits right in with no movement being perfect - protest is worth entertaining and permitting in its own right, even unruly protest, even if I don't agree completely with it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Breamerly said:

I suppose it looks that way to us... but maybe not to a black fellow with a cop's knee on his neck, no?

A knee on the neck and a noose around the neck accomplish the same thing, no?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Keith said:

Its always looked a mess, from up north here.

I had hoped your American culture had solved that issue back with MLK, so many years ago, sadly, I guess not.

Also, if you tend toward thinking this stuff is solved, I'd be interested if you see any parallel with the treatment of first nations folks in Canada? My understanding is that there are similar situations of historical racism/colonialism being perpetuated in modern systems there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's a different part of the discussion, and you're right - riot gear w/no ID and unmarked vehicles policing is wrong too.  

That is what is troubling people the most.  Masked guys in riot gear with no ID throwing people in rental cars is what you would expect to see in El Salvador, not Oregon.  

It's unbelievable. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Raz'r said:

My kid went shopping today, masks, and 6 ft separation - but she was wearing black. Do I need to have her start wearing pastels in order to avoid the thugs, err, feds?

 Kids should not be allowed to leave the house in black unless wearing a MAGA cap.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark K said:

 Kids should not be allowed to leave the house in black unless wearing a MAGA cap.    

likely true, and very sad.

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

He fucked up....................again and is trying to backtrack as normal.

No, there were three posts over the weekend that were an experiment on my part.

I'll let you figure them out.  This was one.

Another was to see how long it would take for a misdirected messenger attack.

The third probably has too many big words for you.  The thinking and recognition of their purpose would be well beyond you.

 

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

No, there were three posts over the weekend that were an experiment on my part.

I'll let you figure them out.  This was one.

Another was to see how long it would take for a misdirected messenger attack.

The third probably has too many big words for you.  The thinking and recognition of their purpose would be well beyond you.

 

trollin, trollin, trollin

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

No, there were three posts over the weekend that were an experiment on my part.

I'll let you figure them out.  This was one.

Another was to see how long it would take for a misdirected messenger attack.

The third probably has too many big words for you.  The thinking and recognition of their purpose would be well beyond you.

 

That has to be the silliest thing you've ever posted.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is also posted in "Coming to a city . ." 

relates to both threads . . 

It would be interesting to have some other lawyers weigh in on this - but please, not John Yoo  

Trump's "Illegal Use of Paramilitary Force" in Portland

MARJORIE COHN, marjorielegal@gmail.com
  Cohn, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law recently wrote "Trump’s Illegal Use of Military Against Anti-Racist Uprisings Portends Battles Ahead" and "Protesters Attacked by Police Are Suing to Vindicate Their Constitutional Rights."
 
She said today: "In a continuation of his cynical abuse of power in the run-up to the presidential election, Donald Trump’s secret paramilitary force is illegally terrorizing the people of Portland. One man who was holding a speaker was shot in the head with an impact munition that fractured his skull and shattered his face. Unidentified federal agents in unmarked vehicles are snatching peaceful protesters off the streets, transporting them to unknown locations, without informing them of why they’re being arrested, and later releasing them with no record of their arrest. These actions are reminiscent of dictatorships’ secret police who kidnap and 'disappear' opponents of the regime. They are calculated to deter people from exercising their First Amendment right to protest" against racism and white supremacy.
 
Cohn added: "The seizures and detentions without probable cause violate the Fourth Amendment. Trump targeted Portland, which has seen 53 straight nights of demonstrations since the public lynching of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. Trump is reportedly planning to take his illegal tactics nationwide. Fortunately, lawsuits are being filed to stop these egregious constitutional violations."
 
Cohn is former president of the National Lawyers Guild. Her other recent pieces include "Trump Is Trying to Hide U.S. and Israeli War Crimes by Attacking the International Criminal Court." She is author of several books and editor of Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues and The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse.
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Left Shift said:
4 hours ago, badlatitude said:

There have been allegations in the press that Portland was merely a way to see if federal actions would work in cities.

Watch and learn.  

Watch the Republicans not protest this grossly unconstitutional act. Learn how their spineless performance has trashed the USA.

Watch and learn.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

And thanks to Navy vet Mr. Chris David 

(Note how the local Reich seems to have swallowed their dog whistles) 

Hmmmm, got to try to recruit that gent for Vets For Peace . . 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/07/20/no-tactics-just-seemed-gang-navy-veteran-speaks-out-after-attack-secret-police-viral

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Watch the Republicans not protest this grossly unconstitutional act. Learn how their spineless performance has trashed the USA.

Watch and learn.

That's what I fear as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

That is what is troubling people the most.  Masked guys in riot gear with no ID throwing people in rental cars is what you would expect to see in El Salvador, not Oregon.  

It's unbelievable. 

Or Tulsa, OK in 1921.  Or did they not even bother with masks.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Raz'r said:

likely true, and very sad.

They won't stop unless Trump tells them to. There's a loophole in this stuff. The same one that allowed EIsenhower and Kennedy to send troops down, against the will of the Govs at the time, to open schools and polling places to black people. 

 The issue was codified in the Insurrection Act, which leaves it pretty much solely at the discretion of the POTUS to determine if there is an insurrection underway someplace. Gitmo is not out of the question as a place of detention. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Mark K said:

They won't stop unless Trump tells them to. There's a loophole in this stuff. The same one that allowed EIsenhower and Kennedy to send troops down, against the will of the Govs at the time, to open schools and polling places to black people. 

 The issue was codified in the Insurrection Act, which leaves it pretty much solely at the discretion of the POTUS to determine if there is an insurrection underway someplace. Gitmo is not out of the question as a place of detention. 

 

Trump doesn't care about the rules.  He pushes until pushed back because he is a coward and a pussy.  Fucking arrest them and let the courts sort it out.  It's the only thing that will work with this asshole, and the mayors have thousands of police for every federal agent in any of these spots.  If he wants to send the standing army down, let him. Hell, dare him.  So fucking obvious.

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

Trump doesn't care about the rules.  He pushes until pushed back because he is a coward and a pussy.  Fucking arrest them and let the courts sort it out.  It's the only thing that will work with this asshole, and the mayors have thousands of police for every federal agent in any of these spots.  If he wants to sent the standing army down, let him. Hell, dare him.  So fucking obvious.

Funny you should say that, my wife says the same thing. 

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

Trump doesn't care about the rules.  He pushes until pushed back because he is a coward and a pussy.  Fucking arrest them and let the courts sort it out.  It's the only thing that will work with this asshole, and the mayors have thousands of police for every federal agent in any of these spots.  If he wants to sent the standing army down, let him. Hell, dare him.  So fucking obvious.

I think it was set up so that in the extraordinary event a ruthless dictator was elected as POTUS the only viable action is impeachment. There's a loophole there too: If a third of the Senate wants a POTUS who is above the law, they get (got) one. 

 The courts? They allow themselves to be stalled out for years, and as Andy Jackson put it:  "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

  

Link to post
Share on other sites