(07-25-2020 01:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 05:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Based on the current outcome, it seems pretty clear that it backfired.

I don't judge right and wrong by how criminals or their supporters react to enforcement. I judge them by whether they are right or wrong. I don't think the goal of the feds actions was to reduce violence at future protests. I think their goal is to protect lawful citizens and to identify, arrest and prosecute criminals in an area where the police have been rendered mostly useless.

I also believe that the biggest cause of any 'failure' here to reduce the tensions is the one-sided perspective being given, encouraged by local leaders and accepted by the public there.

My over-arching point is that this isn't new.... protests that turn violent.... and I'm guessing that if the violence were perpetrated by neo-nazis, that we'd be okay with fairly aggressive, but lawful actions seeking to prosecute them. Whatever rules get made, apply to people you support as much as people you do not. Because these rules seem to have been in place for long periods of time... these aren't 'new' tactics that nobody else has thought of.... but instead they are tactics that people from both parties over fairly long periods of time have agreed are 'best practices'. Doesn't mean they are best in every situation, but protocols are protocols.

As I said, I have a real problem thinking that these agents are being told to ignore their training, and to risk their jobs, careers, families and freedom and engage in intentionally provocative and obviously illegal actions.

(07-25-2020 10:26 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Now you have first hand evidence of the efficacy of the first and second rules of criminal law given to people: Never talk with the police willingly; and always ask for an attorney.

About 20 years ago, a Rice student was running an operation making fake IDs, and was caught by the campus police. One of the things they found was a supposed list of his customers. The Thresher ran an article which quoted a campus police spokesman as inviting any student who had one of the fake IDs to come forward to the campus police, as opposed to waiting presumably for the campus police to come to them, and this was the topic of conversation at lunch one day.

There were a few associates at the table: one an attorney and at least one faculty member. As I recall:
- The attorney gave the students the following advice: I don't know if you have one of these IDs, and I don't want to know. But I advise you not to talk to any police, and if someone shows you that your name is on the list, tell them that you have no idea how your name got there.
- One of the faculty seemed appalled that the attorney would give this advice.


Edit: here is one of the Thresher articles about it.
https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/h...030905.pdf

And the Houston Chronicle:
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas...124883.php

GREAT addition, George. This is very much in line with what we're talking about. Who is right? It suspect it depends on how you define 'right'.

I would add this though... Police seem to at least sometimes be able to use the refusal of someone to cooperate in such a search as 'suspicious behavior'.... I guess preferring to take their chances in court. They've been taught not to simply ask and accept a refusal... but to then somewhat badger.. 'why not if you have nothing to hide' and other means to try and keep you talking... and perhaps open a door for them.

I wonder how it would happen if you were accused of being drunk or high and they asked you to search your car? If they suspect you of being under the influence, can you legally give consent?

To clarify, I used the word "warrant", but I am not sure it was a warrant - maybe just permission. I was thinking of the advice to never let anybody search without a warrant, but I knew any refusal or delay would just cast suspicion on me, so I signed.