(07-18-2020 02:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (07-18-2020 02:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (07-18-2020 01:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (07-18-2020 01:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (07-18-2020 01:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Didn’t take too long for you to defend the practice of government agents picking up citizens without identifying who they are, without indicating what crime had been committed, and throwing them into an unmarked vehicle in an area outside of a federal building, without consent or coordination with local or state officials.
Perhaps you should re-read the post I commented on, my comment to that, and *then* your 'everything and the kitchen sink' fairly radical expansion of my comment above.
Funny that your ***** session with Hambone has you complaining of the exact, same, expansion that you just did above. Jeezus fing Krist.
And yes, too fing bad the feds decide to enforce Federal law. Bummer. I assume the concept of dual sovereign kind of doesnt quite register at your end.
Obviously my post was in reference to these tactics in Portland bng carried out elsewhere - if the Feds want to come and stand guard of their courthouses, so be it. But we’re talking about them rounding up citizens in unmarked vans, outside of their facilities.
So the only role Federal authorities should undrtake is defense to prevent breaking of Federal law. Got it
Once the act is committed there should be nothing but local apprehension efforts. Sounds like a smashing **** up of a time
Hate to tell you the jurisdiction that z Fed can arrest detain or apprehend is..... checks notes... the entire jurisdiction of the United States. Shall we change that as well?
Again, I am criticizing their methods - stop moving the goal posts.
'Moving goal posts'? Well, who first mentioned that they are only okey dokey with the Feds 'stand[ing] guard at their courthouse? Well.... (checks notes) ... It seemed to be *you*.
I guess I shouldnt fing respond to *your* explicit comments. That could get real fun.
Quote: If they had a warrant, clearly identified themselves, informed the person they were being arrested and what crime they were being arrested for, and didn’t throw them into an unmarked van, I don’t see the issue. But the Feds in Portland did the exact opposite of each of those things.
Arguing against this means you support those tactics, you get that, right?
No police official needs a 'warrant' for a detention. Strike 1.
The photos and videos I have seen have both 'POLICE' on the front *and* very visible DHS shoulder markings. Strike 2.
When one is stopped or detained, there is zero constitutional authority for *anyone* to denote what you are being stopped for. There is plenty of authority for people to be informed of what they are being arrested for. Strike 3.
There havent been any charges asserted. There have been no arrests. Strike 4.
There is no authority that says officers of any sort *must* ride around in a vehicle marked "Police'. Strike 5.
So, when you get off your rhetorical flourishes you just might see that you have lots of them there.
Based on the videos I have seen, my advice to actual protesters is not to dress completely in black, wear a black hood, and wear a black face covering. My guess is that most of the shitbirds violating federal law are not doing that wearing pink floral Hawaiian print shirts, bright green baseball caps, and 'Biden 2020' bandanas.
If one wants to protest legally, one shouldnt necessarily dress like a fing combat ninja --- my other guess is that real and valid protesters just *might* do so in distinctive clothing --- that is unless they either want to be detained, or if they actually want to give sub rosa assistance to the vandals.
Now getting back to your point --- none of the issues that you are screaming about are illegal, or unconstitutional. If, and this is a big if mind you, the feds are truly doing a for ***** and giggles 'lets drive around, pick up some random dude, detain him, make him **** his pants, because we *can* do that' --- I might be persuaded that the actions are wrong. Your talking points are immaterial to that, they are superfluous in fact.
If the cops are actually stopping people with a real probable cause for detainment, then I will probably lean the other way than I noted in the above paragraph.
I have seen nothing to indicate which one of the two ways noted above this leans --- accordingly I will make my opinion on more cogent facts.
But again, just so there is no fing mistake --- your bullet points above, while nice and juicy in the rhetorical sense, and simply non-germane to to the issue.
If you can get back to me on any of the above being 'outside the law', then add that to the mix.
And, I really hate to tell you, the videos that I see will absolutely make wearing your 'ninja black street fighter' costume to a protest problematic when some asshat in a similar 'ninja black street commando' outfit breaks Federal law. Bummer.
