(07-21-2020 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 10:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think Lad is putting too much emphasis on my facial recognition comment. That's obviously just one way of identifying perps.

My point is more that these appear to be focused apprehensions. I the videos I've seen, there are obviously several people (including somebody to make the video) standing around, and the officers go directly to one of them and apprehend him or her. They pretty obviously know whom they want. That's not willy-nilly, it's focused. How they picked that person out, I do not know. Facial recognition might be one way, or there might be others.

I guess my issue with this thesis is that they're casting a really wide net then. If the person they knew they want was then released without being arrested, why did they want them?

If it's simply that they match a very generic description of being dressed like a ninja (per Tanq), I don't think throwing everyone dressed like a ninja into an unmarked van is a good tactic. That's a really low bar for a technique that could create a multitude of issues (see Oregon DOJ's filing for examples).

If they're looking for such generic people, detain them and question in public, ESPECIALLY, when circumstances show very few people in the vicinity and the person complying as they had been in the video.

Both of us are making assumptions here - and if we had to err on the side of caution, shouldn't we err on the side of the federal government not acting in this specific manner?

It actually is a good tactic.

Look at the converse. I would be utterly intrigued to find any good reason to go to a 'protest', where odds are highly probable that a crime will be committed, dressed completely in ninja black and a face covering? Especially when the odds are even greater that if such a crime is committed, the perp will be (surprise surprise) dressed completely in ninja black and a face covering.

If one is truly 'simply excited about pure First Amendment' protest, why not go to such event with a bright pink polo shirt, hunter orange safety vest, bright yellow hardhart, neon green striped pants, and bright red sneakers?

Let me set up one scenario for you, then run some alterations on it. In advance, I will note preemptively that the detainment of the individual at the end is both within the law, justified in its actions, and wholly meets the rationale of both the rights of the detainee and the needs of law enforcement.

Scenario 1:

Setting: Nightly protests for 49 straight nights,

Action: many of the protests devolve into assaults on BLM members because of their race --- a Federal felony (denial of civil rights).

People: right wing wackos, more than one.

Appearance: all of the actual perpetrators wear red hawaiian shirts, cargo pants, red MAGA hats, and TRUMP ROCKS face coverings.

Crowd: at least twenty non-perpetrators wear the same.

I have zero issue with any detainment within the law and within Constitutional bounds of people who match the description of: multiple males, all between 45 and 55, wearing red hawaiian shirts, cargo pants, sneakers --- may have TRUMP ROCK face coverings and/or MAGA hats in order to prevent full ID.

If it means that twenty people are detained to find the three actual perps, I have zero issue with that. There is more than enough probable cause to detain those clown clothed yahoos. Even more so if it were in, say, a very red city where the mayor refused to enforce the law to minimized the ongoing attacks. And, when the popo cannot make a case in the very limited time that they can hold the suspect, they let them go accordingly.

Change the above to:

Action: federal felonies regarding destruction of federal property.

Appearance: ninja night warriors, with hoods and face coverings

Political stage: deep blue city refuses to use their inherent police action to 'tune down' the ongoing destruction.

Again, I have zero issue with the same actions as above.

------------------------------

I do see a very serious difference in even the tone between left and right here. Take for example big's characterization of 'randomly' picking up people, and the absolute resistance of lad to *any* concept of the how probable cause can and perhaps should be used. Notice the glee at the term 'at will'.

On the other hand, those of us in the other camp, always tend to delimit the actions with a huge 'if' --- that is *if* the actions are done as a willy nilly, rando, at will ride around, the left is fairly much on target with the criticism.

I mean, I truly understand *why* the left does not want any of these perp shitbirds prosecuted to much extent -- there is a huge justification of the events lurking in the background due to the political issues of Orange Man.

Me? I see a decent rationale for an evenhanded upholding of the law. I also see a decent rationale for *why* certain activities are allowed in a detention. But I am actually agnostic as to whom the detainee it -- I think the rules and limits on the methods of detainment are actually very nicely balanced in the whole.

But leave it to the shitbird media to both not understand, and to hype this particular instance into a frenzy.

I would bet you 200 bucks that had Mr Ninja Black who got popped in Portland wasnt a leftie (who *just* happened to be wearing Johnny Blind Pedestrian garb apparently just for ***** and grins), this wouldnt be an issue.