(07-20-2020 12:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-19-2020 06:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If it is obvious, perhaps answer the fing question directly? Of just whine and fing rant....

Some serious hubris to act like I was giving some unfair edit comparing your comments to Lad's and then follow your criticism up a few post later with this.

I guess you didnt notice the lack of z direct answer. Funny that with you being an ace smokin attorney or somefink

(07-20-2020 12:10 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-19-2020 03:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Awesome job of playing asshat selective editor there. And yes, when someone tells me I am 'missing the point, intentionally' I will state to them to FO. But you missed that preceding statement, much like you missed most (all?) of the statements in the discourse.

Perhaps you can tell me if the officers had probable cause sufficient for a detention, which is the only germane point to the discussion.

Aside from that, if all you can proffer up is an ad hom selective edit, then perhaps I might treat you with the same level of disdain you note that I do above. I would hate to do that because you and I have generally eschewed being overtly and impliedly uncivil to one another -- but from the above today (and other previous 'testy' comments from you) perhaps that really is no longer the case.

Bummer. Cest le vie.

All I did was literally quote different parts of what you quoted (both quotes from yourself and Lad) in Post #12872, plus a few of the follow-ups to that post. I honestly haven't been following the back-and-forth between you and your son all that closely. If I missed something, apologies. But I don't think I missed the general tone. You are basically losing your $h!t about Lad and his arguments and Lad is remaining pretty calm, even though he feels like you and he are talking past each other. You swear repeatedly and speak down to him. Am I missing something?

Funny, I have been consistent that the most important item in any stop, detention, or arrest is the fundamental right at stake. Being an ace fing attorney, you should note that the two most important are whther the detention had sufficient probable cause, and that the detained is released after what a limited time. The facts are unclear about the first, but clear on the second. The facts also indicate that the dude that got picked up was a night ninja warrior, which seems to be couture choice of many of the rock throwing set. That fashion choice is a dumb one of you dont want to fit the description of violent protestor, or it may be an intentional one. My heart isnt sympathetic that the dumb*** (or provocateur wannabe) got picked up if in fact there was an apb for a night ninja clad SJW.

lad whiffs on that lil' ol' point.

The second right implicated is that in a detention, the person is either charged or sprung. This apparently happened. Yet lad caterwauls about this. So his ***** on this point (that how dare he was detained but not charged) is simply wrong factually. If he wants to ***** on this, he really needs to ***** about the entirety of any detention at all.

The focus is that he yelps about is then left with: the car was unmarked, the popo didnt identify themselves in a nice clean manner with tea and cookies, and that no one said anything to him about what he was picked up for. The ***** about #1 is just stupid (I guess the optics on undercover officers and cars escapes his wrath somehow).

On #2, he is first factually wrong on his screed about 'no ID' -- the video clearly show 'POPO' on tehir uniforms and shoulder emblems of the DHS. Secondly, I cant remember anytime a uniformed officer said 'hey dumb*** (me) I am with XYZ police and I have to detain you.' Glad to know that social faux pas is now such a hot topic.

On 3, once in detention, there are typically two reasons for it. In the first they have probable cause and want *you* to provide info. The second is that they have probable cause and are seeking your limited detention in order for *them* to produce other evidence. That has been part and parcel of the interaction in our legal system for at least a century. There is no obligation legally for them to say *anything* to a detainee. In fact, if that happens, that is actually the best outcome for the detainee if you think about it a smidge. But lad doesnt note any of that, he screams about the 'optics' or somefink. As I am sure he would jump up and down about the detainee being 'rudely questioned' if the opposite were to occur. So the issue about the 'silence' is rather bull****. Makes great rhetoric, but still bull****. I dont see him up on any soapbox over the scores of silent detentions that occur probably every day. So that adds to the 'bull****' score I ascribe to his rather uninformed and fact bereft account of this.

And, in the end they sprang him after a limited time in the evil unmarked car, the horrific silence, and the mind numbingly temerity of not charging him.

My advice in this instance, is it might be prudent to not dress up in the couture that is the rage of the destructive set at a destructive event. Probable cause can be a *****, and mr ninja perhaps learned that the hard way.

But given the above, which was described more than once for Mr lad, instead I am told that I am 'intentionally missing the point'. Uhhhhh.... no, I am not. And as to the added issue of 'intentionally' I absolutely will treat the author of that in similar terms.

Which, given your recent spate of 'stick up your ass' issues, I think I have been decidedly reserved with you in that regard, tbh. As noted, you and I used to treat other with a certain amount of civility, and apparently you have unilaterally decided nt to do so. Your choice. Given your three or four recent very directed attacks against me, in posts that are nothing but 'ad hom' -- I hope you find some respite from that 'stick in your ass syndrome'. Perhaps you may not, I dont know.

(07-20-2020 12:18 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-19-2020 03:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Aside from that, if all you can proffer up is an ad hom selective edit, then perhaps I might treat you with the same level of disdain you note that I do above. I would hate to do that because you and I have generally eschewed being overtly and impliedly uncivil to one another -- but from the above today (and other previous 'testy' comments from you) perhaps that really is no longer the case.

Bummer. Cest le vie.

I vehemently disagree with this statement. You are a jerk to all the left-of-center folks here. You held out a little while with me initially, but I feel the disdain you hurl toward all of us is pretty shocking considering we are all Rice grads and might some day hypothetically meet at a football tailgate or something.

Maybe you just aren't self-aware of your attitude toward us on here? In 100% honesty, when I am being a jerk toward you, OO, or 69/70/75, I am trying to mirror the attitude each of you have toward each of us. It is a little different for each of you (69/70/75 tends to have more race/sex overtones (sorry man, but you do and I have pointed it out quite a few times), you are just kind of a jerk who talks down to others and slings invectives around).

I try really hard not to do this with Ham and George because other than George's war with At Ease (I think) that I don't understand and is rooted in something that happened between them in the past, they are way more kind and thoughtful than the other 3 of you. Just speaking my truth.

And in the lst 3 days you have posted zero substance, and really nothing but ad homs.

And to be honest big, the reason I decided to act in a manner different with you is because you deviated from a veneer of civility. lad crossed the bridge with me a while back with a fair number of literal 'you are ignorant' comments, so yes, I dont have much of reserve there. There is some, and sometimes lad absolutely needs an issue framed in reducto ad absurdum --- like my comment about 'mr ninja warrior' looking *exactly* like the destructives and there might be a smidgeon (sarcasm) of a chance that he looks exactly like a fellow destructo; or better yet, your umbrage at me saying that if the officers were on a high fiving, lets detain any rando just to scare the **** out them (which his must be to run afoul of any rights) this would be wrong (which was apparently so far beyond the pale that it landed in Mr Bigs House of Listed Tanq Horrors --- spooky music sound in the background).

And when lad keeps bouncing rhetorical bull****, and constantly shifts goals, yes, I will call those out. Boo fing hoo.

I am not the only one who notes those issues from that quarter, mind you.

And, I would say, at the present, and for the last number of days, I am being far more civil with your pure asshat comments than you are with mine. Funny that.

Perhaps you might want to make some actual substantive points on the issue at hand instead of your social teeth gnashing, eh?

(07-20-2020 06:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Regarding federal agents in unmarked cars picking up people off the street.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't somebody set a federal building on fire? That is clearly a federal offense, and the federales clearly have jurisdiction anywhere in the USA, with or without an invite from the governor or mayor. I'm guessing they had security cameras and I'm guessing they have some kind of facial recognition. It would then make sense to pick up people off the street matching the descriptions of the perps, and as far as unmarked cars, have you ever gotten a speeding ticket from an unmarked police car? Or have you ever heard of anyone being arrested by a plainclothes or undercover LEO?

As I think it was Tanq explained above, there's no violation with picking people up as long as there is some kind of reasonable basis for so doing, and as long as they are released relatively quickly. To hold someone, you need more, but there's a good chance they have more.

I really don't understand the problem here.

The problem is that lad is speaking fluent 'rhetorical flourish.'

And, I dont know what big's problem is -- he hasnt even attempted to join the issue in any substantive sense. He just apparently feels the need to go pure personal attack mode.

(07-20-2020 08:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 06:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Regarding federal agents in unmarked cars picking up people off the street.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't somebody set a federal building on fire? That is clearly a federal offense, and the federales clearly have jurisdiction anywhere in the USA, with or without an invite from the governor or mayor. I'm guessing they had security cameras and I'm guessing they have some kind of facial recognition. It would then make sense to pick up people off the street matching the descriptions of the perps, and as far as unmarked cars, have you ever gotten a speeding ticket from an unmarked police car? Or have you ever heard of anyone being arrested by a plainclothes or undercover LEO?

As I think it was Tanq explained above, there's no violation with picking people up as long as there is some kind of reasonable basis for so doing, and as long as they are released relatively quickly. To hold someone, you need more, but there's a good chance they have more.

I really don't understand the problem here.

The problem is that lad is speaking fluent 'rhetorical flourish.'

And, I dont know what big's problem is -- he hasnt even attempted to join the issue in any substantive sense. He just apparently feels the need to go pure personal attack mode.

Sorry you feel that way - I think about the only personal issues I've denoted is how quickly libertarian posters have come to defend the actions and haven't felt the need to criticize them OR the apparent talking past each other that we're doing.

My substantive point is that the methods the federal agents are using are problematic. For starters, they've not worsened the situation in Portland, not made it better (protests have been the largest over the last few days). Secondly, they've now resorted to a detainment method associated with secret police - grabbing people off the street and throwing them into unmarked vehicles without providing them a reason for detainment until they're back at a federal facility.

If they wanted to deescalate the situation that was videoed, at a minimum they could have verbalized why the man was being detained. They also could have questioned him publicly, given that they weren't in a situation where there was a mob or rioting was occurring. Instead, they opted for the worst method - disappearing someone. This leads to an even more adversarial relationship which will NOT deescalate tension.

You're now going to fall back on the argument that this was legal and within their authority - it sure is given DHS's ability to operate within 100 miles of a border. But

I disagree with their methods and are critical of them employing them.

You seem to agree with their methods and are supportive of them employing them.

(07-20-2020 06:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Regarding federal agents in unmarked cars picking up people off the street.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't somebody set a federal building on fire? That is clearly a federal offense, and the federales clearly have jurisdiction anywhere in the USA, with or without an invite from the governor or mayor. I'm guessing they had security cameras and I'm guessing they have some kind of facial recognition. It would then make sense to pick up people off the street matching the descriptions of the perps, and as far as unmarked cars, have you ever gotten a speeding ticket from an unmarked police car? Or have you ever heard of anyone being arrested by a plainclothes or undercover LEO?

As I think it was Tanq explained above, there's no violation with picking people up as long as there is some kind of reasonable basis for so doing, and as long as they are released relatively quickly. To hold someone, you need more, but there's a good chance they have more.

I really don't understand the problem here.

I've never received a speeding ticket from a completely unmarked police car - one without police lights or at least a logo that has been painted so that it is not very visible. Both of those give legitimacy to the LEO. I've also never been given a ticket by a police officer who hasn't had their badge/ID obvious, and they have always told me why they stopped my vehicle and were writing me a ticket. They didn't just pull me over and tell me to pay the state $180.

When I've seen plainclothes police officers act (on a Critical Mass ride), they very quickly identified themselves as police and took out their badges, which had their badge IDs. That immediately gave them legitimacy and a way to be identified by the many passerbys.

Again, the issue isn't whether or not there is a violation - just because something is legal does not mean it is immediately above criticism. There are 1,000 ways to skin a cat, and this seems like a really bad way to skin this cat, and one that should be concerning as it could very easily be abused (just look at the many levels of assumptions you have to make to make sure that this is even valid).

A perfect example of what is happening right now would be trying to argue with someone who is critical of the stop and frisk program that their criticism wasn't valid because the process itself isn't unconstitutional.

I haven't followed this little tempest that closely, but my impression is that lad is working off hysterical rumor and innuendo, the source of which is the leftist press.

Seeing as Lad was the one who most thought the Russia witch hunt was warranted, maybe he should not be the one to bring up secret police and law enforcement not following the rules.

(07-20-2020 12:07 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-19-2020 02:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Apparently not, especially after your roll on earning some major league douchebag points today and the throw a rock and run away mode yesterday. 3 posts, 2 of them nothing but ad homs.

Combined with your throw a rock and run the hell away mode yesterday you are on a real role model for restraint and civility there/here,

lighten the hell up. We're in the middle of a pandemic and liberals are about to sweep into power and force themselves upon you and your conservative libertarian bretheren.

Yes, conservatives are about to get raped, for sure.

I am quite sure the Russian peasants were as welcoming of their
communistic overlords in 1917 as you are today.

(07-20-2020 12:18 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Maybe you just aren't self-aware of your attitude toward us on here? In 100% honesty, when I am being a jerk toward you, OO, or 69/70/75, I am trying to mirror the attitude each of you have toward each of us. It is a little different for each of you (69/70/75 tends to have more race/sex overtones (sorry man, but you do and I have pointed it out quite a few times), you are just kind of a jerk who talks down to others and slings invectives around).

I try really hard not to do this with Ham and George because other than George's war with At Ease (I think) that I don't understand and is rooted in something that happened between them in the past, they are way more kind and thoughtful than the other 3 of you. Just speaking my truth.

Thank goodness he has an excuse for being the way he is. He is just an ape in front of a mirror - it is not his choice. I thought he just liked being an ass. But he is being forced into it. All clear now - a helpless puppet.

(07-20-2020 08:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I haven't followed this little tempest that closely, but my impression is that lad is working off hysterical rumor and innuendo, the source of which is the leftist press.

I literally posted a video documenting the issue - did you watch it?

(07-20-2020 08:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 08:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I haven't followed this little tempest that closely, but my impression is that lad is working off hysterical rumor and innuendo, the source of which is the leftist press.

I literally posted a video documenting the issue - did you watch it?

Guess I missed it. You have video of the secret police death squads rubber hosing innocent protesters? Let's see it.

(07-20-2020 08:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 08:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 06:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Regarding federal agents in unmarked cars picking up people off the street.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't somebody set a federal building on fire? That is clearly a federal offense, and the federales clearly have jurisdiction anywhere in the USA, with or without an invite from the governor or mayor. I'm guessing they had security cameras and I'm guessing they have some kind of facial recognition. It would then make sense to pick up people off the street matching the descriptions of the perps, and as far as unmarked cars, have you ever gotten a speeding ticket from an unmarked police car? Or have you ever heard of anyone being arrested by a plainclothes or undercover LEO?

As I think it was Tanq explained above, there's no violation with picking people up as long as there is some kind of reasonable basis for so doing, and as long as they are released relatively quickly. To hold someone, you need more, but there's a good chance they have more.

I really don't understand the problem here.

The problem is that lad is speaking fluent 'rhetorical flourish.'

And, I dont know what big's problem is -- he hasnt even attempted to join the issue in any substantive sense. He just apparently feels the need to go pure personal attack mode.

Sorry you feel that way - I think about the only personal issues I've denoted is how quickly libertarian posters have come to defend the actions and haven't felt the need to criticize them OR the apparent talking past each other that we're doing.

Given the state of 'detainment' law --- I think 'detainment law' is at a fairly decent balancing juncture. Much tighter and we actually go into the realm of 'secret police' that you screech so eloquently about.

And, if the popo are acting with sufficient probable cause, the 'detain for a limited time' seems to appropriately balance that.

I dont have a fing clue as to what point you are trying to make of your comment above, or of my continued support for the activity of detainment.

What exactly about detainment in general do you find so abhorrent?

Do you not understand that not all libertarians are full blown anarchos, and understand that for the concept of 'ordered liberty' there must be some.... uhhhh.... 'order'?

Yes I will defend the current scheme of detainment. What exactly and specifically are *your* problems with it?

Quote:My substantive point is that the methods the federal agents are using are problematic. For starters, they've not worsened the situation in Portland, not made it better (protests have been the largest over the last few days).

Some people, mind you, are saying that 52 days of proto-anarchy arent necessarily healthy. The mayor has made zero effort to stanch the increasing violence there. The state as well. Kind of leaves on level of government to do that. Amazing that.

Quote:Secondly, they've now resorted to a detainment method associated with secret police - grabbing people off the street and throwing them into unmarked vehicles without providing them a reason for detainment until they're back at a federal facility.

Actually a secret police would be far worse than that. You are a bright, educated guy, and you know the difference.

So as opposed to mocking your hyperbolic comments there, let me repeat:

Since you probably wont answer the rights/cosmetics question straight up.....

What rights are implicated in a detention by use of an unmarked police car? What rights are implicated in an arrest by use of an unmarked police vehicle?

How many arrests/detentions are characterized with the use of an unmarked law enforcement vehicle?

Quote:If they wanted to deescalate the situation that was videoed, at a minimum they could have verbalized why the man was being detained. They also could have questioned him publicly, given that they weren't in a situation where there was a mob or rioting was occurring. Instead, they opted for the worst method - disappearing someone.

'Disappearing'? Seems we all know whom he is, that he got picked up, and that he was released. Again, your hyperbole doesnt quite hit the mark.

As for 'they weren't in a situation where there was a mob or rioting was occurring.' --- can you denote in the video exactly where you ascertained anyone else or any group of people say, in even the next block? I will state precisely what is known: The spokesperson noted there was a crowd of people within a block or half a block that were advancing on the incident. None of the video corroborates this, nor does it prove it false. Even CNN is forced to note that last sentence.

But hey, we have lad here who is stating unequivocally that it is not. Oh---tay,

When you map the location of the bust against the some of locations of violence that ostensibly prompted the 'illegal gathering', it is quite close to at least some of those locations of very directed ire. So, do you think it prudent from law and order perspective to loll around for five to ten minutes in that situation to ascertain the issue? Given that frozen water bottles and many other forms of somewhat weaponized items were actively being noted in the streets? Seriously?

Had this been another environment I would ostensibly agree with this point. But, if there was sufficient probable cause in the first place, I see zero reason for LE to put themselves into *any* potential for a focus of conflict --- which means a quick detention and determination of facts away from the burgeoning paradise that Portland night life seems to be these days.

Quote:This leads to an even more adversarial relationship which will NOT deescalate tension.

So you think plopping a marked cruiser, which from time to time gets torched in Portland these days, into the middle will 'deescalate tension'? Seriously?

So you think doing a ten minute pre-custody interview in the middle of Portland streets that have been declared closed, and the crowds kind of going ape **** beserk at that call, will 'deescalate tension'? Again, seriously?

Again, if there was a lack of probable cause, the entire escapade is wrong from start to finish without even the horror of an unmarked car, a horror of a trip downtown.

If those same tactics were used on a pastoral end-of work street setting without the red clouds of arson and the attempted storming of a Federal courthouse in roughly the same locale -- again, the tactics would be high handed. But we arent talking downtown Austin, end of lunch, pre 'lets smash anything in sight' days. We are talking Portland -- the night that the shitbirds actually torched a police union building, and the night that they explicitly assaulted a Federal courthouse, and on a night that even the shitbird mayor of Portland seemingly agrees was out of hand.

But that doesnt even seem to make a mark there.

Quote:You seem to agree with their methods and are supportive of them employing them.

I dont roll with the level of the 'secret police' **** you ascribe to it. You are correct on that.

In closing, once again:


Since you probably wont answer the rights/cosmetics question straight up.....

What rights are implicated in a detention by use of an unmarked police car? What rights are implicated in an arrest by use of an unmarked police vehicle?

How many arrests/detentions are characterized with the use of an unmarked law enforcement vehicle?

(07-20-2020 09:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What rights are implicated in a detention by use of an unmarked police car?

What rights are implicated in an arrest by use of an unmarked police vehicle?

How many arrests/detentions are characterized with the use of an unmarked law enforcement vehicle?

I know! I know! Pick me! (Waving hand furiously)

1, none

2. none

3. Lots, but I cannot give an exact number.

There seems to be an attitude among many people that law enforcement is a game, and the cops must play by certain rules, and the citizens can any measure they want to get around that.

I wonder how many times I have heard an indignant speeder complain about the cop hiding behind a bridge or billboard. It's just not fair!!
I remember once I asked the cop where he was hiding, and with a little smile he told me, as though he was proud of successfully trapping an unwary speeder. But I check that spot now before accelerating to get on the interstate. I can play this game too.

And I am sure the guys picked up in prostitution stings are upset because the woman in a short skirt they propositioned was not in uniform with a name tag.

(07-20-2020 06:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Regarding federal agents in unmarked cars picking up people off the street.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't somebody set a federal building on fire? That is clearly a federal offense, and the federales clearly have jurisdiction anywhere in the USA, with or without an invite from the governor or mayor. I'm guessing they had security cameras and I'm guessing they have some kind of facial recognition. It would then make sense to pick up people off the street matching the descriptions of the perps, and as far as unmarked cars, have you ever gotten a speeding ticket from an unmarked police car? Or have you ever heard of anyone being arrested by a plainclothes or undercover LEO?

As I think it was Tanq explained above, there's no violation with picking people up as long as there is some kind of reasonable basis for so doing, and as long as they are released relatively quickly. To hold someone, you need more, but there's a good chance they have more.

I really don't understand the problem here.

As I'm now understanding it, the problem is that you don't blindly accept the first, clearly 'staged' explanation of what happened. We are to simply believe the wild story straight out of some conspiracy playbook that people are being 'disappeared' (yes, that specific word has been used) off of streets for no reason other than perhaps a peaceful protest, bags placed over their heads... being driven in circles to confuse them.....etc etc etc... and those poor impotent local officials, rather than filing charges and getting an injunction from a highly favorable court, we get NPR stories and 'we don't like you' from city officials.

I mean really.... all one has to do is look with a 'are you sure' eye and the answers are all there.

Hint... FBI doesn't use cars with FBI emblazoned on the side. They don't anywhere and never have that I'm aware of. They do use 'government' plates. They also wear uniforms, and those supposedly 'disappeared' admit that the people wore uniforms... but they didn't recognize them because they didn't have a boy scout troop number on their shoulder.... and then the (in perhaps the most shocking of all revelations) drove them to a cabin in the woods somewhere AKA the Federal Court House downtown to ask them questions about Federal crimes.

Oh the horror and mistreatment!


Seriously, people on the left of this issue... If THIS is what gets you guys all worked up... if THESE are your examples of 'federal over-reach', then why is Federal action your 'go-to' answer for almost everything? These conspiracy theories are worse than the right-wing anarchists.

(07-20-2020 12:18 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-19-2020 03:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Aside from that, if all you can proffer up is an ad hom selective edit, then perhaps I might treat you with the same level of disdain you note that I do above. I would hate to do that because you and I have generally eschewed being overtly and impliedly uncivil to one another -- but from the above today (and other previous 'testy' comments from you) perhaps that really is no longer the case.

Bummer. Cest le vie.

I vehemently disagree with this statement.

Glad to note that the civility between us that time was a veneer and a lie to you. I actually valued that (the civility, that is).

Quote:You held out a little while with me initially,

Funny, we treated each other in that manner for a fairly long period of time. And we actually used that a few times to bury a hatchet or two. Glad to know that the 'cakes is a lie' to you.

If you want to stop acting in complete ad hom attack mode, I will certainly re-treat you with that continued respect. If not, well, big, that is absolutely a big boy choice of yours --- not mine.

(07-20-2020 09:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 06:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Regarding federal agents in unmarked cars picking up people off the street.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't somebody set a federal building on fire? That is clearly a federal offense, and the federales clearly have jurisdiction anywhere in the USA, with or without an invite from the governor or mayor. I'm guessing they had security cameras and I'm guessing they have some kind of facial recognition. It would then make sense to pick up people off the street matching the descriptions of the perps, and as far as unmarked cars, have you ever gotten a speeding ticket from an unmarked police car? Or have you ever heard of anyone being arrested by a plainclothes or undercover LEO?

As I think it was Tanq explained above, there's no violation with picking people up as long as there is some kind of reasonable basis for so doing, and as long as they are released relatively quickly. To hold someone, you need more, but there's a good chance they have more.

I really don't understand the problem here.

As I'm now understanding it, the problem is that you don't blindly accept the first, clearly 'staged' explanation of what happened. We are to simply believe the wild story straight out of some conspiracy playbook that people are being 'disappeared' (yes, that specific word has been used) off of streets for no reason other than perhaps a peaceful protest, bags placed over their heads... being driven in circles to confuse them.....etc etc etc... and those poor impotent local officials, rather than filing charges and getting an injunction from a highly favorable court, we get NPR stories and 'we don't like you' from city officials.

I mean really.... all one has to do is look with a 'are you sure' eye and the answers are all there.

Hint... FBI doesn't use cars with FBI emblazoned on the side. They don't anywhere and never have that I'm aware of. They do use 'government' plates. They also wear uniforms, and those supposedly 'disappeared' admit that the people wore uniforms... but they didn't recognize them because they didn't have a boy scout troop number on their shoulder.... and then the (in perhaps the most shocking of all revelations) drove them to a cabin in the woods somewhere AKA the Federal Court House downtown to ask them questions about Federal crimes.

Oh the horror and mistreatment!


Seriously, people on the left of this issue... If THIS is what gets you guys all worked up... if THESE are your examples of 'federal over-reach', then why is Federal action your 'go-to' answer for almost everything? These conspiracy theories are worse than the right-wing anarchists.

There isn't a conspiracy - I'm criticizing the method the Customs and Border Protection officers used to detain this person. I'm criticizing them for not verbally communicating to the person who they were or why they were being detained (fact), and then placing the person in an umarked vehicle and driving off (fact).

Do you disagree that this method doesn't seem similar to how people are "disappeared"? The guy was released and told the story, obviously I'm not arguing that they actually disappeared someone, I'm criticizing them for deploying a method that looks shockingly similar.

Part of the social contract with LEOs is that the public can hold them accountable - we know who they are or can identify them so if they abuse their power they can be held to account. Or am I off on that idea?

(07-20-2020 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 09:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 06:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Regarding federal agents in unmarked cars picking up people off the street.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't somebody set a federal building on fire? That is clearly a federal offense, and the federales clearly have jurisdiction anywhere in the USA, with or without an invite from the governor or mayor. I'm guessing they had security cameras and I'm guessing they have some kind of facial recognition. It would then make sense to pick up people off the street matching the descriptions of the perps, and as far as unmarked cars, have you ever gotten a speeding ticket from an unmarked police car? Or have you ever heard of anyone being arrested by a plainclothes or undercover LEO?

As I think it was Tanq explained above, there's no violation with picking people up as long as there is some kind of reasonable basis for so doing, and as long as they are released relatively quickly. To hold someone, you need more, but there's a good chance they have more.

I really don't understand the problem here.

As I'm now understanding it, the problem is that you don't blindly accept the first, clearly 'staged' explanation of what happened. We are to simply believe the wild story straight out of some conspiracy playbook that people are being 'disappeared' (yes, that specific word has been used) off of streets for no reason other than perhaps a peaceful protest, bags placed over their heads... being driven in circles to confuse them.....etc etc etc... and those poor impotent local officials, rather than filing charges and getting an injunction from a highly favorable court, we get NPR stories and 'we don't like you' from city officials.

I mean really.... all one has to do is look with a 'are you sure' eye and the answers are all there.

Hint... FBI doesn't use cars with FBI emblazoned on the side. They don't anywhere and never have that I'm aware of. They do use 'government' plates. They also wear uniforms, and those supposedly 'disappeared' admit that the people wore uniforms... but they didn't recognize them because they didn't have a boy scout troop number on their shoulder.... and then the (in perhaps the most shocking of all revelations) drove them to a cabin in the woods somewhere AKA the Federal Court House downtown to ask them questions about Federal crimes.

Oh the horror and mistreatment!


Seriously, people on the left of this issue... If THIS is what gets you guys all worked up... if THESE are your examples of 'federal over-reach', then why is Federal action your 'go-to' answer for almost everything? These conspiracy theories are worse than the right-wing anarchists.

There isn't a conspiracy - I'm criticizing the method the Customs and Border Protection officers used to detain this person. I'm criticizing them for not verbally communicating to the person who they were or why they were being detained (fact), and then placing the person in an umarked vehicle and driving off (fact).

Do you disagree that this method doesn't seem similar to how people are "disappeared"? The guy was released and told the story, obviously I'm not arguing that they actually disappeared someone, I'm criticizing them for deploying a method that looks shockingly similar.

Part of the social contract with LEOs is that the public can hold them accountable - we know who they are or can identify them so if they abuse their power they can be held to account. Or am I off on that idea?

Gosh, you are right - it sounds much like actions in the
Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea - places that were the subjects of a leftist takeover. Yet you support a leftist takeover. Hmmm.

That is, if they really are abductions by a secret police. But so far, as much or more evidence exists for UFOs. We have video of them, too.

(07-20-2020 09:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 06:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Regarding federal agents in unmarked cars picking up people off the street.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't somebody set a federal building on fire? That is clearly a federal offense, and the federales clearly have jurisdiction anywhere in the USA, with or without an invite from the governor or mayor. I'm guessing they had security cameras and I'm guessing they have some kind of facial recognition. It would then make sense to pick up people off the street matching the descriptions of the perps, and as far as unmarked cars, have you ever gotten a speeding ticket from an unmarked police car? Or have you ever heard of anyone being arrested by a plainclothes or undercover LEO?

As I think it was Tanq explained above, there's no violation with picking people up as long as there is some kind of reasonable basis for so doing, and as long as they are released relatively quickly. To hold someone, you need more, but there's a good chance they have more.

I really don't understand the problem here.

As I'm now understanding it, the problem is that you don't blindly accept the first, clearly 'staged' explanation of what happened. We are to simply believe the wild story straight out of some conspiracy playbook that people are being 'disappeared' (yes, that specific word has been used) off of streets for no reason other than perhaps a peaceful protest, bags placed over their heads... being driven in circles to confuse them.....etc etc etc... and those poor impotent local officials, rather than filing charges and getting an injunction from a highly favorable court, we get NPR stories and 'we don't like you' from city officials.

I mentioned this before, but it looks like local authorities learned about these actions from the press, which isn't a crazy idea given how much is going on in Portland, and well within the Trump admin's MO.

See two new lawsuits filed - one by the ACLU and the other by :drum roll please: the Oregon DOJ. This is a bit awkward now, since it looks like those local officials are clearly doing EXACTLY what you accused them to not be doing.

Does it feel weird to chastise someone for not waiting to have the whole picture, to only have the whole picture smack you across the back of the head?

For the Oregon DOJ's suit (filed Friday at 10:30 PM, the night that the story broke):

Quote: The Oregon Department of Justice is suing several federal agencies for civil rights abuses, and state prosecutors will potentially pursue criminal charges against a federal officer who seriously injured a protester...

According to DOJ spokeswoman Kristina Edmunson, the suit accuses the agencies of engaging “in unlawful law enforcement in violation of the civil rights of Oregon citizens by seizing and detaining them without probable cause.”

State attorneys are asking a judge to issue a temporary restraining order that “would immediately stop federal authorities from unlawfully detaining Oregonians,” the DOJ said in a release.

The DOJ’s lawsuit is asking a judge to find that the federal agencies’ tactics are indeed unlawful and violate Oregonians’ First, Fourth and Fifth amendment constitutional rights.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal...j-lawsuit/

(07-20-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mentioned this before, but it looks like local authorities learned about these actions from the press, which isn't a crazy idea given how much is going on in Portland, and well within the Trump admin's MO.

Oh, that's a nice objective verifiable source. NOT.

(07-20-2020 10:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mentioned this before, but it looks like local authorities learned about these actions from the press, which isn't a crazy idea given how much is going on in Portland, and well within the Trump admin's MO.

Oh, that's a nice objective verifiable source. NOT.

Huh?