(07-21-2020 02:59 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 02:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 02:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm sure this violent anarchist had it coming.

https://apnews.com/4c521336d47c25d76d180...3wnvyJN4VA

I dont know enough of the background to make the snide ass aside that you do. Amazing that. We should be grateful that such an all omniscient being is amongst us.

I am sure it is absolutely impossible that he ignored a legal order to move away. I am really glad that you can take that snippet and fill in every factual point both forward and back in time. I am amazingly impressed at those godlike powers.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/a-navy-v...d-1.638124

There's a snippet of video of the incident found in this article.

To be fair, it doesn't show the buildup to his being struck multiple times with a baton and pepper-sprayed in the face from close-range.

However, he certainly doesn't have the look of a "ninja warrrior" and he didn't look to be making any aggressive moves in the short video clip. If you believe what the Navy vet told the press, he wasn't going to the protests with any intentions of committing vandalism or violence against the police.

What should the response be for ignoring a command to move out of the way from the police in this proposed scenario? Honest question. Taken into custody? Beaten by a baton because there is no time in these chaotic scenes to more gently manage the scene?

First, perhaps you need to set the stage for this. The evening and setting was probably the largest act of rioting that Portland has seen to date. Or just ignore the torching of one police building, and the very real assault on the courthouse.

Second, also note that the city of Portland and its mayor have shot the finger to the Federal government, saying to the Feds (and their own citizens) 'naw, we just dont think we are going to do anything aside from mumblety peg to do anything about the very increasing violence.'

Third, the videos in and around the Federal courthouse leading up the officers clearing the street show them being subject to actual assaults by rocks, bottles, etc.

Fourth, the other videos show actual increased violence by the mob at the introduction of the officers.

So when the officers respond to the ongoing violence directed both at the courthouse, the news that the police building is now ashes, and the violence now directed at them -- do you really think they are going to say 'well pretty please, we told you clear the street. Would you like some milk and cookies to help you do that?' I mean, put on your rational cap on for just a second.

So what we can all agree on is a *highly* charged atmosphere, direct and increasing violence on the courthouse, an already completed arson, and highly increasing assaultive behavior being directed towards the officers.

I mean, look at the 8 sec video itself --- the picture there is of a fing warzone. Somehow that escapes your discerning eye. Actually the videos of the police union buidling and the courthouse *before* the order to clear the street are a fing warzone -- double so afterwards when this incident occurred.

And when one single person refuses to a legal order to move, when the directive is to maintain order -- I dont think that single person is going to be invited to tea and crumpets inside in the midst of that violent and anti-order environment.

You remove all of the above points, the 8 secs would be horrific. I guess you have effectively removed the above points from both your POV and consideration. Your prerogative.

Now getting back to what *could* have happened that doesnt make the cut. *If* the dude, in that environment makes any (and I mean miniscule) move that could be interpreted at anywhere in the preceding moments as being an attempt to make *any* sort of contact with an officer in that environment -- well that is the mark of an idiot.

So yes, I would like to see more than the 8 secs provided. The sheer fing horror of that. But, in the current sense any color on the background surrounding the event seems to be wholly not considered by you. And, in distinction, to me that would also have a large role to play in that outcome.

Yes, the absolute horror of wanting to know more than the 8 secs. The sheer insanity. The absolute temerity of noting that there is seemingly a pretty good fing reason to clear the streets, the officers doing so are actually under physical attack, and there is a refusal to budge. At the end of it, I am pretty astonished that dingbat wasnt arrested for that defiance of a very legal order under that city declared emergency. Amazing that issue all unto itself as well.

The above is *not* a defense of the action. But, the notice of the environment is something that you all clearly either do not note, or simply dont care about factoring in in any objective manner. So I kind of understand why my 'I would prefer to know more' sounds so bad to you.

The first problem is that you wholly do not consider any background to this in the slightest.

The second problem is that there are potentially numerous issues, that combined with that background, that may be pertinent. The problem with that is that I (and you) dont know. But you made your leap in determining facts not in evidence in this apparently, And interestingly, seemingly have chosen explicitly to remove any background while determining those things that we do not see.

(07-21-2020 03:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 02:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 02:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm sure this violent anarchist had it coming.

https://apnews.com/4c521336d47c25d76d180...3wnvyJN4VA

In before:

"We don't have enough details to comment."

"There must be something we don't know - he looks like he was targeted."

"How do we know the video is real?"

"The video doesn't show the complete story - there must be more."

"The most logical outcome is that he started something and was deserving of the bludgeon."

edit: crap, didn't beat some of these comments.

That is funny coming from the dude that opined so shrilly and quickly about an 'arrest'; and really doesnt know the fing difference between that and a detention.

Or for that matter, any of the rationales or reasons or limits that underlie detentions.

Quite the critique there. Pretty grotesquely hypocritical, but what else is new in the world for you.

One thing we can be absolutely sure of is that you are the shoe-in for the gold medal in the 'God and all knowing arbiter of everything based on 8 second videos' with these two incidents. Kind of an awesome super power you have there lad. I am in fing awe.

Tanq, I did a quick search of the word "arrest" and low and behold, I never actually shrilled about an arrest - I actually made a distinction in one of the first posts about how the person wasn't sure if they had technically been arrested. I think that clearly, and early on, indicated I knew there was a difference. See: https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16908177

I think you got confused when I offered a hypothetical situation which would have been copacetic to me, which included an officer arresting the individual and informing them what they were being arrested for.

But I digress - we're back to the same issue, which is you keep arguing that these actions are OK because they're legal. I've not really questioned the legality of them - as in, I'm not saying this is outside of their purview or limits of detentions. I'm saying that this method is not acceptable/right/correct - as in, I disagree with the method because I believe it does more harm than good. The ACLU and Oregon DOJ are making explicit legal arguments against it, but I have tried to not wade into that territory with my opinions.

So I get it, you find these detentions to be legal and good practice. I am only arguing that I don't believe these are good practices, and I believe I have explained why I don't believe they're good practice. They heighten tensions, they potentially detain people unnecessarily, they are overly intimidating, they are analogous to secret police tactics, they don't adequately ID the federal agents as LEOs, and they begin to tread on state sovereignty.

(07-21-2020 03:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 02:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 02:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm sure this violent anarchist had it coming.

https://apnews.com/4c521336d47c25d76d180...3wnvyJN4VA

In before:

"We don't have enough details to comment."

"There must be something we don't know - he looks like he was targeted."

"How do we know the video is real?"

"The video doesn't show the complete story - there must be more."

"The most logical outcome is that he started something and was deserving of the bludgeon."

edit: crap, didn't beat some of these comments.

Lad... you have got to be quicker on your feet in order to beat these Libertarians who will certainly rush to defend political freedoms, individual autonomy, um... skepticism of authority... er... *reads responses*... OK, nm.

93 - Along with all of that goes 'responsibility for the consequences of ones actions'... Something people like you seem to conveniently forget.

You guys need to get your talking points straight. You seem to believe that libertarians are pro-police while most others paint us as anarchists. Maybe the problem is that you simply don't understand what we're saying

If a protest you are attending turns violent to the point where pepper spray is being widely dispersed, then there are going to be unintended consequences and innocents who are injured. This has been true for centuries... and its surprising how the only videos you seem to care about are ones where cops may have been in the wrong.

There is a list covering roughly 3 days at the first of June where 400 cops were injured, two killed... bricks, rocks, guns, baseball bats, molotov cocktails, hit and run, knives... Do you grant them the same presumption that you do these others? If not, WHY not?

As to you Lad... go ahead and complain some more about how condescending 'we' are.... hypocrite

(07-21-2020 04:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 03:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  That is funny coming from the dude that opined so shrilly and quickly about an 'arrest'; and really doesnt know the fing difference between that and a detention.

Or for that matter, any of the rationales or reasons or limits that underlie detentions.

Quite the critique there. Pretty grotesquely hypocritical, but what else is new in the world for you.

One thing we can be absolutely sure of is that you are the shoe-in for the gold medal in the 'God and all knowing arbiter of everything based on 8 second videos' with these two incidents. Kind of an awesome super power you have there lad. I am in fing awe.

Tanq, I did a quick search of the word "arrest" and low and behold, I never actually shrilled about an arrest - I actually made a distinction in one of the first posts about how the person wasn't sure if they had technically been arrested. I think that clearly, and early on, indicated I knew there was a difference. See: https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16908177

I think you got confused when I offered a hypothetical situation which would have been copacetic to me, which included an officer arresting the individual and informing them what they were being arrested for.

Correct you 'didnt say arrest' in those comments.

I would say that your other words of 'rounding up', 'grabbing', 'technically arrested', 'pulling', 'detained ... without any charge or reason' still shows the lack of knowledge so noted. I dont think the slinging around the above words really helps your case in any spirited defense in the general sense of what I said. Perhaps a distinction without a difference again.

Quote:But I digress - we're back to the same issue, which is you keep arguing that these actions are OK because they're legal.

No, I do not. I absolutely agree with the rationales behind the legal bounds, and those happen to each be at least one of the rationale of *why* they are legal.

Quote:The ACLU and Oregon DOJ are making explicit legal arguments against it, but I have tried to not wade into that territory with my opinions.

The DOJ is arguing that the stops were 'made with the intent of stopping a First Amendment right to protest' --- per the complaint.

That is, the DOJ is arguing that there was not good probable cause at the root of its argument.

And no, my position is *not* that 'it is fine *because it is legal'. If that were the case there would be craploads of positions I would be against that I actually am for. I am sorry that *you* cannot discern that.

My position is that the use of unmarked cars is not a wholly bad practice in a detainment, based on the rationale behind the legality of it. Not because 'it is legal'. Further, based on a discussion with an actual US Marshal, the Federal agencies do not employ marked vehicles of any type for the vast majority of apprehensions -- detentions or arrests.

My position is that the police were as 'marked up' as are any random Federal officers, and as quite a few local police personnel. I find that the original complaint that they were 'unidentified' to be factually false.

My position is that the complaint that they 'didnt talk to him' to be wholly justified -- he noted he asked for a lawyer. Once representation is invoked in a detention or an arrest, any officer, not just the arresting officer' CANNOT initiate ANY dialogue with a suspect. Your complaint here is actually because the officers were following the law scrupulously.

Quote:I am only arguing that I don't believe these are good practices, and I believe I have explained why I don't believe they're good practice. They heighten tensions,

Lets explore this. Some shitbird in an all balck ninja suit throws an ice bottle at a line of Federal officers --- a 3rd degree felony, there.

What do responding officers do when they canvass the area for such a description? Say, whoa way too many ninja birds, cant do anything?

What you are leaving out of this particular mix is the very close proximity to the 'fun and games' on the night that it happened. Do you think it prudent to stop and have a fun chat, say, 400 yards from where it happened? Sorry, with that, the officers with any stop short of a 'pick them up' stand a very good chance of sparking even more unrest. I mean, look at the clash *at* the courthouse and the plethora of assaultive behavior at the courthouse, with literally 20x *more* officers there.

The two safest things to do are either: pick up quick and spirit out; or simply dont bother enforcing any laws whatsoever. Given those two safest courses, which is your pick?

Quote:they potentially detain people unnecessarily,

How do *any* of the methods 'detain people unnecessarily'? I hate to tell you, Joe Ninja was 'detained' the second the officers stopped him.

The only 'unnecessary detention' (the very specific word 'detention' in the legal sense) is one that has insufficient probable cause. Your analysis really is gibberish with the word 'detention'. If you really dont mean 'detention' in that sense, then your spirited defense that you know the meaning of the word above doesnt really make a bright shining appearance.

Quote: they are overly intimidating,

Yes they are. That might be the only means to make such a detention in that atmosphere. Again, do you support 'just letting the shitbird stuff happen' in that case?

Quote:they are analogous to secret police tactics,

Given that the request for an attorney sparked the absolute proper response, I find this rhetorical analogy way out.

Given this comment, how is any plainclothes arrest copacetic in your view? Any and all of those fit this exact mold, and under far less 'energetic' circumstances. Do you abhor those? If not, why not?

Quote:and they begin to tread on state sovereignty.

What state sovereignty is 'tread' on with a Federal arrest or detention? Seems to me we fought a big fing war over this issue about 160 years ago and that point of view lost.

There is no sovereignty issue with any Federal arrest or detention. I dont think that element of the talking points list is accurate at all.

Yes, the feds are acting in a 'rude' manner in doing so. That concept is 'comity', not 'sovereignty'. There is no underlying reason that says that enforcement of Federal criminal law 'treads' or impedes state sovereignty in the slightest.

Also, on the issue of 'comity', seems to me that Portland has engaged as a city in the **** the Feds mode already, or havent you noticed that yet?

This is a follow up to the assertion that 'the discreet arrests heighten tension'. Note what happens when an overt detention/arrest happens here:

This is kind of double delicious since the poster is Andy Ngo. Notwithstanding the visceral hatred of the guy, I think the video does wonders on its own in its portrayal of one of lads points.

In that light, the options are, if we take the left at their word on 'discreet detentions v. overt detentions': a) let the shitbirds be shitbirds and dont enforce any laws re: destruction of Federal property and/or felony assault on a Federal officer; b) attempt to enforce the detention of suspects as above, and attract a drove of shitbirds; or c) do the quick pick up and leave?

Which one for you lad? Which one for you 93?

Me? I think that a semblance of law and order is called for. I think that someone that assaults a Federal officer in any form should earn the consequences of that act. Same for destruction of Federal property. Double when in a town that tacitly supports such rioting and violence. Regardless of what side of the political spectrum they represent.

That ixnays a) for me. And, I dont think lad's comments on 'not as much escalation' hold much water in light of the video above in a 'hot zone' like current day Portland. I mean, crikey, I counted at least 5 different felonies and other charges *just* in the shot above. 'Not as much escalation' in a venue like current day Portland my ass. Kind of leaves c) as the only real viable option for any level of response by an authority.

Of course, that assumes proper probable cause, as I have stood for since the beginning on this.

Did he really say that? Proactive arrests?

(07-21-2020 11:56 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

No, the video clearly showed that these agents must have obviously been focused on finding individual A - there is no way there is another reason why they would specifically pull individual A into a van and leave the other people there filming.

It’s so clear to anyone with half a brain that the federal agents who were filmed clearly had a compelling, though out, and focused mission of finding a specific individual who would be charged with a crime, and weren’t just trying to intimidate protestors. Just look at the video Tanq posted of the officer trying to arrest someone in the middle of a riot - imagine if the van throwers tried to arrest the guy in the video. They would have been quickly swarmed by the dozens of people who were clearly hidden from view by the biased camera operator, so they made the safe decision to place them in the van without communicating why.

Funny, did you all notice the 'assuming facts not in evidence' on Crespo's part? Probably not.

Here is what Crespo's line is based on:

Quote:'The agents, Cline says, were interested in the man in the video because, earlier, they'd seen him "in a crowd and in an area" where someone else was aiming a laser at the eyes of officers.'

Direct quote from the blog line.

If one bothers to actually look at the video provided, the official says 'the individual was in a crowd and in an area where an individual was aiming a laser at the eyes of the officers'.

As for lads comments, I think it is safe to say that he never bothered to track down the location of the van thing and locate it relative to the federal courthouse.

Getting back to the series of questions I asked above -- I take it you are now all on board with Federal officers wading en masse into a throng of violent shitbirds to make an arrest/detention? Sounds like a another fkload of fun there.

Im sure you guys with Rice degrees can see the very neat change in wording in the line from Crespo. Looks like the esteemed Harvard prof made up some evidence there. Nice trick when you can pull it off.

Quote:'The agents, Cline says, were interested in the man in the video because, earlier, they'd seen him "in a crowd and in an area" where someone else was aiming a laser at the eyes of officers.'

In the movies, this is where some sharp-eyed civil servant would say " He's the one in the gray blazer with the blue eyes and a tattoo of a peacock on his left wrist, standing next to the pulled down fencing. Quick somebody, go find a federal judge to swear out a warrant while I tap him on the shoulder and ask him to wait around an hour or so until we can arrest him".

The Esteemed Harvard Prof is correct in his statement on the law -- there is no probable cause to pull Person A aside when he was standing next to Person B, who was doing the act.

But that isnt what the official said, and what the official said isnt the situation that The Esteemed Harvard Prof outlined.

At times, I think I am really the only person in the world that thinks that actual details and background matter. Kind of like noting the proximity of the pick-up spot to the 'leftie chaos central'.

But withholding a rush to judgement is now apparently deemed irresponsible or some other jabberwocky trait from some quarters.

And, it seems that the leftists here are apparently okey dokey with the shitstorm in Portland, and really dont think much should be done about it. The rush to attack *any* attempt at Federal exercise of law enforcement is really interesting. I mean, the videos I see of the actual arson, and violence, seems to be justified and acceptable to them. TDS is a very strange disease.

Torching a police building? No word from the lefties. Assaulting a Federal courthouse? No word from the lefties. Throwing M80s at federal law enforcement? Again, the silence is deafening. Throwing bricks, rocks, and bottles of frozen waters at Federal law enforcement en masse? Again, not a peep. 56 days straight of violence? Mums the word. Laser lighting Federal cops? (crickets).

But by god when a single night-black clad wannabe ninja warrior gets hauled off, watch the lefties erupt in a paroxysm of rage. Kind of an interesting dichotomy to note. Quite the neat fusion of standards.

(07-22-2020 08:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  At times, I think I am really the only person in the world that thinks that actual details and background matter.

One of the few...and they make fun of you for that.

Quote:But withholding a rush to judgement is now apparently deemed irresponsible

Being slow to condemn is a modern deficiency.

Here is an interesting take, one that I am finding I am leaning toward more and more:

Quote:The President should withdraw from Portland immediately and let the city burn, if it will, or thrive if it will, but it is the choice of the people there.

If the shitbirds want to let Portland torch itself -- let it torch itself. Same goes for Minneapolis, Chicago, New York, and anyplace else that hates the Feds so much because of Orange Man that they refuse to control the 'days of rage'. Either way it rolls out, it is a win. So with that in mind, perhaps we should just let those cities burn and allow the residents to sort out the debris (both physical and political) when it’s all over.

As a related sidebar, it seems that any attempt at federal intervention offers an excuse for the people of Portland to shift the blame and escape the consequences of their own decisions. Its not like the Mayor of Portland nor the Governor of Oregon is doing anything to really help the citizens and residents of 'Ft Apache, the Rose City'. So, put the Feds in a position of only defending Federal spaces, and let the local government deal with their own fallout with the shitbirds rampaging through their cities. Win win.

I include New York and Chicago, because their issue is really the Ferguson effect on a massive scale and ceding their cities to gangbangers and that violence for the most part. Again, let the local politicians wax poetically in their decisions to take a dump on the police, and let them deal with their own local shitstorms that they laid the predicate for. Again, win win.

The left seems to not hold very dear the concept that Mayors and Governors, as well as the Federal government, are constitutionally obligated to enforcing the rule of law and maintaining order. Perhaps another one of those 'lets flush that down to legal toilet in the name of a living Constitution' thingies that the lefties like so much.

(07-22-2020 08:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The Esteemed Harvard Prof is correct in his statement on the law -- there is no probable cause to pull Person A aside when he was standing next to Person B, who was doing the act.

But that isnt what the official said, and what the official said isnt the situation that The Esteemed Harvard Prof outlined.

At times, I think I am really the only person in the world that thinks that actual details and background matter. Kind of like noting the proximity of the pick-up spot to the 'leftie chaos central'.

But withholding a rush to judgement is now apparently deemed irresponsible or some other jabberwocky trait from some quarters.

And, it seems that the leftists here are apparently okey dokey with the shitstorm in Portland, and really dont think much should be done about it. The rush to attack *any* attempt at Federal exercise of law enforcement is really interesting. I mean, the videos I see of the actual arson, and violence, seems to be justified and acceptable to them. TDS is a very strange disease.

Torching a police building? No word from the lefties. Assaulting a Federal courthouse? No word from the lefties. Throwing M80s at federal law enforcement? Again, the silence is deafening. Throwing bricks, rocks, and bottles of frozen waters at Federal law enforcement en masse? Again, not a peep. 56 days straight of violence? Mums the word. Laser lighting Federal cops? (crickets).

But by god when a single night-black clad wannabe ninja warrior gets hauled off, watch the lefties erupt in a paroxysm of rage. Kind of an interesting dichotomy to note. Quite the neat fusion of standards.

I am shocked that potential abuse of power by federal law enforcement is more of a concern than crimes by the general populace that have resulted in mass arrests and consequences for many.

Think about the big picture - is the federal government abusing its power against US citizens more concerning than citizens abusing the federal government? I think the former could result in a much bigger issue in the long run.

I’m starting to sound like one of those second amendment protestors now... How the tables have turned.

(07-22-2020 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is an interesting take, one that I am finding I am leaning toward more and more:

Quote:The President should withdraw from Portland immediately and let the city burn, if it will, or thrive if it will, but it is the choice of the people there.

If the shitbirds want to let Portland torch itself -- let it torch itself. Same goes for Minneapolis, Chicago, New York, and anyplace else that hates the Feds so much because of Orange Man that they refuse to control the 'days of rage'. Either way it rolls out, it is a win. So with that in mind, perhaps we should just let those cities burn and allow the residents to sort out the debris (both physical and political) when it’s all over.

As a related sidebar, it seems that any attempt at federal intervention offers an excuse for the people of Portland to shift the blame and escape the consequences of their own decisions. Its not like the Mayor of Portland nor the Governor of Oregon is doing anything to really help the citizens and residents of 'Ft Apache, the Rose City'. So, put the Feds in a position of only defending Federal spaces, and let the local government deal with their own fallout with the shitbirds rampaging through their cities. Win win.

I include New York and Chicago, because their issue is really the Ferguson effect on a massive scale and ceding their cities to gangbangers and that violence for the most part. Again, let the local politicians wax poetically in their decisions to take a dump on the police, and let them deal with their own local shitstorms that they laid the predicate for. Again, win win.

The left seems to not hold very dear the concept that Mayors and Governors, as well as the Federal government, are constitutionally obligated to enforcing the rule of law and maintaining order. Perhaps another one of those 'lets flush that down to legal toilet in the name of a living Constitution' thingies that the lefties like so much.

I feel a bit of the same - if they want cities without police, let them have them. If they want illegal aliens in their communities and on their streets, lets provide safe passage for them from the border to the city of their choice. I would love to dump 10,000 illiterate unskilled workers on Nancy's front steps.

(07-22-2020 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is an interesting take, one that I am finding I am leaning toward more and more:

Quote:The President should withdraw from Portland immediately and let the city burn, if it will, or thrive if it will, but it is the choice of the people there.

If the shitbirds want to let Portland torch itself -- let it torch itself. Same goes for Minneapolis, Chicago, New York, and anyplace else that hates the Feds so much because of Orange Man that they refuse to control the 'days of rage'. Either way it rolls out, it is a win. So with that in mind, perhaps we should just let those cities burn and allow the residents to sort out the debris (both physical and political) when it’s all over.

As a related sidebar, it seems that any attempt at federal intervention offers an excuse for the people of Portland to shift the blame and escape the consequences of their own decisions. Its not like the Mayor of Portland nor the Governor of Oregon is doing anything to really help the citizens and residents of 'Ft Apache, the Rose City'. So, put the Feds in a position of only defending Federal spaces, and let the local government deal with their own fallout with the shitbirds rampaging through their cities. Win win.

I include New York and Chicago, because their issue is really the Ferguson effect on a massive scale and ceding their cities to gangbangers and that violence for the most part. Again, let the local politicians wax poetically in their decisions to take a dump on the police, and let them deal with their own local shitstorms that they laid the predicate for. Again, win win.

The left seems to not hold very dear the concept that Mayors and Governors, as well as the Federal government, are constitutionally obligated to enforcing the rule of law and maintaining order. Perhaps another one of those 'lets flush that down to legal toilet in the name of a living Constitution' thingies that the lefties like so much.

I feel a bit of the same - if they want cities without police, let them have them. If they want illegal aliens in their communities and on their streets, lets provide safe passage for them from the border to the city of their choice. I would love to dump 10,000 illiterate unskilled workers on Nancy's front steps.

But I think we will get much of this from a Biden Administration, so just wait. If Biden wins, I expect to spend much of of the next four years here saying "I told you so", and "How did that help"? Politely, of course - you have to treat the left with kid gloves.

(07-22-2020 09:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is an interesting take, one that I am finding I am leaning toward more and more:

Quote:The President should withdraw from Portland immediately and let the city burn, if it will, or thrive if it will, but it is the choice of the people there.

If the shitbirds want to let Portland torch itself -- let it torch itself. Same goes for Minneapolis, Chicago, New York, and anyplace else that hates the Feds so much because of Orange Man that they refuse to control the 'days of rage'. Either way it rolls out, it is a win. So with that in mind, perhaps we should just let those cities burn and allow the residents to sort out the debris (both physical and political) when it’s all over.

As a related sidebar, it seems that any attempt at federal intervention offers an excuse for the people of Portland to shift the blame and escape the consequences of their own decisions. Its not like the Mayor of Portland nor the Governor of Oregon is doing anything to really help the citizens and residents of 'Ft Apache, the Rose City'. So, put the Feds in a position of only defending Federal spaces, and let the local government deal with their own fallout with the shitbirds rampaging through their cities. Win win.

I include New York and Chicago, because their issue is really the Ferguson effect on a massive scale and ceding their cities to gangbangers and that violence for the most part. Again, let the local politicians wax poetically in their decisions to take a dump on the police, and let them deal with their own local shitstorms that they laid the predicate for. Again, win win.

The left seems to not hold very dear the concept that Mayors and Governors, as well as the Federal government, are constitutionally obligated to enforcing the rule of law and maintaining order. Perhaps another one of those 'lets flush that down to legal toilet in the name of a living Constitution' thingies that the lefties like so much.

I feel a bit of the same - if they want cities without police, let them have them. If they want illegal aliens in their communities and on their streets, lets provide safe passage for them from the border to the city of their choice. I would love to dump 10,000 illiterate unskilled workers on Nancy's front steps.

But I think we will get much of this from a Biden Administration, so just wait. If Biden wins, I expect to spend much of of the next four years here saying "I told you so", and "How did that help"? Politely, of course - you have to treat the left with kid gloves.

Problem is that Biden would make it everyone's problem. Just look at the AFFH that he is all agog about.

(07-22-2020 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 08:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The Esteemed Harvard Prof is correct in his statement on the law -- there is no probable cause to pull Person A aside when he was standing next to Person B, who was doing the act.

But that isnt what the official said, and what the official said isnt the situation that The Esteemed Harvard Prof outlined.

At times, I think I am really the only person in the world that thinks that actual details and background matter. Kind of like noting the proximity of the pick-up spot to the 'leftie chaos central'.

But withholding a rush to judgement is now apparently deemed irresponsible or some other jabberwocky trait from some quarters.

And, it seems that the leftists here are apparently okey dokey with the shitstorm in Portland, and really dont think much should be done about it. The rush to attack *any* attempt at Federal exercise of law enforcement is really interesting. I mean, the videos I see of the actual arson, and violence, seems to be justified and acceptable to them. TDS is a very strange disease.

Torching a police building? No word from the lefties. Assaulting a Federal courthouse? No word from the lefties. Throwing M80s at federal law enforcement? Again, the silence is deafening. Throwing bricks, rocks, and bottles of frozen waters at Federal law enforcement en masse? Again, not a peep. 56 days straight of violence? Mums the word. Laser lighting Federal cops? (crickets).

But by god when a single night-black clad wannabe ninja warrior gets hauled off, watch the lefties erupt in a paroxysm of rage. Kind of an interesting dichotomy to note. Quite the neat fusion of standards.

I am shocked that potential abuse of power by federal law enforcement is more of a concern than crimes by the general populace that have resulted in mass arrests and consequences for many.

Uhhh..... First, I think you got your polarity wrong in your polemic abiove. You may want to double check that.

Once again, if it is a clear case of lack of probable cause, then the one instance is a case on...... checks notes..... that one instance. Whoa ---- stop the fing presses and go into apeshit dancing mode.

What I would be worried about are more, to use your catchall phrase, 'systemic' issues. Or for that matter, much more focused issues.

If we had scores of these issues, then yes, problem. If the joe ninja was held incommunicado for 12 hours --- again, yes, problem.

Let's assume in arguendo that this was a 'bad bust'. The outcome is that he got sprung after 20 minutes. Hold the fing presses on that one.

I guess that is cause enough for lefties to go apeshit over in the manner that you do.

Funny, I actually support the effort of law and order in this case. I noted the alternatives and asked you what you thought was best. Funny, you havent bothered to answer that question and instead focus on your jumping up and down on your soapbox of theory and speculation de jure. (and funnily in your haste you reversed the polarity above.... funny that.)

Quote:Think about the big picture - is the federal government abusing its power against US citizens more concerning than citizens abusing the federal government? I think the former could result in a much bigger issue in the long run.

Then I suggest you turn your full attention to the 20,000 or more far more egregious examples of government overreach instead of this one. But, since those dont implicate Trump, you are studiously fairly silent on them.

Quote:I’m starting to sound like one of those second amendment protestors now... How the tables have turned.

Come to think of it, in this respect you do sound *exactly* like more of the far wacko militia type in that regard. Good call.

By the way, are we off your 'sovereignty' claptrap that you threw against the wall a bit back?

I wish I could get a 1 cent bounty on every instance some person who voted for Hills in the last Presidential election has written or uttered the term 'secret police' in the last 5 days.

Kind of wild --- the rapidity of the 'secret police' verbiage pandemic is amazing. Kind of looks like the world Wuhan infected stats at a 1:10,000 time scale.

Biden says stupid thing, again

Shows he is ignorant of history as well as of economics.