I love my country, but we're going through a rough patch

[TheDeamon]

Or to sum up that OPB article another way in Onion/BabylonBee satirical fashion:

Man picked up by police on roadside 1/4 mile away from Cross Burning on Friday night claims he is being profiled due to having been wearing white bedsheets with eyeholes at the time of his detention.

To continue this exercise.

The Man admits that he has been present at the time numerous other cross burning events have occurred, and that he was dressed exactly like the other people who did assemble and burn the cross. But the man claims he did nothing wrong by being present while dressed like the other "peaceful protesters" who had gathered. He also additionally asserts it is a violation of his rights that law enforcement saw fit to profile white men running around wearing white sheets to obscure their clothing and identity.

[TheDeamon]

Here's one of the "snatch videos" from the 15th. Although this guy wasn't wearing a beanie, but was in a black helmet with face shield.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1283388065407533062

But on the flip side, here's what law enforcement had to deal with the night before, notice something about how that guy is dressed as compared to the self-described attire of the "poor victim" of federal snatchers on the 15th?
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1283028708220186624

[TheDeamon]

But on the flip side, here's what law enforcement had to deal with the night before, notice something about how that guy is dressed as compared to the self-described attire of the "poor victim" of federal snatchers on the 15th?
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1283028708220186624

Correction, that evidently happened on the 11th, but the observation about "the uniform" for the agitators still stands.

If you dress like an agitator, and attend a venue where you know they'll be present, don't be surprised when you get treated like one.

[DonaldD]

Protesting is not illegal - in fact, it is protected, in the constitution.  Dressing a certain way, especially in generic "black" is not probable cause.

Here's a hint - he was let go, without being charged (and according to what I read, without the stormtroopers having documented the arrest in any way whatsoever.)

[TheDeamon]

http://archive.is/2jJ3J

PNW Youth Liberation Front (saved on 17 Jul 2020 16:10:57 UTC)

Dearrests work. Don't let the pigs snatch your friends.
We protect us.

(Portland Police @Portland Police)
Multiple warnings have been provided to vacate the street or be subject to arrest or force. At least one arrest has been made. Another arrest was attempted and others interfered and struggled with police to free the arrested subject.

(Can't seem to find the PPB twitter quote in question, lack of date stamps is frustrating. But considering the attention called to it, it probably was edited or deleted.)

Also informative:
https://twitter.com/PortlandPolice/status/1280245988347666432

[TheDeamon]

Protesting is not illegal - in fact, it is protected, in the constitution.  Dressing a certain way, especially in generic "black" is not probable cause.

Here's a hint - he was let go, without being charged (and according to what I read, without the stormtroopers having documented the arrest in any way whatsoever.)

He says he was photographed(and presumably fingerprinted), so it was documented somewhere, he just wasn't given any information that would point him to where that documentation is.

Nice to know you'd defend a member of the KKK in full regalia for being arrested if he was apprehended in the vicinity of a cross burning.

I know I wouldn't, even though Klan Regalia isn't illegal either.

[DonaldD]

I always thought that conservatives at least paid lip service to the constitution, to due process, and to the rule of law. I get that you have read that there were violent protesters, and that you (hopefully) believe that the violent protesters are in the majority.  But that is simply a function of the media you choose to believe.  Protesting loudly, and angrily, even if other people are being violent, is not probable cause.  Being in the same neighbourhood with hundreds of other people, doesn't somehow give carte blanche to even regular police - never mind completely anonymous, armed and masked thugs.

Seriously - this has nothing to do with whether someone wearing klan regalia is or is not legal.  I have no idea what the jurisprudence is on it, but I suspect that wearing a Klan hood is probably not considered probable cause.

And no, wearing black, in a crowd of other people wearing black, is in no way probable cause.  No more than being black is sufficient to provide probable cause.

But the bigger problem (aside from the whole lack of due process) is that the stormtroopers are completely untraceable, unidentifiable, armed, and unaccountable.

[TheDeamon]

I always thought that conservatives at least paid lip service to the constitution, to due process, and to the rule of law. I get that you have read that there were violent protesters, and that you (hopefully) believe that the violent protesters are in the majority.  But that is simply a function of the media you choose to believe.  Protesting loudly, and angrily, even if other people are being violent, is not probable cause.  Being in the same neighbourhood with hundreds of other people, doesn't somehow give carte blanche to even regular police - never mind completely anonymous, armed and masked thugs.

I think the violent/destructive protesters are a minority, probably fewer than 1 in 10. However of the remaining 9 in 10, another 2 of them are active co-conspirators in their activities. With the remaining 7 in 10 being a mix of the truly ignorant, the willfully ignorant, and the ones who know what's going on but decides to remain silent on it. (Remember "silence is violence?"  Those guys embody it.)

I believe in rule of law, and part of that rule of law in the United States include "probable cause" and everything reported about the circumstances of "these people" to date gives every indication that probable cause existed for their detention. You can split hairs over the specifics of how they were taken into custody, but I'm not seeing much of an issue with what I'm seeing right now.

Seriously - this has nothing to do with whether someone wearing klan regalia is or is not legal.  I have no idea what the jurisprudence is on it, but I suspect that wearing a Klan hood is probably not considered probable cause.

It's actually something I'd be halfway curious to see what Seratil has to chip in on this, if anything. But you are also ignoring the "other factors" that I was bringing into the mix: 1) They were present at the location the crime occurred. 2) They were dressed in the same manner as the offender. 3) They were apprehended while leaving the crime scene(specifics of how far they made it before being picked up not withstanding).

Again, I only see this as problematic if the people being picked up were either not present at the protest site, or had left the protest site before any criminal activity occurred.
 

And no, wearing black, in a crowd of other people wearing black, is in no way probable cause.  No more than being black is sufficient to provide probable cause.

It is if it makes you look like the guy who did commit a crime.

And unlike "being black" being used to pull someone over, being detained due to clothing choice is another matter entirely.

But the bigger problem (aside from the whole lack of due process) is that the stormtroopers are completely untraceable, unidentifiable, armed, and unaccountable.

Oh, I'm sure the leftist legal groups will be able to figure it out, it may take some discovery processes, but they'll get the information in time. Their cases also will likely go exactly nowhere even after they get that information. As the Federal Officers acted within previously recognized legal constraints even if the general public is unaware of them being as loose as they are.

But then again, I guess I need to remember we're talking 9th District Court here, so it might get somewhere, but SCotUS will likely toss it should the 9th try to make it go somewhere.

[DonaldD]

I get it - conservatives don't actually care about the federal government acting in secret against citizens - so long as they are not the right citizens.

[Lloyd Perna]

"Every precinct every town, burn the precinct to the ground"
https://twitter.com/IwriteOK/status/1284711244809637889?s=20

Portland Police Association building set on fire.
https://twitter.com/GriffinMalone6/status/1284727455253553152

If you are marching with this group, even if you don't yourself light something on fire or throw something at the police.  You are just as guilty as the ones that do.  You can't claim that you were just there to protest peacefully. And you shouldn't be surprised if you get arrested.

[TheDeamon]

If you are marching with this group, even if you don't yourself light something on fire or throw something at the police.  You are just as guilty as the ones that do.  You can't claim that you were just there to protest peacefully. And you shouldn't be surprised if you get arrested.

Pretty much my take on it, and where I was pointing towards with the klan comparisons.

If you're dressing like a member of AntiFa's "black bloc" while attending protests where vandalism and other acts of mayhem are being carried out by comparably dressed individuals, it is reasonable to not be shocked when you get caught up in a net looking for those people.

If I was a prosecutor, I'd probably be looking at "accessory" charges and maybe even investigate possible conspiracy charges although that has a higher bar to clear.

Much like the KKK had a "uniform" (their white robes/bed sheets) the Black Bloc has one too. Whether or not you want to agree on their being part of AntiFa or not is immaterial to all of the video evidence of such groups clearly operating at these types of protests.

Not every Klan member who attended a cross burning was party to either erecting, or igniting the cross. By the logic of the press with the current protests/riots, the Klansmen who simply "happened to be there" would be called "peaceful protesters" who just also happened to have the side effect of terrifying the people on whose land the flaming cross happened to be on. That certain klan members may have been throwing rocks, or otherwise trying to harm the building occupants is immaterial, they're meerly outliers, as most of those white garbed individuals were simply "making a peaceful political statement" which should not be confused with the violent acts of a minority of individuals.

Do note: I said above by the logic of the press with current events. I do NOT hold to those views, and feel that every "peaceful protester" who participated in such an event "in uniform" should have been charged as participants in the relevant crimes. And I'm all about equal application of the law, if you're admitting to routinely attending protests which has a known history of vandalism and violent acts attached to it, you're part of the problem, and should be charged accordingly as you're aiding and abetting the people carrying out those acts if you remain in the area once those things are known to have started happening.

[TheDeamon]

Someone I served with in the Navy brought this link up, although hilariously, he was trying to argue against what the Feds are doing.

A relevant quote from his link should be illuminating:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/arrest-vs-detention-how-tell-whether-you-ve-been-arrested-simply-detained.html

Although the extent to which officers restrain and intrude upon the suspect are key to the determination, there’s no bright line indicating the point at which a detention becomes an arrest. For instance, the use of handcuffs doesn’t automatically signal an arrest where there are concerns for officer or public safety.

In one case, officers handcuffed a suspect and placed him in the back of a squad car while they searched a house he had just visited. The appeals court held that their actions didn’t turn the detention into an arrest because they needed to avoid an escape attempt and to take precautions against potential violence. The court also found that it made sense to take the suspect back to the house because they knew that the search they were about to begin could implicate him. (United States v. Bullock, 632 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2011).)

Seems very relevant to the situation in Portland, doesn't it?

[DonaldD]

If you are marching with this group, even if you don't yourself light something on fire or throw something at the police.  You are just as guilty as the ones that do.  You can't claim that you were just there to protest peacefully. And you shouldn't be surprised if you get arrested.

Except Pettibone wasn't walking with a group of people, never mind people setting things on fire.

Oh, and Here's a video of the stormtroopers beating on clearly marked medics standing over a body. Yes, parts of what they were wearing was black, so that's alright, then.

I think the violent/destructive protesters are a minority, probably fewer than 1 in 10. However of the remaining 9 in 10, another 2 of them are active co-conspirators in their activities. With the remaining 7 in 10 being a mix of the truly ignorant, the willfully ignorant, and the ones who know what's going on but decides to remain silent on it. (Remember "silence is violence?"  Those guys embody it.)

And just where did you pull these statistics out of?

[TheDeamon]

If you are marching with this group, even if you don't yourself light something on fire or throw something at the police.  You are just as guilty as the ones that do.  You can't claim that you were just there to protest peacefully. And you shouldn't be surprised if you get arrested.

Except Pettibone wasn't walking with a group of people, never mind people setting things on fire.

Except for when he was earlier that same morning. Or have you forgot the part where Pettibone himself said he had been at the protest until just after 2AM?

[TheDeamon]

Oh, and Here's a video of the stormtroopers beating on clearly marked medics standing over a body. Yes, parts of what they were wearing was black, so that's alright, then.

"Medics" who were doing exactly what besides standing over the guy? Your other issue is they were what? Guys with Red Electrical tape applied to their shirts and backpacks in a cross configuration, and had likely little more than basic first aid training? They are not part of any recognized aide organization, so they're SOL.

Further complicating things, and not in their favor is the matter that these guys are very good at, and very mindful of this thing called optics, and sadly the police aren't being very clever about countering it just yet. These clowns can also be found running around outfits that clearly mark them as being press as well, in the hopes that the drive-by media will see their (agitator) guy get attacked by the police in the hopes that they'll report on how they're going for reporters.

Selective editing, careful framing of situations, and otherwise playing on low intensity insurgency tactics to create exactly the response you are providing them. Is also very common, or did you just go with the meme-tastic response to the link I provided earlier where the Portland Police Bureau verified that they had seen every tactic outlined in the alleged "Hong Kong Protest primer" that someone shared with them, where leftists starting memes about how maybe the Portland Police are the baddies if they're experiencing the same thing as the Hong Kong police... While they completely ignore what the info graphic detailed. (I'll have to follow this up with another post and break the infographic down I guess)

I think the violent/destructive protesters are a minority, probably fewer than 1 in 10. However of the remaining 9 in 10, another 2 of them are active co-conspirators in their activities. With the remaining 7 in 10 being a mix of the truly ignorant, the willfully ignorant, and the ones who know what's going on but decides to remain silent on it. (Remember "silence is violence?"  Those guys embody it.)

And just where did you pull these statistics out of?

Because that's what the tactics of low intensity conflict would dictate for getting your agitators in and out with minimal numbers being caught(at least until you start going full-on crackdown like China did in Hong Kong). For every person who is doing something illegal, you need at least 2 other people present to provide active (but indirect) support to help ensure that they have a reasonable chance of getting away. Although the dynamics CAN shift if you have a large group present, as you only need 1 person on lookout "per direction of concern" rather than 1 lookout for every bad actor, so the scaling is a bit wonky.

And by "low-intensity conflict" in this case, it's at a lower level than anything the Military would normally call it. I guess another way you could frame it is "high intensity civil disruption" as they're being very careful about not crossing any line where the media is going to be unable to obfuscate or ignore what they're doing and instead fixate on the police.

[DonaldD]

"Medics" who were doing exactly what besides standing over the guy? Your other issue is they were what? Guys with Red Electrical tape applied to their shirts and backpacks in a cross configuration, and had likely little more than basic first aid training? They are not part of any recognized aide organization, so they're SOL.

Not been to many demonstrations, or seen much coverage of demonstrations, have you?  Most demonstrations of this size are attended to by a cadre of volunteer medics.  Or did you think the federal stormtroopers were not just kidnapping protesters but are also providing medical assistance?

I still see you cannot just come out and say that anonymous, masked, unidentifiable and uncontrolled stormtroopers going around, beating up people and throwing them into unmarked vehicles is a bad thing.  What's wrong with having the name of the service to which they are associated plainly visible, vehicles plainly marked with identifying information including the name of the service, and having their faces visible for identification?

As an aside, it's not the police that are going around masked, unmarked, and unbadged.  It's the federal stormtroopers.

Because that's what the tactics of low intensity conflict would dictate for getting your agitators in and out with minimal numbers being caught(at least until you start going full-on crackdown like China did in Hong Kong).

Got it.  The proof of your conspiracy is simply your assumption that a conspiracy exists, in the way that you imagine it exists.  And because you have proven it to yourself, that excuses the government ignoring the constitution.

[TheDeamon]

Also informative:
https://twitter.com/PortlandPolice/status/1280245988347666432

Roles:

Peaceful Protester - Protesters who don't want to fight, but join hand-in-hand with frontliners, sometimes using their phones to film police aggression

Which is where the meme warriors fixate on "police aggression" and
/end rationality
as they then take that as a tacit admission of the Police admitting they're being aggressive. But you really need to take this in total. And IMO any "peaceful protester" in such a group, be they in Hong Kong, or Portland, who finds themselves in such a formation as this infographic details, needs to get out and do so quickly. By remaining, they're only "peaceful" by technicality. In all reality, I'd be calling them either "human shields" or "accomplices."

But that's a digression, let us continue.

Frontliner - Protesters who use umbrellas to guard against projectiles and cameras, while keeping hands free for when help is needed.
Shield Soldier - Frontliners who use wood boards, swim boards, or signs to form a first line of defense.

Nothing particularly nefarious just yet, I'd actually be mostly okay with a protest group with these guys present.

Designers - Protest supporters who make inspiring graphics, helpful infographics, or banners for protests.

Harmless enough, they're not a problem. So long as they're not "expressing themselves" on property that doesn't belong to them, or doing so on property they have permission to do so on.

Flag Bearer - uses signs or a phone to signal to protesters when police are advancing or attacking
Cop watch - Protest supporters who use phones to record violent police and document police tactics and weaponry

Within the context of Hong Kong, I could see this as very valid, but it moves into borderline nefarious when applied within the US. Police here in the US don't normally attack, they respond and they normally advertise their approach very clearly in advance anyway.

And the "cop watch" needing to "document tactics" is another gigantic concern. What kind of "peaceful protester" in the US need to be concerned with developing tactics or counter-tactics to respond to police actions in regards to protests in the US? Peaceful protesters don't. Agitators certainly do though, and they're expecting a violent police response because they're going to do everything they can to create such a response. But that's another set of roles.

But speaking of police tactics..

Online Comms - Online protesters who use social media apps like Signal and Telegram to report on police strategies and provide protesters with real-time updates.

In Hong Kong this makes a degree of sense, but in the United States?

Medic - protest supporters who are able to treat injuries or have materials to treat teargas exposure.

This one is borderline too, I can be down with treating injuries and other issues that invariably crop up with any kind of group activity with lots of people moving around. But treating tear gas exposure? That's moving into very different territory, especially in the US.

More concerning is the injuries that they're likely thinking about probably are not trips, strains, sprains, or fatigue issues. They're instead likely talking about injuries incurred after having a physical confrontation with police.

Barricader - protesters who build barricades out of found objects at strategic positions to block oncoming police and traffic that trails protesters.

....If this is going on at a "peaceful protest" you're attending, are you sure you're actually at a peaceful protest?

But now to the "fun ones" if the above wasn't exciting enough for you.

Fire Squads - protesters who use water and traffic cones to suppress and extinguish teargas canisters

Interesting...

Fire Mage - Protesters who come prepared to set fire to barricades and throw flammable projectiles.

I think we can say we're safely outside the scope of "peaceful protest" at this stage

Light Mage - protesters who use laser pointers to obstruct surveillance cameras, drones, and police visors.

What kind of peaceful protest needs that in the United States?

Range Soldiers - protesters who throw bottles, umbrellas, and trash to stop police from advancing.

Once again, well outside the bounds of peaceful protest, almost like they're seeking to provoke "a violent response" which will, of course, draw in those poor innocent "peaceful protesters" and allow people to scream about how the police are tyrants.

https://twitter.com/PortlandPolice/status/1283177811151208448

[DonaldD]

At this point, I have to take it as a given that you are fine with armed, masked, anonymous stormtroopers, serving the federal government.  Also, you are good with the federal government sending in these anonymous troops in the face of opposition by a state's elected government.  Oregon has ways of changing their government if the populace so desires.  Having federal stormtroopers dropped in isn't one of those ways.  Having federal stormtroopers provoking violent responses is also not how it is done.  I would like to say that i am truly surprised that conservatives are not just anti-rule-of-law, but anti-states-rights, but over and over, it seems like conservatives are all about the ends justifies the means, now.

Also, quoting "Hong Kong" tactics is quite literally not evidence that Pettibone, as just one example, was not simply rounded up by the Stasi for exercising his constitutional rights (even ignoring the lack of due process, of course).  Neither does it excuse the stormtroopers' tactics of beating people who are quite literally standing still and talking.

[DonaldD]

BTW, does that work the other way?  If any of those masked, anonymous stormtroopers assaulted anybody, does that mean the rest of them should have immediately disbanded so as not to be guilty by association?

[TheDeamon]

Let's venue change for a moment. how about Chicago, at a Columbus statue being protected by the Chicago PD.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1284581737725665282

Here we have peaceful protestors marching around the statue while Black Bloc members going full ham on performing Frontliner and Range Soldier roles against the officers trying to provoke a response. A Fire Mage even demonstrates their presence as well.

No Federal Police escalating things in Chicago from any reports I've heard about....

[TheDeamon]

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1284735095748820992

Fire Mages and Barricader's work on tandem before setting fire to the Portland Police Union Hall

---------------

https://twitter.com/FromKalen/status/1284748402224279553

"Light Mages" blinding a security camera at the Portland Federal Courthouse, plus someone taking shots at it with a pellet gun.
-------

https://twitter.com/FromKalen/status/1284736458566164481

"Fire Mages" using fireworks to try to provoke a response from DHS Agents.

--------
https://twitter.com/FromKalen/status/1284392900529278976

"Light mages" using green lasers and strobe light to blind cameras and any officers present as protesters advance on the Portland IRS Building.

[TheDrake]

Long thread, I know I only skimmed it. But if there is probable cause, I think the normal thing to do is to say "we have a warrant for your arrest" or "someone matching your description" or words of some kind. Not just grabbing somebody and throwing them in a van, and also where is the arrest or detention record documenting the probable cause?

Meanwhile certain conservatives think they should be able to walk around carrying rifles and not even be questioned. Isn't that more probable cause than attire?

[TheDeamon]

Long thread, I know I only skimmed it. But if there is probable cause, I think the normal thing to do is to say "we have a warrant for your arrest" or "someone matching your description" or words of some kind. Not just grabbing somebody and throwing them in a van, and also where is the arrest or detention record documenting the probable cause?

Probable cause detention/arrest is a very different process than "I have a warrant" although the warrant also involves a probable cause aspect. Warrants are a more formalized form of the process, and typically involve investigation activities days/weeks/months or even years after either the crime occurred or evidence came to light, rather than minutes or hours after.

In order to have an arrest warrant, you need to know what the name of the person is. In the situation with the Portland protests, unless the LEO's are dealing with one of their "frequent flyers" that they interact with enough to be able to identify by sight. That means catching the person on site, or upon their leaving the area(and becoming "safe to detain") so they can identify the person by name.

Meanwhile certain conservatives think they should be able to walk around carrying rifles and not even be questioned. Isn't that more probable cause than attire?

Only if there were shootings taking place in the area the person was in at the time they were carrying and those shootings were reasonably believed to involve that kind of fire arm.

Remember, the argument here is:
1) A (Federal) Crime occurred. (If there is no crime, there is no probable cause for suspicion of committing a crime)
2) Someone matching the "general description" of the person who committed the crime was detained, after leaving the area where the crime occurred.

[TheDeamon]

At this point, I have to take it as a given that you are fine with armed, masked, anonymous stormtroopers, serving the federal government.  Also, you are good with the federal government sending in these anonymous troops in the face of opposition by a state's elected government.  Oregon has ways of changing their government if the populace so desires.  Having federal stormtroopers dropped in isn't one of those ways.  Having federal stormtroopers provoking violent responses is also not how it is done.  I would like to say that i am truly surprised that conservatives are not just anti-rule-of-law, but anti-states-rights, but over and over, it seems like conservatives are all about the ends justifies the means, now.

Okay, let us rewind the clock a bit. Take your pick, we can go back to the late 1950's and 1960's and talk about "Federal Stormtroopers" coming into the deep south to clean out system abuse of minority populations.

Or we can go into the 1970's and 1980's and the "Federal Stormtroopers" coming into New York City and some other areas to clean out Mafia corruption of the local law enforcement system.

Also, quoting "Hong Kong" tactics is quite literally not evidence that Pettibone, as just one example, was not simply rounded up by the Stasi for exercising his constitutional rights (even ignoring the lack of due process, of course).

And again, you're running a circular argument here. Pettibone said he was present at the Courthouse Protests. He further also admitted to being dressed like a member of the Black Bloc(although neither he, nor the reporter phrased it that way).

Both the Portland Police and the Federal Government claim acts of vandalism occurred at the Federal Courthouse. Destruction of Government Property is a crime under United States Code, which means the Federal Government can claim jurisdiction over the case, so Federal Agents can make arrests in the course of investigating such crimes.

Yes, Authoritarians and Tyrants are naturally going to criminalize destroying their stuff, but normal functional civil societies criminalize destruction of civil property as well.

As it was, he met the description (dressed like a member of the Black Block), he had the opportunity(he was where the vandalism happened), and quite possibly had the means to carry it out(although he probably would have ditched those tools). Presence at the very late night protest would also be a general indicator of having motive, given nobody who has attended these events over multiple nights(as he admitted to) is going to be able to claim ignorance as to what's going on at those "peaceful protests." So seems to me like a pretty strong probable cause case for being detained and searched.

Neither does it excuse the stormtroopers' tactics of beating people who are quite literally standing still and talking.

There's likely to be a far larger context surrounding what was going on there than those video clips demonstrate. Like probably the 5+ minutes prior to that where the Portland Police are using loud speakers announce they've declared the assembly to be unlawful due to fires being set, fire escapes to the Federal Building being blocked, etc and ordering them to vacate the area or be removed by force and/or arrested.

Yup, that "peaceful protester" was "just standing there" 6 minutes after being told by Police he needs to leave of be arrested.

Wailing on the guy isn't justified, but by the same token, at least with one of the news videos that was shown, there is an incongruity present. If the officer took a shot at the back of the knee of someone with a riot baton and the guy is still standing after being hit.... He wasn't being hit very hard. He'd have to be getting barely touched for that matter. It doesn't take much of a hit to the back of the knee to knock someone to the ground, and either that "innocent protester" is a world class boxer/MMA fighter, or he was getting "love taps" from that officer.

The officer was probably trying to scare the guy into moving on, rather than arresting him or escalating things further.

Sadly for that officer, a camera was rolling and the optics are horrible.

[TheDrake]

People are detained all the time because they match a description near a crime. They are interviewed on the street to determine whether they were actually involved, ID taken for potential later follow up, searched. The interviewing officers are identifiable as to what law enforcement agency they report to, people are not wordlessly taken into custody.

[DonaldD]

People are detained all the time because they match a description near a crime. They are interviewed on the street to determine whether they were actually involved, ID taken for potential later follow up, searched. The interviewing officers are identifiable as to what law enforcement agency they report to, people are not wordlessly taken into custody.

This.

Also - this: Navy vet beaten by stormtroopers.There isn't even a question of arresting him.  He's just standing there talking, and they start beating him, in the end breaking his hand and likely requiring surgery. It does bring up a few questions

• Why didn't any of the other "officers" stop the assault?
• Why didn't any of the "officers" then restrain and arrest the person who assaulted a man standing motionless directly in front of them?
• After seeing people dressed like themselves assaulting a peaceful protester, why did the other "officers" not immediately change clothes, or vacate the area immediately so as not to be misidentified as one of the attackers?
• And after assaulting him, they simply let him walk away - they clearly did not suspect him of doing anything requiring his arrest - they just decided to wail on him with a baton.

As an aside, why do you consider graffiti to be an affront to society, more so than the physical assault of a human being?  There was also the report of a fire leading to $5000 damage.  I can guarantee you that the surgery resulting from this assault will come up to far more than a $5000 bill, not to mention the pain and suffering whose costs cannot readily be factored in.

[TheDrake]

Aren't these pretty much the tactics that were being used in Hong Kong to stop anarchist protesters?

[yossarian22c]

Aren't these pretty much the tactics that were being used in Hong Kong to stop anarchist protesters?

Its a bit of a derail but I wouldn't classify most of the protesters in Hong Kong as anarchist. They are protesting their gradual descent into the authoritarian Chinese state.

And if these are the tactics the Chinese used are you saying its a good thing we're copying them? Because
there are few places I would rather* live than that authoritarian big brother nightmare.

*Edit, rather not live. China is the only country currently with concentration camps. Not a place I want to live or want my government to emulate.

[DonaldD]

Its a bit of a derail but I wouldn't classify most of the protesters in Hong Kong as anarchist.

I'm pretty sure that the use of the word "anarchist" was ironic, given that we recently saw a document characterizing all protesters as, essentially, "violent anarchists" (Graffiti?  Violent anarchist. Disobeying stormtroopers?  Violent anarchist.  Walking dog without proof of vaccines?  Violent anarchist.)

[TheDeamon]

People are detained all the time because they match a description near a crime. They are interviewed on the street to determine whether they were actually involved, ID taken for potential later follow up, searched. The interviewing officers are identifiable as to what law enforcement agency they report to, people are not wordlessly taken into custody.

They are interviewed on the street "where safety allows."

Given the tendencies of the Portland protesters, if they tried the interview the person in the street at that time, nothing productive would come of it. And in all probability put the officers at greater risk the longer they remained there.

If you believe differently, I think there are some very fine bridges for sale in some rather dubious locations.

Edit to add timeline of a prospective scenario where they went for a "interview in the street" option instead:

Less than 5 seconds in: Heckling from "concerned bystanders" starts.
3 minutes in: Officers are now surrounded by at least a dozen "concerned citizens, many of which are heckling the officers and encouraging the person they're trying to question to "tell them nothing."
Within 5 minutes: Physical Agitators arrive on site to escalate the situation and "de-arrest" the person they're questioning.

Brilliant investigatory approach there. You accomplished exactly nothing.

[TheDrake]

People are detained all the time because they match a description near a crime. They are interviewed on the street to determine whether they were actually involved, ID taken for potential later follow up, searched. The interviewing officers are identifiable as to what law enforcement agency they report to, people are not wordlessly taken into custody.

They are interviewed on the street "where safety allows."

Given the tendencies of the Portland protesters, if they tried the interview the person in the street at that time, nothing productive would come of it. And in all probability put the officers at greater risk the longer they remained there.

If you believe differently, I think there are some very fine bridges for sale in some rather dubious locations.

Edit to add timeline of a prospective scenario where they went for a "interview in the street" option instead:

Less than 5 seconds in: Heckling from "concerned bystanders" starts.
3 minutes in: Officers are now surrounded by at least a dozen "concerned citizens, many of which are heckling the officers and encouraging the person they're trying to question to "tell them nothing."
Within 5 minutes: Physical Agitators arrive on site to escalate the situation and "de-arrest" the person they're questioning.

Brilliant investigatory approach there. You accomplished exactly nothing.

So you haven't seen the videos of black people being detained in the street surrounded by an angry crowd. Interesting.

He was detained and searched. One man asked him if he had any weapons; he did not. They drove him to the federal courthouse and placed him in a holding cell, he said. Two officers eventually returned to read his Miranda rights and ask if he would waive those rights to answer a few questions; he did not.

Almost as suddenly as they had grabbed him off the street, the men let him go. The federal officers who snatched him off the street as he was walking home from a peaceful protest did not tell him why he had been detained or provide him any record of an arrest, he told The Post. As far as he knows, he has not been charged with any crimes. And, Pettibone said, he did not know who detained him.

Does that sound like a normal interaction between a suspect and law enforcement? Is it normal to detain someone and not tell them why they were being held?

[Wayward Son]

Okay, let us rewind the clock a bit. Take your pick, we can go back to the late 1950's and 1960's and talk about "Federal Stormtroopers" coming into the deep south to clean out system abuse of minority populations.

You know, Deamon, it really takes a lot of chutzpah to compare this action to civil rights abuses in the 60's, even in passing.

Back then, the local and state governments were beating, arresting, and worse to prevent people from protesting, and the Federal government came in to stop the government from doing it.

Today, the local governments are NOT beating, arresting, and worse to the Federal government's satisfaction, and so the Feds are coming in to do it instead, IN SPITE of the local and state government's protests.

They are not the same thing.  In fact, they are the opposite thing.  The local governments in the 60s were a bunch of bullies and thugs who thought they could beat the people into submission.  Today, it's the Feds who are the bullies and thugs.  You are using the actions that were meant to protect people from government bullies and thugs to justify the actions of government bullies and thugs.

Takes a lot of chutzpah...

[Wayward Son]

If you are marching with this group, even if you don't yourself light something on fire or throw something at the police.  You are just as guilty as the ones that do.  You can't claim that you were just there to protest peacefully.

Tell me, did you believe this during the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally?  When protestors came with clubs and shields and were beating other protestors?  When one of the protestors ran down a thirty-year-old woman in cold blood and hitting many more?  When Vanguard America's leaders lamely said that he was not a member and that "The shields seen do not denote membership" as they were "freely handed out to anyone in attendance," did you believe that they should have been held accountable, too?

I suppose you believe that every one of those people who came to protest the removal of the statues of Confederate generals were just as guilty as James Field and others.  That they all should have been arrested for assault and battery, murder and attempted murder.

After all, if you were marching with people who beat others up, you can't claim you were there to protest peacefully, no matter what you actually did.  So you believe the President really was lying through his teeth when he said there were "fine people on both sides," and really was standing with the racists and murderer.  Because by your reasoning, they were all as guilty as those who actually committed the violence, and should all be treated as such.

Personally I believe that people should be held accountable for their own actions, not the actions of others.  That some of the people came there just to peacefully protest, not to cause trouble, like the many church groups that were there.  But it appear that you disagree.

So, did you only recently realize what a bunch of criminals all those protestors at the Unite the Right rally really were, or is this something you always believed?

[DonaldD]

Oh look, violent anarchist Moms.

[TheDeamon]

Oh look, violent anarchist Moms.

Who left as soon as things turned violent. Also, nobody actually vetted the claim that they were actually in fact mothers. They said they were, and that was good enough for the MSM.

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=251010&ec=1&ch=twitter

On Sunday, July 20, 2020, people gathered in front of the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse in downtown Portland. Hundreds of people stood blocking SW 3rd Avenue while dozens of others tampered with the fence around the courthouse.

At about 9:40 p.m. people in the crowd breached the fence enough to allow access to the area fenced off. The crowd chanted and pulled at the fence for about ninety minutes. At about 11:20 p.m. federal law enforcement came out of the courthouse for a few minutes and attempted to repair the fence, then went back inside.

At about 11:35 p.m. people began climbing the fence and at about 11:43 p.m. people pulled down the fence allowing access to the area in front of the courthouse. Dozens of people with shields, helmets, gas masks, umbrellas, bats, and hockey sticks approached the doors of the courthouse. Federal law enforcement came out of the courthouse at about 11:50 p.m. and dispersed the crowd.

Over the next two hours hundreds of people wandered around downtown Portland many regrouping on SW 3rd Avenue in front of the courthouse, in the adjacent parks and around the Justice Center. At 1:31 a.m. a person climbed onto the northwest corner of the Justice Center to tamper with a security camera. At 1:34 a.m. people lit a fire within the portico in front of the federal courthouse. Others gathered around the fire adding wood and other debris to make it larger.

At 1:42 a.m. federal law enforcement came out of the courthouse, dispersed the crowd and extinguished the fire.

Portland Police were not present during any of the activity described. Portland Police did not engage with any crowds and did not deploy any CS gas.

[DonaldD]

All those words, and not a single description of violence...even the stormtroopers seemed to have taken the night off.

[Lloyd Perna]

Would you like some video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoOIjI7u9jM

[DonaldD]

More violent anarchists.

And here is the "wall of Moms" group marching before they got tear gassed.

I am shocked that these people don't understand that by associating with other protesters, they are part of a violent conspiracy against the government.

[fizz]

This looks very violent. (Warning: NSFW)

[TheDeamon]

And here is the "wall of Moms" group marching before they got tear gassed.

I am shocked that these people don't understand that by associating with other protesters, they are part of a violent conspiracy against the government.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1285601432276803585

Bottom left corner of the shot, watch as one of those "moms" helpfully hands off a chunk of concrete to a protester who subsequently attempts to throw it.

Here's another "mom" trying to break through the fiberboard protecting the windows on the Federal Building:

https://twitter.com/selfdeclaredref/status/1285494543069204480

[TheDeamon]

Also:
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1285478456050855937

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1285554323187879937

[Lloyd Perna]

Don't worry TheDeamon,  They just want to talk.

[DonaldD]

Also:
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1285478456050855937

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1285554323187879937

Hmmm... is your point that some protesters are damaging property, and that there are even some protesters who are being violent?

I hope that wasn't a surprise...

[TheDeamon]

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=251013

On July 20, 2020 large groups of people gathered in downtown Portland in Chapman Square Park and Lownsdale Square Park and in Waterfront Park near the Salmon Springs Fountain. At about 9:00 p.m. the crowds converged on SW 3rd Avenue outside the Justice Center and gave speeches. Cars, motorcycles and bicycles blocked streets around the crowd.

At about 10:15 p.m. the crowd walked through downtown streets eventually returning to the area of the Federal Courthouse around 11:30 p.m. The crowd grew and people began spray painting the Justice Center and Federal Courthouse. People tampered with and climbed on the gate leading under the Justice Center and pounded on plywood on the exterior of the building. They behaved similarly at the Federal Courthouse.

Several hundred people concentrated on the west side of the Federal Courthouse and dozens of them pounded on and began breaking the plywood covering the west side of the building. People were using hammers, crowbars and other pry tools. Many people could be seen carrying bats and shields, people wore helmets and gas masks. At about 12:45 a.m. on July 21, 2020, people broke through the plywood outside the courthouse and started pounding windows with metal objects, breaking at least one window. Hundreds of people were packed tightly in the portico on the west side of the courthouse pushing toward the entrance.

At about 12:38 a.m. federal law enforcement began dispersing the crowd using a variety of munitions. Many people in the crowd threw rocks, bottles, and other projectiles at the federal officers. People scattered into the surrounding blocks over the next twenty minutes. At one point a group of about seventy five people holding shields lined up across SW Main west of SW 3rd. They moved slowly toward the middle of the intersection but eventually broke up.

By 1:30 a.m. there were a few dozen people back on the courthouse portico throwing glass and plastic bottles, wood, pieces of metal, rocks and other debris at the building. People also lit fires in garbage cans, and near a tree by the courthouse.

At about 2:24 a.m. people lit a fire near a door on the SW Salmon Street side of the courthouse. Federal law enforcement put it out. At 2:29 a.m. people poured an accelerant on the plywood over the door on the front of the courthouse and ignited it. Federal officers dispersed the crowd using various munitions.

At 2:45 a.m. several dozen people blocked off SW Salmon Street at SW 5th Avenue with fencing and an assortment of other material stolen from nearby properties. People continued to light fires downtown including a fire on the awning and side of a building, at SW 4th Avenue and SW Yamhill Street, which required Portland Fire & Rescue to respond. At about 3:00 a.m. another fire was burning in the middle of the sidewalk north side of the County Courthouse, which required Portland Fire & Rescue response. Before they arrived people continually added flammable material to it causing it to grow and burn against the building. Portland Police responded to provide security for firefighters.

While Portland Police Officers were in the area of the County Courthouse a person threw a glass bottle at them, then fled.

At about 3:07 a.m. a caller reported that people had broken into a jewelry store in the 500 Block of SW 3rd Avenue. Portland Police responded and found the windows broken out and could see that valuables had been removed. Officers searched the area for the suspects. A vehicle fled the scene as officers investigated.

A caller reported that windows at City Hall were broken out.

Portland Police Bureau officers did not deploy CS gas and made no arrests.

Peaceful Protesters.

[DonaldD]

You think those are peaceful protesters?  That's weird - maybe that's why you are OK with stormtroopers picking up random protesters without evidence of them having committed crimes.

[Lloyd Perna]

How exactly do you know what evidence of crimes they might or might not have?  Please provide citations. I do not believe that the people they are picking up are random in any way.  As usual, you attribute the worst motives possible to anyone who doesn't agree with your politics.

[DonaldD]

Well, the evidence is that they let many go without any charges being laid, and only hours later ... and of course, the other people that they simply assaulted without even arresting them - just used them as punching bags, without even a pretence of evidence of a crime.

All the while, you know, without being identifiable in any way, masked, without even a designation of what arm of the military or state to which they belong.

I continue to be bemused that conservatives are so adamant that the federal government should be able to use completely unaccountable, anonymous forces against the citizenry.  But then, conservatives used to pretend to care about deficits, and about not confirming judges in an election year, too...

[TheDeamon]

Political processes have political solutions.

As to a lot of the rest. Have you considered the possibility that a number of us had a pretty good grasp of what Federal Powers and legal capabilities the Federal government already has, and that is perhaps a big reason why we keep jumping up and down screaming "please don't!" When Democrats start talking about introducing federal powers complete with new federal enforcement capabilities?

Funny how the Democrats are all about expanding Federal Enforcement capabilities, until they decide that Federal Enforcement activities happen to impact one of their favored groups, or can be used to make Republicans look bad.

[TheDrake]

Political processes have political solutions.

As to a lot of the rest. Have you considered the possibility that a number of us had a pretty good grasp of what Federal Powers and legal capabilities the Federal government already has, and that is perhaps a big reason why we keep jumping up and down screaming "please don't!" When Democrats start talking about introducing federal powers complete with new federal enforcement capabilities?

Funny how the Democrats are all about expanding Federal Enforcement capabilities, until they decide that Federal Enforcement activities happen to impact one of their favored groups, or can be used to make Republicans look bad.

Got an example? I don't doubt they exist, I just can't think of such a case. I mean, adding an additional federal law and enforcement of that law by the same agencies that enforce similar laws isn't the same thing as what we're talking about here. Though many conservatives consider it an expansion of federal power. So additional gun regulations, for example, wouldn't apply because we already have gun regulations and a federal agency responsible for it.

[Lloyd Perna]

Well, the evidence is that they let many go without any charges being laid, and only hours later ... and of course, the other people that they simply assaulted without even arresting them - just used them as punching bags, without even a pretence of evidence of a crime.

All the while, you know, without being identifiable in any way, masked, without even a designation of what arm of the military or state to which they belong.

I continue to be bemused that conservatives are so adamant that the federal government should be able to use completely unaccountable, anonymous forces against the citizenry.  But then, conservatives used to pretend to care about deficits, and about not confirming judges in an election year, too...

Ok, you admit you have no actual knowledge about why these people were detained, what they were suspected of doing, what charges have been or may be in the future brought against any of them.  Basically your problem seems to be that you find these guys scary and they are trying to punish your political allies for the crimes they have committed and you don't like it.