(07-18-2020 04:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 02:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 02:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 02:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 01:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

This is a similar rehash of many other issues we have gone back and forth on.

You defend the actions by focusing on the legality of the matter, when I am not specifically criticizing the matter for being legal or illegal.

So, what is wrong with the Feds detaining people dressed like people who have committed a crime? That action is undertaken literally thousands of times a day across just about every jurisdiction.

You are going epileptic on this.

If some asshat dressed in black commits a Federal beef, I dont have any issue with either Federal enforcement of a criminal statute, or them detaining people with sufficient probable cause. My advice to those people who 'protest' as ninja commando warriors, is that when someone dressed like the same ninja commando warrior commits a crime, be prepared to be stopped, or detained for a couple of hours.

If I go to a street gathering where I know that middle aged fat bozos dressed in crappy cargo shorts and hawaiian print shirts and toting semi-auto rifles may very well commit criminal acts, then I can only really blame myself for going to that function in my hawaiian shirt and crappy cargo shorts.

Apparently that doesnt have much grounding in lad world.

Quote:I’m commenting on whether it is the correct thing to be doing, is troubling, etc. As I said, you did a really quick about face on supporting these actions by the Feds. You’re now embracing this technique as a way to change the public’s behavior.

I am noting a reason why it may be occurring. That is, noting items that may have (most likely have) escaped your laser like focus in favor of rhetorical flourishes.

Again, if there are oodles (or only two) of cars full of DHS officers joyriding around, slamming beers, and saying 'hey lets roust some random dude for no reason', then your points might have traction.

If they are actually detaining people because they fit the description of someone who violated Federal law, I probably dont have an issue. If the person being picked up is dressed in urban ninja commando balck from head to toe, and the description of a perp is that, then bummer. Because, why else do you head to your local Portland downtown block party in these days dressed that way? To be cool? Fashionista? I would hazard a guess that those sporting the 'black wall of ninja' just might do so to give cover to the shitbirds who do do something. That is their choice to do so. They are free to do so. And bummer, too fing bad their might be a cop asking them questions about that if/when they match the description of a shitbird.

That doesnt seem to punch through your rhetoric though.

Quote: I really don’t think federal, or even state, law enforcement officials should be detaining citizens like this unless there is an abundantly compelling reason to -

I guess matching a description of person committing a criminal act does not rise to a 'compelling reason' in your worldview.

As I noted before, give me facts on the background of the stop. That should be determinative.

Quote:and given that the guy videoed wasn’t even technically arrested, this is worrying.

Lmfao. I think it pretty fing awesome he wasnt arrested myself. But to a guy that doesnt seem to understand the basic differences between a detention and an arrest in the first place, I can understand your rapid shift to 'a detention is baaaaaaaadddd.'

Quote:How quickly a states’ rights libertarian like yourself is willing to embrace federal agents using these scare tactics is also worrying.

Well at least since I dont try to raise the rhetoric (make that mischaracterized rhetoric) meter to an 11 shows at least a modicum of difference between your kneejerk reaction speed and that of myself.