Federal Law Enforcement Use Unmarked Vehicles To Grab Protesters Off Portland Streets

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Wow TRR, you are an idiot on the military front, Trump's approval ratings within the military has been taking hits since he was in office, with December of last year having it be 50/50... and it is likely at less than 40% right now...

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Please post evidence of that, GAF. From what I can see in the news and on social media, other than the top brass the military seems to be pretty okay with how things are developing.

[Gandalf]

Also, of those agencies cited, how many are military? I know Coast Guard is, but the others I thought were more law enforcement.

[The Romulan Republic]

Please post evidence of that, GAF. From what I can see in the news and on social media, other than the top brass the military seems to be pretty okay with how things are developing.

A poll was taken showing the military evenly split on impeachment near the start of this year (+1% for impeachment IIRC), and its well known that most of the officers are anti-Trump. Its likely that his support has eroded further since then, as it has everywhere, though I do not know of any hard numbers to back that up.

Of course, I never disputed any of this, but the military being anti-Trump is not the same as the military being willing to back an armed overthrow of Trump while he is still, in the eyes of the law, the legitimate President- which was my concern. So GAF's calling me an idiot and mocking my supposed ignorance (while providing no evidence for his claim) is just yet another (relatively minor) round in this board's long history of attacking me as deflection tactic.

[Ralin]

Also, of those agencies cited, how many are military? I know Coast Guard is, but the others I thought were more law enforcement.

If I remember right the Coast Guard has an odd status where sometimes they're military and sometimes they aren't depending on current events. I think it came up in one of Wong's hate mail exchanges back in the day.

[The Romulan Republic]

Wait, so does that mean deploying Coast Guard as part of his secret police is a Posse Comitatus violation or not?

[Rogue 9]

The Coast Guard's status is weird; it operates under the authority of Homeland Security in peacetime but can be transferred to the Department of the Navy by the President (using his commander in chief authority) or Congress (if they declare a war). Also, the Coast Guard has law enforcement authority and is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act. They are out of their jurisdiction either way, though.

[Gandalf]

Wow. I did not know all of that. Cheers all.

[madd0ct0r]

If the car is unmarked and the agents unclear, are you entitled to 'stand your ground'?

[Ralin]

If the car is unmarked and the agents unclear, are you entitled to 'stand your ground'?

Nope. Self defense laws apparently don't apply to no-knock raids. Why would they apply here?

[Khaat]

No-knock raids include a warrant (signed by a judge), not just "(im)probable cause" snatchings. Problem being: these unmarked cars are filled with unmarked yahoos who *want* to shoot you, and are better armed.
Doubtless the middle-management who let this happen has a back-up plan to vilify anyone who might choose to defend themselves from this anonymous abduction program. Or like the rest of the Trump Administration, will try to find one *after the fact* (little use to the folks they leave to bleed out on the street while they high-five each other, or more directly execute with a knee on the neck).
[edit typo]

[Ralin]

No-knock raids include a warrant (signed by a judge), not just "(im)probable cause" snatchings. Problem being: these unmarked cars are filled with unmarked yahoos who *want* to shoot you, and are better armed.

No-knock raids are carried out by cops. You're kidding yourself if you think that the bit about having a warrant signed by a judge is the deciding factor in whether it's legal to defend yourself against one.

[Formless]

If the car is unmarked and the agents unclear, are you entitled to 'stand your ground'?

The lawsuit filed by the Attorney General of Oregon specifically states that it might, noting that Oregon has a problem with militia assholes who plausibly would do the same kind of kidnapping stunts under the false cover of law, and that this is a problem for Oregon law enforcement because while no such incident has yet happened, they don't want to deal with the inevitable "Federal agent killed (in self defense)" situation. They also note that under Oregon law the police have to identify their agency, and that just because they are Federal Agents doesn't mean they are except from this law while operating in the state of Oregon. Basically the lawsuit states that the State of Oregon's soverignty is being violated right now, which means that just as Rogue 9 predicted upthread, Article 4 is being invoked to try and stop this crime against the people. Its a slam dunk case, the main problem is getting an injunction and getting it enforced.

[Elfdart]

If the car is unmarked and the agents unclear, are you entitled to 'stand your ground'?

Possibly, if you're white. The fact that Il Douchebag's thugs are indistinguishable from the latest batches of neo-Nazis would make a Self Defense/Stand Your Ground case pretty easy:

[Khaat]

No-knock raids include a warrant (signed by a judge), not just "(im)probable cause" snatchings. Problem being: these unmarked cars are filled with unmarked yahoos who *want* to shoot you, and are better armed.

No-knock raids are carried out by cops. You're kidding yourself if you think that the bit about having a warrant signed by a judge is the deciding factor in whether it's legal to defend yourself against one.

You misunderstand my position: no-knock raids are approved in advance by a judge, after satisfying someone in a position of authority that there's some "there" there. There is a legal trail of "these people provided this evidence", and then action in compliance with the law.
Anonymously abducting "someone in all black, walking down the street" is a) a "fishing expedition" AND b) intimidation and state-sponsored terrorism under the guise of "law and order" (in direct contradiction of the law and order). These abductions aren't even being given the legitimacy of a paper trail when those abducted were officially "never arrested or detained" by Federal Officers, while factually they *were kidnapped*. If these abductions officially "never happened", the Federals involved can't then claim they were legally acting in an official capacity *after the fact*.
But as I said, none of that helps those they would kill for defending themselves, in exercising these extra-judicial actions.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah. The main issue with physically resisting federal agents is not whether a legal loophole permits it, but that the federal government has way more force at their disposal than any civilian attempting to resist them, meaning that said resistance will be at best ineffective, and at worst end with the resistor getting shot.

[madd0ct0r]

I'm actually thinking cans of expanding builders foam on a ripcord, and just start spraying yourself. It'd be a brave idiot to drag you into a small van with them then.
Same for cuffing yourself to something rather then let them take you. Would need a witness streaming it to make sure they don't get sillier.


Course, they'd probably shoot you for weilding a chemical weapon.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Philadelphia DA appears to be standing his ground, and warning that Federal agents who seize people in Philadelphia will be arrested and prosecuted for kidnapping.

First Degree Kidnapping in Pennsylvania is defined as follows:

https://thefishmanfirm.com/kidnapping-l ... nsylvania/

The removal or confinement…accomplished by force, threat or deception, or, in the case of an incapacitated person, if it is accomplished without the consent of a parent, guardian or other person responsible for general supervision of his welfare.

The removal or confinement …accomplished by force, threat or deception, or, in the case of a person under 14 years of age, if it is accomplished without consent of a parent, guardian or other person responsible for general supervision of his welfare.

It carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a 25,000 dollar fine.

The DA isn't fucking around here.

[Majin Gojira]

The Philadelphia DA appears to be standing his ground, and warning that Federal agents who seize people in Philadelphia will be arrested and prosecuted for kidnapping.

First Degree Kidnapping in Pennsylvania is defined as follows:

https://thefishmanfirm.com/kidnapping-l ... nsylvania/

The removal or confinement…accomplished by force, threat or deception, or, in the case of an incapacitated person, if it is accomplished without the consent of a parent, guardian or other person responsible for general supervision of his welfare.

The removal or confinement …accomplished by force, threat or deception, or, in the case of a person under 14 years of age, if it is accomplished without consent of a parent, guardian or other person responsible for general supervision of his welfare.

It carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a 25,000 dollar fine.

The DA isn't fucking around here.

Well, after what happened in Fishtown near Philly, I'm not surprised.

[PainRack]

If the car is unmarked and the agents unclear, are you entitled to 'stand your ground'?

Possibly, if you're white. The fact that Il Douchebag's thugs are indistinguishable from the latest batches of neo-Nazis would make a Self Defense/Stand Your Ground case pretty easy:

Thanks. Can I borrow this pic for an argument elsewhere ?

[Nicholas]

The Philadelphia DA appears to be standing his ground, and warning that Federal agents who seize people in Philadelphia will be arrested and prosecuted for kidnapping.

First Degree Kidnapping in Pennsylvania is defined as follows:

https://thefishmanfirm.com/kidnapping-l ... nsylvania/

The removal or confinement…accomplished by force, threat or deception, or, in the case of an incapacitated person, if it is accomplished without the consent of a parent, guardian or other person responsible for general supervision of his welfare.

The removal or confinement …accomplished by force, threat or deception, or, in the case of a person under 14 years of age, if it is accomplished without consent of a parent, guardian or other person responsible for general supervision of his welfare.

It carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a 25,000 dollar fine.

The DA isn't fucking around here.

If this actually gets to trial I expect the Philly DA to lose and lose badly. The Feds do have the right to arrest people who commit crimes on or against Federal property even if they are no longer on Federal property and the Feds do not need the states permission to make those arrests. The markings on vehicles (or lack there of) and the uniforms the Feds are wearing or stylistic issues that will have no impact on the legality of the arrest.

Nicholas

[Majin Gojira]

The Philadelphia DA appears to be standing his ground, and warning that Federal agents who seize people in Philadelphia will be arrested and prosecuted for kidnapping.

First Degree Kidnapping in Pennsylvania is defined as follows:

https://thefishmanfirm.com/kidnapping-l ... nsylvania/

The removal or confinement…accomplished by force, threat or deception, or, in the case of an incapacitated person, if it is accomplished without the consent of a parent, guardian or other person responsible for general supervision of his welfare.

The removal or confinement …accomplished by force, threat or deception, or, in the case of a person under 14 years of age, if it is accomplished without consent of a parent, guardian or other person responsible for general supervision of his welfare.

It carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a 25,000 dollar fine.

The DA isn't fucking around here.

If this actually gets to trial I expect the Philly DA to lose and lose badly. The Feds do have the right to arrest people who commit crimes on or against Federal property even if they are no longer on Federal property and the Feds do not need the states permission to make those arrests. The markings on vehicles (or lack there of) and the uniforms the Feds are wearing or stylistic issues that will have no impact on the legality of the arrest.

Nicholas

From what I understand, it's not an issue of if they can arrest people, it's how they are going about it. In other words, breach of protocol (which, Ironically, would get the case the feds bring up thrown out "On a technicality").

That the DA's willing to elevate breach of protocol to a further offense is definitely an upping of the stakes.

[Zaune]

From what I understand, it's not an issue of if they can arrest people, it's how they are going about it. In other words, breach of protocol (which, Ironically, would get the case the feds bring up thrown out "On a technicality").

That the DA's willing to elevate breach of protocol to a further offense is definitely an upping of the stakes.

It also leaves the Trump administration with a choice between admitting this was a stupid idea and backing down, fighting a court case that they cannot possibly win and looking foolish, or ordering their snatch squads to open fire on state or local police if they interfere.

[The Romulan Republic]

From what I understand, it's not an issue of if they can arrest people, it's how they are going about it. In other words, breach of protocol (which, Ironically, would get the case the feds bring up thrown out "On a technicality").

That the DA's willing to elevate breach of protocol to a further offense is definitely an upping of the stakes.

It also leaves the Trump administration with a choice between admitting this was a stupid idea and backing down, fighting a court case that they cannot possibly win and looking foolish, or ordering their snatch squads to open fire on state or local police if they interfere.

The problem is, its probably only a matter of time before Trump picks option three, at which point state and local governments have a much more binary choice: fight a civil war, or capitulate to fascism.

[Nicholas]

From what I understand, it's not an issue of if they can arrest people, it's how they are going about it. In other words, breach of protocol (which, Ironically, would get the case the feds bring up thrown out "On a technicality").

That the DA's willing to elevate breach of protocol to a further offense is definitely an upping of the stakes.

It also leaves the Trump administration with a choice between admitting this was a stupid idea and backing down, fighting a court case that they cannot possibly win and looking foolish, or ordering their snatch squads to open fire on state or local police if they interfere.

What makes you think that the Trump Administration can't win this court case? If the DA actually charges with kidnapping I expect the DA to lose and lose badly and lose quickly. Nothing I have seen anywhere indicates that these arrests are not lawful. They may be unwise they may be a violation of customary procedures between local and Federal officials but the Feds can arrest people for committing crimes on or against federal property without local consent. So the arrests are lawful and the kidnapping charges will fail.

Why do you disagree with this?

Nicholas