Federal Law Enforcement Use Unmarked Vehicles To Grab Protesters Off Portland Streets (UPDATE: Trump admin. deploying federal LE to cities) (1 Viewer)

[Dragon]

“All United States Marshals Service arrestees have public records of arrest documenting their charges. Our agency did not arrest or detain Mark James Pettibone.”

OPB sent DHS an extensive list of questions about Pettibone’s arrest including: What is the legal justification for making arrests away from federal property? What is the legal justification for searching people who are not participating in criminal activity? Why are federal officers using civilian vehicles and taking people away in them? Are the arrests federal officers make legal under the constitution? If so, how?

After 7 p.m. Thursday, a DHS spokesperson responded, on background, that they could confirm Wolf was in Portland during the day. The spokesperson didn’t acknowledge the remaining questions.

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

Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14.

www.opb.org

This story is very troublesome.

 

[SFIDC3]

I agree, but I also believe I am both.

Sorry, you are far from just. Believe LE 99% of the time? It's almost like you haven't being paying attention to what has been going on the last few months (which is the same thing that has been going on for years)....I'm sure you also believe in "qualified immunity" and "bad shoots".....

 

[Nebaghead]

Our country was found on insurrection. I guess Fsrb would be supportive of those LEOs aka British soldiers after the Boston Tea Party. When injustice supports your beliefs you are all for it.
Were you mad during the standoffs with the Bundys who were armed and destroyed government property and the feds didn’t shoot them dead. Probably not because Obama was the fed then.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

There is no question there are small pockets of agitators setting fires in trash cans etc. but they are the vast minority. The federal building was behind my wife in the 1 minutes protest video. Again the protests ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BLOCK WITH PERMITS. The federal building is. It being attacked. And if someone throws a Molotov cocktail at the building they are being singled out and ostracized.

So, this is important info to be taken into account, b/c it adds nuance to the discussion. There is a percentage of the people in the general area being violent. Would you say the distance is easily definable? Ie, would a casual observer easily be able to separate violent groups from non-violent groups?

 

[CoolBrees]

Yes the agitators aren’t the moms mind you. They are the same agitators you get at any protest. They are there to kick up dust and break shirt. They use movements to hide their actions.

This is the work of the Proud Boys. They have admitted it just not openly.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Cool. Would you say you had a pre-existing condition to believing protesters over the feds prior to viewing the video you had? Ie, would you say you were pre-disposed to believing the video without checking to see if it was selectively edited?

*Note, I'm not saying this bad, more of a way to help sort out the starting point.

I am in this particular instance, especially given recent history. We have recently seen protesters gassed and fired at with rubber bullets for a presidential photo op, had reports of people being taken off the street in unmarked vehicles without being read their rights, and now this. It paints a picture that is hard to ignore.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Our country was found on insurrection. I guess Fsrb would be supportive of those LEOs aka British soldiers after the Boston Tea Party. When injustice supports your beliefs you are all for it.
Were you mad during the standoffs with the Bundys who were armed and destroyed government property and the feds didn’t shoot them dead. Probably not because Obama was the fed then.

And this is part of where I'm going with this discussion. What is your reaction to somewhat similar situations, and if you have different conclusions that line up with a particular "side", then are you trying to find differences to support that conclusion based on a bias, or not?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Just as an aside, I had a disagreement with my mom and uncle on the 4th July when I overheard them talking about how there is no more loyalty these days, and there should be more loyalty to the President, government, etc. I pointed out that I found it a bit ironic that they were talking about loyalty on the day when we as a country were celebrating a great act of disloyalty.

It isn't that people don't think that insurrection is bad, or protests are bad, etc... it's that they don't think whatever cause is being protested for is worth it.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Yes the agitators aren’t the moms mind you. They are the same agitators you get at any protest. They are there to kick up dust and break shirt. They use movements to hide their actions.

This is the work of the Proud Boys. They have admitted it just not openly.

So, leaving aside who is directly responsible for the violence/agitation. What is a reasonable threshold for the feds to respond with violence (rubber bullets, tear gas, etc)? I assume you don't disagree there is some threshold that once it gets crossed the feds are justified in using force to respond, right? What do you think that threshold is?

 

[First Time Poster]

she yelled at me that this isn’t about her or the moms that they need to be talking to and photographing the BLM coalition not white moms. To that point she said that the WoM has now made a women of color the spokesperson and women of color are the only ones being offered for interviews.

Mad respect to your wife, those moms, you and your family bro. Real talk.

 

[CoolBrees]

Great question Jim-

In my opinion, dispersal technique should follow the Geneva Convention. Which means governments don’t get attack sovereign citizens, only other government forces. Which obviously there are none here. Portland police was doing fine controlling the protests- we had no violence for weeks until the feds showed up. It was just bad PR for the WH because our local government was allowing them to exorcized their First Amendment rights and there was no end in sight for the protests.

we are being picked on because we have a Dem Governor, a Dem City Council, and a Dem mayor. Same with Albuquerque, Seattle now, and Chicago. This is nothing more than political retribution.

someone just brought up a fantastic point about the Bundy situation. That was in Oregon too if you remember. A federal building was vandalized AND OCCUPIED for weeks while the feds negotiated. Here is a great article showing the stark difference in federal action in the cases of white terrorists taking over a federal building and BLM exorcising their First Amendment rights to assembly.

Two Standoffs in Oregon: Two Different Federal Responses

When armed protesters took over a remote wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon four years ago to oppose federal control of public lands, federal agents negotiated with the right-wing occupiers for weeks while some state leaders begged for stronger action.

www.courthousenews.com

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Thanks for the response.

Yes, I remember the Bundy situation, and it has been in my mind during what's going around the country (specifically with CHAZ/CHOP).

So, there are two scenarios at play. I gather you are saying that the feds should never be involved with stopping a protest, right? Ie, leave it to local law enforcement?

The second scenario is what is going on at the court house. The feds are there, and I think we all agree that the feds have a right to be at a federal courthouse, and the feds can protect federal property right? So, there is probably some threshold that would allow the feds at the federal courthouse to respond with force. I assume you believe that threshold is higher than just throwing water bottles at them, but do have a defined threshold? I think this is an important question because someone needs to formulate policy and define that threshold.

Note, that at the moment, I'm talking about what is legal/allowable, not necessarily what is smart (although for me, the two are fairly closely linked).

 

[Nebaghead]

And this is part of where I'm going with this discussion. What is your reaction to somewhat similar situations, and if you have different conclusions that line up with a particular "side", then are you trying to find differences to support that conclusion based on a bias, or not?

I believe violent protesters shouldn’t be allowed to vandalize and destroy property. I also believe deescalarion tactics work better than tear gas and rubber bullets.
I am upset with people who claim law and order when it’s the other side and ignore the rest. If government property destruction was an issue or threats to LEO lives where of concern why didn’t the Bundys get taken out by the feds. Why did I see people with sniper rifles on over passes pointing weapons at officers and other officials not get tear gassed or fired upon. It is a double standard.
Before BLM you had anti mask protesters blocking traffic to hospitals and government buildings. Even carrying weapons into government buildings. Weapon means threat to me. That appears to be ok from the other side.

 

[insidejob]

Mad respect to your wife, those moms, you and your family bro. Real talk.

Seconded.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I believe violent protesters shouldn’t be allowed to vandalize and destroy property. I also believe deescalarion tactics work better than tear gas and rubber bullets.
I am upset with people who claim law and order when it’s the other side and ignore the rest. If government property destruction was an issue or threats to LEO lives where of concern why didn’t the Bundys get taken out by the feds. Why did I see people with sniper rifles on over passes pointing weapons at officers and other officials not get tear gassed or fired upon. It is a double standard.
Before BLM you had anti mask protesters blocking traffic to hospitals and government buildings. Even carrying weapons into government buildings. Weapon means threat to me. That appears to be ok from the other side.

Thanks. And I hope we can leave out assuming what the other side is ok with or not. I'm hoping @Farb or some other conservative will join in, b/c I think this is how we're going to come up with usable policy that most of us can live with.

 

[CoolBrees]

I don’t think the idea of federal occupation of a Us city would ever sit well with me.

Compared to the Bundy situation, that was an armed insurrection that took over a federal building and refused to leave. That is not a protest to me, that is breaking and entering, criminal trespassing and ignoring an official order. All of which are felonies, so they have waived their rights by breaking the law. That is why the WoM and the protesters are so careful NOT to break the law - it just doesn’t matter because they aren’t representing pissed off white people that Trump likes.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I don’t think the idea of federal occupation of a Us city would ever sit well with me.

Compared to the Bundy situation, that was an armed insurrection that took over a federal building and refused to leave. That is not a protest to me, that is breaking and entering, criminal trespassing and ignoring an official order. All of which are felonies, so they have waived their rights by breaking the law. That is why the WoM and the protesters are so careful NOT to break the law - it just doesn’t matter because they aren’t representing pissed off white people that Trump likes.

Thanks, I'm going for a set of policies/procedures and situations when to use those policies/procedures that are agreeable to the vast majority of Americans, that will be followed so we don't have to worry about the person in charge. In fact, I think @JimEverett would be good at this sort of thing b/c I've placed him in the "process conservative" camp (I might be mistaken, but I believe he places a very high importance on process).

For example, I assume that most conservatives would not be ok with a very liberal president deploying the feds to arrest pro-lifers or 2nd Amendment protesters off the street without a known due process standard being followed.

Also, I'm not sure I would never support a federal deployment of law enforcement - I just think the standard needs to be very high. For example, what would be the best way to handle a scenario where local gangs were rounding up gays and assaulting them, and the local government has made it legal to do so. I think some type of federal response might be warranted, although I think I'd have to talk through it and all the ramifications.

 

[Farb]

I don't have much time but I didn't want to leave you all hanging becasue I will be off line for the remainder of the weekend (God willing).
I didn't support anit-maskers either. I think its dumb. I don't support a government telling me to wear a mask, but I do and did before it was mandated because it was the right thing to do (maybe) and it really doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't give a crap is someone is not wearing a mask in public. I damn sure don't need to say anything to another grown adult about wearing a mask.
I did support the 'open back up' crowd in those cities that were and still are shut down due to the wuhan virus. Yes, they had legal firearms. Was there violence, did they protest or riot? To me, that is question.
If a protest blocks a road and especially a road that prevents emergency services, they lose my support for the most part.
As far as Bundy, I have no idea. I didn't pay attention to that fiasco at all and still have not researched it but I will at some point since that is a counter argument. I don't think they attacked a building or police but like I said, I will have to read up on it this weekend if I can.

If you don't want the feds/cops to bust you up, don't throw things at them and stop lighting things on fire. If the feds show up at your house for no reason and drag you out, then I will be right there with you. Until then, stop trying to burn things down.

Random Thought: if you want see how Government overreach starts and can end, watch Waco on Netflix (got to get past the whole religious cult thing) but it does a great job of showing how government agencies are run by men with big egos.

 

[JimEverett]

Thanks, I'm going for a set of policies/procedures and situations when to use those policies/procedures that are agreeable to the vast majority of Americans, that will be followed so we don't have to worry about the person in charge. In fact, I think @JimEverett would be good at this sort of thing b/c I've placed him in the "process conservative" camp (I might be mistaken, but I believe he places a very high importance on process).

For example, I assume that most conservatives would not be ok with a very liberal president deploying the feds to arrest pro-lifers or 2nd Amendment protesters off the street without a known due process standard being followed.

Also, I'm not sure I would never support a federal deployment of law enforcement - I just think the standard needs to be very high. For example, what would be the best way to handle a scenario where local gangs were rounding up gays and assaulting them, and the local government has made it legal to do so. I think some type of federal response might be warranted, although I think I'd have to talk through it and all the ramifications.

I think it is "proper" for the federal government to use federal officers and agents to protect federal property - like federal courthouse where a gate/fence had been repeatedly torn down.
I would hope there would be some degree of restraint in using federal agents even under that scenario - as in restraint in not actually causing more anger from the protestors, but it seems perfectly acceptable to use federal officers in such a situation.

But you are hitting on a serious problem that our country has faced with some degree of regularity. This is meant to be overly provocative - from a process point-of-view Oregon, Portland, and a lot of liberals sound awfully similar to the Confederates of the Civil War era and the segregationists during the Civil Rights movement when they demand an end to federal action and complete sovereignty over their ability to police their locality.