(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.