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.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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.

Thanks for the reply and I understand you'll hopefully be gone for a bit, so this is for when you get back or if someone else wants to take it up.

I'm mainly focusing on LE response, and in this case mostly federal since that's the narrow scope of this discussion. I'm trying to not focus on prescriptive measures for protesters because they aren't beholden to me, and aren't funded by my tax dollars. There is certainly a discussion to be had about effective protest, etc. But at the moment, I'm focused on government policy, since that is what will cover a wide range of protests and such in the future.

So, I'm looking for the process of when the feds get involved, the depth of their involvement (ie, is it narrowly applied to just protecting the property, or can they leave federal property and detain people, and if so, what process do they need to follow, and if they don't what repercussions should they face).

So, from your statement above, it appears that you support vigorous responses to the moment an act of violence occurs, is that a fair statement? The reason I ask, is there are obvious problems in that I can pretty much sabotage any protest I want by just freezing a bunch of water bottles, joining the protest and then launching the water bottles at cops, then running away and letting the other protesters bear the brunt of the response, right?

Further, what is an appropriate action when there was an act of violence the day before, but nothing yet on this particular day? Is use of force justified? Or is it a lowered threshold? Etc.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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.

I appreciate that you caveated your last statement with knowledge that it was overly provocative, so that I know you're going for effect vs a literal definition. I think you can easily find conservatives in the near past using similar arguments, which is again why I'm trying to define the process so we have a bit more faith that force is being applied impartially. I think we can bring up a number of scenarios where we all agree federal agents are appropriate, and we can bring up a number of scenarios where we all agree that federal agents are not appropriate.

Which again brings me back to my question, what exactly is the process to bring federal involvement and how wide ranging should it be.

You mention the desire for restraint from the feds in order to create a better resolution. I think this is a point of agreement, so, the easiest way in my mind is to create a use of force policy/procedure to follow. Minimize potential bias on the part of LE, and hopefully create trust in the population that force will only applied in a rational appropriate fashion.

I assume that makes sense to everyone. I think it gets trickier in nailing down exactly when it's appropriate, and what methods are used for each scenario.

 

[JimEverett]

I appreciate that you caveated your last statement with knowledge that it was overly provocative, so that I know you're going for effect vs a literal definition. I think you can easily find conservatives in the near past using similar arguments, which is again why I'm trying to define the process so we have a bit more faith that force is being applied impartially. I think we can bring up a number of scenarios where we all agree federal agents are appropriate, and we can bring up a number of scenarios where we all agree that federal agents are not appropriate.

Which again brings me back to my question, what exactly is the process to bring federal involvement and how wide ranging should it be.

You mention the desire for restraint from the feds in order to create a better resolution. I think this is a point of agreement, so, the easiest way in my mind is to create a use of force policy/procedure to follow. Minimize potential bias on the part of LE, and hopefully create trust in the population that force will only applied in a rational appropriate fashion.

I assume that makes sense to everyone. I think it gets trickier in nailing down exactly when it's appropriate, and what methods are used for each scenario.

I probably approach this from too broad a perspective or maybe even far too theoretical than most but when I think about things like this I come back to two themes:
1. No two situations are ever the same. So it is easy to, and I think most people do, approach this issue and others with the point that if it is someone they trust/agree with doing "it" or opposing "it" then they are for whatever that person or group is for. At the same time being able to maintain some degree of "consistency" and opposing the idea that they are being "hypocrites" or even for something approaching or at the level of "lawlesness." And it's not just fighting the charge of being hypocritical - it is being able to articulate differences in situations where they can build a bedrock against the charge of treating situations and even people differently.
2. How important is it to be "consistent" on such things? Which ties into two of the points above - if you lack consistency then you begin to approach, for lack of a better term, a sort of "banana republic" imo. At least if you lack it to some extreme. And I think this is where we have been heading and seem to have accelerated in the last few years.
Or, you can claim you care deeply about consistency but end up differentiating on the minute details where, in effect, you end up lacking consistency because, like above, you are essentially arguing that no two situations are the same therefore there is no need for consistency.

[EDIT] And I meant to add that it would be bad policy, I think, to have too broad of an approach - which might be viewed as going against what I am saying above. But at some level there has to be a large degree of generalization, or else it seems meaningless.

 

[JimEverett]

I am going to leave my above post up there even though reading it afte I posted it seems confusing. But here I am going to talk about something more specific:

The civil rights movement was a seminal series of events touching on federal power in relation to the powers of various states. So events in it are often used as examples of federal power - not necessarily because of the racial compnent but because of the nature of state power and state laws - particularly in southern states.
So - the Freedom Riders, for example, were finally afforded federal police protection due to the powers granted the federal government under the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution. If you think the federal government has that power to use police protection to protect interstate commerce then on what basis is use of federal police is illegal to protect a city where businesses have been damaged by protesters if the feds are basing, at least in part, their use of police power on the interstate commerce clause?

 

[Taurus]

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.

Do they have to show up at my house, though?
I don't have the right to walk down streets I helped pay for?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I probably approach this from too broad a perspective or maybe even far too theoretical than most but when I think about things like this I come back to two themes:
1. No two situations are ever the same. So it is easy to, and I think most people do, approach this issue and others with the point that if it is someone they trust/agree with doing "it" or opposing "it" then they are for whatever that person or group is for. At the same time being able to maintain some degree of "consistency" and opposing the idea that they are being "hypocrites" or even for something approaching or at the level of "lawlesness." And it's not just fighting the charge of being hypocritical - it is being able to articulate differences in situations where they can build a bedrock against the charge of treating situations and even people differently.
2. How important is it to be "consistent" on such things? Which ties into two of the points above - if you lack consistency then you begin to approach, for lack of a better term, a sort of "banana republic" imo. At least if you lack it to some extreme. And I think this is where we have been heading and seem to have accelerated in the last few years.
Or, you can claim you care deeply about consistency but end up differentiating on the minute details where, in effect, you end up lacking consistency because, like above, you are essentially arguing that no two situations are the same therefore there is no need for consistency.

[EDIT] And I meant to add that it would be bad policy, I think, to have too broad of an approach - which might be viewed as going against what I am saying above. But at some level there has to be a large degree of generalization, or else it seems meaningless.

I get what your saying, but I think you need to have some standard or basis - or at the very least some lines that can't be crossed, correct? I think I've talked before about the usefulness of Schelling fences, and their applicability to allowing certain actions while providing some protection against slippery slopes, right?

Because without any of that, you are basically saying that it's up to the level of trust you have in the "authorities". And we're living in a time where there is tons of distrust in those authorities. So, with fewer standards there is a real danger of increasing civil unrest if we're just leaving it up to the judgement of the state.

For example, the current president is deeply unpopular and there is very little trust in his judgement by a large section of the population. However, he also still has duties and obligations to fulfill, and that lack of trust will only hurt him, unless there is a set of standards that are agreed upon that will allow him to fulfill those duties while providing at least some level of assurances to those that don't trust him. This will repeat with whoever the next president is going to be.

For example, is it fair to feel some level of discomfort if the President talks about federal takeover of cities based on the political leanings of those cities? His quote was “Look at what’s going on — all run by Democrats, all run by very liberal Democrats. All run, really, by radical left,” The only objective standard he used was the party affiliation of those running the cities. Since he didn't use a defined standard of level of violence or anything else, I don't think it's unfair to say that his standard is political affiliation. Does that seem like a reasonable standard? If not, do you think another standard has been articulated in a sufficient manner?

 

[JimEverett]

I get what your saying, but I think you need to have some standard or basis - or at the very least some lines that can't be crossed, correct? I think I've talked before about the usefulness of Schelling fences, and their applicability to allowing certain actions while providing some protection against slippery slopes, right?

Because without any of that, you are basically saying that it's up to the level of trust you have in the "authorities". And we're living in a time where there is tons of distrust in those authorities. So, with fewer standards there is a real danger of increasing civil unrest if we're just leaving it up to the judgement of the state.

For example, the current president is deeply unpopular and there is very little trust in his judgement by a large section of the population. However, he also still has duties and obligations to fulfill, and that lack of trust will only hurt him, unless there is a set of standards that are agreed upon that will allow him to fulfill those duties while providing at least some level of assurances to those that don't trust him. This will repeat with whoever the next president is going to be.

For example, is it fair to feel some level of discomfort if the President talks about federal takeover of cities based on the political leanings of those cities? His quote was “Look at what’s going on — all run by Democrats, all run by very liberal Democrats. All run, really, by radical left,” The only objective standard he used was the party affiliation of those running the cities. Since he didn't use a defined standard of level of violence or anything else, I don't think it's unfair to say that his standard is political affiliation. Does that seem like a reasonable standard? If not, do you think another standard has been articulated in a sufficient manner?

I think we agree that the present actions done by the feds are wrong. I do not like them. [Although I do think the police themselves are justified in taking certain actions to protect themselves.]
I think what I am arguing is that previous precedent has allowed the President and the feds to use federal agents in this manner - largely because people have ignored arguments from those who put process first even in the face of some injustices occurring because of it.
At this point, we have made it where the feds are [legally] justified in doing basically whatever they want due to the broad powers afforded them over the last several decades. At least with respect to protecting life and property.
Sort of on the same subject: we had a federal judge block a Seattle law that banned the use of pepper spray by the Seattle police. How did we get to this point?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I am going to leave my above post up there even though reading it afte I posted it seems confusing. But here I am going to talk about something more specific:

The civil rights movement was a seminal series of events touching on federal power in relation to the powers of various states. So events in it are often used as examples of federal power - not necessarily because of the racial compnent but because of the nature of state power and state laws - particularly in southern states.
So - the Freedom Riders, for example, were finally afforded federal police protection due to the powers granted the federal government under the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution. If you think the federal government has that power to use police protection to protect interstate commerce then on what basis is use of federal police is illegal to protect a city where businesses have been damaged by protesters if the feds are basing, at least in part, their use of police power on the interstate commerce clause?

I'm not familiar with what protections the Freedom Riders got, so you'll have to educate me on that.

I think the interstate commerce clause has definitely gotten abused quite a bit though (and often on issues that I support), so I'm not sure where we can go with this, it's a pretty dense knot to untangle.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think we agree that the present actions done by the feds are wrong. I do not like them. [Although I do think the police themselves are justified in taking certain actions to protect themselves.]
I think what I am arguing is that previous precedent has allowed the President and the feds to use federal agents in this manner - largely because people have ignored arguments from those who put process first even in the face of some injustices occurring because of it.
At this point, we have made it where the feds are [legally] justified in doing basically whatever they want due to the broad powers afforded them over the last several decades. At least with respect to protecting life and property.
Sort of on the same subject: we had a federal judge block a Seattle law that banned the use of pepper spray by the Seattle police. How did we get to this point?

I think we are mostly on the same page. Part of my issue is that I don't like what is going on b/c it feels wrong. But I also know that I'm very biased against the current President, and this is an issue that I have another pre-existing bias on (uneven application of the law when it comes to racial issues). So, I have two biases working against me, and I'm trying to find a way to bound federal and police action without handcuffing legitimate duties.

 

[JimEverett]

I'm not familiar with what protections the Freedom Riders got, so you'll have to educate me on that.

I think the interstate commerce clause has definitely gotten abused quite a bit though, so I'm not sure where we're going with this.

The Freedom Riders were groups of people who "tested" the Supreme Court ruling outlawing segregated travel across state lines (via the interstate commerce clause). They tool desegregated bus rides across the South and often met terrible violence while doing so - see the Montgomery Greyhound Bus station in the early 60s as one of the worst examples of the violence they met.
After seeing so much of this violence by mobs the Kennedy Administration finally sent federal police to protect the bus riders under the power afforded by the Interstate Commerce clause.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The Freedom Riders were groups of people who "tested" the Supreme Court ruling outlawing segregated travel across state lines (via the interstate commerce clause). They tool desegregated bus rides across the South and often met terrible violence while doing so - see the Montgomery Greyhound Bus station in the early 60s as one of the worst examples of the violence they met.
After seeing so much of this violence by mobs the Kennedy Administration finally sent federal police to protect the bus riders under the power afforded by the Interstate Commerce clause.

OK, so this is like my theoretical example earlier in this thread where I said I would support some sort of federal involvement if a local community passed laws making it legal to round up gays and assault them, etc.

It's a good question. I think there's a threshold where I think it's probably appropriate for the federal government to protect the Constitutional rights of its citizens (which would include property rights), when the local government makes it clear that they aren't willing to. The question then becomes what is the threshold, or process to determine when that line is crossed.

Take the current situation. I think there's a disagreement between certain local authorities and the federal government on the best method to protect property rights, as well as the relative ranking of rights. So there's both a practical disagreement and a philosophical one.

It's obviously a multi-layered issue -- b/c you can agree that the federal government has a right to protect property rights, but then also believe that they violated other people's rights to freedom of assembly and speech if they employ improper methods in protecting property rights (which goes to the issue of collective punishment, and using minimum level of force to accomplish a particular goal).

 

[Eeyore]

'Disturbing--and Dangerous': Journalists Denounce Judge's Order for Outlets to Turn Over Protest Footage to Seattle Police | Common Dreams

"This turns journalists into an arm of the government. We are not here to do surveillance for police."

www.commondreams.org

 

[CoolBrees]

my wife texted from the protests - we have entered war zone territory.

The WoM formed early today since it is a weekend and protests started early- and the gas came quick. My wife’s was linked arms with a women hit with a rubber bullet in the leg. Apparently they hurt, or so wife figures by shriek and the fact the woman threw up. She is coming home for a break and a shower. She is starting to break a bit - I am worried. The flash grenades have really affected her.

Anyway, fortunately(?) several veterans’ groups here in Oregon have joined the WoM. They told my wife they are itching to see a woman get hit. I don’t know how to feel about that honestly but they are already fighting the feds. Like actual fist to cuffs, or are trying but the feds won’t. They just like beating women I guess.

Now, I fear, there is going to be serious violence. As the crowds grow to huge numbers and the veteran’s groups looking to fight, that square is going to be too crowded.

The feds are not even announcing themselves anymore or giving warning. They just launch attacks and then go back in. Today already they freaking tear gassed the BBQ again. Freaking guy is giving food away and they came out and doused it with tear gas. They cut his water tank and slashed his propane line.

the veterans are talking about organizing counter offensives. The moms are like “wha huh?” I told my wife I am going to take her place as a surrogate mother. This is turning into paramilitary and these poor moms are literally the line being held

 

[cuddlemonkey]

my wife texted from the protests - we have entered war zone territory.

The WoM formed early today since it is a weekend and protests started early- and the gas came quick. My wife’s was linked arms with a women hit with a rubber bullet in the leg. Apparently they hurt, or so wife figures by shriek and the fact the woman threw up. She is coming home for a break and a shower. She is starting to break a bit - I am worried. The flash grenades have really affected her.

Anyway, fortunately(?) several veterans’ groups here in Oregon have joined the WoM. They told my wife they are itching to see a woman get hit. I don’t know how to feel about that honestly but they are already fighting the feds. Like actual fist to cuffs, or are trying but the feds won’t. They just like beating women I guess.

Now, I fear, there is going to be serious violence. As the crowds grow to huge numbers and the veteran’s groups looking to fight, that square is going to be too crowded.

The feds are not even announcing themselves anymore or giving warning. They just launch attacks and then go back in. Today already they freaking tear gassed the BBQ again. Freaking guy is giving food away and they came out and doused it with tear gas. They cut his water tank and slashed his propane line.

the veterans are talking about organizing counter offensives. The moms are like “wha huh?” I told my wife I am going to take her place as a surrogate mother. This is turning into paramilitary and these poor moms are literally the line being held

The vets need to chill. Step up front, peacefully hold the line, and for the love of God have someone live stream the entire thing and let the world see what's really happening.

The BBQ thing is inexcusable, though. What kind of butt crevasses intentionally ruin food and water?

 

[CoolBrees]

Certainly someone is live streaming, the Moms do film everything. Again My wife now tons of photos and video on a google share. If anyone would like to access it, please let DM me and I will have her add you

 

[CoolBrees]

This isn’t the first time they have done it- destroyed his BBQ. It’s like the third. They turn over med stations, ruin water supplies, and destroy booths.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

This isn’t the first time they have done it- destroyed his BBQ. It’s like the third. They turn over med stations, ruin water supplies, and destroy booths.

shirt like this is why I find it hard to believe anything other than the feds are 100% the bad guys here.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Certainly someone is live streaming, the Moms do film everything. Again My wife now tons of photos and video on a google share. If anyone would like to access it, please let DM me and I will have her add you

I've seen where news outlets are filming from the ground also. I wonder if someone is able to set up from a roof across the street from the protest and film every second of it. Don't let people hide behind the idea of edited videos or protesters only showing the response and not whatever they supposedly did to start it.