(07-20-2020 10:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mentioned this before, but it looks like local authorities learned about these actions from the press, which isn't a crazy idea given how much is going on in Portland, and well within the Trump admin's MO.

Oh, that's a nice objective verifiable source. NOT.

Multi-level cringe, especially if you imagine this being delivered in the voice/timing of Borat.

(07-20-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 09:16 AM)Hambone10 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.

As I'm now understanding it, the problem is that you don't blindly accept the first, clearly 'staged' explanation of what happened. We are to simply believe the wild story straight out of some conspiracy playbook that people are being 'disappeared' (yes, that specific word has been used) off of streets for no reason other than perhaps a peaceful protest, bags placed over their heads... being driven in circles to confuse them.....etc etc etc... and those poor impotent local officials, rather than filing charges and getting an injunction from a highly favorable court, we get NPR stories and 'we don't like you' from city officials.

I mentioned this before, but it looks like local authorities learned about these actions from the press, which isn't a crazy idea given how much is going on in Portland, and well within the Trump admin's MO.

See two new lawsuits filed - one by the ACLU and the other by :drum roll please: the Oregon DOJ. This is a bit awkward now, since it looks like those local officials are clearly doing EXACTLY what you accused them to not be doing.

Does it feel weird to chastise someone for not waiting to have the whole picture, to only have the whole picture smack you across the back of the head?

I am glad that a first legal complaint is the 'whole picture' to you. Others might not agree that a singular court filing is 'the whole picture'.

Quote:For the Oregon DOJ's suit (filed Friday at 10:30 PM, the night that the story broke):

Quote: The Oregon Department of Justice is suing several federal agencies for civil rights abuses, and state prosecutors will potentially pursue criminal charges against a federal officer who seriously injured a protester...

According to DOJ spokeswoman Kristina Edmunson, the suit accuses the agencies of engaging “in unlawful law enforcement in violation of the civil rights of Oregon citizens by seizing and detaining them without probable cause.”

State attorneys are asking a judge to issue a temporary restraining order that “would immediately stop federal authorities from unlawfully detaining Oregonians,” the DOJ said in a release.

The DOJ’s lawsuit is asking a judge to find that the federal agencies’ tactics are indeed unlawful and violate Oregonians’ First, Fourth and Fifth amendment constitutional rights.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal...j-lawsuit/

If the suit is on the detainee in the video, the only way that there is a violation of a 1st amendment right is if there is insufficient probable cause to question him.

If there is a violation based on the 4th amendment on lads 'methods', then there are going to have to be a whole slew of changes across all law enforcement on detentions, since, as noted before, each of the 'horrific methods' is used quite frequently. Of course a simple 'insufficient probable cause' might be root. But the 'probable cause' threshold for a detention is absurdly low.

As for the 5th amendment, that touches upon the detainee requesting counsel. If he had been arrested with no access, very problematic. But he wasnt arrested. If he was only detained and he requests counsel, the popo are not allowed to even speak to you. Again, the story noted he requested counsel, so there is a damn good reason for the police going silent in that regard. Funny that.

If they did try to interview him without access, that would be problematic. But he said 'they went silent'. So the issue on the 5th amendment is whether the authorities released him in sufficient time.

But I do love that the authorities held him and released him, as they should do, the authorities were silent with him after his request for counsel, which they should do.

Yet that doesnt prevent nor even enter into the analysis of the myna bird jumping bean set.

(07-20-2020 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 10:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mentioned this before, but it looks like local authorities learned about these actions from the press, which isn't a crazy idea given how much is going on in Portland, and well within the Trump admin's MO.

Oh, that's a nice objective verifiable source. NOT.

Huh?

Most of the press accounts I read singularly cannot distinguish between the act of 'detaining (and the implications)' and the act of 'arresting (and those specific implications)'.

But considering a whole plethora of others cannot note that difference, nor can a whole plethora undertand that a Federal officer has jurisdiction for the whole of the United States, I am not surprised that you do not see that issue there.

(07-20-2020 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There isn't a conspiracy - I'm criticizing the method the Customs and Border Protection officers used to detain this person. I'm criticizing them for not verbally communicating to the person who they were or why they were being detained (fact), and then placing the person in an umarked vehicle and driving off (fact).

Do you disagree that this method doesn't seem similar to how people are "disappeared"? The guy was released and told the story, obviously I'm not arguing that they actually disappeared someone, I'm criticizing them for deploying a method that looks shockingly similar.

Part of the social contract with LEOs is that the public can hold them accountable - we know who they are or can identify them so if they abuse their power they can be held to account. Or am I off on that idea?

Lad.... Read and remember your first line above that I put in bold... It will become important later.

1)

I do not believe that it is a requirement that people be informed of the reason for their detention while they are being taken into custody. It is, of course, good practice... but there are all sorts of circumstances under which such a thing would happen later.

(07-20-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 09:16 AM)Hambone10 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.

As I'm now understanding it, the problem is that you don't blindly accept the first, clearly 'staged' explanation of what happened. We are to simply believe the wild story straight out of some conspiracy playbook that people are being 'disappeared' (yes, that specific word has been used) off of streets for no reason other than perhaps a peaceful protest, bags placed over their heads... being driven in circles to confuse them.....etc etc etc... and those poor impotent local officials, rather than filing charges and getting an injunction from a highly favorable court, we get NPR stories and 'we don't like you' from city officials.

I mentioned this before, but it looks like local authorities learned about these actions from the press, which isn't a crazy idea given how much is going on in Portland, and well within the Trump admin's MO.

See two new lawsuits filed - one by the ACLU and the other by :drum roll please: the Oregon DOJ. This is a bit awkward now, since it looks like those local officials are clearly doing EXACTLY what you accused them to not be doing.

Does it feel weird to chastise someone for not waiting to have the whole picture, to only have the whole picture smack you across the back of the head?

For the Oregon DOJ's suit (filed Friday at 10:30 PM, the night that the story broke):

Quote: The Oregon Department of Justice is suing several federal agencies for civil rights abuses, and state prosecutors will potentially pursue criminal charges against a federal officer who seriously injured a protester...

According to DOJ spokeswoman Kristina Edmunson, the suit accuses the agencies of engaging “in unlawful law enforcement in violation of the civil rights of Oregon citizens by seizing and detaining them without probable cause.”

State attorneys are asking a judge to issue a temporary restraining order that “would immediately stop federal authorities from unlawfully detaining Oregonians,” the DOJ said in a release.

The DOJ’s lawsuit is asking a judge to find that the federal agencies’ tactics are indeed unlawful and violate Oregonians’ First, Fourth and Fifth amendment constitutional rights.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal...j-lawsuit/

And once again with your childish condescension, when the REAL problem is that you are so 'into' your own feelings that you apparently don't have the ability to process 'reason' anymore. Does it feel weird to routinely miss the very clear points being made? especially when it is CLEAR that you really DO?

Note your initial response I quoted above.... You didn't say ANYTHING about 'whether they had probable cause to detain those people' which is what the lawsuits are about... Instead it was ALL ABOUT the methods.... about at worst, 'not informing them on the spot' about what they were being detained for.... which of course, isn't the same thing as not having a reason to detain them (probable cause).

The lawsuit is for 'detaining people without probable cause'. That is by far (to me, and obviously to you as well) the least troublesome of the complaints in the story.... or in any of the stories related to it. Had they shown up in marked vehicles, wearing clearly identifiable uniforms, identified themselves quite clearly and told people 'on the spot' that they were being detained for questioning about crimes committed during riots... and had they been clearly informed that they were being taken to the Federal Courthouse downtown for that questioning....

You could STILL file an injunction accusing them of not having probable cause.

So your condescension is BEYOND poorly placed.

(07-20-2020 11:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There isn't a conspiracy - I'm criticizing the method the Customs and Border Protection officers used to detain this person. I'm criticizing them for not verbally communicating to the person who they were or why they were being detained (fact), and then placing the person in an umarked vehicle and driving off (fact).

Do you disagree that this method doesn't seem similar to how people are "disappeared"? The guy was released and told the story, obviously I'm not arguing that they actually disappeared someone, I'm criticizing them for deploying a method that looks shockingly similar.

Part of the social contract with LEOs is that the public can hold them accountable - we know who they are or can identify them so if they abuse their power they can be held to account. Or am I off on that idea?

Lad.... Read and remember your first line above that I put in bold... It will become important later.

1)

I do not believe that it is a requirement that people be informed of the reason for their detention while they are being taken into custody. It is, of course, good practice... but there are all sorts of circumstances under which such a thing would happen later.

(07-20-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 09:16 AM)Hambone10 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.

As I'm now understanding it, the problem is that you don't blindly accept the first, clearly 'staged' explanation of what happened. We are to simply believe the wild story straight out of some conspiracy playbook that people are being 'disappeared' (yes, that specific word has been used) off of streets for no reason other than perhaps a peaceful protest, bags placed over their heads... being driven in circles to confuse them.....etc etc etc... and those poor impotent local officials, rather than filing charges and getting an injunction from a highly favorable court, we get NPR stories and 'we don't like you' from city officials.

I mentioned this before, but it looks like local authorities learned about these actions from the press, which isn't a crazy idea given how much is going on in Portland, and well within the Trump admin's MO.

See two new lawsuits filed - one by the ACLU and the other by :drum roll please: the Oregon DOJ. This is a bit awkward now, since it looks like those local officials are clearly doing EXACTLY what you accused them to not be doing.

Does it feel weird to chastise someone for not waiting to have the whole picture, to only have the whole picture smack you across the back of the head?

For the Oregon DOJ's suit (filed Friday at 10:30 PM, the night that the story broke):

Quote: The Oregon Department of Justice is suing several federal agencies for civil rights abuses, and state prosecutors will potentially pursue criminal charges against a federal officer who seriously injured a protester...

According to DOJ spokeswoman Kristina Edmunson, the suit accuses the agencies of engaging “in unlawful law enforcement in violation of the civil rights of Oregon citizens by seizing and detaining them without probable cause.”

State attorneys are asking a judge to issue a temporary restraining order that “would immediately stop federal authorities from unlawfully detaining Oregonians,” the DOJ said in a release.

The DOJ’s lawsuit is asking a judge to find that the federal agencies’ tactics are indeed unlawful and violate Oregonians’ First, Fourth and Fifth amendment constitutional rights.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal...j-lawsuit/

And once again with your childish condescension, when the REAL problem is that you are so 'into' your own feelings that you apparently don't have the ability to process 'reason' anymore. Does it feel weird to routinely miss the very clear points being made? especially when it is CLEAR that you really DO?

Note your initial response I quoted above.... You didn't say ANYTHING about 'whether they had probable cause to detain those people' which is what the lawsuits are about... Instead it was ALL ABOUT the methods.... about at worst, 'not informing them on the spot' about what they were being detained for.... which of course, isn't the same thing as not having a reason to detain them (probable cause).

The lawsuit is for 'detaining people without probable cause'. That is by far (to me, and obviously to you as well) the least troublesome of the complaints in the story.... or in any of the stories related to it. Had they shown up in marked vehicles, wearing clearly identifiable uniforms, identified themselves quite clearly and told people 'on the spot' that they were being detained for questioning about crimes committed during riots... and had they been clearly informed that they were being taken to the Federal Courthouse downtown for that questioning....

You could STILL file an injunction accusing them of not having probable cause.

So your condescension is BEYOND poorly placed.

I wasn't explicitly using the Oregon DOJ lawsuit to strengthen my argument (even though it does explicitly call out the actions I have criticized) - I was using it explicitly to point out that you were incorrect.

You made a statement about how local officials didn't file for an injunction, when they 100% did. Or are you disagreeing with the fact that the Oregon DOJ filed suit and asked for an injunction to stop the federal agents from acting how they have?

(07-20-2020 12:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wasn't explicitly using the Oregon DOJ lawsuit to strengthen my argument (even though it does explicitly call out the actions I have criticized) - I was using it explicitly to point out that you were incorrect.

You made a statement about how local officials didn't file for an injunction, when they 100% did. Or are you disagreeing with the fact that the Oregon DOJ filed suit and asked for an injunction to stop the federal agents from acting how they have?

Read this first.... because apparently you missed it.

Quote:Had they shown up in marked vehicles, wearing clearly identifiable uniforms, identified themselves quite clearly and told people 'on the spot' that they were being detained for questioning about crimes committed during riots... and had they been clearly informed that they were being taken to the Federal Courthouse downtown for that questioning....

You could STILL file an injunction accusing them of not having probable cause.

Best I can tell, it is STILL the case that there is no formal complaint about the methods that we both were complaining about. Methods are generally a 'HOW' something is done. The complaint filed is about whether or not ANYTHING should have been done.

Let me say that differently...
My issue was with the story as told that these people were terrorized during a lawful action. I questioned the facts of the story as a result of the lack of action against the terror. The injunction claims that there was an unlawful action, but best I see does not mention terrorizing people in the process. Instead that is left for the press and the twitter-verse, not burdened by those pesky things like facts and truth.

Whether or not there was reason for feds to detain these people at all (probable cause) was barely mentioned.

(07-20-2020 12:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 12:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wasn't explicitly using the Oregon DOJ lawsuit to strengthen my argument (even though it does explicitly call out the actions I have criticized) - I was using it explicitly to point out that you were incorrect.

You made a statement about how local officials didn't file for an injunction, when they 100% did. Or are you disagreeing with the fact that the Oregon DOJ filed suit and asked for an injunction to stop the federal agents from acting how they have?

Read this first.... because apparently you missed it.

Quote:Had they shown up in marked vehicles, wearing clearly identifiable uniforms, identified themselves quite clearly and told people 'on the spot' that they were being detained for questioning about crimes committed during riots... and had they been clearly informed that they were being taken to the Federal Courthouse downtown for that questioning....

You could STILL file an injunction accusing them of not having probable cause.

Best I can tell, it is STILL the case that there is no formal complaint about the methods that we both were complaining about. Methods are generally a 'HOW' something is done. The complaint filed is about whether or not ANYTHING should have been done.

Let me say that differently...
My issue was with the story as told that these people were terrorized during a lawful action. I questioned the facts of the story as a result of the lack of action against the terror. The injunction claims that there was an unlawful action, but best I see does not mention terrorizing people in the process. Instead that is left for the press and the twitter-verse, not burdened by those pesky things like facts and truth.

Whether or not there was reason for feds to detain these people at all (probable cause) was barely mentioned.

I see what you're saying here. But have you read some of the injunction? It's linked to in the article I posted.

It actually explicitly calls out the "how" multiple times during the filing, which seems to me to indicate that it does mention that people were being terrorized.

See below (bolded for most relevant):

Quote: On information and belief, federal law enforcement officers including John Does 1-10 have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland, detain protesters, and place them into the officers’ unmarked vehicles, removing them from public without either arresting them or stating the basis for an arrest, since at least Tuesday, July 14.

The identity of the officers is not known, nor is their agency affiliation, according to
videos and reports that the officers in question wear military fatigues with patches simply reading “POLICE,” with no other identifying information...

Ordinarily, a person exercising his right to walk through the streets of Portland who is confronted by anonymous men in military-type fatigues and ordered into an unmarked van can reasonably assume that he is being kidnapped and is the victim of a crime.

Defendants are injuring the occupants of Portland by taking away citizens’ ability to
determine whether they are being kidnapped by militia or other malfeasants dressed in paramilitary gear (such that they may engage in self-defense to the fullest extent permitted by law) or are being arrested (such that resisting might amount to a crime).

State law enforcement officers are not being consulted or coordinated with on these
federal detentions, and could expend unnecessary resources responding to reports of an abduction, when federal agents snatch people walking through downtown Portland without explanation or identification.
Defendants’ tactics violate the rights of all people detained without a warrant or a basis for arrest, and violate the state’s sovereign interests in enforcing its laws and in protecting people within its borders from kidnap and false arrest, without serving any legitimate federal law enforcement purpose...

Defendants’ actions are undertaken with the intent of discouraging lawful protest and therefore constitute an illegal prior restraint on the First Amendment right of Oregonians to peacefully protest racial inequality. Citizens who are reasonably afraid of being picked up and shoved into unmarked vans—possibly by federal officers, possibly by individuals opposed to the protests—will feel compelled to stay away, for their own personal safety, and will therefore be unable to express themselves in the way that they have the right to do...

They have prevented the Attorney General from knowing which
agencies and which officers are acting. No federal authority has agreed to stop this practice.

Oregon’s citizens are at risk of kidnapping by militias and other civilian “volunteers”
taking it onto themselves to pull peaceful protesters into their cars, in a manner that resembles the federal actions described above. And Oregon’s own police agencies are therefore injured, by roving federal officers confusing citizens about whether they are obligated to comply with armed men ordering them into unmarked vans.

Based on the reading, it seems like the Oregon DOJ does also have complaints with HOW things were done, as well.

(07-20-2020 06:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 12:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-19-2020 06:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If it is obvious, perhaps answer the fing question directly? Of just whine and fing rant....

Some serious hubris to act like I was giving some unfair edit comparing your comments to Lad's and then follow your criticism up a few post later with this.

I guess you didnt notice the lack of z direct answer. Funny that with you being an ace smokin attorney or somefink

So if someone doesn’t give you a direct answer to a question, you are entitled to be an a$$hat to them? Weird standards dude, that is all I am saying.

Fair enough, but this is an example of why I hate doing these rabbit trails with you... and we end up arguing about what we're arguing about.

The question shouldn't be (and never was intended to be) 'did they spend $400 and write a pretty simple petition including 'allegations' and 'beliefs'' which is what this has turned in to... but the question should be, is the response that we are getting from the local, clearly anti-Trump/anti-feds government consistent with the magnitude of the claimed allegations?


What I'm reading into the lawsuit is exactly what I'd expect to read into a manipulation.
- These are the things that have been alleged.
- IF such things are happening, it could have a chilling effect on Constitutional rights.
- Because of that 'IF', We ask that you write a strongly worded note (almost literally what it asks for) saying that those things, whether or not they are actually happening are not okay...

If those things are really happening AS DESCRIBED, I'd be seeking a Federal investigation, condemnation of the FBI or whomever on the floor of Congress and removal of those sanctioning such actions.... and not some strongly worded note.

As I believe 93 asked, I can't believe libertarians (not to mention anti-Trumpers) would stand for this.

So why am I more upset about the allegations than the Portland AG?


ETA: This is what leads me to the conclusion that at least some of these 'facts' are gross exaggerations. They're not out and out lies... but I'm guessing that it's really that FBI don't wear uniforms like the police and drive cars like the police... and instead they 'flash their badges'... and that they people are being told why they're being brought in, but they disagree that it's sufficient...

and in that instance, what we see here is EXACTLY what I'd expect to see in response

(07-20-2020 02:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Fair enough, but this is an example of why I hate doing these rabbit trails with you... and we end up arguing about what we're arguing about.

The question shouldn't be (and never was intended to be) 'did they spend $400 and write a pretty simple petition including 'allegations' and 'beliefs'' which is what this has turned in to... but the question should be, is the response that we are getting from the local, clearly anti-Trump/anti-feds government consistent with the magnitude of the claimed allegations?


What I'm reading into the lawsuit is exactly what I'd expect to read into a manipulation.
- These are the things that have been alleged.
- IF such things are happening, it could have a chilling effect on Constitutional rights.
- Because of that 'IF', We ask that you write a strongly worded note (almost literally what it asks for) saying that those things, whether or not they are actually happening are not okay...

If those things are really happening AS DESCRIBED, I'd be seeking a Federal investigation, condemnation of the FBI or whomever on the floor of Congress and removal of those sanctioning such actions.... and not some strongly worded note.

As I believe 93 asked, I can't believe libertarians (not to mention anti-Trumpers) would stand for this.

So why am I more upset about the allegations than the Portland AG?


ETA: This is what leads me to the conclusion that at least some of these 'facts' are gross exaggerations. They're not out and out lies... but I'm guessing that it's really that FBI don't wear uniforms like the police and drive cars like the police... and instead they 'flash their badges'... and that they people are being told why they're being brought in, but they disagree that it's sufficient...

and in that instance, what we see here is EXACTLY what I'd expect to see in response

Did you watch the video of the incident we’re discussing?

And frankly, maybe we wouldn’t go down the rabbit holes if some assumptions weren’t made about what has or hasn’t happened. My criticism is based on what I watched on a video - where men in military garb (likely Customs and Border agents, not the FBI) did exactly what I’ve criticized them of doing.

(07-20-2020 04:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did you watch the video of the incident we’re discussing?
And frankly, maybe we wouldn’t go down the rabbit holes if some assumptions weren’t made about what has or hasn’t happened. My criticism is based on what I watched on a video - where men in military garb (likely Customs and Border agents, not the FBI) did exactly what I’ve criticized them of doing.

Two questions:
1) What is wrong with what they are doing?
2) Did the video capture the whole incident or just the part that makes one side look bad?

(07-20-2020 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 04:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did you watch the video of the incident we’re discussing?
And frankly, maybe we wouldn’t go down the rabbit holes if some assumptions weren’t made about what has or hasn’t happened. My criticism is based on what I watched on a video - where men in military garb (likely Customs and Border agents, not the FBI) did exactly what I’ve criticized them of doing.

Two questions:
1) What is wrong with what they are doing?
2) Did the video capture the whole incident or just the part that makes one side look bad?

Watch for yourself and let me know what you think.

I’ve clearly outline, numerous times, what my issues with the incident documented in the video.

(07-20-2020 05:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 04:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did you watch the video of the incident we’re discussing?
And frankly, maybe we wouldn’t go down the rabbit holes if some assumptions weren’t made about what has or hasn’t happened. My criticism is based on what I watched on a video - where men in military garb (likely Customs and Border agents, not the FBI) did exactly what I’ve criticized them of doing.

Two questions:
1) What is wrong with what they are doing?
2) Did the video capture the whole incident or just the part that makes one side look bad?

Watch for yourself and let me know what you think.
I’ve clearly outline, numerous times, what my issues with the incident documented in the video.

I don't take any video at face value because it is too easy to edit out significant parts or start the video after a bunch of stuff that it omits.

(07-20-2020 05:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 04:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did you watch the video of the incident we’re discussing?
And frankly, maybe we wouldn’t go down the rabbit holes if some assumptions weren’t made about what has or hasn’t happened. My criticism is based on what I watched on a video - where men in military garb (likely Customs and Border agents, not the FBI) did exactly what I’ve criticized them of doing.

Two questions:
1) What is wrong with what they are doing?
2) Did the video capture the whole incident or just the part that makes one side look bad?

Watch for yourself and let me know what you think.
I’ve clearly outline, numerous times, what my issues with the incident documented in the video.

I don't take any video at face value because it is too easy to edit out significant parts or start the video after a bunch of stuff that it omits.

(07-18-2020 02:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The guy in the video was released without being charged, so that should help us understand if danger was or wasn’t imminent.

Has nothing to do with that.

(07-20-2020 05:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 04:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did you watch the video of the incident we’re discussing?
And frankly, maybe we wouldn’t go down the rabbit holes if some assumptions weren’t made about what has or hasn’t happened. My criticism is based on what I watched on a video - where men in military garb (likely Customs and Border agents, not the FBI) did exactly what I’ve criticized them of doing.

Two questions:
1) What is wrong with what they are doing?
2) Did the video capture the whole incident or just the part that makes one side look bad?

Watch for yourself and let me know what you think.
I’ve clearly outline, numerous times, what my issues with the incident documented in the video.

There are all sorts of videos, so I don't know to which one you are referring. But the ones I've seen haven't offended me much, if at all. And I am pretty libertarian.

Justin Amash just posted a tweet that is critical of the Trump administration’s actions in Portland. Any updated thoughts now that basically one of the top libertarians in the country has shared some thoughts?

“Donald Trump is deploying unmarked federal police, decked out like a paramilitary force, to grab Americans off the streets. He’s not practicing Liberty; he’s practicing tyranny.”

Libertarian Party official tweet - “Sending unmarked cars with federal police decked out in camo in Portland due to protests/riots happening over unaccountable police activity isn’t how you quell them. It encourages more disquiet. Implement real reforms. End Qualified Immunity. #PortlandKidnappings”

Another from the Libertarian Party - “Abolish the Department of Homeland Security. America deserves better than this. #PortlandKidnappings”

Libertarian Party also praised the ACLU for its lawsuit.

(07-20-2020 05:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 05:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 04:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did you watch the video of the incident we’re discussing?
And frankly, maybe we wouldn’t go down the rabbit holes if some assumptions weren’t made about what has or hasn’t happened. My criticism is based on what I watched on a video - where men in military garb (likely Customs and Border agents, not the FBI) did exactly what I’ve criticized them of doing.

Two questions:
1) What is wrong with what they are doing?
2) Did the video capture the whole incident or just the part that makes one side look bad?

Watch for yourself and let me know what you think.
I’ve clearly outline, numerous times, what my issues with the incident documented in the video.

There are all sorts of videos, so I don't know to which one you are referring. But the ones I've seen haven't offended me much, if at all. And I am pretty libertarian.

I posted it early on in this discussion - shows a guy being picked up by a few men in combat-looking uniforms without saying anything about their intentions and then putting him into an unmarked van and driving off.

He and the three or four people with him are the only people within sight of the camera.

(07-20-2020 05:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I posted it early on in this discussion - shows a guy being picked up by a few men in combat-looking uniforms without saying anything about their intentions and then putting him into an unmarked van and driving off.
He and the three or four people with him are the only people within sight of the camera.

I've seen several like that, one involving a young woman. I don't know why they picked them up. I do know that a police building in Portland was torched, and that is a crime, and federal LEOs have jurisdiction anywhere in the USA, regardless of whether invited in by the governor or mayor.

I would need to have a lot more information not available to have any heartburn over the incidents. As it sits on the video, per se, I don't have a problem.

(07-20-2020 05:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Justin Amash just posted a tweet that is critical of the Trump administration’s actions in Portland. Any updated thoughts now that basically one of the top libertarians in the country has shared some thoughts?

“Donald Trump is deploying unmarked federal police, decked out like a paramilitary force, to grab Americans off the streets. He’s not practicing Liberty; he’s practicing tyranny.”

Libertarian Party official tweet - “Sending unmarked cars with federal police decked out in camo in Portland due to protests/riots happening over unaccountable police activity isn’t how you quell them. It encourages more disquiet. Implement real reforms. End Qualified Immunity. #PortlandKidnappings”

Another from the Libertarian Party - “Abolish the Department of Homeland Security. America deserves better than this. #PortlandKidnappings”

Libertarian Party also praised the ACLU for its lawsuit.

Jeez, even Rand found the mark. A low point for the Quad's totally-not-Trump-supporter "libertarians".