(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?