CSNbbs

(07-24-2020 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 01:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 12:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 11:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 11:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]My understanding is that, during the initial protests, the Portland police were active and tried to disperse the crowd using the same methods we have seen across the country.

See:


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.oregonl...Type%3Damp

So are you just talking about the Portland Police response since the Feds showed up?

I am talking about the timeframe when the Federal courthouse became the locus of ire, as opposed to the 'systemic injustice blahbitty blah blah blah' stuff.

Once the target became the Courthouse, or any Federal building, the police disappeared. Kind of like when the shitbirds were targeting the immigration policies.

Not true. Portland police were active well up until the Feds showed up on July 1 and Portland Police collaborated with Feds during riot control measures in early July (and possible later - I don’t feel like reading through the entire article).

C’mon, just do a bit of cursory background research before stating things with such certainty that can easily be checked.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/police-...-officers/

So where do *you* think the decision not to put cops in the street came from, lad? The dogcatcher's office? The road department? The timing of the decision is rather immaterial -- you just steadfastly refuse to denote that he City of Portland, at the highest levels, is supporting the anti Federal 'protests'. As they tacitly did back when the same types of shitbirds were protesting the immigration issues.

Maybe it came from the City Library office?

Two things - can you link to what you're talking about?

And nothing I've said has anything to do with where any decision came from. C'mon, actually respond to what I'm saying, which is about when Portland Police were or were not trying to control the riots and assist the federal agents.

If the timing is immaterial, then stop bringing up the timing. When you stop posting false things, I'll stop telling you they are false.

The initial point (made no more than 24 hours ago) was your 'the police failed' comment.

I find that kind of -- not on point, when the city of Portland is quasi collaborationist. Anyone not living under a rock notes that.

I find your insistence and focus on the 'police failure' to be amazingly a cop out (pun, hahah, except when you are one of the Feds that might have suffered permanent eye damage from the 'Pink Floyd laser light show' being done on a nightly basis) when you ignore the collaborationist stance of the entire city administration of Portland.

edited to add: Now I note you are back on your 'she wouldnt have had the **** beat out of her is she had been compliant' argument. Lolz. The sheer temerity of the Feds actually trying to maintain order around their own building. The horrors. Just their mere presence is enough to blame them apparently. Any more kneejerks you are gonna start a real tornado warning in your general vicinity.

(07-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 01:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 12:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 11:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I am talking about the timeframe when the Federal courthouse became the locus of ire, as opposed to the 'systemic injustice blahbitty blah blah blah' stuff.

Once the target became the Courthouse, or any Federal building, the police disappeared. Kind of like when the shitbirds were targeting the immigration policies.

Not true. Portland police were active well up until the Feds showed up on July 1 and Portland Police collaborated with Feds during riot control measures in early July (and possible later - I don’t feel like reading through the entire article).

C’mon, just do a bit of cursory background research before stating things with such certainty that can easily be checked.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/police-...-officers/

So where do *you* think the decision not to put cops in the street came from, lad? The dogcatcher's office? The road department? The timing of the decision is rather immaterial -- you just steadfastly refuse to denote that he City of Portland, at the highest levels, is supporting the anti Federal 'protests'. As they tacitly did back when the same types of shitbirds were protesting the immigration issues.

Maybe it came from the City Library office?

Two things - can you link to what you're talking about?

And nothing I've said has anything to do with where any decision came from. C'mon, actually respond to what I'm saying, which is about when Portland Police were or were not trying to control the riots and assist the federal agents.

If the timing is immaterial, then stop bringing up the timing. When you stop posting false things, I'll stop telling you they are false.

The initial point (made no more than 24 hours ago) was your 'the police failed' comment.

I find that kind of -- not on point, when the city of Portland is quasi collaborationist. Anyone not living under a rock notes that.

I find your insistence and focus on the 'police failure' to be amazingly a cop out (pun, hahah, except when you are one of the Feds that might have suffered permanent eye damage from the 'Pink Floyd laser light show' being done on a nightly basis) when you ignore the collaborationist stance of the entire city administration of Portland.

edited to add: Now I note you are back on your 'she wouldnt have had the **** beat out of her is she had been compliant' argument. Lolz. The sheer temerity of the Feds actually trying to maintain order around their own building. The horrors. Just their mere presence is enough to blame them apparently. Any more kneejerks you are gonna start a real tornado warning in your general vicinity.

Jesus christ,this is exhausting - stop ignoring what I'm saying.

From earlier: "But I have no problem with expanding that comment to include the city government if it makes you happy. Portland (as a whole) absolutely failed at defusing the situation from the start."

I'm "focusing" on the police because they are the people who act - city managers aren't actively trying to quell protests. So when talking about whether or not the City of Portland acted, it's a lot easier to focus on whether or not the police were active in trying to manage protests. Evidence shows that the Portland Police (i.e. the city) were trying to actively manage crowds, and failing at it, before AND after the Feds showed up.

And I frankly have no idea what that last edit is talking about - stop using hyperbolic language that obscures the point you're trying to make.

(07-24-2020 01:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 01:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 12:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 12:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Portland police were active well up until the Feds showed up on July 1 and Portland Police collaborated with Feds during riot control measures in early Jul

I am not sure what you are trying to prove, but IMO Portland police should have been active from the git-go until now and collaborating with Fedswhenever possible right up to this very minute. that is their job and their responsibility.

lad just wants to paint the police as failures, as opposed to the city leaders as collaborationist.

No I don't - I have zero interest in trying to protect city officials.

I specifically am trying to cut through bull****, since we can't even agree on what occurred and when.

Lolz -- I am talking about your razor thin and heavily biased comments such as this paired duo:


First the quote from an outside source.

Quote:Then federal law enforcement officers began appearing at the daily protests.

Note the period. They just 'appeared', with no activity associated therein. Zero, Zilch. Nad. Empty Set. Null.

And your description:

Quote:Then feds stepped in and made a bigger mess.

I guess you in your stellar objectivity thinks that under no circumstances Federal officers should even appear. Got it. The mere point of existence is to the shitbirds a reson de etre to go full bore shitbird -- and their mere existence and presence is to allow the shitbird supporters to claim that 'the feds (by their mere existence) made a mess.'

Yeah, we know that you blame just the mere existence of Federal officers as a Federal crime, as you ostensibly view the horrible idea of Federal officers trying to enforce Federal law.

And yes, the city of Portland administration is in full bore bed with the shitbirds. That is the reason for the passive view of collaboration -- i.e. 'the police failed'.

(07-24-2020 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 01:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 12:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Not true. Portland police were active well up until the Feds showed up on July 1 and Portland Police collaborated with Feds during riot control measures in early July (and possible later - I don’t feel like reading through the entire article).

C’mon, just do a bit of cursory background research before stating things with such certainty that can easily be checked.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/police-...-officers/

So where do *you* think the decision not to put cops in the street came from, lad? The dogcatcher's office? The road department? The timing of the decision is rather immaterial -- you just steadfastly refuse to denote that he City of Portland, at the highest levels, is supporting the anti Federal 'protests'. As they tacitly did back when the same types of shitbirds were protesting the immigration issues.

Maybe it came from the City Library office?

Two things - can you link to what you're talking about?

And nothing I've said has anything to do with where any decision came from. C'mon, actually respond to what I'm saying, which is about when Portland Police were or were not trying to control the riots and assist the federal agents.

If the timing is immaterial, then stop bringing up the timing. When you stop posting false things, I'll stop telling you they are false.

The initial point (made no more than 24 hours ago) was your 'the police failed' comment.

I find that kind of -- not on point, when the city of Portland is quasi collaborationist. Anyone not living under a rock notes that.

I find your insistence and focus on the 'police failure' to be amazingly a cop out (pun, hahah, except when you are one of the Feds that might have suffered permanent eye damage from the 'Pink Floyd laser light show' being done on a nightly basis) when you ignore the collaborationist stance of the entire city administration of Portland.

edited to add: Now I note you are back on your 'she wouldnt have had the **** beat out of her is she had been compliant' argument. Lolz. The sheer temerity of the Feds actually trying to maintain order around their own building. The horrors. Just their mere presence is enough to blame them apparently. Any more kneejerks you are gonna start a real tornado warning in your general vicinity.

Jesus christ,this is exhausting - stop ignoring what I'm saying.

From earlier: "But I have no problem with expanding that comment to include the city government if it makes you happy. Portland (as a whole) absolutely failed at defusing the situation from the start."

I'm "focusing" on the police because they are the people who act - city managers aren't actively trying to quell protests. So when talking about whether or not the City of Portland acted, it's a lot easier to focus on whether or not the police were active in trying to manage protests. Evidence shows that the Portland Police (i.e. the city) were trying to actively manage crowds, and failing at it, before AND after the Feds showed up.

And I frankly have no idea what that last edit is talking about - stop using hyperbolic language that obscures the point you're trying to make.

Im talking about your attempt at painting the mere presence of Federal officers, their mere existence, as the sole reason for the street warfare. I noted your language above if you care.

(07-24-2020 01:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 01:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]So where do *you* think the decision not to put cops in the street came from, lad? The dogcatcher's office? The road department? The timing of the decision is rather immaterial -- you just steadfastly refuse to denote that he City of Portland, at the highest levels, is supporting the anti Federal 'protests'. As they tacitly did back when the same types of shitbirds were protesting the immigration issues.

Maybe it came from the City Library office?

Two things - can you link to what you're talking about?

And nothing I've said has anything to do with where any decision came from. C'mon, actually respond to what I'm saying, which is about when Portland Police were or were not trying to control the riots and assist the federal agents.

If the timing is immaterial, then stop bringing up the timing. When you stop posting false things, I'll stop telling you they are false.

The initial point (made no more than 24 hours ago) was your 'the police failed' comment.

I find that kind of -- not on point, when the city of Portland is quasi collaborationist. Anyone not living under a rock notes that.

I find your insistence and focus on the 'police failure' to be amazingly a cop out (pun, hahah, except when you are one of the Feds that might have suffered permanent eye damage from the 'Pink Floyd laser light show' being done on a nightly basis) when you ignore the collaborationist stance of the entire city administration of Portland.

edited to add: Now I note you are back on your 'she wouldnt have had the **** beat out of her is she had been compliant' argument. Lolz. The sheer temerity of the Feds actually trying to maintain order around their own building. The horrors. Just their mere presence is enough to blame them apparently. Any more kneejerks you are gonna start a real tornado warning in your general vicinity.

Jesus christ,this is exhausting - stop ignoring what I'm saying.

From earlier: "But I have no problem with expanding that comment to include the city government if it makes you happy. Portland (as a whole) absolutely failed at defusing the situation from the start."

I'm "focusing" on the police because they are the people who act - city managers aren't actively trying to quell protests. So when talking about whether or not the City of Portland acted, it's a lot easier to focus on whether or not the police were active in trying to manage protests. Evidence shows that the Portland Police (i.e. the city) were trying to actively manage crowds, and failing at it, before AND after the Feds showed up.

And I frankly have no idea what that last edit is talking about - stop using hyperbolic language that obscures the point you're trying to make.

Im talking about your attempt at painting the mere presence of Federal officers, their mere existence, as the sole reason for the street warfare. I noted your language above if you care.

You're twisting words to form an opinion you want me to have.

First of all, in the previous response you quoted a *** **** article, as if I wrote chose the word "appear." That wasn't even my language - literally the only time I wrote "appear" was when I put it in quotes. Chris.

Second, I think it is the Feds ACTIONS that caused the biggest issue - which was them deciding to detain people using unmarked vans. Them just being present wasn't a problem.

Third, I provided a DIRECT QUOTE from one of the leaders of the Portland Police that says that the Feds' actions made things more complicated for local officials. See:

Quote:“I don’t have authority over federal officers,” Davis said. “They’re governed by their own policies and procedures. They’re acting under federal law, federal authority. … It does complicate things for us.”

You keep trying to assign value to me discussing what did or didn't occur, when you shouldn't be. The only flag I've staked is that the van grabs made things worse - and I keep finding evidence to suggest that is true.

(07-24-2020 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 01:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Im talking about your attempt at painting the mere presence of Federal officers, their mere existence, as the sole reason for the street warfare. I noted your language above if you care.

First of all, in the previous response you quoted a *** **** article, as if I wrote chose the word "appear." That wasn't even my language - literally the only time I wrote "appear" was when I put it in quotes. Chris.

Quote:Second, I think it is the Feds ACTIONS that caused the biggest issue - which was them deciding to detain people using unmarked vans. Them just being present wasn't a problem.

Considering the largest riot to date until then happened *before* that detention, I think you are a tad temporally myopic there. Oh, but the issues of the one way direction of time be damned I guess.

Yes, that riot has begat other nights of rioting; and that riot begat the Federal detentions.

Which brings us straight back to the three part question posed to you earlier:

The Feds have three choices:

a) let the shitbirds riot and assault;
b) wade into the crowd and make arrests;
c) make arrests away from the courthouse.

Which do you support the Feds doing? Should be simple, a), b), or c)?

Seems to me those are the only three things that actually could occur according to straight existence logic, so there shouldnt be much 'nuance' there.

Quote:Third, I provided a DIRECT QUOTE from one of the leaders of the Portland Police that says that the Feds' actions made things more complicated for local officials. See:

Quote:“I don’t have authority over federal officers,” Davis said. “They’re governed by their own policies and procedures. They’re acting under federal law, federal authority. … It does complicate things for us.”

Perhaps not doing a Harry Houdini prior to the largest riot, and during that largest riot, would not have been such a complicating factor. Yes the police failed. Absolutely. Their disappearance is quite the conundrum. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to say 'wow the shitbirds dont like the courthouse, maybe we should put some officers there for, well, this thing called actually maintaining law and order'.

Quote:You keep trying to assign value to me discussing what did or didn't occur, when you shouldn't be. The only flag I've staked is that the van grabs made things worse - and I keep finding evidence to suggest that is true.

Great, then answer the question above. a), b), or c). Bingo bango bongo.

(07-24-2020 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I understand the point above, but I think the fundamental issue derailing this conversation is a lack of understanding of the details preceding the Feds' decisions to pick up people in unmarked vans (see your third paragraph). If anything, how are we supposed to have a deep conversation about the actions of local officials when we're all relatively uninformed about it, because Portland wasn't national news until a week ago?

Tanq seems to believe that the Portland police basically abdicated from the scene and did not support the feds. But now that I've read more about it, I've come to realization that this isn't true, at all. So it would actually greatly benefit the discussion for us to be on the same page about what each local actor was doing before the Feds started picking people up in unmarked vans.

My understanding, from reading a few timeline articles, is that protests were quite numerous, and turned violent numerous times before feds arrived. Both the local police, and eventually, the feds, responded with the types of crowd control measures (i.e. tear gas) we've been seeing across the country, and they didn't seem to be successful.

But early on, there was a butting of heads between local officials and the feds - see this July 8 quote from the Portland Deputy Chief:

Quote:“I don’t have authority over federal officers,” Davis said. “They’re governed by their own policies and procedures. They’re acting under federal law, federal authority. … It does complicate things for us.”

And then this commentary follows later:

Quote:The increasingly aggressive actions by federal officers have also energized the protest movement in Portland, a city known for its cultural defiance to authority. Crowds grew significantly July 17 and 18.

Note that federal officials had been in Portland since at least July 1.


Finally, the beginning of the article seems to sum up the issue - local officials basically created a song and dance with protesters, and failed at quelling the unrest. Then feds stepped in and made a bigger mess.

Quote:Protesters had settled into a nightly routine at the Multnomah County Justice Center. The fencing around the building had just come down. The iconic elk statue still stood watch above Lownsdale and Chapman Squares, offering a comfortable late-night perch for many protesters.

Then federal law enforcement officers began appearing at the daily protests.

At first, activists viewed the agents as a minor nuisance compared to officers from the Portland Police Bureau, who for many nights before had used impact munitions and tear gas to drive demonstrators away from the building that houses the county jail and out of downtown Portland.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/police-...-officers/

I don't think you see what you're doing here... and the following is not intended to be preachy or to box you in, merely to describe what I'm talking about in the most expedient manner....

You seem to try and start from day one, like I do which is good.... and you don't get very far with facts... neither do I.....

So then you (logically) start instead at the end and work back as far as you can.... and once again, we can't get all the way back either.... SouthParks... 1) Collect Underwear 2) _??????_ 3) Profit.

So it seems that you start 'as far back as you can go from today' which takes you to the fed's reaction
and we start as far forward as we can go with the preceding actions that RESULTED in the fed's reaction

You seem to have assumed that there is little to nothing that locals could do that would justify what the feds have done
We seem to have little problem imagining what locals could have done that would justify the reaction

PART of the reason I think we differ is because the 'first-hand story' we were originally given has a million demonstrable holes in it. It was about as one sided a description as could have been told while still sticking to 'facts'. I go back to the story told, vs the alternative 'perspective' I gave using the same 'facts'. You still seem to tend to support it despite the additional information... I can't say if it's because you have added that information in and reconsidered and still have your belief, or whether you have simply not heard enough compelling evidence to amend the initial belief. The reason I say this is not to insult you, but because none of the libertarians on here have any interest whatsoever in supporting an oppressive regime. We are not pro-Feds, we are not pro-Trump.... I do not feel that we are equally yoked here... i.e. you're at 0 and we're at 100 on a scale of support/resistance... but instead you're at say 20 because you absolutely support Portland in their resistance to Trump, even without these events.... and we're at 60. This ABSOLUTELY feels like another 'Orange Man Bad' event.... and not one of Democrats supporting state sovereignty over Federal interference. We can disagree on that, but it's obviously intended to paint a picture... so please if you must, respond to the picture and not the specifics of the example.

You seem to take a lot of pride and expend a lot of energy refuting our numerous 'guesses' about what could have happened... i.e. whether or not Portland police 'disappeared' is a matter of opinion, not fact... but clearly the feds felt a) that they weren't doing enough or b) that this was their jurisdiction. I'd argue that they believe it is both... so whether the portland police disappeared or merely didn't prioritize it to the level that the feds thought it needed to be, it was certainly within their right to exert jurisdiction.

You keep talking about 'the reaction to the feds being worse' as if this is meaningful, but you seem to ignore any potential prior escalation. That's like a gang shooting up a neighborhood in response to their boss being arrested by the police is somehow proof that the police shouldn't have arrested the boss.

I submit that the van actions made it worse.
I submit that the misrepresentations in the stories about the van actions also made it worse
I submit that the van actions don't take place if the Portland Police proactively do their jobs
I submit that there is no need for any of it if the protests are actually peaceful.
I submit that little to no convincing evidence has been presented to suggest that the reason the initial protests turned violent was due to local police or federal actions against peaceful protesters

I further submit that these 'worse' reactions could lead to an even more forceful response.

(07-24-2020 03:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I understand the point above, but I think the fundamental issue derailing this conversation is a lack of understanding of the details preceding the Feds' decisions to pick up people in unmarked vans (see your third paragraph). If anything, how are we supposed to have a deep conversation about the actions of local officials when we're all relatively uninformed about it, because Portland wasn't national news until a week ago?

Tanq seems to believe that the Portland police basically abdicated from the scene and did not support the feds. But now that I've read more about it, I've come to realization that this isn't true, at all. So it would actually greatly benefit the discussion for us to be on the same page about what each local actor was doing before the Feds started picking people up in unmarked vans.

My understanding, from reading a few timeline articles, is that protests were quite numerous, and turned violent numerous times before feds arrived. Both the local police, and eventually, the feds, responded with the types of crowd control measures (i.e. tear gas) we've been seeing across the country, and they didn't seem to be successful.

But early on, there was a butting of heads between local officials and the feds - see this July 8 quote from the Portland Deputy Chief:

Quote:“I don’t have authority over federal officers,” Davis said. “They’re governed by their own policies and procedures. They’re acting under federal law, federal authority. … It does complicate things for us.”

And then this commentary follows later:

Quote:The increasingly aggressive actions by federal officers have also energized the protest movement in Portland, a city known for its cultural defiance to authority. Crowds grew significantly July 17 and 18.

Note that federal officials had been in Portland since at least July 1.


Finally, the beginning of the article seems to sum up the issue - local officials basically created a song and dance with protesters, and failed at quelling the unrest. Then feds stepped in and made a bigger mess.

Quote:Protesters had settled into a nightly routine at the Multnomah County Justice Center. The fencing around the building had just come down. The iconic elk statue still stood watch above Lownsdale and Chapman Squares, offering a comfortable late-night perch for many protesters.

Then federal law enforcement officers began appearing at the daily protests.

At first, activists viewed the agents as a minor nuisance compared to officers from the Portland Police Bureau, who for many nights before had used impact munitions and tear gas to drive demonstrators away from the building that houses the county jail and out of downtown Portland.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/police-...-officers/

I don't think you see what you're doing here... and the following is not intended to be preachy or to box you in, merely to describe what I'm talking about in the most expedient manner....

You seem to try and start from day one, like I do which is good.... and you don't get very far with facts... neither do I.....

So then you (logically) start instead at the end and work back as far as you can.... and once again, we can't get all the way back either.... SouthParks... 1) Collect Underwear 2) _??????_ 3) Profit.

So it seems that you start 'as far back as you can go from today' which takes you to the fed's reaction
and we start as far forward as we can go with the preceding actions that RESULTED in the fed's reaction

You seem to have assumed that there is little to nothing that locals could do that would justify what the feds have done
We seem to have little problem imagining what locals could have done that would justify the reaction

PART of the reason I think we differ is because the 'first-hand story' we were originally given has a million demonstrable holes in it. It was about as one sided a description as could have been told while still sticking to 'facts'. I go back to the story told, vs the alternative 'perspective' I gave using the same 'facts'. You still seem to tend to support it despite the additional information... I can't say if it's because you have added that information in and reconsidered and still have your belief, or whether you have simply not heard enough compelling evidence to amend the initial belief. The reason I say this is not to insult you, but because none of the libertarians on here have any interest whatsoever in supporting an oppressive regime. We are not pro-Feds, we are not pro-Trump.... I do not feel that we are equally yoked here... i.e. you're at 0 and we're at 100 on a scale of support/resistance... but instead you're at say 20 because you absolutely support Portland in their resistance to Trump, even without these events.... and we're at 60. This ABSOLUTELY feels like another 'Orange Man Bad' event.... and not one of Democrats supporting state sovereignty over Federal interference. We can disagree on that, but it's obviously intended to paint a picture... so please if you must, respond to the picture and not the specifics of the example.

You seem to take a lot of pride and expend a lot of energy refuting our numerous 'guesses' about what could have happened... i.e. whether or not Portland police 'disappeared' is a matter of opinion, not fact... but clearly the feds felt a) that they weren't doing enough or b) that this was their jurisdiction. I'd argue that they believe it is both... so whether the portland police disappeared or merely didn't prioritize it to the level that the feds thought it needed to be, it was certainly within their right to exert jurisdiction.

You keep talking about 'the reaction to the feds being worse' as if this is meaningful, but you seem to ignore any potential prior escalation. That's like a gang shooting up a neighborhood in response to their boss being arrested by the police is somehow proof that the police shouldn't have arrested the boss.

I submit that the van actions made it worse.
I submit that the misrepresentations in the stories about the van actions also made it worse
I submit that the van actions don't take place if the Portland Police proactively do their jobs
I submit that there is no need for any of it if the protests are actually peaceful.
I submit that little to no convincing evidence has been presented to suggest that the reason the initial protests turned violent was due to local police or federal actions against peaceful protesters

I further submit that these 'worse' reactions could lead to an even more forceful response.

I'd like to clarify the bolded - the article I posted goes back to before the Feds arrived. And I have been referencing that multiple times in my back and forth with Tanq.

Local officials failed at quelling protests and riots, but gave it their all, before the Feds arrived. See:

Quote:June 5... Portlanders turned out to protest racism and violence in the criminal justice system after police killed George Floyd in Minneapolis. After a week of widespread use of tear gas and impact munitions to disperse mostly nonviolent protesters, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against the Portland Police Bureau, limiting their use of tear gas to instances “in which the lives or safety of the public or the police are at risk.”

June 26 - The city and protesters agreed to expand the restraining order beyond tear gas, to include crowd control devices like pepper spray and rubber bullets. Portland police still continued to use tear gas and impact munitions, but the bar to justify their use was significantly higher. State lawmakers in the Oregon Legislature also passed a law requiring police to first warn protesters before using tear gas. Under the new law, officers must determine that a “riot” is occurring. Oregon law defines a riot as just five people acting in a violent manner.

The point I've been trying to make is that Tanq's assertion was factually incorrect - local Portland officials/police did try and stop these riots, but they failed at doing so.

And so we get to your last bit about how there are a multitude of points that direct us to how Portland has turned into the situation it has - one that I agree with.

And we can then go back to my initial comment, which focused on one of the turning points. A few posters seemed really bent out of shape over that observation, and in their furious resistance to it, tried to paint a picture that wasn't accurate. So here we are now.

Also, I disagree with the original story having holes in it - so far we haven't seen any holes punched in it, unless I missed something. My understanding is still that a person was pulled off the street, thrown into an unmarked van by paramilitary federal officials, never formally charged/arrested, and then released. What additional information has been provided that says this isn't what happened or adds context to the situation? We haven't found out that they Feds were looking for a specific individual, have we?

(07-24-2020 03:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]My understanding is still that a person was pulled off the street, thrown into an unmarked van by paramilitary federal officials, never formally charged/arrested, and then released. What additional information has been provided that says this isn't what happened or adds context to the situation? We haven't found out that they Feds were looking for a specific individual, have we?

At least you arent screaming your normal accompanying 'secret police' schtick with that.

As to the above, well..... big fat whoopee.

What is left out and adds to the context is the veritable street warfare shitstorm happening in the area, and the danger to officers to wade into a mob to make a detention or arrest. That is kind of a biggie.

And, as to your last question, they were actually looking for Pettibone. Per the director's comments.

They did not have enough to charge him and let him go. And, Pettibone shut down all conversation at the get go with his invocation for a lawyer.

Now you have first hand evidence of the efficacy of the first and second rules of criminal law given to people: Never talk with the police willingly; and always ask for an attorney.

(07-24-2020 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 03:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]My understanding is still that a person was pulled off the street, thrown into an unmarked van by paramilitary federal officials, never formally charged/arrested, and then released. What additional information has been provided that says this isn't what happened or adds context to the situation? We haven't found out that they Feds were looking for a specific individual, have we?

At least you arent screaming your normal accompanying 'secret police' schtick with that.

It still is secret police-esque. And that's why it has ruffled feathers.

(07-24-2020 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 03:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]My understanding is still that a person was pulled off the street, thrown into an unmarked van by paramilitary federal officials, never formally charged/arrested, and then released. What additional information has been provided that says this isn't what happened or adds context to the situation? We haven't found out that they Feds were looking for a specific individual, have we?

At least you arent screaming your normal accompanying 'secret police' schtick with that.

It still is secret police-esque. And that's why it has ruffled feathers.

You mean Boris and Natasha-esque?

RUSSIANS!!!!!! OMG!!!!! SMOKE!!!!!!!

Quote:what additional information has been provided that says this isn't what happened or adds context to the situation? We haven't found out that they Feds were looking for a specific individual, have we?

As to the accompanying list you cite with the above, well..... big fat whoopee.

What is left out and adds to the context is the veritable street warfare shitstorm happening in the very immediate area, and the danger to officers to wade into a mob to make a detention or arrest, or the presence to even attract a mob. That is kind of a biggie.

And, as to your last question, they were actually looking for Pettibone. Per the director's comments.

They did not have enough to charge him and let him go. And, Pettibone shut down all conversation at the get go with his invocation for a lawyer.

Now you have first hand evidence of the efficacy of the first and second rules of criminal law given to people: Never talk with the police willingly; and always ask for an attorney.

[secret policey blahbitty blah blah here]

Which brings us straight back to the three part question posed to you earlier:

The Feds have three choices:

a) let the shitbirds riot and assault;
b) wade into the crowd and make arrests/detentions;
c) make arrests/detentions away from the courthouse.

Which do you support the Feds doing? Should be simple, a), b), or c)?

This seems a real doozy for you.

(07-24-2020 03:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 03:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]My understanding is still that a person was pulled off the street, thrown into an unmarked van by paramilitary federal officials, never formally charged/arrested, and then released. What additional information has been provided that says this isn't what happened or adds context to the situation? We haven't found out that they Feds were looking for a specific individual, have we?

At least you arent screaming your normal accompanying 'secret police' schtick with that.

It still is secret police-esque. And that's why it has ruffled feathers.

You mean Boris and Natasha-esque?

RUSSIANS!!!!!! OMG!!!!! SMOKE!!!!!!!

Hunter-esque? Naw, never.

(07-24-2020 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:what additional information has been provided that says this isn't what happened or adds context to the situation? We haven't found out that they Feds were looking for a specific individual, have we?

As to the accompanying list you cite with the above, well..... big fat whoopee.

What is left out and adds to the context is the veritable street warfare shitstorm happening in the very immediate area, and the danger to officers to wade into a mob to make a detention or arrest, or the presence to even attract a mob. That is kind of a biggie.

And, as to your last question, they were actually looking for Pettibone. Per the director's comments.

Source?

I've yet to read anything about Feds specifically looking for an individual named Mark Pettibone.

(07-24-2020 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ][secret policey blahbitty blah blah here]

Which brings us straight back to the three part question posed to you earlier:

The Feds have three choices:

a) let the shitbirds riot and assault;
b) wade into the crowd and make arrests/detentions;
c) make arrests/detentions away from the courthouse.

Which do you support the Feds doing? Should be simple, a), b), or c)?

This seems a real doozy for you.

There's a few things that are problematic with how you frame the above.

1) There are more options. For starters, they could continue to protect the court house and only arrest those that enter the physical grounds (so don't wade into the crowd).

2) Option C has a wide range of possible methods of execution. Some possible suggestions on what could change:
-make sure that they verbalize why they are detaining someone and where they will be taken to
- do not detain individuals and only arrest specific individuals that they will charge with a crime
- if they want to detain someone, do that in public
- only conduct detentions/arrests during daylight hours when there are not active riots going on

3) If we could go back to the beginning, when the Feds were first brought to Portland because local police/officials were unable to get the protests and riots under control, the Feds should have immediately put themselves in a supporting role, only, to local officials. There is something about Federal agents that does nothing to deescalate the situation, and it seems to be proven time and again, that a show of force is not going to deter people from protesting or rioting.

Listening and working with protesters seems to be the fastest way to get these situations under control - heavy handed violence doesn't seem to work.

(07-24-2020 03:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:I don't think you see what you're doing here... and the following is not intended to be preachy or to box you in, merely to describe what I'm talking about in the most expedient manner....

You seem to try and start from day one, like I do which is good.... and you don't get very far with facts... neither do I.....

So then you (logically) start instead at the end and work back as far as you can.... and once again, we can't get all the way back either.... SouthParks... 1) Collect Underwear 2) _??????_ 3) Profit.

So it seems that you start 'as far back as you can go from today' which takes you to the fed's reaction
and we start as far forward as we can go with the preceding actions that RESULTED in the fed's reaction

You seem to have assumed that there is little to nothing that locals could do that would justify what the feds have done
We seem to have little problem imagining what locals could have done that would justify the reaction

I'd like to clarify the bolded - the article I posted goes back to before the Feds arrived. And I have been referencing that multiple times in my back and forth with Tanq.

Local officials failed at quelling protests and riots, but gave it their all, before the Feds arrived. See:

What does this have to do with anything I said. I see how you're responding to Tanq, but I'm not him. I'm making my own points and asking my own questions. There are some similarities, but they are not the same.

Quote:The point I've been trying to make is that Tanq's assertion was factually incorrect - local Portland officials/police did try and stop these riots, but they failed at doing so.

Again, couldn't care less. Take that up with him.

Quote:And so we get to your last bit about how there are a multitude of points that direct us to how Portland has turned into the situation it has - one that I agree with.

And we can then go back to my initial comment, which focused on one of the turning points. A few posters seemed really bent out of shape over that observation, and in their furious resistance to it, tried to paint a picture that wasn't accurate. So here we are now.

THIS I did respond to.... You take a lot of time and energy to shoot holes in our 'guesses'... but you do not remotely turn that same lack of trust on the original story. We don't actually know what happened. You seem to have accepted without any reservations, the original story as told.

See here

Quote:Also, I disagree with the original story having holes in it - so far we haven't seen any holes punched in it, unless I missed something. My understanding is still that a person was pulled off the street, thrown into an unmarked van by paramilitary federal officials, never formally charged/arrested, and then released. What additional information has been provided that says this isn't what happened or adds context to the situation? We haven't found out that they Feds were looking for a specific individual, have we?

I gave a very specific alternative story that included the exact same facts and events as told, but included a little lack of faith in the 'first hand' retelling of the story, in part because almost everyone accepts the inaccuracies of first-hand recollections, especially under duress... which surely, someone randomly pulled off the streets by 'persons unknown' would have.... and then also with the self-serving nature of the stories. People accused of being involved in illegal activities almost never simply 'admit' their guilt to the press.

It seems quite obvious to me that the feds absolutely targeted single individuals in these 'raids'. How you see something else, I have no idea. What you seem to be saying is, you don't know WHY they targeted that person... because the feds aren't (and shouldn't) tell you... (presumption of innocence/tainting of jury pool), and the people reporting these events claim complete innocence.

I'll recount, though I think this is a different telling....
A block west of Chapman Square, Pettibone and O’Shea bumped into a group of people who warned them that people in camouflage were driving around the area in unmarked minivans grabbing people off the street.
“So that was terrifying to hear,” Pettibone said.

The people who created the immediate terror in Pettibone and O'Shea were the people who told them the story. The story we're being told is that the whole reason for this is to intimidate people... so these people are complicit. It certainly wouldn't be intimidating to the average citizen if we were told that police were detaining people they suspect of being involved in crimes... That's what they're supposed to do, right? People who thought they got away with crimes might be intimidated, and they should be. This isn't proof of anything... we need more information.

They had barely made it half a block when an unmarked minivan pulled up in front of them.

wow... half a block? Isn't THAT convenient for the story. That's like MAYBE 2 minutes. The people who told her the story couldn't have been more than half a block away either right? hmmm.

[quote]“I see guys in camo,” O’Shea said. “Four or five of them pop out, open the door and it was just like, ‘Oh ****. I don’t know who you are or what you want with us.’”
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.[/i]

This story doesn't say that they took the bunch, just her or part of her group?
We're just accepting that she has no idea why feds might want any of them.

It's true that FBI don't drive in clearly (to the layman) marked cars like police do. The TV meme is a black unmarked suburban with 'hidden' lights. It's also true that FBI don't wear clearly (to the layman) marked uniforms like police do. The TV meme is a suit with a portfolio badge in the pocket or perhaps, hanging from the belt. The tactical FBI agent wears dark/black/deep camo tactical gear.

The FBI has been arresting people i these cars and uniforms for decades. This is the first I've heard of someone accusing them of something nefarious in their standard protocol. The implication is that they are doing something specifically to intimidate protestors... the evidence suggests this is their SOP.

The biggest thing is the 'no explanation of why they are being arrested/detained'. best I know, this isn't a requirement of law enforcement 'in the moment'. If you watch ANY arrest, in the majority of them... especially ones involving some version of a 'surprise'... they are only informed of the reason once they have secured the situation.

The 'holes' are the inferences of nefarious action... from uniform to vehicle to notification of cause to random detainer that are not part of their SOP

These are not facts as best I know. They are perceptions from people that have little reason to know what their SOP is, and absolutely NO reason to accept it.

I do not accept that all FBI agents in Portland just blindly follow such seemingly egregious violations of their SOP.... that if their boss said, ignore these videos of actual criminals and instead, go randomly pick up people and don't tell them why... that they would simply follow orders... Is it possible? Of course, but I put the odds at well less than 50% On the other side, I accept that this COULD BE their perspective of what happened, but that doesn't mean that ANY of it is illegal or nefarious.... and if it's not illegal, then it really doesn't matter WHAT the people of Portland think about it. Had the police and local authorities done their job, and the citizens remained peaceful in their protests, it wouldn't matter what Federal policies (which predate this administration) allowed.

(07-24-2020 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]There's a few things that are problematic with how you frame the above.

1) There are more options. For starters, they could continue to protect the court house and only arrest those that enter the physical grounds (so don't wade into the crowd).

2) Option C has a wide range of possible methods of execution. Some possible suggestions on what could change:
-make sure that they verbalize why they are detaining someone and where they will be taken to
- do not detain individuals and only arrest specific individuals that they will charge with a crime
- if they want to detain someone, do that in public
- only conduct detentions/arrests during daylight hours when there are not active riots going on

3) If we could go back to the beginning, when the Feds were first brought to Portland because local police/officials were unable to get the protests and riots under control, the Feds should have immediately put themselves in a supporting role, only, to local officials. There is something about Federal agents that does nothing to deescalate the situation, and it seems to be proven time and again, that a show of force is not going to deter people from protesting or rioting.

Listening and working with protesters seems to be the fastest way to get these situations under control - heavy handed violence doesn't seem to work.

So your solution is to keep the people who failed in charge and to give them more resources... but give no authority to those people

Your opinion is noted. The people who do this professionally obviously disagree. I am not saying that makes them right and you wrong.... but I am saying that it doesn't make you right... and certainly implies that they've considered that and declined it.... since the practices seem to transcend administrations

You say 'when the feds were first brought to portland'... you may not mean it this way but that implies to me that they were asked to come in... I have this same issue with democrats on the military... You don't call the military if you don't want it dead. Certainly they can do other things and they don't do it haphazardly... but an f-14 wasn't designed to deliver amazon packages. Federal police aren't designed to 'connect with the community' that they don't live in. Even if they weren't asked in (I'm betting they weren't) they should have known that it was a reasonable possibility.

(07-24-2020 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ][secret policey blahbitty blah blah here]

Which brings us straight back to the three part question posed to you earlier:

The Feds have three choices:

a) let the shitbirds riot and assault;
b) wade into the crowd and make arrests/detentions;
c) make arrests/detentions away from the courthouse.

Which do you support the Feds doing? Should be simple, a), b), or c)?

This seems a real doozy for you.

There's a few things that are problematic with how you frame the above.

1) There are more options. For starters, they could continue to protect the court house and only arrest those that enter the physical grounds (so don't wade into the crowd).

Oooh that sounds fun. So if someone tosses a Molotov cocktail at a door from outside 'the physical grounds' that is a free pass? Sounds like a smashing good idea.

Second point: have you bothered to even note 'the physical grounds'? Maybe the article I posted about the city of Portland suing the Feds to remove the fence is pertinent here. The building is separated from the street by, oh, 7 feet of sidewalk. What exactly are the 'physical grounds' that you wax so eloquently about here? How many inches of that 84 inches is the 'physical grounds'?

Well I guess back to square one on that answer.

Quote:2) Option C has a wide range of possible methods of execution. Some possible suggestions on what could change:
-make sure that they verbalize why they are detaining someone and where they will be taken to

What happens when the person wants an attorney? Literally if anyone even peeps a word above and beyond a Miranda that is a violation. I guess you didnt know that.

Quote:- do not detain individuals and only arrest specific individuals that they will charge with a crime

So shitcan the detain portion of an investigation. Again, that sounds like a **** up.

Quote:- if they want to detain someone, do that in public

Uhhh...... they did in the van incident.

Or if you mean 'with a large amount of people around', as much as I know you detest Andy Ngo, but do you think that putting uniformed cops in a heavy traffic when there are literally incendiary devices at hand to be a really good idea?

Quote:- only conduct detentions/arrests during daylight hours when there are not active riots going on

So abdicate at night. Sounds fun. Your answers are getting curiouser and curiouser.

Quote:3) If we could go back to the beginning, when the Feds were first brought to Portland because local police/officials were unable to get the protests and riots under control, the Feds should have immediately put themselves in a supporting role, only, to local officials. There is something about Federal agents that does nothing to deescalate the situation, and it seems to be proven time and again, that a show of force is not going to deter people from protesting or rioting.

What show of force have we seen? Pepper balls on the outside fringe? Oh deary me.

Quote:Listening and working with protesters seems to be the fastest way to get these situations under control - heavy handed violence doesn't seem to work.

I'm sorry that is worth a lolz there. Why not a round of aromatherapy for the collective as well?

(07-24-2020 04:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2020 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:what additional information has been provided that says this isn't what happened or adds context to the situation? We haven't found out that they Feds were looking for a specific individual, have we?

As to the accompanying list you cite with the above, well..... big fat whoopee.

What is left out and adds to the context is the veritable street warfare shitstorm happening in the very immediate area, and the danger to officers to wade into a mob to make a detention or arrest, or the presence to even attract a mob. That is kind of a biggie.

And, as to your last question, they were actually looking for Pettibone. Per the director's comments.

Source?

I've yet to read anything about Feds specifically looking for an individual named Mark Pettibone.

The director's comments noted that the person that they were looking for was the person picked up. You know, the same press conference where the Esteemed Hahvud Professor had to add add evidence to make his claim.

Iirc both the Director (the first speaker) and the guy in uniform that the Director deferred some of the proffered question said that, or it was just one of them.

And no, they did not say 'we were looking for Pettibone', they said were were looking and picked up a guy that we saw on tape that we wanted to question, or something to that effect.