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

[whackadoodle]

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?



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?



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?

No, because a warrant isn't needed if you are suspected of a crime and are on public property. No difference between this and dealing drugs from domicile and dealing drugs from a street corner.

[whackadoodle]

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?

Stupid? Wrong? Hmm.

Unassailable actions? Really?

No. I'm simply a realist, King Canute.

[Knife]

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?

No, because a warrant isn't needed if you are suspected of a crime and are on public property. No difference between this and dealing drugs from domicile and dealing drugs from a street corner.

So people walking the street at night need to worry about being grabbed and stuffed in a van? By people claiming to be federal law enforcement but without ID,badges, or warrants?

[whackadoodle]

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

No, because a warrant isn't needed if you are suspected of a crime and are on public property. No difference between this and dealing drugs from domicile and dealing drugs from a street corner.

So people walking the street at night need to worry about being grabbed and stuffed in a van? By people claiming to be federal law enforcement but without ID,badges, or warrants?

Umm, somehow, the post before the last on of mine got lost. Warrants, court judgements, etc.

I'll recover it tomorrow, after I've slept. Sorry.

[Knife]

You can't have it both ways. Did they have warrants? If not, how do you have probable cause miles from the supposed crime scene?

[Kamakazie Sith]

There are factors that can influence when someone can be arrested without a warrant but usually it is permissible if a subject is being arrested by the investigating agency and via that investigation they have developed probable cause for an arrest - typically when members of the investigating agency do this the investigating officers have either put out an "APB" or are making the arrest themselves. Probable cause does not evaporate just because time has gone by or the subject is at a different location. The function of an arrest warrant is to notify all law enforcement, not just the investigating agency, that a judge has determined that probable cause exists for an arrest of an individual.

Keep in mind that each state may have laws that effect how this is done as does federal law. Also, keep in mind that when someone is booked into jail based off a warrantless arrest by law enforcement the probable cause statement is reviewed by the booking judge who will either approve it or reject it based off those details.

EDIT - This post should not be taken as approval of tactics used by federal law enforcement.

[Formless]

You can't have it both ways. Did they have warrants? If not, how do you have probable cause miles from the supposed crime scene?

The long answer is-- watch the video I posted by Leonard French where he talks about the TRO against the Feds on behalf the reporters. Short answer: when specifically asked to show either warrants or probable cause for the arrests they had made before the court, the Federal police could not do so.

I repeat. The issue of whether they could show probable cause for arrest has already been tried before a court, and they could not show it in the case of the journalists they had arrested. There is therefor no reason to think they could do so for anyone else they had arrested in Portland. Especially for the people who had been arrested far away from the court house. Why?

Simple. The ACLU demonstrated sufficiently in that case that the Feds were acting beyond their authority over the courthouse, which has larger implications beyond that case. Kamikazi Sith mentioned that different states have different laws effecting how Probably Cause works as does the Feds, but what he doesn't mention is that the US Constitution specifically lists Law Enforcement as a right and power of the States, not the Feds. The Federal government's jurisdiction is deliberately limited, and the contexts where they can make arrests at all is not as broad as a state level or local level police officer. One of those contexts is when the Federal Agent has permission from State authorities to act on their behalf, but as we all know the State of Oregon explicitly told them to fuck off, the exact opposite of permission. Another context is when the Federal Agent is witness to a crime in progress, but its pretty obvious that this does not include Agents snatching people off the street several blocks away from Federal property. In this case Probably Cause is actually a red herring, because they don't have jurisdiction at all to make these arrests; and the fact that they are alleged to have done it catch-and-release style with no paperwork suggests that they knew this and took these actions knowing they had no jurisdiction to arrest people in this context. The proper procedure in this case would have been to put out an alert to local police to do the arrest, but it turns out that was never the point.

The Federal Judge also determined that their true purpose was in fact explicitly to suppress the Free Speech and other first amendment rights or protestors and witnesses to the protests, NOT to protect the Federal property as claimed, using statements made by Federal and Whitehouse officials as evidence. Remember that this is directly relevant to the case by the Journalists because Freedom of the Press is a First Amendment right, and intimidating Journalists was alleged to be all part of the plan, not merely a side effect of individual agents getting overzealous. This is all discussed in the Temporary Restraining Order.

In other words, any and all arguments that the Federal police were acting within their right is directly contradicted by a Federal judge's findings! And while the legal proceedings are ongoing, I repeat that they could only get Injunctive Relief of this sort by proving to the Judge that they basically have a slam dunk case against the Feds. That is literally one of the requirements for getting that kind of restraining order. So any argument that the Feds were acting legally is going to have to provide not only evidence in favor of that, but EXTRAORDINARY Evidence at that. You are not merely arguing with some randos on the internet here. You are arguing with the legal experts about an ongoing court case.




(And by the way I am not taking potshots at Kamikazi Sith here, as I am under the impression that he is a local level cop, and its understandable that he would assume the procedures are the same for Federal police as the ones he is used to. But in the case of the Snatchers the issue isn't Probable Cause per-say, but whether Federal Agents are allowed to act that far away from Federal Property at all for jurisdiction reasons, as well as the likelihood that they were doing it to deliberately intimidate people into avoiding walking the streets at night in violation of the First Amendment and probably a plethora of other rights. The lack of Probable Cause or even Due Process is being used as evidence for unconstitutional motives. Which is an even more sinister allegation.)

[Kamakazie Sith]

Thanks for the info, Formless. I was not aware that these incidents had already been looked into and found that there was a jurisdictional issue. That's very serious but honestly not surprising. I was about to say that this is what we expect in Trump's America but it's also fair to say that US law enforcement, as a system, has been on this path for a while now.

[Beowulf]

US Constitution specifically lists Law Enforcement as a right and power of the States, not the Feds.

No. It lists the powers of the Federal government. It doesn't say that Law Enforcement is a right and power of the States. It can't because every reference to rights in the US Constitution is a right possessed by the people (that is, individuals). States have only powers. The federal government can make laws under the powers granted to it by constitution, and enforce those laws.

[Formless]

US Constitution specifically lists Law Enforcement as a right and power of the States, not the Feds.

No. It lists the powers of the Federal government. It doesn't say that Law Enforcement is a right and power of the States. It can't because every reference to rights in the US Constitution is a right possessed by the people (that is, individuals). States have only powers. The federal government can make laws under the powers granted to it by constitution, and enforce those laws.

You know what? It doesn't matter. I think that as a layman I can be forgiven for misstating a little bit so long as I get the overall argument correct; if you want the full details, go watch the videos by the actual lawyers. I'm not entirely wrong, though, because I said "right and power of the States." if the second half of that statement is correct, it doesn't matter if the former is incorrect. The only thing that really matters anyway is that the law was deliberately written to grant the States the power of law enforcement and the Federal government jurisdiction limited to certain areas; and that in this case the Judge in question said they had exceeded that authority because they were attacking and arresting Journalists who were too far away from the Federal courthouse to even see the building. By this logic, the Feds also did not have jurisdiction to arrest anyone at or beyond that distance, not just the journalists, which is where the argument that the unmarked vehicles were justifiable falls down. Getting pedantic about whether this jurisdiction comes from a constitutional right or just a power is missing the point. Either way, there is a demonstrable jurisdiction issue and a Civil Rights violation issue which is being processed in court by actual lawyers, not internet commentators.

[Beowulf]

There is no "Law Enforcement" power that is reserved to the States. If that were the case, there would be no way for the Federal government to enforce it's laws.

There is a "police" power, that is not an enumerated power of the Federal government. But it's not for the raising and equipping of police. It's the ability of the State legislatures to write laws to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of their citizens. Such as, forcing people to wear masks in public, or forcing people to get vaccinations in order to go to school. Or just being able to say "Murder bad".

Federal Law is the Supreme Law of the Land, and it applies throughout the United States. There may be a jurisdiction issue, but it's not location based.

[Formless]

Frankly, the "police power" of the states is exactly the thing that is justification for why the states have broader jurisdiction than the Feds. In practical fact, that power IS the power to recruit and equip law enforcers. Legislation is meaningless without manpower to enforce it; and moreover the vast majority of crimes get prosecuted by the States and not the Federal government for a reason. I'm no lawyer, I don't even play one on TV, but I know when an argument just isn't relevant, because I know what the judge's findings are in the case in question. I'm not inclined to take anyone's word for it except the legal professionals in this case.

There may be a jurisdiction issue, but it's not location based.

Its near enough in this context. The argument they brought before the court was that Federal police were dispatched to protect Federal property (the courthouse) from vandalism. The justification for it being their jurisdiction is that they have a right to do that, its Federal property. And that would be true if that were all they were doing; there is an entire agency dedicated to protecting said property. If people were trying to burn down a National forest, they could likewise arrest them for it because it is Federal land (although a different agency would be doing the arrests, obviously). The reason the judge discarded that argument as grade A bullshit in this case was, among other things, distance. If you have been pushed so far away from the courthouse you can't see the damn thing at night, you certainly can't throw rocks or bottles at it. Thus distance is in fact a factor in whether that particular agency has jurisdiction, because their purpose has been achieved the instant the protestors, let alone journalists who keep an even further distance from demonstrations, have been pushed that far back from Federal property. You can't establish probably cause for a crime that is physically impossible to commit. And yet journalists were still getting shot at with various kinds of munitions, including tear gas, impact rounds (basically a big rubber bullet shot from a grenade launcher), pepper balls, rubber bullets, and more-- often while their backs were turned because they were leaving the area! All this made clear to the judge that the argument by the Feds was dishonest. They lacked jurisdiction because their true purpose was more likely to violently suppress Free Speech, which NO government agency has a right to do. And again, this is all supported by the rhetoric of the Trump administration officials about why they dispatched police to Portland to begin with. They never cared about jurisdiction or probably cause. Those were both smokescreens that everyone with half a brain could see through-- and fortunately that includes the judiciary.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Stupid? Wrong? Hmm.

Unassailable actions? Really?

No. I'm simply a realist, King Canute.

So you're not going to bother actually responding to anything, but label yourself as a "realist" (despite the fact that your entire stance in this thread is literally predicated on ignoring reality, as several posters including me have pointed out several times) and make an irrelevant reference (what tide am I trying to stop, exactly? the tide of your own trolling?).

Concession accepted, I guess.

[whackadoodle]

One of my favorite things about this site is the phrase, "Concession accepted! 4 ta Win!"

Here's the thing; the thrust of my argument is how these folks were getting arrested; everyone else, and especially you, straw-manned that into my non-existent moral argument of WHY they should be arrested.

Congratulations, Ziggy; You are George Bush, Jr. "If you're against the protesters, you must be MechaHitler." Wait, did Shrub ever mention MechaHitler? Hmm.

Looking for a meme image of MechaStrawman...

[Eulogy]

Here's the thing; the thrust of my argument is how these folks were getting arrested; everyone else, and especially you, straw-manned that into my non-existent moral argument of WHY they should be arrested.

No, they're saying that they shouldn't be arrested at all, something you would see if you took five seconds to look up from licking the boots of the pigs.

[Knife]

Here's the thing; the thrust of my argument is how these folks were getting arrested; everyone else, and especially you, straw-manned that into my non-existent moral argument of WHY they should be arrested.

No, they're saying that they shouldn't be arrested at all, something you would see if you took five seconds to look up from licking the boots of the pigs.

Or specifically, they were not arrested, what they were was illegally and unlawfully detained.

[Formless]

And really, does this asshat really think that just because he hid under his bridge for a week before shitposting again that we have forgotten all the arguments he's refused to address and calls for evidence he has not given? He's either dumb as rocks, or trolling. My money is on the latter.

[whackadoodle]

Heh. Look at my posts. I told you how the Feds found protesters; I didn't say why.

Look; I've given a hint on how to not get caught. Mask up, and ditch the Apple/Google Snitch at home.

I'm almost of the opinion that this message board is nothing but Russian bots. I do know that it was invaded by "Correct The Record" in 2016. Somebody claimed to be an old member, and was allowed to create a new account. It only commented on a thread if it involved the 2016 U.S. election and "misinformation" about Hillary Clinton. You dumb fuckers thought it was it was the real deal, even though it only entered the fray when it involved the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, spouting talking points from the "I'm with Her" campaign.

Don't believe me? It used the official portrait of Jerry "Moron" Brown as it's avatar.

And you morons indulged it. It pretended to be a former member of this board, but only participated in any thread that involved "I'm With Her!" The day after the 2016 election, the account went silent.

Hey, though! I'm a troll, and you shits are primo at "To Catch A Predator" with trolls like me.

[loomer]

I wish I was a Russian bot. The pay's probably way better than what anarchist legal scholars make.

[Knife]

LOL, that was a radical change in subject.

[whackadoodle]

Here's the thing; the thrust of my argument is how these folks were getting arrested; everyone else, and especially you, straw-manned that into my non-existent moral argument of WHY they should be arrested.

No, they're saying that they shouldn't been arrested at all, even though, something you would see if you took five seconds to look up from licking the boots of the pigs.

No, I'm detailing how they got picked up, and how to avoid it. As a Gen Xer, I'm starting to think that Mills/Zoomers think that having snitch in their pocket is some sort of Human Right.

Newsflash: You CAN live without it.

[Formless]

Hey, fucktard, are you going to give the evidence that was called for by multiple people on the last two pages or not? Because you are being called a troll for not following the most fundamental rule of debate, not for being a right wing fucknut. The bullshit that is dribbling from your mouth right now isn't convincing me you aren't a troll, just the opposite. Speaking as a russian bot to a Republican bot, it sure looks like all you want is to piss people off.

[Dalton]

Evidently he will not produce this evidence.

[Eulogy]

No, I'm detailing how they got picked up, and how to avoid it. As a Gen Xer, I'm starting to think that Mills/Zoomers think that having snitch in their pocket is some sort of Human Right.

Newsflash: You CAN live without it.

No, you're being a lying shitstain. People film the pigs because they can't be trusted to be honest, and besides you of course have no evidence that all of these people just so happen to all deserve to be blackbagged for no good reason. I do so love how you call the phone cameras snitches, as though people uploading the evil acts of swine to Youtube is some sort of greater evil.

How do those boots taste, by the way? Swinish? You should make sure you wash your mouth out before you keep licking since while pigs like to wallow in mud they don't like the smell of bullshit getting on their hooves.

[loomer]

You're mistaking whackadoodle's point about the phones for something else. Taking a phone with you to a protest is carrying a snitch in your pocket - not because you'll take video with it, but because it can and will be tracked. There's a reason the standard advice is to carry a burner and remove the SIM card before you go anywhere close to where you usually go. On that point, and that point alone, he's actually correct.