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

[Gandalf]

Isn't the more likely interpretation of that tweet that it's about holding masked government agents accountable?

[Ralin]

Isn't the more likely interpretation of that tweet that it's about holding masked government agents accountable?

And make sure their families have the chance to denounce them.

[Zaune]

Isn't the more likely interpretation of that tweet that it's about holding masked government agents accountable?

Sarah Palin probably didn't intend for someone to take "Don't retreat, reload!" literally either, and look how that ended.

Although if anyone here believes that pledging to abstain from targeting noncombatants under any and all circumstances will discourage the militiabros, you clearly don't have much experience dealing with bullies. It's more likely to embolden them, because then they don't have to worry about retaliation.

[The Romulan Republic]

Isn't the more likely interpretation of that tweet that it's about holding masked government agents accountable?

Sarah Palin probably didn't intend for someone to take "Don't retreat, reload!" literally either, and look how that ended.

Although if anyone here believes that pledging to abstain from targeting noncombatants under any and all circumstances will discourage the militiabros, you clearly don't have much experience dealing with bullies. It's more likely to embolden them, because then they don't have to worry about retaliation.

Its not about discouraging them. Its about not wanting to see innocent people die, and its about not wanting to see my side become like the people we're fighting.

Even if we were actually fighting a full-scale civil war right now, targeting the families of government agents would be a war crime. And yes, some people would probably do it regardless, because war brings out the worst in people and society, and that's why it should be avoided if possible. But it would still be a fucking war crime, and it would be no less a war crime because "your side" did it than because Trump or ISIS or the literal Nazis in WWII did it.

I'm not interested in the arguments of people who condemn Trump's atrocities while condoning atrocities in kind. "Its okay when we do it" is how the Republican Party ended up where it is now.

[Zaune]

I'm not saying it's okay when we do it. I'm saying that the only thing I can think of that might deter them from doing it is the threat of retaliation in kind.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not saying it's okay when we do it. I'm saying that the only thing I can think of that might deter them from doing it is the threat of retaliation in kind.

Yeah, I know. But I don't think it would deter them. I don't think anything would deter the true crazies and fanatics. They'd just be twice as brutal back.

[madd0ct0r]

Trr is right in both his posts.

It's a poor way to escalate, doesn't help progressive goals, hits the protective rage button on the right and is basically conceeding the political battlefield to adopt guerilla tactics.

Now getting their families to denounce them is a very powerful gut punch where it is successful. It is counterproductive if it promotes a siege mentality and further divides them as a clan from the society they are assaulting.

They have put their faith in the system, so it is that system that should be brought to heel and be used to punish the order givers.

[Elfdart]

Isn't the more likely interpretation of that tweet that it's about holding masked government agents accountable?

Oh come on -next you'll be skeptical of the CONCRETE MILKSHAKES OMG! stories.

The twitterer in question could have made clear that they meant public shaming and/or legal action (neither of which are really possible against masked Gestapo men). But it doesn't matter. As Rep. Jayapal showed earlier this week, Trump and Barr are hell bent on siccing their thugs on lefty demonstrators while letting armed Nazis storm a state capitol. So dumb tweet or no dumb tweet -people will still make the secret police out to be the aggrieved party.

[whackadoodle]

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.

OK.
1. First, Molotovs are not 1st Amendment protected speech any more than using a pistol to whack a judge is protected under the 2nd. Nor are bundled firework-based IEDs. The journalists were wrong detained - and then released - , but I'll get to that in a moment.

2. Only Federal law was involved. Everyone arrested was picked up for assaulting or being present at the assault of the Federal courthouse.

3. "Wait! People were picked up blocks away from the courthouse! How is that legal?" Well, I can only guess, but probably everyone detained had a spy in their pocket - their smart phone. I will take any bets that the Feds had a Stinger device active at the courthouse? The Feds knew who were at the BBQ.

Even miles away, the little snitch in your pocket can get you detained for its presence at the scene of a crime, if not charged.

Keep that in mind, and plan accordingly.

[madd0ct0r]

The journalists were wrong detained - and then released - , but I'll get to that in a moment.

-you forgot to.

I note a whole bunch of the people snatched were eventually released as they had no evidence. I don't think the qualification was based on anything more then "wearing black like those antifa types"

[Knife]

OK.
1. First, Molotovs are not 1st Amendment protected speech any more than using a pistol to whack a judge is protected under the 2nd. Nor are bundled firework-based IEDs. The journalists were wrong detained - and then released - , but I'll get to that in a moment.

I don't believe them. Proof of this weapons cache? Just because these thugs say their cops, I've still not seen any ID showing they are. And just because these thugs said they found IED's and guns, doesn't mean there were. Why do you believe them?

2. Only Federal law was involved. Everyone arrested was picked up for assaulting or being present at the assault of the Federal courthouse.

I agree they were 'picked up' but were they arrested? If so, were their Miranda rights read to them? If they were arrested, but not at the site of the crime with probable cause, then where is the warrant? What Judge signed it?

3. "Wait! People were picked up blocks away from the courthouse! How is that legal?" Well, I can only guess, but probably everyone detained had a spy in their pocket - their smart phone. I will take any bets that the Feds had a Stinger device active at the courthouse? The Feds knew who were at the BBQ.

Even miles away, the little snitch in your pocket can get you detained for its presence at the scene of a crime, if not charged.

Keep that in mind, and plan accordingly.

So of course they went and got a warrant then? So who signed it? Were they given their Miranda rights?

[whackadoodle]

Isn't the more likely interpretation of that tweet that it's about holding masked government agents accountable?

And make sure their families have the chance to denounce them.

What kind of screwed up family "raised" you? Do you value strangers more than kin?

[Formless]

Isn't the more likely interpretation of that tweet that it's about holding masked government agents accountable?

And make sure their families have the chance to denounce them.

What kind of screwed up family "raised" you? Do you value strangers more than kin?

Oh, there is at least one family member in my extended family who I and everyone else in the family freely label as a psychopath because they've victimized other members of the family. Now are you going to continue trolling two day old posts, or are you going to respond to the two different posts calling out you for bullshitting TODAY? You have been challenged to present evidence of claims, so put up or shut the fuck up, asshole.

[Gandalf]

Isn't the more likely interpretation of that tweet that it's about holding masked government agents accountable?

And make sure their families have the chance to denounce them.

What kind of screwed up family "raised" you? Do you value strangers more than kin?

Is there a variable in that question for the participation of said kin in police state activities?

[Ziggy Stardust]

3. "Wait! People were picked up blocks away from the courthouse! How is that legal?" Well, I can only guess, <snip>

Snipped everything else in your post, because honestly it's all irrelevant. This statement here is the core of the problem with your argument.

"You can only guess", and all of your guesses are STARTING with the assumption that the authorities acted both legally and responsibly, and you are searching for explanations of their actions under that assumption (with zero evidence, natch). You aren't proving they acted that way, you are assuming it, and twisting the facts to conform to that assumption.

Not only is this faulty reasoning, but it shows you are horribly out of touch with current events. And, hell, not-so-current events too, given we've had decades of evidence of how corrupt and rotten American policing is.

[whackadoodle]

3. "Wait! People were picked up blocks away from the courthouse! How is that legal?" Well, I can only guess, <snip>

Snipped everything else in your post, because honestly it's all irrelevant. This statement here is the core of the problem with your argument.

"You can only guess", and all of your guesses are STARTING with the assumption that the authorities acted both legally and responsibly, and you are searching for explanations of their actions under that assumption (with zero evidence, natch). You aren't proving they acted that way, you are assuming it, and twisting the facts to conform to that assumption.

Not only is this faulty reasoning, but it shows you are horribly out of touch with current events. And, hell, not-so-current events too, given we've had decades of evidence of how corrupt and rotten American policing is.

Not only is this faulty reasoning, but it shows you are horribly out of touch with current events.

Hmm. I guess we'll hopefully see. I do know more than a fair number of lawyers - including those in black dresses. They were sympathetic with the protesters; that is,until the assault on the courthouse. The officers almost certainly had warrants.

Unlike you, I've actually offered USEFUL advice to any protestors who my be reading this site. Leave the FUCKING smart-spy at home.

What have you offered, other than, well, nada?

[whackadoodle]

And make sure their families have the chance to denounce them.

What kind of screwed up family "raised" you? Do you value strangers more than kin?

Is there a variable in that question for the participation of said kin in police state activities?

Well, family is family. It's an uncalculated logarithm. You just know when to just send them Chili Ramen in prison when you know. It varies for each family.

I'm not going to denounce close family for any political belief. Distance, probably. Abandon, no.

[whackadoodle]

OK.
1. First, Molotovs are not 1st Amendment protected speech any more than using a pistol to whack a judge is protected under the 2nd. Nor are bundled firework-based IEDs. The journalists were wrong detained - and then released - , but I'll get to that in a moment.

I don't believe them. Proof of this weapons cache? Just because these thugs say their cops, I've still not seen any ID showing they are. And just because these thugs said they found IED's and guns, doesn't mean there were. Why do you believe them?

2. Only Federal law was involved. Everyone arrested was picked up for assaulting or being present at the assault of the Federal courthouse.

I agree they were 'picked up' but were they arrested? If so, were their Miranda rights read to them? If they were arrested, but not at the site of the crime with probable cause, then where is the warrant? What Judge signed it?

3. "Wait! People were picked up blocks away from the courthouse! How is that legal?" Well, I can only guess, but probably everyone detained had a spy in their pocket - their smart phone. I will take any bets that the Feds had a Stinger device active at the courthouse? The Feds knew who were at the BBQ.

Even miles away, the little snitch in your pocket can get you detained for its presence at the scene of a crime, if not charged.

Keep that in mind, and plan accordingly.

So of course they went and got a warrant then? So who signed it? Were they given their Miranda rights?

Warrant? Do yo think that is actually hard to get? OK.

There are never law-enforcement departments that enact no-knock warrants on old information and flash-bang kids. Warrants are very easy to get.

[whackadoodle]

And make sure their families have the chance to denounce them.

Boo-hoo. Boo-hoo-hoo. Every family has that guy. They typically disown him, thus no longer family.

What kind of screwed up family "raised" you? Do you value strangers more than kin?

Oh, there is at least one family member in my extended family who I and everyone else in the family freely label as a psychopath because they've victimized other members of the family. Now are you going to continue trolling two day old posts, or are you going to respond to the two different posts calling out you for bullshitting TODAY? You have been challenged to present evidence of claims, so put up or shut the fuck up, asshole.

Well, I've put up. I'll shut up, as I've done in the past. As to the timeline; well, I have a job, and a family. A life. I can't spend very much time online.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hmm. I guess we'll hopefully see. I do know more than a fair number of lawyers - including those in black dresses. They were sympathetic with the protesters; that is,until the assault on the courthouse. The officers almost certainly had warrants.

Did you even read my post? Or are you just flailing around wildly in a desperate attempt to understand what the point was? Because this response is gibberish. I mean, I would like to honestly know whether you ignored my point deliberately or if you are legitimately just too stupid to understand what I was saying. Screaming "BUT I'VE MET A LAWYER" is basically just Tourette's syndrome at this point, it has so little to do with anything.

Unlike you, I've actually offered USEFUL advice to any protestors who my be reading this site. Leave the FUCKING smart-spy at home.

What have you offered, other than, well, nada?

Oh, yeah, you are such a hero, burying one helpful piece of advice (that has already been widely circulated for months by just about every advocacy group supporting these protests, anyway, though I'm sure you think you're clever enough to have thought of it first) in the middle of all of your vague drivel.

I have actually offered material and substantive support for protests in my local area. Which is doing a lot more than what you are doing, which amounts to greedily guzzling cop cock while flipping off anyone who DARES suggest that maybe the cops aren't paragons of virtue.

[Gandalf]

Well, family is family. It's an uncalculated logarithm. You just know when to just send them Chili Ramen in prison when you know. It varies for each family.

I'm not going to denounce close family for any political belief. Distance, probably. Abandon, no.

Quite something to equate engaging in police state suppression with having a "political belief."

Genetic relations need not determine any sort of loyalties.

[Batman]

I'd argue that 'supporting' police state suppression pretty much 'is', 'being involved in it' goes beyond that and 'whatever' those families may have done, I doubt they dragged protesters into unmarked vans.

[whackadoodle]

Hmm. I guess we'll hopefully see. I do know more than a fair number of lawyers - including those in black dresses. They were sympathetic with the protesters; that is,until the assault on the courthouse. The officers almost certainly had warrants.

Did you even read my post? Or are you just flailing around wildly in a desperate attempt to understand what the point was? Because this response is gibberish. I mean, I would like to honestly know whether you ignored my point deliberately or if you are legitimately just too stupid to understand what I was saying. Screaming "BUT I'VE MET A LAWYER" is basically just Tourette's syndrome at this point, it has so little to do with anything.

Unlike you, I've actually offered USEFUL advice to any protestors who my be reading this site. Leave the FUCKING smart-spy at home.

What have you offered, other than, well, nada?

Oh, yeah, you are such a hero, burying one helpful piece of advice (that has already been widely circulated for months by just about every advocacy group supporting these protests, anyway, though I'm sure you think you're clever enough to have thought of it first) in the middle of all of your vague drivel.

I have actually offered material and substantive support for protests in my local area. Which is doing a lot more than what you are doing, which amounts to greedily guzzling cop cock while flipping off anyone who DARES suggest that maybe the cops aren't paragons of virtue.

And, yet, most of the protesters still keep them turned on, non-Faraday caged, in their pocket. Guess the message was lost.

I explained why the Feds were probably using the tactics that they were. That's it. Anything else is you stated is likely due to preconceived notions.

Me think of it first? No, its obvious, but there are a whole HELL of a lot of smartphone there, based on the fact that some of the photos put online are geotagged. Also, as to first, looks like NOPE. The Intercept.

So, fallatio is an insult here, now?

Also, why do you assume I've taken a side? I haven't, but something about me must piss you off, personally.

Hint: I'm not a proxy for anyone or anything here.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I explained why the Feds were probably using the tactics that they were. That's it. Anything else is you stated is likely due to preconceived notions.

No, you explicitly started with the assumption that the Feds were acting legally and appropriately and the protesters were in the wrong, and then tried to come up with an explanation of the facts that fit that assumption. Which is a logical fallacy. The fact that you keep screeching about protesters having smartphones on them as if that somehow excuses federal law enforcement acting like paramilitary thugs is exactly the problem, fuckwit.

Also, why do you assume I've taken a side? I haven't, but something about me must piss you off, personally.

Hint: I'm not a proxy for anyone or anything here.

You have taken a side. All you've done in this thread is talk about how the protesters are stupid and wrong and how the actions of the authorities are unassailable. If you were ACTUALLY interested in a discussion, you would have actually responded to any of my points (or, for that matter, the points raised by other people in this thread). Instead you completely ignored the entire point of my post to whine about protesters using cell phones, which has fuck all to do with anything I was talking about.

It's possible you are literally just too stupid to understand what I'm saying, but considering you are following the troll playbook to a T I am forced to assume that's your goal. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and all that. If you feel like that's a misrepresentation of your position, maybe you should try actually making a coherent point instead of spewing out more of this unfocused drivel?

[Knife]

OK.
1. First, Molotovs are not 1st Amendment protected speech any more than using a pistol to whack a judge is protected under the 2nd. Nor are bundled firework-based IEDs. The journalists were wrong detained - and then released - , but I'll get to that in a moment.

I don't believe them. Proof of this weapons cache? Just because these thugs say their cops, I've still not seen any ID showing they are. And just because these thugs said they found IED's and guns, doesn't mean there were. Why do you believe them?

2. Only Federal law was involved. Everyone arrested was picked up for assaulting or being present at the assault of the Federal courthouse.

I agree they were 'picked up' but were they arrested? If so, were their Miranda rights read to them? If they were arrested, but not at the site of the crime with probable cause, then where is the warrant? What Judge signed it?

3. "Wait! People were picked up blocks away from the courthouse! How is that legal?" Well, I can only guess, but probably everyone detained had a spy in their pocket - their smart phone. I will take any bets that the Feds had a Stinger device active at the courthouse? The Feds knew who were at the BBQ.

Even miles away, the little snitch in your pocket can get you detained for its presence at the scene of a crime, if not charged.

Keep that in mind, and plan accordingly.

So of course they went and got a warrant then? So who signed it? Were they given their Miranda rights?

Warrant? Do yo think that is actually hard to get? OK.

There are never law-enforcement departments that enact no-knock warrants on old information and flash-bang kids. Warrants are very easy to get.

Are you saying the Feds got no knock/rendition warrants for those protesters they kidnapped off the street?