(07-24-2020 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  [secret policey blahbitty blah blah here]

Which brings us straight back to the three part question posed to you earlier:

The Feds have three choices:

a) let the shitbirds riot and assault;
b) wade into the crowd and make arrests/detentions;
c) make arrests/detentions away from the courthouse.

Which do you support the Feds doing? Should be simple, a), b), or c)?

This seems a real doozy for you.

There's a few things that are problematic with how you frame the above.

1) There are more options. For starters, they could continue to protect the court house and only arrest those that enter the physical grounds (so don't wade into the crowd).

Oooh that sounds fun. So if someone tosses a Molotov cocktail at a door from outside 'the physical grounds' that is a free pass? Sounds like a smashing good idea.

Second point: have you bothered to even note 'the physical grounds'? Maybe the article I posted about the city of Portland suing the Feds to remove the fence is pertinent here. The building is separated from the street by, oh, 7 feet of sidewalk. What exactly are the 'physical grounds' that you wax so eloquently about here? How many inches of that 84 inches is the 'physical grounds'?

Well I guess back to square one on that answer.

Quote:2) Option C has a wide range of possible methods of execution. Some possible suggestions on what could change:
-make sure that they verbalize why they are detaining someone and where they will be taken to

What happens when the person wants an attorney? Literally if anyone even peeps a word above and beyond a Miranda that is a violation. I guess you didnt know that.

Quote:- do not detain individuals and only arrest specific individuals that they will charge with a crime

So shitcan the detain portion of an investigation. Again, that sounds like a **** up.

Quote:- if they want to detain someone, do that in public

Uhhh...... they did in the van incident.

Or if you mean 'with a large amount of people around', as much as I know you detest Andy Ngo, but do you think that putting uniformed cops in a heavy traffic when there are literally incendiary devices at hand to be a really good idea?

Quote:- only conduct detentions/arrests during daylight hours when there are not active riots going on

So abdicate at night. Sounds fun. Your answers are getting curiouser and curiouser.

Quote:3) If we could go back to the beginning, when the Feds were first brought to Portland because local police/officials were unable to get the protests and riots under control, the Feds should have immediately put themselves in a supporting role, only, to local officials. There is something about Federal agents that does nothing to deescalate the situation, and it seems to be proven time and again, that a show of force is not going to deter people from protesting or rioting.

What show of force have we seen? Pepper balls on the outside fringe? Oh deary me.

Quote:Listening and working with protesters seems to be the fastest way to get these situations under control - heavy handed violence doesn't seem to work.

I'm sorry that is worth a lolz there. Why not a round of aromatherapy for the collective as well?