(07-30-2020 08:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 06:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:At least three federal officers in Portland may not recover their vision after earlier this week demonstrators, who have shown up in crowds of over 1,000 for more than 50 consecutive nights, shined lasers in their eyes and threw fireworks at a federal courthouse, officials said.

The fireworks were commercial grade mortar launched pieces, mind you.

Quote:Federal Protective Service (FPS) Deputy Director of Operations Richard “Kriss” Cline said at a press conference on Tuesday that a crowd of more than 1,000 “rioters” surrounded the Hatfield Federal Courthouse and began removing plywood coverings before attempting to throw objects – some of them incendiary – through the windows at federal officers inside.

Quote:The U.S. Marshals Service also reported communications jamming – the first reported instance since the riots have started -- which may have caused significant problems with their radio communications.

Quote:Cline also detailed how the names of federal officers would be removed from their uniforms and replaced with their badge numbers after approximately 38 law enforcement officers had been doxed.

linky

Quite the scorecard your side ran up over the weekend there, lefties. All in one location as well.

But hey, the Feds should just stay put inside their own courthouse according to one poster here.

Rioters are unquestionably going too far with some tactics. Remember when I criticized the fed’s methods because they were likely to escalate tensions? Looks like I wasn’t too far off on that criticism. And I seem to be right that, had they not decided to start rounding up individuals and specifically remained defensive around the building they were meant to protect, there’s a good chance this escalation wouldn’t have occurred.

You’re basically advocating for the actions that have led to this **** show, which is a bit odd.

I wonder also, are you also looking at injuries sustained by some of the protestors? What was the scorecard there? We know there’s at least one broken hand on an elderly navy vet.

While Portland had these protests ongoing for weeks, it has literally exploded since the Feds overstepped and basically antagonized the protestors.

For decades we have been reminded that the victims of rape are not at fault for being raped; that regardless of their actions, they did not "ask for it" or "have it coming"; and that their attackers are not excused by perceived or real grievances against the specific victim, or women in general, or society as a whole. Rather, the complete list of causes of rape is as follows:
1. Rapists.

The list of causes of battery, looting and arson is similarly succinct.

Not exactly a great analogy when you have plenty of people involved in the protests that haven't rioted themselves, so they haven't committed an act worthy of a show of force from LEOs.

Are you arguing that people exercising their 1st Amendment rights are rightfully treated as rioters in how LEOs respond because of the actions of others at the protest? Because that's the way I read it if you're saying all of those who have been impacted by LEOs' use of force have had it coming (including press and observers).

(07-30-2020 08:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  For decades we have been reminded that the victims of rape are not at fault for being raped; that regardless of their actions, they did not "ask for it" or "have it coming"; and that their attackers are not excused by perceived or real grievances against the specific victim, or women in general, or society as a whole. Rather, the complete list of causes of rape is as follows:
1. Rapists.

The list of causes of battery, looting and arson is similarly succinct.

This

(07-22-2020 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Rioters are unquestionably going too far with some tactics. Remember when I criticized the fed’s methods because they were likely to escalate tensions? Looks like I wasn’t too far off on that criticism. And I seem to be right that, had they not decided to start rounding up individuals and specifically remained defensive around the building they were meant to protect, there’s a good chance this escalation wouldn’t have occurred.

So attempting to arrest and prosecute people who have 'unquestionably gone too far' (by that you mean, risked people's lives and caused damage and injury at least) is the cause of the riots? The strange thing about this is that this is one of the original excuses for the complaints... that police are not arrested and prosecuted for their crimes.

I posted an article the other day from someone who is literally advocating for the elimination of police. Not some partial reallocation of resources towards other avenues or the reclassification of some police jobs... but the elimination of police and their activities. She is correct and it seems you agree that doing so would absolutely end any criticism of police tactics and law enforcement, since there would be none. Criminals would certainly not escalate their actions against the police.

Criminals actions against innocent civilians, however???

]


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minne...SKBN23C2R1

Quote:Federal prosecutors filed charges this week against three alleged boogaloo members accused of plotting to cause violence and destruction at Las Vegas protest.

Three. Accused. Of plotting.

How many protests have we seen with just three people throwing things, etc.?

Quote:The Tech Transparency Project, a Washington-based tech watchdog group, found tens of thousands of people joined boogaloo-related Facebook groups over a 30-day period in March and April as stay-at-home orders took effect across the United States to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus. Project researchers found discussions about tactical strategies, weapons and creating explosives in some boogaloo Facebook groups.

So the "Washington-based watchdog group" defined "boogaloo" for their own study meant to find people joining boogaloo? And they also found discussions in "some" groups. I bet they also found discussions of the best ways to fight UFOs.

Quote:A small number of white supremacists and white nationalists have been spotted at recent protests, according to watchdog groups and media reports. The Nationalist Social Club, a neo-Nazi group, appeared to have had some presence at protests in Boston and Knoxville, Tennessee, the ADL said. Members of the far-right Proud Boys were seen at North Carolina and Oregon protests last weekend, according to media reports.

"Small number"? I gave you a small number - one. "spotted" By whom? According to "watchdog groups and media reports"? Ahhh, there's the gospel according to Lenin. How do you tell a Proud Boy from, say, you, according to the media? Are they using facial rec? Are the PBs disguised as PBs?

Quote:Nate Snyder, a former U.S. Department of Homeland Security counter-terrorism official, said it is likely anarchists were among the protesters in recent days, but doubted they would pose a credible violent threat.

rmer official what? janitor? Security guard. Likely? why not ask Adam Schiff or Peter Strozk? They could give an unbiased estimate, as usual.

Just watch the thousands of hours videos and reports from all over the country, and show me the vast right-wing conspiracy.

You could take all the Proud Boys and whatever in the country and they wouldn't make enough people to fill a Class A high school stadium. Whenever they have held a rally that was protested, they have usually had about two dozen attendees.

The left seems awfully prone to conspiracy theories - what could possibly make thousands of peaceful protesters run amok - why it must be somebody else inciting them, or the sight of a Fed, or a secret gas the US has developed that only affect black people.

There are reports of strange flying objects, and weird, malevolent people in them. Lots more of those than your conspioracay sightings. Must be true. You guys will go for any conspiracy theory that helps your narratives. Somebody made the Anasazi disappear - evidence shows it may have been ETs. Racist ETs. In disguise. Somebody said so.

(07-30-2020 09:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 08:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  For decades we have been reminded that the victims of rape are not at fault for being raped; that regardless of their actions, they did not "ask for it" or "have it coming"; and that their attackers are not excused by perceived or real grievances against the specific victim, or women in general, or society as a whole. Rather, the complete list of causes of rape is as follows:
1. Rapists.

The list of causes of battery, looting and arson is similarly succinct.

This

(07-22-2020 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Rioters are unquestionably going too far with some tactics. Remember when I criticized the fed’s methods because they were likely to escalate tensions? Looks like I wasn’t too far off on that criticism. And I seem to be right that, had they not decided to start rounding up individuals and specifically remained defensive around the building they were meant to protect, there’s a good chance this escalation wouldn’t have occurred.

So attempting to arrest and prosecute people who have 'unquestionably gone too far' (by that you mean, risked people's lives and caused damage and injury at least) is the cause of the riots? The strange thing about this is that this is one of the original excuses for the complaints... that police are not arrested and prosecuted for their crimes.

I posted an article the other day from someone who is literally advocating for the elimination of police. Not some partial reallocation of resources towards other avenues or the reclassification of some police jobs... but the elimination of police and their activities. She is correct and it seems you agree that doing so would absolutely end any criticism of police tactics and law enforcement, since there would be none. Criminals would certainly not escalate their actions against the police.

Criminals actions against innocent civilians, however???

We've had so many back and forths, I'm shocked you think that I support the idea that the cause of the riots was the unmarked van grabbing. It was the cause of the significant escalation we have seen the past few weeks, but the riots were already ongoing when the feds got there. It added kerosine to the bonfire that was already burning.

There still is not sufficient evidence to suggest that van grabs were actual attempts "to arrest and prosecute people who have 'unquestionably gone too far'" as you put it. If you want to see what that looks like, see the recent arrest by NYPD officers using the same tactic - they actually grabbed AND arrested the person they had identified and built a case against.

(07-30-2020 09:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 08:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  For decades we have been reminded that the victims of rape are not at fault for being raped; that regardless of their actions, they did not "ask for it" or "have it coming"; and that their attackers are not excused by perceived or real grievances against the specific victim, or women in general, or society as a whole. Rather, the complete list of causes of rape is as follows:
1. Rapists.

The list of causes of battery, looting and arson is similarly succinct.

This

(07-22-2020 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Rioters are unquestionably going too far with some tactics. Remember when I criticized the fed’s methods because they were likely to escalate tensions? Looks like I wasn’t too far off on that criticism. And I seem to be right that, had they not decided to start rounding up individuals and specifically remained defensive around the building they were meant to protect, there’s a good chance this escalation wouldn’t have occurred.

So attempting to arrest and prosecute people who have 'unquestionably gone too far' (by that you mean, risked people's lives and caused damage and injury at least) is the cause of the riots? The strange thing about this is that this is one of the original excuses for the complaints... that police are not arrested and prosecuted for their crimes.

I posted an article the other day from someone who is literally advocating for the elimination of police. Not some partial reallocation of resources towards other avenues or the reclassification of some police jobs... but the elimination of police and their activities. She is correct and it seems you agree that doing so would absolutely end any criticism of police tactics and law enforcement, since there would be none. Criminals would certainly not escalate their actions against the police.

Criminals actions against innocent civilians, however???

I think there is a simple solution to this.

Retain the police. Just do not hire any white officers. Soon, as older white officers retire or quit, the systemic racism will retire or quit with them. No black people will ever die in police custody. None will ever get questioned for anything, and none will ever get a speeding ticket. All those racist practices will go away.

(07-30-2020 08:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 08:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 06:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:At least three federal officers in Portland may not recover their vision after earlier this week demonstrators, who have shown up in crowds of over 1,000 for more than 50 consecutive nights, shined lasers in their eyes and threw fireworks at a federal courthouse, officials said.

The fireworks were commercial grade mortar launched pieces, mind you.

Quote:Federal Protective Service (FPS) Deputy Director of Operations Richard “Kriss” Cline said at a press conference on Tuesday that a crowd of more than 1,000 “rioters” surrounded the Hatfield Federal Courthouse and began removing plywood coverings before attempting to throw objects – some of them incendiary – through the windows at federal officers inside.

Quote:The U.S. Marshals Service also reported communications jamming – the first reported instance since the riots have started -- which may have caused significant problems with their radio communications.

Quote:Cline also detailed how the names of federal officers would be removed from their uniforms and replaced with their badge numbers after approximately 38 law enforcement officers had been doxed.

linky

Quite the scorecard your side ran up over the weekend there, lefties. All in one location as well.

But hey, the Feds should just stay put inside their own courthouse according to one poster here.

Rioters are unquestionably going too far with some tactics. Remember when I criticized the fed’s methods because they were likely to escalate tensions? Looks like I wasn’t too far off on that criticism. And I seem to be right that, had they not decided to start rounding up individuals and specifically remained defensive around the building they were meant to protect, there’s a good chance this escalation wouldn’t have occurred.

You’re basically advocating for the actions that have led to this **** show, which is a bit odd.

I wonder also, are you also looking at injuries sustained by some of the protestors? What was the scorecard there? We know there’s at least one broken hand on an elderly navy vet.

While Portland had these protests ongoing for weeks, it has literally exploded since the Feds overstepped and basically antagonized the protestors.

For decades we have been reminded that the victims of rape are not at fault for being raped; that regardless of their actions, they did not "ask for it" or "have it coming"; and that their attackers are not excused by perceived or real grievances against the specific victim, or women in general, or society as a whole. Rather, the complete list of causes of rape is as follows:
1. Rapists.

The list of causes of battery, looting and arson is similarly succinct.

Not exactly a great analogy when you have plenty of people involved in the protests that haven't rioted themselves, so they haven't committed an act worthy of a show of force from LEOs.

Are you arguing that people exercising their 1st Amendment rights are rightfully treated as rioters in how LEOs respond because of the actions of others at the protest? Because that's the way I read it if you're saying all of those who have been impacted by LEOs' use of force have had it coming (including press and observers).

Holy cow, that's a really twisted reading of what I wrote. I was pretty explicit that "had it coming" theories are NOT correct.

Then again, perhaps I too have adopted the sort of doublespeak in which words like "abolish", "defund", and "literally" mean things other than abolish, defund, and literally.

(07-30-2020 09:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ]


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minne...SKBN23C2R1

Quote:Federal prosecutors filed charges this week against three alleged boogaloo members accused of plotting to cause violence and destruction at Las Vegas protest.

Three. Accused. Of plotting.

How many protests have we seen with just three people throwing things, etc.?

Quote:The Tech Transparency Project, a Washington-based tech watchdog group, found tens of thousands of people joined boogaloo-related Facebook groups over a 30-day period in March and April as stay-at-home orders took effect across the United States to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus. Project researchers found discussions about tactical strategies, weapons and creating explosives in some boogaloo Facebook groups.

So the "Washington-based watchdog group" defined "boogaloo" for their own study meant to find people joining boogaloo? And they also found discussions in "some" groups. I bet they also found discussions of the best ways to fight UFOs.

Quote:A small number of white supremacists and white nationalists have been spotted at recent protests, according to watchdog groups and media reports. The Nationalist Social Club, a neo-Nazi group, appeared to have had some presence at protests in Boston and Knoxville, Tennessee, the ADL said. Members of the far-right Proud Boys were seen at North Carolina and Oregon protests last weekend, according to media reports.

"Small number"? I gave you a small number - one. "spotted" By whom? According to "watchdog groups and media reports"? Ahhh, there's the gospel according to Lenin. How do you tell a Proud Boy from, say, you, according to the media? Are they using facial rec? Are the PBs disguised as PBs?

Quote:Nate Snyder, a former U.S. Department of Homeland Security counter-terrorism official, said it is likely anarchists were among the protesters in recent days, but doubted they would pose a credible violent threat.

rmer official what? janitor? Security guard. Likely? why not ask Adam Schiff or Peter Strozk? They could give an unbiased estimate, as usual.

Just watch the thousands of hours videos and reports from all over the country, and show me the vast right-wing conspiracy.

You could take all the Proud Boys and whatever in the country and they wouldn't make enough people to fill a Class A high school stadium. Whenever they have held a rally that was protested, they have usually had about two dozen attendees.

The left seems awfully prone to conspiracy theories - what could possibly make thousands of peaceful protesters run amok - why it must be somebody else inciting them, or the sight of a Fed, or a secret gas the US has developed that only affect black people.

There are reports of strange flying objects, and weird, malevolent people in them. Lots more of those than your conspioracay sightings. Must be true. You guys will go for any conspiracy theory that helps your narratives. Somebody made the Anasazi disappear - evidence shows it may have been ETs. Racist ETs. In disguise. Somebody said so.

Conspiracy theory? People said watch out for this because this is something that these white supremacists are known to do... and lo and behold... that's what they did. If you believe the recent report. That's not a conspiracy theory. Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory.

Look... I'm not blaming the riots completely on this issue. Or even given it majority of the blame. If I'm standing in the middle of a protest and I see somebody break some glass I'm not going to run into the building and loot. Those that choose to do so are true "shitbirds" (to use your side's term) and they should be arrested IMO.

But you act as if this guy was some lone wolf and that doesn't seem to be the case.

(07-30-2020 10:12 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 08:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 08:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 06:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The fireworks were commercial grade mortar launched pieces, mind you.




linky

Quite the scorecard your side ran up over the weekend there, lefties. All in one location as well.

But hey, the Feds should just stay put inside their own courthouse according to one poster here.

Rioters are unquestionably going too far with some tactics. Remember when I criticized the fed’s methods because they were likely to escalate tensions? Looks like I wasn’t too far off on that criticism. And I seem to be right that, had they not decided to start rounding up individuals and specifically remained defensive around the building they were meant to protect, there’s a good chance this escalation wouldn’t have occurred.

You’re basically advocating for the actions that have led to this **** show, which is a bit odd.

I wonder also, are you also looking at injuries sustained by some of the protestors? What was the scorecard there? We know there’s at least one broken hand on an elderly navy vet.

While Portland had these protests ongoing for weeks, it has literally exploded since the Feds overstepped and basically antagonized the protestors.

For decades we have been reminded that the victims of rape are not at fault for being raped; that regardless of their actions, they did not "ask for it" or "have it coming"; and that their attackers are not excused by perceived or real grievances against the specific victim, or women in general, or society as a whole. Rather, the complete list of causes of rape is as follows:
1. Rapists.

The list of causes of battery, looting and arson is similarly succinct.

Not exactly a great analogy when you have plenty of people involved in the protests that haven't rioted themselves, so they haven't committed an act worthy of a show of force from LEOs.

Are you arguing that people exercising their 1st Amendment rights are rightfully treated as rioters in how LEOs respond because of the actions of others at the protest? Because that's the way I read it if you're saying all of those who have been impacted by LEOs' use of force have had it coming (including press and observers).

Holy cow, that's a really twisted reading of what I wrote. I was pretty explicit that "had it coming" theories are NOT correct.

Then again, perhaps I too have adopted the sort of doublespeak in which words like "abolish", "defund", and "literally" mean things other than abolish, defund, and literally.

Sorry, the way you structured the reply using the term “we’ve been reminded” seemed like you were at odds with what was being reminded - that others were reminding “us” and “we” were not exactly accepting of the reminder.

There were a lot of topics covered in the reply you responded to - the escalation of tensions, the increased rioting, the violence against protestors by LEOs.

Can you flesh it out a bit more?

(07-30-2020 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Conspiracy theory? People said watch out for this because this is something that these white supremacists are known to do... and lo and behold... that's what they did. If you believe the recent report. That's not a conspiracy theory. Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory.

Look... I'm not blaming the riots completely on this issue. Or even given it majority of the blame. If I'm standing in the middle of a protest and I see somebody break some glass I'm not going to run into the building and loot. Those that choose to do so are true "shitbirds" (to use your side's term) and they should be arrested IMO.

But you act as if this guy was some lone wolf and that doesn't seem to be the case.

"seem"? make the case he is not based n more than rumor from biased sources.

People said? Isn't that the basis for all the Kennedy Assassination theories?

I have never heard of this before, so I don't know what justification you have for "known to do". Sounds a lot like "Trump is known to..." and your justification for stating this as a fact is that unknown people have said they "known to do" this. From the same people who asserted as fact that trump was a Putin puppet.

ETs are "known" to dissect paralyzed humans. Some people have said so. So if some person shows up claiming to have been abducted, it is only to be expected.

We have (maybe) ONE possible instance of this. I say maybe because the report I saw said he was "affiliated" with a far right group, not that he was a member or leader. What does affiliated mean? His cousin is member? He attended one meeting two years ago? Maybe you could ask "people". "People" know all the facts. "People are always right.

Hard for me to see a Nazi standing in a crowd next to hundreds of black people and wearing a BLM shirt just to throw a rock at a window and go home. I guess it is easy for you. About equal to the odds of an equal rights activist disguising himself as a nazi so he can incite violence and property destruction. Yeah, really likely. But I have have heard 'people" say this is so, so there's your proof. QED.

I didn't use "shitbirds". I would use "criminals" . But they seem to be the leaders of the violence, far more often than they discourage it.

This is just an exerciser in the left dodging responsibility for the violence. "OH, the nazi made me do it, when he threw a rock".

(07-30-2020 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 09:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 08:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  For decades we have been reminded that the victims of rape are not at fault for being raped; that regardless of their actions, they did not "ask for it" or "have it coming"; and that their attackers are not excused by perceived or real grievances against the specific victim, or women in general, or society as a whole. Rather, the complete list of causes of rape is as follows:
1. Rapists.

The list of causes of battery, looting and arson is similarly succinct.

This

(07-22-2020 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Rioters are unquestionably going too far with some tactics. Remember when I criticized the fed’s methods because they were likely to escalate tensions? Looks like I wasn’t too far off on that criticism. And I seem to be right that, had they not decided to start rounding up individuals and specifically remained defensive around the building they were meant to protect, there’s a good chance this escalation wouldn’t have occurred.

So attempting to arrest and prosecute people who have 'unquestionably gone too far' (by that you mean, risked people's lives and caused damage and injury at least) is the cause of the riots? The strange thing about this is that this is one of the original excuses for the complaints... that police are not arrested and prosecuted for their crimes.

I posted an article the other day from someone who is literally advocating for the elimination of police. Not some partial reallocation of resources towards other avenues or the reclassification of some police jobs... but the elimination of police and their activities. She is correct and it seems you agree that doing so would absolutely end any criticism of police tactics and law enforcement, since there would be none. Criminals would certainly not escalate their actions against the police.

Criminals actions against innocent civilians, however???

We've had so many back and forths, I'm shocked you think that I support the idea that the cause of the riots was the unmarked van grabbing. It was the cause of the significant escalation we have seen the past few weeks, but the riots were already ongoing when the feds got there. It added kerosine to the bonfire that was already burning.

There still is not sufficient evidence to suggest that van grabs were actual attempts "to arrest and prosecute people who have 'unquestionably gone too far'" as you put it. If you want to see what that looks like, see the recent arrest by NYPD officers using the same tactic - they actually grabbed AND arrested the person they had identified and built a case against.

Yes, we've had so many back and forths, and this is just another pedantic correction that deflects from the clear point I'm making. I wrote 'riots'... I clearly meant the 'response' riots.... not the initial riots. I did not allege circuitous logic. I alleged sequential illogic. The 'unquestionably gone too far' quote was clearly referencing your acceptance that we agree that initial rioting protestors were in the wrong... that they went too far. I am merely pointing out that what they did that you agree was too far are crimes... crimes are not allowed, even under the 1st Amendment...

The fact that you find it easier to support the idea that members of the FBI were not only given, but FOLLOWED such clearly ILLEGAL orders to detain and terrorize random citizens... than you do the idea that they had probable cause to detain... that you're talking about at least a dozen people, risking their lives... families... jobs... reputations and literally their freedom in order to 'poke a hornet's nest'. I find that almost mind-numbingly unlikely.

But this isn't about 'which is more likely'...

Its about the fact that you said that they should have 'simply remained defensive'...

Is that what you meant? If it is, then my comment remains and none of your response addresses it. You are suggesting that they simply ignore the crimes and act defensively.

If it isn't and instead you meant ONLY the portion where you say that they shouldn't engage in random round-ups of innocent people... Then I'd agree that they shouldn't do that, but you still need to prove that they did to judge the situation. I understand that's your belief... but IMO there is insufficient evidence to prove that either. Your only real evidence of it is the statements of those detained... who clearly aren't unbiased... and you also have the actions of the officers in contrast... All you know is that you haven't been told what their supposed probable cause was.... and it should be clear that not all probable cause to detain ends up in charges and an arrest. I don't know what the number is, but I suspect it's a pretty low number... like 20% or less... and I also think the violence and methods of the riots, including the use of weapons and explosives would not warrant a 'no knock 2am raid', but certainly might warrant a daylight, on the street aggressive action.

Even then, and perhaps its BECAUSE I'm a father of two who has been presented with many situations where I didn't have all of the evidence and yet I needed to decide... (and I was also a younger brother)... I tend to start with what happened first.... with what drove everything afterwards... But for the protestors clearly going over the line and committing crimes, there is no reason whatsoever for the feds to do anything BUT be defensive. No 'innocent' bystander gets caught up in the cross-fire... nobody gets injured... no property is damaged... and nobody gets pulled off the streets for questioning, randomly or otherwise.

Heck, if even the only thing that happens is that an empty store gets looted or a parked car gets smashed, there is no reason for the feds to do anything at all.

Now I realize that the gut response would be that 'the killing of George Floyd' or someone else happened first or whatever other precipitous event... but that wasn't present in Portland. If instead you want to say this was an act of insurrection against a tyrannical government... Okay... then 'standard laws' no longer apply and this was an act of war. The Marines quite often don't announce their presence at all... sometimes they take you out from miles away.

If someone wants to rebel against the government and commit acts of war, that's fine.... and I honestly mean that. I support those on the right who say that as well. If I'm acting like an enemy combatant though... I should expect to be treated like one. We haven't remotely reached the point of using military rules of engagement... but let's not pretend as if at least some of these people in tactical gear and masks don't see themselves as 'soldiers'.

(07-30-2020 11:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sorry, the way you structured the reply using the term “we’ve been reminded” seemed like you were at odds with what was being reminded - that others were reminding “us” and “we” were not exactly accepting of the reminder.

There were a lot of topics covered in the reply you responded to - the escalation of tensions, the increased rioting, the violence against protestors by LEOs.

Can you flesh it out a bit more?

Doesn't it seem obvious?
The primary cause of rape is rapists.
The primary cause of battery, looting and arson are batterers, looters and arsonists.

(07-30-2020 11:12 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 09:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 08:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  For decades we have been reminded that the victims of rape are not at fault for being raped; that regardless of their actions, they did not "ask for it" or "have it coming"; and that their attackers are not excused by perceived or real grievances against the specific victim, or women in general, or society as a whole. Rather, the complete list of causes of rape is as follows:
1. Rapists.

The list of causes of battery, looting and arson is similarly succinct.

This

(07-22-2020 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Rioters are unquestionably going too far with some tactics. Remember when I criticized the fed’s methods because they were likely to escalate tensions? Looks like I wasn’t too far off on that criticism. And I seem to be right that, had they not decided to start rounding up individuals and specifically remained defensive around the building they were meant to protect, there’s a good chance this escalation wouldn’t have occurred.

So attempting to arrest and prosecute people who have 'unquestionably gone too far' (by that you mean, risked people's lives and caused damage and injury at least) is the cause of the riots? The strange thing about this is that this is one of the original excuses for the complaints... that police are not arrested and prosecuted for their crimes.

I posted an article the other day from someone who is literally advocating for the elimination of police. Not some partial reallocation of resources towards other avenues or the reclassification of some police jobs... but the elimination of police and their activities. She is correct and it seems you agree that doing so would absolutely end any criticism of police tactics and law enforcement, since there would be none. Criminals would certainly not escalate their actions against the police.

Criminals actions against innocent civilians, however???

We've had so many back and forths, I'm shocked you think that I support the idea that the cause of the riots was the unmarked van grabbing. It was the cause of the significant escalation we have seen the past few weeks, but the riots were already ongoing when the feds got there. It added kerosine to the bonfire that was already burning.

There still is not sufficient evidence to suggest that van grabs were actual attempts "to arrest and prosecute people who have 'unquestionably gone too far'" as you put it. If you want to see what that looks like, see the recent arrest by NYPD officers using the same tactic - they actually grabbed AND arrested the person they had identified and built a case against.

Yes, we've had so many back and forths, and this is just another pedantic correction that deflects from the clear point I'm making. I wrote 'riots'... I clearly meant the 'response' riots.... not the initial riots. I did not allege circuitous logic. I alleged sequential illogic. The 'unquestionably gone too far' quote was clearly referencing your acceptance that we agree that protestors were in the wrong... that they went too far. I am merely pointing out that what they did that you agree was too far are crimes... crimes are not allowed, even under the 1st Amendment...

The fact that you find it easier to support the idea that members of the FBI were not only given, but FOLLOWED such clearly ILLEGAL orders to detain and terrorize random citizens... than you do the idea that they had probable cause to detain... that you're talking about at least a dozen people, risking their lives... families... jobs... reputations and literally their freedom in order to 'poke a hornet's nest'. I find that almost mind-numbingly unlikely.

But this isn't about 'which is more likely'...

Its about the fact that you said that they should have 'simply remained defensive'...

Is that what you meant? If it is, then my comment remains and none of your response addresses it. You are suggesting that they simply ignore the crimes and act defensively.

If it isn't and instead you meant ONLY the portion where you say that they shouldn't engage in random round-ups of innocent people... Then I'd agree that they shouldn't do that, but you still need to prove that they did to judge the situation. I understand that's your belief... but IMO there is insufficient evidence to prove that either. Your only real evidence of it is the statements of those detained... who clearly aren't unbiased... and you also have the actions of the officers in contrast... All you know is that you haven't been told what their supposed probable cause was.... and it should be clear that not all probable cause to detain ends up in charges and an arrest. I don't know what the number is, but I suspect it's a pretty low number... like 20% or less... and I also think the violence and methods of the riots, including the use of weapons and explosives would not warrant a 'no knock 2am raid', but certainly might warrant a daylight, on the street aggressive action.

Even then, and perhaps its BECAUSE I'm a father of two who has been presented with many situations where I didn't have all of the evidence and yet I needed to decide... (and I was also a younger brother)... I tend to start with what happened first.... with what drove everything afterwards... But for the protestors clearly going over the line and committing crimes, there is no reason whatsoever for the feds to do anything BUT be defensive. No 'innocent' bystander gets caught up in the cross-fire... nobody gets injured... no property is damaged... and nobody gets pulled off the streets for questioning, randomly or otherwise.

Heck, if even the only thing that happens is that an empty store gets looted or a parked car gets smashed, there is no reason for the feds to do anything at all.

Now I realize that the gut response would be that 'the killing of George Floyd' or someone else happened first or whatever other precipitous event... but that wasn't present in Portland. If instead you want to say this was an act of insurrection against a tyrannical government... Okay... then 'standard laws' no longer apply and this was an act of war. The Marines quite often don't announce their presence at all... sometimes they take you out from miles away.

If someone wants to rebel against the government and commit acts of war, that's fine.... and I honestly mean that. I support those on the right who say that as well. If I'm acting like an enemy combatant though... I should expect to be treated like one. We haven't remotely reached the point of using military rules of engagement... but let's not pretend as if at least some of these people in tactical gear and masks don't see themselves as 'soldiers'.

Look, that wasn't a pedantic response - you literally asked me if the police trying to arrest people was the cause of the riot...

Here is a real pedantic response - Why do you continue to call the federal agents FBI?

But on to a few of the larger points.

1) I don't find it mind-numbingly unlikely for LEOs to abuse their power. To suggest that abuse of power by LEOs is mind-numbingly unlikely is to ignore all of the abuses of power by LEOs that have occurred throughout history (see a lot of our Supreme Court cases). The DHS/FPS leaders have admitted they didn't have probable cause to arrest the guy, but try to get around that by saying he was just detained. The more reading I've done on this, suggests that is a load, given that DHS/FPS threw him into a van and transported him somewhere else (which is basically an arrest). Just think about the loopholes that opens if true - as long as police don't ever say you're under arrest, they can basically whisk you off the street and take you away until you learn to say the magic words of "let me see my lawyer." See Dunaway vs New York (https://www.lawfareblog.com/unpacking-dh...-van-video)

2) I'm not advocating that they ignore crimes. There are alternatives to detaining people suspected of a crime than picking them up in an unmarked van at 2:00 AM in downtown Portland (for starters, leave the van out of it). Or if arrests are warranted, alternatives to doing that - build a case and find the perp outside of the protest. This is a good example of the difficulty of discussing on this forum in short bursts between work. There are so many facets that me not covering every single aspect of the issue in a response gets labeled as advocating for ignoring crimes.

I still advocate that, they shouldn't have used that method to detain people because of how aggressive it is. Like I said, look at NYC - they clearly had a target, who had clearly been ID'd and was going to be charged. When you have sufficient evidence to make an arrest, I think that grabby van can be warranted. When you don't have sufficient evidence for arrest, maybe strike the grabby van off the list of methods to use.

3) What was the overall objective of the federal presence in Portland? Was it to arrest rioters or protect federal buildings? If the former, then their methods were appropriate as they were able to detain and arrest more people. If the latter, the methods they chose backfired.

I imagine that riot control is a very tough job, and I think this is a great situation where right answers are in short supply, but wrong answers appear to be pretty obvious, pretty quickly.

(07-30-2020 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  1) I don't find it mind-numbingly unlikely for LEOs to abuse their power. To suggest that abuse of power by LEOs is mind-numbingly unlikely is to ignore all of the abuses of power by LEOs that have occurred throughout history (see a lot of our Supreme Court cases).

The fact that LEOs have abused power in the past does not establish any abuses of power in the instant case. Abuse of power is pretty unlikely. To revisit recent celebrated cases
- George Zimmerman was not an LEO and it is not clear that he abused any power
- Ferguson, MO, was not an abuse of power and there was no, "Hands up, don't shoot."
- Staten Island was IMO an abuse of power and was not prosecuted, which mystifies me
- George Floyd was an apparent abuse of power and is being prosecuted

That is not all-inclusive, but pretty well establishes a trend. Most cases are not abuse of power by LEOs; those that are generally get prosecuted.

Quote:2) I'm not advocating that they ignore crimes. There are alternatives to detaining people suspected of a crime than picking them up in an unmarked van at 2:00 AM in downtown Portland (for starters, leave the van out of it).

Well, when the perps are in downtown Portland at 2 AM, you are kind of limited to doing it then and there. And why are the vans so terrible?

I'm not advocating that they ignore crimes, but when they take action I am going to criticize the specific actions taken = I'm advocating that they ignore crimes.

Quote:3) What was the overall objective of the federal presence in Portland? Was it to arrest rioters or protect federal buildings? If the former, then their methods were appropriate as they were able to detain and arrest more people. If the latter, the methods they chose backfired.

How about it was to protect federal buildings, including by pre-emptively detaining those who are threats to attack and destroy such federal buildings? I don't think that the goal of protecting buildings obligates them in any way to wait until the building is on fire before taking action.

(07-30-2020 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think there is a simple solution to this.

Retain the police. Just do not hire any white officers. Soon, as older white officers retire or quit, the systemic racism will retire or quit with them. No black people will ever die in police custody. None will ever get questioned for anything, and none will ever get a speeding ticket. All those racist practices will go away.

Why has nobody stepped up to defend this? It answers every objection. It makes the police nonracist. It works as a kind of Affirmative Action, hiring young blacks for jobs their ancestors would not have been allowed to do. it gives black people power.

All this while retaining the duty of the police to stop crime. Maybe when an all black police force is looking for a "white" suspect we will learn how it feels to be stopped for the color of our skins.

what would be the problem?

(07-30-2020 12:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think there is a simple solution to this.
Retain the police. Just do not hire any white officers. Soon, as older white officers retire or quit, the systemic racism will retire or quit with them. No black people will ever die in police custody. None will ever get questioned for anything, and none will ever get a speeding ticket. All those racist practices will go away.

Why has nobody stepped up to defend this? It answers every objection. It makes the police nonracist. It works as a kind of Affirmative Action, hiring young blacks for jobs their ancestors would not have been allowed to do. it gives black people power.
All this while retaining the duty of the police to stop crime. Maybe when an all black police force is looking for a "white" suspect we will learn how it feels to be stopped for the color of our skins.
what would be the problem?

What I don't understand is how the BLM folks on the one hand want more Black LEOs, but on the other hand seem to treat any Black LEO as an Uncle Tom. How does that work?

(07-30-2020 12:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think there is a simple solution to this.

Retain the police. Just do not hire any white officers. Soon, as older white officers retire or quit, the systemic racism will retire or quit with them. No black people will ever die in police custody. None will ever get questioned for anything, and none will ever get a speeding ticket. All those racist practices will go away.

Why has nobody stepped up to defend this? It answers every objection. It makes the police nonracist. It works as a kind of Affirmative Action, hiring young blacks for jobs their ancestors would not have been allowed to do. it gives black people power.

All this while retaining the duty of the police to stop crime. Maybe when an all black police force is looking for a "white" suspect we will learn how it feels to be stopped for the color of our skins.

what would be the problem?

Because you are trolling.

(07-30-2020 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Look, that wasn't a pedantic response - you literally asked me if the police trying to arrest people was the cause of the riot...

Here is a real pedantic response - Why do you continue to call the federal agents FBI?

But on to a few of the larger points.

1) I don't find it mind-numbingly unlikely for LEOs to abuse their power. To suggest that abuse of power by LEOs is mind-numbingly unlikely is to ignore all of the abuses of power by LEOs that have occurred throughout history (see a lot of our Supreme Court cases). The DHS/FPS leaders have admitted they didn't have probable cause to arrest the guy, but try to get around that by saying he was just detained. The more reading I've done on this, suggests that is a load, given that DHS/FPS threw him into a van and transported him somewhere else (which is basically an arrest). Just think about the loopholes that opens if true - as long as police don't ever say you're under arrest, they can basically whisk you off the street and take you away until you learn to say the magic words of "let me see my lawyer." See Dunaway vs New York (https://www.lawfareblog.com/unpacking-dh...-van-video)

Every bit of this is non-responsive to what I said... or is you merely repeating what you believe that is counter to what I believe.... and arguments in the absurd about what I said or think.

It is thus all entirely pointless.

Quote:2) I'm not advocating that they ignore crimes.
There are alternatives to detaining people suspected of a crime than picking them up in an unmarked van at 2:00 AM in downtown Portland (for starters, leave the van out of it). Or if arrests are warranted, alternatives to doing that - build a case and find the perp outside of the protest. This is a good example of the difficulty of discussing on this forum in short bursts between work. There are so many facets that me not covering every single aspect of the issue in a response gets labeled as advocating for ignoring crimes.

I still advocate that, they shouldn't have used that method to detain people because of how aggressive it is. Like I said, look at NYC - they clearly had a target, who had clearly been ID'd and was going to be charged. When you have sufficient evidence to make an arrest, I think that grabby van can be warranted. When you don't have sufficient evidence for arrest, maybe strike the grabby van off the list of methods to use.

You said...
(had they) specifically remained defensive around the building they were meant to protect, there’s a good chance this escalation wouldn’t have occurred.

That implies to me that you don't think they should have taken any offensive action whatsoever. I've asked you to clarify and you still have not. Are you suggesting that there were actions of federal officials there that 'caused' the initial protests to turn into riots? That feds were the initiators of aggression?

You say they shouldn't ignore crimes, but then you only complain about their methods. I get that you think the methods of investigation were extreme. We disagree on whether we know enough to draw that conclusion, but that is all as I said... beside the point.

So still... you have declined to address anything I asked or said and instead you keep making your point.

I get your point. Hint... I disagree and you've said nothing that changes my mind, which is why I am not continuing to discuss it.

If you think they shouldn't ignore crimes, then that means that you didn't actually mean that they should be entirely defensive.

That's literally all I asked.

Quote:3) What was the overall objective of the federal presence in Portland? Was it to arrest rioters or protect federal buildings? If the former, then their methods were appropriate as they were able to detain and arrest more people. If the latter, the methods they chose backfired.

I imagine that riot control is a very tough job, and I think this is a great situation where right answers are in short supply, but wrong answers appear to be pretty obvious, pretty quickly.

More debates about opinions.... but this question is why I don't believe that you don't actually think that they should be entirely defensive.... and your binary question seems intended to rule out any answer but your own, which is not a discussion.

I think it pretty clear that like all versions of police, their initial objective is to maintain the peace.

When aggression breaks out, their 'new' objective is to protect the federal facility and federal employees, including themselves. That can be purely defensive, so long as the aggression is not targeting those people or places. It can also include protecting innocent people on their property. As I said, if the violence is limited to the store on the corner... I don't see why they should escalate. That's the local PD's jurisdiction. If the local PD can't or won't help those people, we're in a gray area... 'it depends'.

If the violence DOES target them, like this clearly did... then their 'new' objective likely becomes to quell the aggression, which can be anything from simply locking doors and quiet conversations to tear gas and rubber bullets.

After that, I suspect in addition to returning to #1, that they also now will investigate, detain, arrest and prosecute the aggressors in the initial event.... which happened, and you are uncomfortable with their methods.

That seems rather self-evident to me and is my entire point. It's not a simple 'why are you here' binary question.

Yes, I agree that riot control is a tough job and 'right' answers are in short supply... nobody has remotely suggested that the reaction was ENTIRELY without room for evaluation and Monday Morning QB'ing... I simply think you only know what you know, which is less than those who made those decisions know. I don't care to debate your opinions versus mine.... because neither of us KNOW... we've merely 'heard'.

The only point we seem to agree on is that the protestors stepped over the legal line... and without that, it seems unlikely that anything you're complaining about happens.

(07-30-2020 01:29 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 12:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think there is a simple solution to this.

Retain the police. Just do not hire any white officers. Soon, as older white officers retire or quit, the systemic racism will retire or quit with them. No black people will ever die in police custody. None will ever get questioned for anything, and none will ever get a speeding ticket. All those racist practices will go away.

Why has nobody stepped up to defend this? It answers every objection. It makes the police nonracist. It works as a kind of Affirmative Action, hiring young blacks for jobs their ancestors would not have been allowed to do. it gives black people power.

All this while retaining the duty of the police to stop crime. Maybe when an all black police force is looking for a "white" suspect we will learn how it feels to be stopped for the color of our skins.

what would be the problem?

Because you are trolling.

Trolling is a good excuse for avoiding the obvious implication that an all-black police force would NOT alleviate all the problems the black community says they suffer at the hands of mostly white police forces, therefore the problem is NOT systemic racism.

Back to the subject of agent provocateurs, I have heard from "people" and media sources (Infowars) that the BLM has sent liberals to infiltrate the protests held by right-wing groups and incite violence. I understand they found one such who was affiliated in some way with liberal groups, so that supports that this has been happeningall along. It must take some really good self-discipline for a liberal to infiltrate groups he hates, stand there chanting "blood and soil" and vile things about himself,, and then at the opportune moment throw a molotov cocktail. And of course this is happening at numerous right wing rallies that would otherwise just be peaceful prayer vigils.

sounds silly doesn't it? Now maybe you understand how I feel about your claims.