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

[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.

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

First, they're outside their jurisdiction, and are there without the permission of the local/state government.

Second, at least in Oregon, and probably elsewhere, they're breaching laws requiring them to identify themselves, IIRC.

Third, they're detaining people without cause or charge. These are illegal arrests.

Fourth, they're not identified as law enforcement. In a state where right-wing militias in military gear are a real problem, there is NO WAY for someone being detained by them to know for sure whether they are being abducted by Federal agents, or by random terrorists.

A court might rule in their favor, because the judiciary in the US often favors the police. An American court also once ruled that black people have no rights which a white man is bound to respect. But no, these are not lawful arrests. They're secret police kidnapping dissidents off the streets, and that should not be normalized or treated as lawful.

[Agent Fisher]

First, they're outside their jurisdiction, and are there without the permission of the local/state government.

Second, at least in Oregon, and probably elsewhere, they're breaching laws requiring them to identify themselves, IIRC.

Third, they're detaining people without cause or charge. These are illegal arrests.

Fourth, they're not identified as law enforcement. In a state where right-wing militias in military gear are a real problem, there is NO WAY for someone being detained by them to know for sure whether they are being abducted by Federal agents, or by random terrorists.

1&3: Are they actually limited in their jurisdiction? They are Federal Law Enforcement, from various agencies, working under the command of Department of Homeland Security, and being used to protect Federal Property and arrest people suspected of committing federal crimes. As to detaining without cause, they are detaining people suspected of committing federal crimes such as vandalism on federal property, attempted arsons if they may have thrown incendiary or explosive devices, assault on federal officers such as throwing frozen water bottles, bricks, rocks, or shining lasers into eyes with the intent to disable. In this CNN article they mention 18 people charged for one week's activities, so certainly sounds like people are being charged. Yes, some peopel may be detained, investigated and released without charges. It happens all the time from serious criminal incidents to traffic stops where someone is released with a warning.

2&4: The subject of Identification: There is currently no Federal law requiring agents to identify themselves by name or badge number or agency. This likely stems from using DEA agents in both undercover and then later in uniformed situations when conducting arrests, hence why they'd wear masks and not have name or badge markings, aside from a POLICE across the back of a vest. A new bill has been introduced into the House of Representatives by AOC and another Dem to change the current law.

The agents deployed to Portland though, every picture I've been able to find so far from CNN, NY Times, and other news papers, as well as using the image search of Getty Images for Portland Oregon Protests, shows agents with one or both sleeves marked with an Agency insignia, POLICE marked across their chest, as well as on several a patch with letter and number combinations which are used as identifiers so an Agency can reference who the agent in a picture was.

That being said, the markings should be made more clear for those unfamiliar with Federal Agencies, but to assert that they're unidentified is false.


As to the use of Unmarked vehicles, it is common practice across the United States on local, county, state and federal level to operate unmarked, 'low visibility' vehicles, to avoid alerting suspects that police may be nearby. It's why you have uniformed officers assigned to gang units, fugitive task forces, and crime suppression details driving around in mini-vans. You can get a lot closer in a Dodge Grand Caravan without being spotted than you can in a marked Ford Explorer or Chevy Tahoe.

[Nicholas]

First, they're outside their jurisdiction, and are there without the permission of the local/state government.

They aren't outside their jurisdiction when they are arresting someone for crimes against federal property or agents. And they don't need local permission to make those arrests.

Second, at least in Oregon, and probably elsewhere, they're breaching laws requiring them to identify themselves, IIRC.

The government has consistently said they are identifying themselves both by agency and by "unique identifiers." The government also says they are avoiding names for fear of doxing. Since Portland local police appear to be following the same policy I assume it complies with local law. https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/22/p ... eir-names/

Third, they're detaining people without cause or charge. These are illegal arrests.

The case of Peter O'Shea has gotten widespread publicity. The U.S. Customs and Boarder Patrol has confirmed it detained him on suspicion of "assaulting federal agents or destroying federal property." It seems clear this was a case of mistaken identity on their end and they released him as soon as they realized they had the wrong person. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 470838002/ One mistaken arrest is neither a crime nor a pattern.

Fourth, they're not identified as law enforcement. In a state where right-wing militias in military gear are a real problem, there is NO WAY for someone being detained by them to know for sure whether they are being abducted by Federal agents, or by random terrorists.

As I said above they are identified as law enforcement. The possibility of right wing militias imitating them is a problem, and several people have been charged with doing just that https://www.businessinsider.com/militar ... rol-2020-7. That said the officers are in their assigned uniforms so the question is whether or not the uniform they have been ordered to wear is wise not whether or not it is legal. You cannot reasonably charge government officials with kidnapping for making a lawful arrest while wearing the uniform they have been ordered to wear.

A court might rule in their favor, because the judiciary in the US often favors the police. An American court also once ruled that black people have no rights which a white man is bound to respect. But no, these are not lawful arrests. They're secret police kidnapping dissidents off the streets, and that should not be normalized or treated as lawful.

You are correct that a court decision in favor of something doesn't show that it is right. But one person being arrested in error and released within a few hours doesn't amount to "secret police kidnapping dissidents off the streets." I know they have made many more arrests but if they charged the others with crimes in the courts then that can't be described as "secret police kidnapping dissidents off the streets" either. There are certainly a lot of people in Portland who can justifiably be arrested for trying to destroy a federal courthouse or attacking federal officers.

In sum, I'm still not convinced what the Federal Government is doing in Portland can reasonably be described as a crime.

Nicholas

Edited to add: Agent Fisher said it better then I could. If I had seen his post before I posted I wouldn't have bothered to post this.

[Jub]

You cannot reasonably charge SS members with kidnapping for making a lawful arrest of the Jewish menace while wearing the uniform they have been ordered to wear.

In sum, I'm still not convinced what the Nazi Government is doing in Poland can reasonably be described as a crime.

[Formless]

1&3: Are they actually limited in their jurisdiction? They are Federal Law Enforcement, from various agencies, working under the command of Department of Homeland Security, and being used to protect Federal Property and arrest people suspected of committing federal crimes. As to detaining without cause, they are detaining people suspected of committing federal crimes such as vandalism on federal property, attempted arsons if they may have thrown incendiary or explosive devices, assault on federal officers such as throwing frozen water bottles, bricks, rocks, or shining lasers into eyes with the intent to disable. In this CNN article they mention 18 people charged for one week's activities, so certainly sounds like people are being charged. Yes, some peopel may be detained, investigated and released without charges. It happens all the time from serious criminal incidents to traffic stops where someone is released with a warning.

I'm just going to let LegalEagle (a lawyer) break this down for everybody in case they are confused as to whether or not they are outside their jurisdiction. It is complicated enough I can't fully summarize it, but the Feds are almost certainly in the wrong here, and incidentally CBP's jurisdiction in particular needs to be reigned in just in general.

Basically they have jurisdiction to protect Federal property and enforce Federal law on Federal land, BUT Oregon has a specific law stating that they cannot enforce State law without permission from the State of Oregon and training in the state of Oregon. The laws they appear to be enforcing are state laws, which means they are out of their jurisdiction, and the fact they refuse to leave even after being ordered to by the Governor and state legislature mean they are violating the constitution's fourth article. On top of that, I can't see anywhere on their clothing identifying them as police, which is a further violation of Oregon's laws specifically. This country is, for better or worse, a Republic, which means the Federal government has to respect state constitutions and legislation where it does not contradict Federal law. The lack of a Federal law saying Federal officers have to wear identification is by definition not a contradiction to the state law, so they have to follow that law in Oregon.

Plus, its pretty disturbing just how many officials in the White House that are involved in this are people that have not been confirmed by Congress. Which means that any or all of them could be ejected from their office by the House over this bullshit. The main problem is that Trump will just replace them with people willing to do the same dirty work. In a more Just country, we would put them on trial for corruption, and Trump as well. The problem here is that this country has too few ways of getting rid of an obviously corrupt president.

[Agent Fisher]

1&3: Are they actually limited in their jurisdiction? They are Federal Law Enforcement, from various agencies, working under the command of Department of Homeland Security, and being used to protect Federal Property and arrest people suspected of committing federal crimes. As to detaining without cause, they are detaining people suspected of committing federal crimes such as vandalism on federal property, attempted arsons if they may have thrown incendiary or explosive devices, assault on federal officers such as throwing frozen water bottles, bricks, rocks, or shining lasers into eyes with the intent to disable. In this CNN article they mention 18 people charged for one week's activities, so certainly sounds like people are being charged. Yes, some peopel may be detained, investigated and released without charges. It happens all the time from serious criminal incidents to traffic stops where someone is released with a warning.

I'm just going to let LegalEagle (a lawyer) break this down for everybody in case they are confused as to whether or not they are outside their jurisdiction. It is complicated enough I can't fully summarize it, but the Feds are almost certainly in the wrong here, and incidentally CBP's jurisdiction in particular needs to be reigned in just in general.

Basically they have jurisdiction to protect Federal property and enforce Federal law on Federal land, BUT Oregon has a specific law stating that they cannot enforce State law without permission from the State of Oregon and training in the state of Oregon. The laws they appear to be enforcing are state laws, which means they are out of their jurisdiction, and the fact they refuse to leave even after being ordered to by the Governor and state legislature mean they are violating the constitution's fourth article.

Destruction of Government Property is a federal crime. Tossing rocks, bricks, incendiary and explosive devices at federal buildings is a federal crime.

Assault on Federal Employees is a federal crime. Rocks, bricks, lasers shined in eyes to disable and blind Federal agents. Federal Crime.

There is overlap with state and federal laws, yes, but if they are not arresting and charging them under Oregon State law, but under Federal statutes, then they are not enforcing state laws.

As to the uniforms: Federal agents in Portland. Police marked on their vest, agency patches on sleeves, unique identifier patch above agency patch. Federal Agent in Portland, POLICE patch on front of vest, agency patch right below it. POLICE on vest, agency patch on right sleeve. Agent to the left has agency patch on left sleeve. Both have unique identifier patch on sleeves. Federal Agents, POLICE on chest, agency patches on sleeves. Federal Agent, POLICE on chest.
Federal Agents, POLICE patch visible on back of vest, can't see the front from the angle of picture.


It would be better if it was all Federal Protective Services doing they actual protection of the Federal property and going after the people engaged in criminal activity, but it is a small agency that relies heavily on subcontracting to Private Security Companies for the majority of it's manpower in securing federal buildings and locations. So, instead of trying to have private security guards be the one to stand a riot line, they bring in extra manpower from the agencies that have enough people to spare, hence why you see CBP being deployed.

[Agent Fisher]

I will further clarify my personal position: I feel the Federal agents should be removed, and the protestors allowed to torch the courthouse if they want. Then, until the city and state pay for the repairs, the Federal courthouse in Portland should remain closed and it's business shifted to other locations.

Also, any crack down on actual peaceful protests need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[Formless]

Destruction of Government Property is a federal crime. Tossing rocks, bricks, incendiary and explosive devices at federal buildings is a federal crime.

Assault on Federal Employees is a federal crime. Rocks, bricks, lasers shined in eyes to disable and blind Federal agents. Federal Crime.

There is overlap with state and federal laws, yes, but if they are not arresting and charging them under Oregon State law, but under Federal statutes, then they are not enforcing state laws.

Oh shut up, you stupid apologist. This isn't what the thread is about. No one is saying they have no jurisdiction over the courthouse at all. If you had bothered to watch the video, he goes into great length about jurisdiction and how it applies to Federal property. The issue is that if there is sufficient evidence that the Feds are violating Due Process and the sovereignty of Oregon that the Governor and Legislature have asked them to leave AND the Attorney General of the state has filed suit against them in Federal court, no one should take the Feds word for it that all they are doing is enforcing Federal law. ESPECIALLY from Trump administration, and especially when the main source of controversy are the Snatchers whose activity is alleged to be happening both far away from Federal property and far away from the actual protests and alleged rioting. I say "alleged" because citizens on the ground AND state officials AND the press are all reporting that the ones escalating all the conflicts in Portland at this time are all Federal cops.

Plus, the normal procedure in this country when a state has a law that overlaps with the Federal law is for the person to be arrested under state law. Its only when the person crosses state borders or the crime happened on Federal property that they are arrested under Federal law. And the Feds have specifically said that they are arresting people for vandalism, a state law.

Now its nice to see that the Feds have started wearing appropriate identification at the protests, but in most of those pictures I could not for the life of me make out the word "police," let alone make out which agency they are from. AND the accusations probably predate those photos, meaning the Feds could have whipped those up AFTER being called out for violating Oregon law, which means they still committed a crime in the past. AND they still don't have authorization to gas protestors at a speech made by an elected official of Portland Oregon (the mayor), which they did, harming said elected official personally in the process and taking HIS right to Free Speech away. AND those photos are not of the snatchers, who might still be violating the law, making the photographic evidence you have given insufficient to answer the charges against them. The entire problem is that they are acting in secret, making it hard for local authorities to enforce the state laws regulating Federal activity in Oregon. All they can do is sue to get those guys out of the vans and back to the courthouse where they belong (if not in a state jail cell for kidnapping/false arrest). There is a lot going on here that is uncertain, but what is certain is that right now the State officials have every right to tell them to get the hell out of their city, and to sue for violating the First Amendment of their citizens among many, many other things they are currently suing over. So stop telling me what the Feds have a right to do with their property. That isn't the issue at all.

[Agent Fisher]

I withdraw my arguments and concede on all points.

[Zaune]

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

Because the Federal officials are not following the established legal process for arresting someone, which is enough to get a case thrown out all by itself, and if certain rumours are true they may not even have legitimate powers of arrest in the first place. And Portland's city hall and its environs aren't federal property anyway.

[Nicholas]

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

Because the Federal officials are not following the established legal process for arresting someone, which is enough to get a case thrown out all by itself, and if certain rumours are true they may not even have legitimate powers of arrest in the first place. And Portland's city hall and its environs aren't federal property anyway.

If you read my post you quoted you will find that the case in question would be the charge of an individual federal agent with kidnapping. Failing to follow the "established legal process for arresting someone" is absolutely not going to get that case thrown out. Showing the agent failed to follow that procedure and knew they were failing to follow that procedure is absolutely required for having a chance at making that charge stick.

That your confusing the Philadelphia's DA's proposal to charge federal agents with kidnapping with federal charges being fired against alleged rioters says you have completely lost the thread of this argument.

Nicholas

PS - That they are failing to follow proper procedures for making arrests has been alleged but I haven't seen convincing evidence for it.

[Nicholas]

Oh shut up, you stupid apologist. This isn't what the thread is about. No one is saying they have no jurisdiction over the courthouse at all. If you had bothered to watch the video, he goes into great length about jurisdiction and how it applies to Federal property. The issue is that if there is sufficient evidence that the Feds are violating Due Process and the sovereignty of Oregon that the Governor and Legislature have asked them to leave AND the Attorney General of the state has filed suit against them in Federal court, no one should take the Feds word for it that all they are doing is enforcing Federal law. ESPECIALLY from Trump administration, and especially when the main source of controversy are the Snatchers whose activity is alleged to be happening both far away from Federal property and far away from the actual protests and alleged rioting. I say "alleged" because citizens on the ground AND state officials AND the press are all reporting that the ones escalating all the conflicts in Portland at this time are all Federal cops.

Plus, the normal procedure in this country when a state has a law that overlaps with the Federal law is for the person to be arrested under state law. Its only when the person crosses state borders or the crime happened on Federal property that they are arrested under Federal law. And the Feds have specifically said that they are arresting people for vandalism, a state law.

Now its nice to see that the Feds have started wearing appropriate identification at the protests, but in most of those pictures I could not for the life of me make out the word "police," let alone make out which agency they are from. AND the accusations probably predate those photos, meaning the Feds could have whipped those up AFTER being called out for violating Oregon law, which means they still committed a crime in the past. AND they still don't have authorization to gas protestors at a speech made by an elected official of Portland Oregon (the mayor), which they did, harming said elected official personally in the process and taking HIS right to Free Speech away. AND those photos are not of the snatchers, who might still be violating the law, making the photographic evidence you have given insufficient to answer the charges against them. The entire problem is that they are acting in secret, making it hard for local authorities to enforce the state laws regulating Federal activity in Oregon. All they can do is sue to get those guys out of the vans and back to the courthouse where they belong (if not in a state jail cell for kidnapping/false arrest). There is a lot going on here that is uncertain, but what is certain is that right now the State officials have every right to tell them to get the hell out of their city, and to sue for violating the First Amendment of their citizens among many, many other things they are currently suing over. So stop telling me what the Feds have a right to do with their property. That isn't the issue at all.

Wow! That is a lot of absurd things stuck in one rant.

First, "No one is saying they have no jurisdiction over the courthouse at all." Have you forgotten that there are mobs trying to burn the courthouse down? That behavior is completely incompatible with recognizing the Feds jurisdiction over the courthouse. So there are lots of people on the streets who are saying the Feds have no jurisdiction over the courthouse.

Second, the Feds are wearing appropriate identification now but we should assume they were committing crimes in the past without evidence. No, no no, if they committed crimes the burden of proof is on you to show it. I am not going to accept the argument that the Feds are guilty until proven innocent. If we are using that standard I want you to prove that the protesters aren't being paid by Russia as part of a convoluted scheme to guarantee Trump a second term .

Third, appealing to the normal procedure while there are riots going on is absurd, this isn't normal so what is normal isn't relevant.

Fourth, what the Feds have a right to do in order to protect their property is in fact the core issue. Even the officers you are calling "snachers" are being justified as protecting the courthouse by arresting people who are preparing to attack or had attacked the courthouse. The implication that they are doing more then that (I haven't actually heard anyone directly allege that they are disappearing/murdering people which is what would be required to justify Jub's comparison of the Federal agents in Portland to the SS in Poland) is completely unsupported.

Fifth, no one is disputing the right of Oregon to sue the Feds, the discussion has focused on whether or not the Feds have a legal right to do what they are doing. So the claim about Oregon being able to sue is utterly irreverent to the discussion.

Nicholas

[Elfdart]

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

Go ahead. My kid sister sent it to me on Facebook. I have no idea where she got it.

[Elfdart]

Here is why having a Gestapo is a bad idea:

LINK

White supremacists posing as BLM protesters instigated Richmond riots: Police
Published 7 hours ago on July 27, 2020By Travis Gettys

White supremacists posing as Black Lives Matter protesters instigated riots that broke out over the weekend in Virginia.

Six people were arrested during the unrest, which was billed as a “Richmond Stands With Portland” rally, and law enforcement officials confirmed the violence was sparked by right-wing hate groups, reported WSLS-TV.

“There were white supremacists marching under the banner of Black Lives Matter, an attempt to undermine an otherwise overwhelmingly peaceful movement toward social justice,” Richmond mayor Levar Stoney. “We’ve spoken on many occasions about those who’ve chosen a more violent route to express their discontent and what that does for the overall movement toward social justice.”

Stoney thanked Black Lives Matter protesters for trying to stop the white supremacists from provoking violence and destruction.

There's more at the link. Now in this case neo-Nazis tried to pass themselves off as BLM marchers. But as the photo I posted earlier (and countless others show) their usual outfits are almost identical to the gear worn by Trump's thugs: no ID, no visible badges, no name tags...

How is any citizen supposed to tell the difference? Add to that the fact that many states have passed yahoo laws allowing people to brandish firearms in public and it's only a matter of time before we start having Kent State massacres on a regular basis. No doubt this is what Trump and his followers want.

[loomer]

I'm not going to spend any time engaging with the nonsense apologia being spewed, except to say this: legal =/= moral, and the state of exception is not carte blanche.

[madd0ct0r]

Oh shut up, you stupid apologist. This isn't what the thread is about. No one is saying they have no jurisdiction over the courthouse at all. If you had bothered to watch the video, he goes into great length about jurisdiction and how it applies to Federal property. The issue is that if there is sufficient evidence that the Feds are violating Due Process and the sovereignty of Oregon that the Governor and Legislature have asked them to leave AND the Attorney General of the state has filed suit against them in Federal court, no one should take the Feds word for it that all they are doing is enforcing Federal law. ESPECIALLY from Trump administration, and especially when the main source of controversy are the Snatchers whose activity is alleged to be happening both far away from Federal property and far away from the actual protests and alleged rioting. I say "alleged" because citizens on the ground AND state officials AND the press are all reporting that the ones escalating all the conflicts in Portland at this time are all Federal cops.

Plus, the normal procedure in this country when a state has a law that overlaps with the Federal law is for the person to be arrested under state law. Its only when the person crosses state borders or the crime happened on Federal property that they are arrested under Federal law. And the Feds have specifically said that they are arresting people for vandalism, a state law.

Now its nice to see that the Feds have started wearing appropriate identification at the protests, but in most of those pictures I could not for the life of me make out the word "police," let alone make out which agency they are from. AND the accusations probably predate those photos, meaning the Feds could have whipped those up AFTER being called out for violating Oregon law, which means they still committed a crime in the past. AND they still don't have authorization to gas protestors at a speech made by an elected official of Portland Oregon (the mayor), which they did, harming said elected official personally in the process and taking HIS right to Free Speech away. AND those photos are not of the snatchers, who might still be violating the law, making the photographic evidence you have given insufficient to answer the charges against them. The entire problem is that they are acting in secret, making it hard for local authorities to enforce the state laws regulating Federal activity in Oregon. All they can do is sue to get those guys out of the vans and back to the courthouse where they belong (if not in a state jail cell for kidnapping/false arrest). There is a lot going on here that is uncertain, but what is certain is that right now the State officials have every right to tell them to get the hell out of their city, and to sue for violating the First Amendment of their citizens among many, many other things they are currently suing over. So stop telling me what the Feds have a right to do with their property. That isn't the issue at all.

Wow! That is a lot of absurd things stuck in one rant.

First, "No one is saying they have no jurisdiction over the courthouse at all." Have you forgotten that there are mobs trying to burn the courthouse down? That behavior is completely incompatible with recognizing the Feds jurisdiction over the courthouse. So there are lots of people on the streets who are saying the Feds have no jurisdiction over the courthouse.

Second, the Feds are wearing appropriate identification now but we should assume they were committing crimes in the past without evidence. No, no no, if they committed crimes the burden of proof is on you to show it. I am not going to accept the argument that the Feds are guilty until proven innocent. If we are using that standard I want you to prove that the protesters aren't being paid by Russia as part of a convoluted scheme to guarantee Trump a second term .

Third, appealing to the normal procedure while there are riots going on is absurd, this isn't normal so what is normal isn't relevant.

Fourth, what the Feds have a right to do in order to protect their property is in fact the core issue. Even the officers you are calling "snachers" are being justified as protecting the courthouse by arresting people who are preparing to attack or had attacked the courthouse. The implication that they are doing more then that (I haven't actually heard anyone directly allege that they are disappearing/murdering people which is what would be required to justify Jub's comparison of the Federal agents in Portland to the SS in Poland) is completely unsupported.

Fifth, no one is disputing the right of Oregon to sue the Feds, the discussion has focused on whether or not the Feds have a legal right to do what they are doing. So the claim about Oregon being able to sue is utterly irreverent to the discussion.

Nicholas

Ugh. Not looking to dogpile but that's a lot of weird arguments Nicholas.

1. Formless is transparently talking about this thread. Don't be intentionally obtuse. It makes you look like you can't make better points.

2. There are a lot of photos taken. Trivially easy to find evidence of no police markings. Might be a lot harder to identify the specific officers, but it's the person giving orders who should/will be held responsible
www.insider.com/federal-officers-using- ... 20-7%3famp

3. Protests are entirely normal events for a police department. Riots the same. Has there been a year in the last decade without one? There would be procedures for this. The city officials seem happy and in control. It's almost like the current fed tactics are designed to increase tensions, not actually police the situation.

4. Legal experts such as the Philly da disagree with you. There are limits on who and when and where they can arrest people.


5. Don't be obtuse. If the state is confident it can sue and win, that's a strong signal of what they believe the legal position to be.

[Nicholas]

Ugh. Not looking to dogpile but that's a lot of weird arguments Nicholas.

1. Formless is transparently talking about this thread. Don't be intentionally obtuse. It makes you look like you can't make better points.

2. There are a lot of photos taken. Trivially easy to find evidence of no police markings. Might be a lot harder to identify the specific officers, but it's the person giving orders who should/will be held responsible
www.insider.com/federal-officers-using- ... 20-7%3famp

3. Protests are entirely normal events for a police department. Riots the same. Has there been a year in the last decade without one? There would be procedures for this. The city officials seem happy and in control. It's almost like the current fed tactics are designed to increase tensions, not actually police the situation.

4. Legal experts such as the Philly da disagree with you. There are limits on who and when and where they can arrest people.


5. Don't be obtuse. If the state is confident it can sue and win, that's a strong signal of what they believe the legal position to be.

1) I agree that no one in this thread has said that the Feds have no jurisdiction over the courthouse but I read Formless as saying that he was not disputing the Feds jurisdiction over the courthouse but the Feds ought to leave Portland. I responded that if the Feds leave Portland the protestors are going to loot and burn the courthouse so effectively calling for the Feds to leave Portland is denying their jurisdiction over the courthouse. That may not have been what he meant but I do think it is a perfectly valid response to the suggestion that the Feds should leave.

2) Most pictures I have seen do have police markings but they are very subtle, the risk of confusion is obvious. The uniforms they are wearing are stupid, wrong and should be changed. That doesn't prove they are illegal but I agree there is a plausible case that the markings are so subtle that they don't comply with Oregon law requiring they be so marked.

3) Protests that are so large and violent they loot and burn a police precinct and threaten to loot and burn a Federal Courthouse are not normal. Loomer is right "the state of exception is not carte blanche" but it does justify different responses. The current Fed tactics might be designed to increase tensions, that makes them wrong not illegal.

4&5) For the elected officials in Portland suing the Federal government is a relatively cheap way to signal of their support for the protestors as the election approaches. I'm not willing to take it seriously as representing their opinion of what the law actually says. If they can keep the cases going until after the election it helps them win votes, if the cases are thrown out as frivolous after that no one will care. The Philly DA doesn't even have a case he needs to prosecute all he has done is issued a Press Release saying that if something similar to what is going on in Portland happens in Philly he will charge the federal officers involved with Kidnapping. He is up for reelection this year, issuing the threat looks like a good political move for him. In sum, I think the court cases are mostly political theater intended to win votes not a serious expression of the lawyers opinion of the law.

Nicholas

[Nicholas]

This is good news! It is normal for local police to secure the area around Federal buildings. That Portland will return to that norm is something I am glad to see.

Nicholas

https://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-govern ... d=72054036

Oregon governor announces 'phased withdrawal' of federal officers from Portland

By
Luke Barr
and
Alexander Mallin

After unrest and public outcry over clashes between protesters and law enforcement, there will be a "phased withdrawal" of federal officers from Portland, the Oregon governor announced Wednesday.

"These federal officers have acted as an occupying force, refused accountability, and brought violence and strife to our community. Beginning Thursday, all Customs and Border Protection and ICE officers will leave downtown Portland, and shortly thereafter will begin going home," Gov. Kate Brown said in a statement, adding that the withdrawal agreement came after "my repeated requests."

Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf said in a statement that a joint plan with the governor "includes a robust presence of Oregon State Police in downtown Portland."

"State and local law enforcement will begin securing properties and streets, especially those surrounding federal properties, that have been under nightly attack for the past two months," Wolf said.

The Department of Homeland Security will keep federal law enforcement personnel present in the city "until we are assured that the Hatfield Federal Courthouse and other federal properties will no longer be attacked and that the seat of justice in Portland will remain secure," according to Wolf.

[Nicholas]

It looks like NYC police just got caught on camera doing the exact same type of "snatcher" arrest into an unmarked vehicle that provoked such controversy when Federal officers did it in Portland. I see two possibilities here:

First, the use of unmarked vehicles to make arrests around protests is a routine procedure that has been used for many years by police around the country in order to minimize the risk of violence. When the Feds did it in Portland they were following standard police procedures used nationwide. It became controversial because of either of rampant paranoia regarding President Trump or because of changing cultural norms.

Second, the Feds were doing something new in Portland and a group of NYC cops saw what the Feds were doing on the news and decided on their own initiative to copy it.

My bet is on the first but what do you all think?

Nicholas

https://abcnews.go.com/US/aoc-aclu-dema ... d=72051458

OC, ACLU demand answers after NYC protester arrested and thrown into unmarked van
Fellow protesters said the arrest looked similar to tactics used in Portland.

By
Ella Torres
and
Aaron Katersky
July 29, 2020, 11:17 AM

New York political leaders, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Human Rights Campaign are demanding answers after an 18-year-old protestor was arrested by plainclothes officers and thrown into an unmarked van on Tuesday night.

That protestor, Nikki Stone, was arrested at a demonstration near 2nd Avenue and East 25th Street in Manhattan. Other protesters said they were fighting for Black liberation.

The New York City Police Department said Stone was wanted for damaging police cameras in five separate vandalism incidents in and around City Hall Park. A police official also told ABC News Stone's arrest was conducted in a manner consistent with NYPD warrant squad deployments.

Fellow protesters said the arrest looked more like a kidnapping, reminiscent of a tactic used by federal officers in Portland, Oregon.

After video of the arrest hit social media, the response from politicians and nonprofit organizations was swift.

"Our civil liberties are on brink. This is not a drill," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., wrote on Twitter. "To not protect our rights is to give them away. It is our responsibility to resist authoritarianism."

Carlina Rivera, the councilwoman for the 2nd District of the New York City, where the arrest took place, tweeted that there needs to be an independent review and "an immediate explanation for why an unmarked van full of officers was anywhere near a peaceful protest."

"It's clear that using an unmarked van and plainclothes officers to make an arrest for vandalism (in the middle of a peaceful protest) is a massive overstep. I'm exploring legislation," Rivera later tweeted.

The ACLU called the actions of police "dangerous, abusive, and indefensible," while the Human Rights Campaign said the incident was "deeply troubling."

Stone, held for five hours before being released, was charged with five counts of criminal mischief, four counts of making graffiti and three counts of possession of a graffiti instrument.

NYPD Chief of Detectives Rodney Harrison wrote on Twitter that while police welcome peaceful protesters "damage to NYPD technology that helps keep this city safe will never be tolerated." The cameras, he wrote, are "vital resources which help prevent and solve crimes throughout the city."

Harrison also released video that appears to show Stone vandalizing a police camera overlooking City Hall.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio addressed the arrest in a daily briefing on Wednesday, saying it was "the wrong time and wrong place."

De Blasio said it's been painful to see what is going on in Portland and "anything that even slightly suggests" something similar is happening in New York City is "troubling."

"This," the mayor said, "is not Portland."

While I know must of you don't trust National Review it paraphrases Paul DiGiacomo, president of the New York Detectives Endowment Association, as saying that the arrest was “100 percent by the book” and that warrant-squad detectives “always” conduct their operations in plain clothes.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/the ... ne-arrest/

[Formless]

1) I agree that no one in this thread has said that the Feds have no jurisdiction over the courthouse but I read Formless as saying that he was not disputing the Feds jurisdiction over the courthouse but the Feds ought to leave Portland. I responded that if the Feds leave Portland the protestors are going to loot and burn the courthouse so effectively calling for the Feds to leave Portland is denying their jurisdiction over the courthouse. That may not have been what he meant but I do think it is a perfectly valid response to the suggestion that the Feds should leave.

[...]

3) Protests that are so large and violent they loot and burn a police precinct and threaten to loot and burn a Federal Courthouse are not normal. Loomer is right "the state of exception is not carte blanche" but it does justify different responses. The current Fed tactics might be designed to increase tensions, that makes them wrong not illegal.

Evidence needed, asshole. Portland is a different city from Minneapolis. Before the Feds arrived the level of violence was going DOWN in Portland, according to Portland's own policing authorities. That is why the Oregon authorities asked for the Feds to leave in the first fucking place!

And its no surprise because Trump has repeatedly stated that they were sent to Portland specifically to quell the protests, in violation of Constitutional law. This is all covered in lawsuits currently being filed in DC court by the Wall of Moms and other organizations directed specifically against the acting director of DHS and others in addition to their agencies. They are personally accountable here, or at least should be because of their illegal standing. About that? Their lawsuit specifically alleges that all of his orders since 290 days ago have all been illegal under the Constitution because he has not even been nominated by Trump to the position, let alone confirmed by Congress. ANd he isn't the only one. The lawsuits are currently attempting to get these assholes out of office because they aren't supposed to be doing this job at all on constitutional grounds.

They are literally being ordered to do things by people who not only haven't been elected, they haven't been vouched for by a single goddamn person. Trump prefers it that way because it allows him to put lackeys in office who can't be trusted by anyone.

Also, the reason the Feds are getting out of Portland right now is because a lawsuit by the ACLU succeeded in getting a Temporary Restraining Order against those agencies on behalf of multiple journalists and journalistic agencies that have been illegally assaulted deliberately to intimidate them and take away their First Amendment Right to perform the watchdog function of the Press. Notably, in order to get a restraining order of this sort they had to provide such evidence, circumstantial but still weighty, against the Feds that they have been harmed, that monetary damages are insufficient by definition to make up for a First Amendment violation, and that they will almost certainly win the case in the end. The only reason these assholes would be assaulting people clearly marked as Press is that they don't want to get caught assaulting peaceful protestors. It shows bad faith on their part when they argue that all they are doing is protecting the courthouse, as well as the argument that there has been rioting going on in Portland since they arrived in Portland. Because of this action, they can safely be assumed to be LIARS until proven otherwise. Indeed, the injunction specifically states that any officer caught in violation of the court order is not protected by Qualified Immunity. They will simply be charged as any other criminal. As Leonard French points out in his video on the subject, there hasn't been a restraining order of this sort issued against the Government since Reconstruction (right after the end of the Civil War), and those court orders were BY the Feds against STATE authorities violating civil rights. This is the reverse, which shows just how seriously the Federal Courts are taking the issue. As far as evidence goes, you have no leg to stand on.

Which is why people are calling you an apologist and refusing to take your concern trolling seriously.

[Formless]

[...]I see two possibilities here:

First, the use of unmarked vehicles to make arrests around protests is a routine procedure that has been used for many years by police around the country in order to minimize the risk of violence. When the Feds did it in Portland they were following standard police procedures used nationwide. It became controversial because of either of rampant paranoia regarding President Trump or because of changing cultural norms.

Second, the Feds were doing something new in Portland and a group of NYC cops saw what the Feds were doing on the news and decided on their own initiative to copy it.

My bet is on the first but what do you all think?

Have you any idea how corrupt NYC cops are? If this were standard procedure, you would have heard about these tactics being reported for decades in the US. This is just the NYC police being as corrupt as ever, and taking inspiration from the most vile of sources.

[bilateralrope]

Portland sees peaceful night of protests following withdrawal of federal troops

Thursday night’s protest passed off without major incident or intervention by the police in the absence of federal officers

The withdrawal of federal agents from frontline policing of demonstrations in downtown Portland significantly reduced tensions in the city overnight.

Protesters in support of Black Lives Matter once again rallied near the federal courthouse that became a flashpoint, and the scene of nightly battles amid the swirl of teargas, after Donald Trump dispatched agents to end what he called anarchy in the city after weeks of demonstrations.

But in the absence of the federal officers, Thursday night’s protest passed off without major incident or intervention by the police.

On Wednesday, Oregon’s governor, Kate Brown, agreed with the White House that the state police would take over responsibility for guarding the courthouse after weeks of escalating protests. She said that “Trump’s troops” were behaving like an occupying army in Portland and provoking unrest with heavy-handed tactics.

In contrast, the state troopers did not intervene even when the scale of the protest on Thursday night passed the point, as demonstrators shook the fence around the courthouse, at which in early demonstrations the federal agents generally fired teargas, stun grenades and baton rounds.

In the absence of confrontation, and with the state police remaining largely unseen inside the courthouse, tensions quickly eased. Without the federal forces to draw attention, protest organisers kept the focus on Black Lives Matters and reform of the Portland police.

Some in the crowd worked to avoid trouble by stopping demonstrators from lighting fires and shooting fireworks at the courthouse as they had done on previous nights.
Dan Thomas, an African American man, stood in the street shouting at people not to cause a confrontation with the state police.

“Attacking the federal building is not Black Lives Matter. Leave it alone. You’re playing into Trump’s hands,” he said.

One woman shouted: “Stupid ass white people only here for their own reasons.”

Despite the concerns of many in the crowd that the Trump administration would not fulfil the agreement to pull back the federal officers, none were seen on the streets.
Trump tweeted that the agents would remain in Portland until Brown brings the protests led by “anarchists and agitators” under control.

“If she can’t do it, the Federal Government will do it for her. We will not be leaving until there is safety!” Trump wrote.

Brown and Portland’s mayor, Ted Wheeler, said the state and city police forces would seek to de-escalate protests rather than confront demonstrators.

Wheeler, said that the city’s police, state troopers and county sheriff’s office had agreed not to use teargas except where there was a threat to life or of serious injury.
“The federal officers are using CS gas broadly, indiscriminately and nightly,” he said. “That is why it is escalating the behaviour we’re seeing on the streets rather than de-escalating it, and that’s why this must come to an end.”

Wheeler apologised for the Portland police using teargas in late May and June to break up Black Lives Matter protests.

“It should never have happened,” he said.

Earlier in the day, Portland police cleared the two parks in front of the courthouse and county jail that served as a staging ground for the protests. Officers then sealed the parks off and marked them as closed. But that appeared strangely provocative and difficult to enforce.

When a few protesters tore down the yellow police tape, and began chanting: “Whose park? Our park?”, the Portland city officers quietly left the park and were not seen again for the rest of the evening.

I'm guessing this is exactly the result that Trump didn't want.

[whackadoodle]

[...]I see two possibilities here:

First, the use of unmarked vehicles to make arrests around protests is a routine procedure that has been used for many years by police around the country in order to minimize the risk of violence. When the Feds did it in Portland they were following standard police procedures used nationwide. It became controversial because of either of rampant paranoia regarding President Trump or because of changing cultural norms.

Second, the Feds were doing something new in Portland and a group of NYC cops saw what the Feds were doing on the news and decided on their own initiative to copy it.

My bet is on the first but what do you all think?

Have you any idea how corrupt NYC cops are? If this were standard procedure, you would have heard about these tactics being reported for decades in the US. This is just the NYC police being as corrupt as ever, and taking inspiration from the most vile of sources.

Why unmarked vehicles? This is why:


Why are they hiding their identities? This is why:

[The Romulan Republic]

While I have no problem with rioters torching secret police vans, I do have a really big problem with that last post.

Families should not be targeted for the crimes of their relations, and the poster makes it VERY clear what the true purpose of doxing is, and what they are inciting- vigilante attacks on civilians.

What that piece of shit is advocating would be a war crime even if we were in a state of full civil war. Moreover, judging people for their blood is what the Trumpers do. Its what Nazis do. I don't do "both sides" often, but that person is every bit as vile as the people who's families she wants to target.

Fuck that person. They should be in the same prison as Trump and his secret police goons.

[Agent Sorchus]

Why unmarked vehicles? This is why:
Snip pic
Why are they hiding their identities? This is why:
Snip pic

The use of unmarked vehicles is relevant in portland for 2 reasons.

1 The judge in the case about the federal police assaulting journlists found that the Federal police were not in Portland to enforce protection of Federal property but that per the statements by the Director of homeland security they were present to violate first amendment protections of legit protesters/ in theory enforcing state law.

2 If they were then attempting to enforce state law they are required to follow Oregon law and be in marked vehicles and carry ID for both agency and individual accountability.

If 1 is true (and the federal court has already found it to be in a priliminary injuction) then the Feds would have to follow the laws per 2. It is irrelevant and a strawman to discuse actions of state police in a different state (NY) as being equivalent of the state of oregon law in regards to the actions of Federal police.