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.

 

[SaintForLife]

Those numbers have to be used in context. Do you have a count of how many gatherings where there was no violence and peaceful protest. From TaylorBs post of 93% off the top of my head that means there were 8000 total protests in that time period. Of those, 570 turned violent. So in the world of math that is mostly peaceful.

First of all I do not support violent protest but am a huge fan of peaceful demonstration. I will defend both sides for their right to peacefully protest and it is clearly stated in the constitution. To generalize all protests as violent does a huge dis-service to your argument. If you want to say there is too many violent protests or that needs to stop, I agree with you completely. There are other factors resulting in this violence including the police, agitators from counter protestors and people using protests as cover to be knuckleheads. It isn’t black and white, all protestors aren’t bad, all counter protestors aren’t bad either.

Do some research and look how the public portrayed the Civil Rights movement in the sixties. Today it is looked upon fondly with photos of peaceful protestors being spot on or attacked. The same elements then are here today saying the protests are going to end America. Those people were on the wrong side of history and people who claim these protests make things worst will likely be the same.

I've said multiple times that I know most of the protesting is peaceful. Search my posts and you will see that. I don't think I need to say thay every time I post something about the violence.

I have no problem with the protesting. What I have a problem with is the violence, looting, and vandalism that the media has either barely covered or excused by saying they are mostly peaceful. I have a problem with the politicians that have looked the other way and not allowed their police to protect their cities. I have a problem with the radical elements of BLM that are hurting their cause if they want real police reform. I do support police reform and ending qualified immunity.

 

[CoolBrees]

So yesterday was the 100th day.

Attached is an documentary made by the Oregonian, Portland’s paper.

It isn’t short but it well with the watch

 

[CoolBrees]

The article that goes with the documentary attached

100 Days of Protests in Portland

How one of America's whitest major cities became the center of the national conversation over systemic racism and police brutality.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[TaylorB]

I should have added that the violence has been downplayed and ignored by the media instead of just the mostly peaceful statement. Do you think 570 violent demonstrations in 220 different is a substantial amount of violence? Do you think the media has accurately portrayed or even mentioned how much violence there has been? We've already seen CNN trying to ignore the violence with burning buildings behind them.

I think the right wing views the protests as the last and best opportunity to drive a wedge between white suburban voters and the “radical left,” and as such, they see benefit in overstating the level of violence, complaining about the media’s portrayal of what’s happening, and ignoring or minimizing the extent to which some of the violence is being perpetrated by people who aren’t legitimately part of the BLM movement. While I wish there were no violence *at all*, and acknowledge that the media has, at times, struggled with how to narrate the story, I think that the focus of the RNC was to deceive people on all three of those points to the greatest extent possible instead of trying to give any sort of a damn about the issues that protestors are upset about in the first place.

I think your post citing York’s tweet did two of the things the RNC did — misled about the level of violence, and overstated the extent to which the media narrative is wrong. I think if you’re going to hold the media to such a high standard about accurately portraying the state of affairs, your posts should also be held to a similarly high standard of accuracy. Your post led readers to believe that the media narrative *you* described was proven inaccurate by a study *you* cited, when the study actually showed the opposite. I don’t see how that’s better than CNN showing burning structures in a shot while simultaneously claiming — accurately — that the protests are “mostly peaceful.”

You seem to want the media to portray more violence, because you seem to like how that narrative benefits your political position. But if 7% of the protests are actually violent, and as noted by the Princeton study, the violence is mostly confined to small areas within the broader protests, isn’t it likely that the media risks *overstating* the violence at least as much as it risks *understating* it, as it did with looters after Hurricane Katrina?

I don’t think there’s any way that a discussion about the media’s credibility *in general* on this topic becomes productive anyway, because it’s always a matter of perception and opinion. I only responded to your post about the Princeton article because it was objectively inaccurate. I think our society is better served if we spend less energy being outraged at the media’s coverage of a topic that is impossibly complicated and nuanced, and more energy trying to make an honest assessment and effort to address the underlying problem, while continuing to enforce our laws in an even-handed manner to give people peace of mind that the guardrails upon which our society is dependent remain in place. In the meantime, all of us should be careful to avoid trying to use this story to foster a politically convenient narrative.

 

[SaintForLife]

I think the right wing views the protests as the last and best opportunity to drive a wedge between white suburban voters and the “radical left,” and as such, they see benefit in overstating the level of violence, complaining about the media’s portrayal of what’s happening, and ignoring or minimizing the extent to which some of the violence is being perpetrated by people who aren’t legitimately part of the BLM movement. While I wish there were no violence *at all*, and acknowledge that the media has, at times, struggled with how to narrate the story, I think that the focus of the RNC was to deceive people on all three of those points to the greatest extent possible instead of trying to give any sort of a damn about the issues that protestors are upset about in the first place.

I think your post citing York’s tweet did two of the things the RNC did — misled about the level of violence, and overstated the extent to which the media narrative is wrong. I think if you’re going to hold the media to such a high standard about accurately portraying the state of affairs, your posts should also be held to a similarly high standard of accuracy. Your post led readers to believe that the media narrative *you* described was proven inaccurate by a study *you* cited, when the study actually showed the opposite. I don’t see how that’s better than CNN showing burning structures in a shot while simultaneously claiming — accurately — that the protests are “mostly peaceful.”

You seem to want the media to portray more violence, because you seem to like how that narrative benefits your political position. But if 7% of the protests are actually violent, and as noted by the Princeton study, the violence is mostly confined to small areas within the broader protests, isn’t it likely that the media risks *overstating* the violence at least as much as it risks *understating* it, as it did with looters after Hurricane Katrina?

I don’t think there’s any way that a discussion about the media’s credibility *in general* on this topic becomes productive anyway, because it’s always a matter of perception and opinion. I only responded to your post about the Princeton article because it was objectively inaccurate. I think our society is better served if we spend less energy being outraged at the media’s coverage of a topic that is impossibly complicated and nuanced, and more energy trying to make an honest assessment and effort to address the underlying problem, while continuing to enforce our laws in an even-handed manner to give people peace of mind that the guardrails upon which our society is dependent remain in place. In the meantime, all of us should be careful to avoid trying to use this story to foster a politically convenient narrative.

If people on the left would actually acknowledge that the vast majority of the media has a liberal bias then you might not hear as many complaints about the media. Their news is filtered in such a way because they support most of the liberal causes.

There are many instances where the media looks like an arm of the Democratic party. The Democrats leak to their favorite media and coordinate their agendas.

If you don't think a lot of people are concerned about the violence then you are missing out on some important information.

I've said over and over that I know most of the protest are peaceful. It's also very obvious that the media and Democrats are trying to whitewash the violence because it will hurt Biden and Democrats.

The public would never know that there has been 570 violent protests from the media. The violence is hurting the cause for Police reform. The Democrats looked the other way on the violence and they finally realized it's hurting them politically.

Have you seen many pictures of all the businesses thay have been damaged? What about the buildings, cars and other things that have been burned down?

Why don't the peaceful protestors protest during the day and in a location far away from the violence? That might help people to see that they normal protestors aren't associated with the violence.

Washington Post 7/31/2020: "Trump ordered federal forces to quell Portland protests. But the chaos ended as soon as they left."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/31/portland-protests-federal-calm/#click=

 

[CoolBrees]

@SaintForLife -

It would help if you actually named who you consider “the media.”

Honestly, what does that even mean? Print media? Twitter feeds? Cable news? All of them? Because if you mean all of them that includes the LARGEST of all- domestic radio- which is overwhelmingly conservative. As are most local news and newspapers.

So again, please explain what you mean by “the media”

 

[The moose]

It would help if you actually named who you consider “the media.”

Honestly, what does that even mean? Print media? Twitter feeds? Cable news? All of them? Because if you mean all of them that includes the LARGEST of all- domestic radio- which is overwhelmingly conservative. As are most local news and newspapers.

So again, please explain what you mean by “the media”

Thank you.

I have been trying real hard to understand what that actually means. Hopefully we get an answer.

 

[RobF]

Just a couple of quick points:

The public would never know that there has been 570 violent protests from the media.

They wouldn't know the exact number, but if they were told the total number of protests and asked to estimate how many, the estimates would be far too high. Because as that study cited, the public perception of violence in the protests is higher than the reality. And where are they getting that impression from? The media, which far from under-representing violence at protests, over-represents it, not so much because of bias, but because the media is overwhelmingly sensationalist.

Why don't the peaceful protestors protest during the day and in a location far away from the violence? That might help people to see that they normal protestors aren't associated with the violence.

And I'm sorry, but this is an absurd suggestion, for several reasons: the peaceful protesters are doing that, it's included in that 93%, where there are violent protesters, they tend to have legs and be able to go where the peaceful ones are, which they will tend to do, because that's usually where the action is, and even if the violent protesters helpfully segregate themselves to carry out some nice isolated violence - which would be pretty unusual for violent protesters, but let's go with it - it would still get lumped in with peaceful protests in the same locale, because that's how that coverage tends to work. It's not "there was a peaceful protest in this spot in city X, and a violent one in another spot in city X", it's "protests in city X erupted into violence."

I mean, come on, SFL. It's not like these are suggestions that wouldn't have occurred to anyone, is it.

 

[SaintForLife]

It's heartbreaking to see the destruction of these businesses

 

[SaintForLife]

@SaintForLife -

It would help if you actually named who you consider “the media.”

Honestly, what does that even mean? Print media? Twitter feeds? Cable news? All of them? Because if you mean all of them that includes the LARGEST of all- domestic radio- which is overwhelmingly conservative. As are most local news and newspapers.

So again, please explain what you mean by “the media”

Obviously I'm referring to the non-conservative media because the conservative media is covering the violence. Do you think that conservative talk radio has the same influence as the NYT, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc?

 

[CoolBrees]

More than all of those combined. Even if you add in CNN and MSNBC.

Considering listenership vs viewers or readers, Radio is still the largest media outlet and it isn’t close. Over 228 million listen to the radio each week. That dwarfs tv and internet.

ETA- And just so I have this straight, “the media“ is only the sources you don’t like. What do you call the ones you do like? And what are they?

 

[The moose]

Obviously I'm referring to the non-conservative media because the conservative media is covering the violence. Do you think that conservative talk radio has the same influence as the NYT, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc?

In 1987 when the fcc fairness doctrine was repealed it made the talk radio world explode conservative.

The fairness doctrine made shows cover both sides. Without it we get the air waves full of rush and like.

The conservative media might be smaller outlets but they reach a much larger share.

But I know that doesn't fit the conservative are out numbered bit.

 

[Richard]

And I'm sorry, but this is an absurd suggestion, for several reasons: the peaceful protesters are doing that, it's included in that 93%, where there are violent protesters, they tend to have legs and be able to go where the peaceful ones are, which they will tend to do, because that's usually where the action is, and even if the violent protesters helpfully segregate themselves to carry out some nice isolated violence - which would be pretty unusual for violent protesters, but let's go with it - it would still get lumped in with peaceful protests in the same locale, because that's how that coverage tends to work. It's not "there was a peaceful protest in this spot in city X, and a violent one in another spot in city X", it's "protests in city X erupted into violence."

I mean, come on, SFL. It's not like these are suggestions that wouldn't have occurred to anyone, is it.

I have trouble with the 100+ day protests in Portland as well. The suggestion that people protest during the day isn’t unreasonable when there were 8 pm curfews in place. Protesting after that time was asking for confrontations with police. I also understand that quite a few of the protests broke up earlier, but the rowdiest ones — the ones that “erupted into violence— didn’t even really get going until closer to 11 pm, well after curfew.

How are legitimate protests heard when they can so easily be grouped with those protests that have more interest in creating anarchy than solutions. Even legitimate protests have ill-defined or unreasonable goals, making it nearly impossible to reach a point where daily protests can end. Lumping demands for the resignations of elected officials with racial justice demands that can’t be met with the wave of a hand is a recipe for self-perpetuating protests. It begins to look more like vanity than an honest effort to reach substantive dialogue with persons of authority.

I was initially encouraged by the numbers of people willing to march in support of racial equality and against the brutality of some police. The non-violent protests caused a lot of people to look inward and ask themselves what they can do. We have seen communities start conversations about the role of police and the use of force. These are good things and I support all of that. Never ending protests, burning, looting, damaging property and seeking to harm law enforcement, not so much.

 

[Taurus]

It's heartbreaking to see the destruction of these businesses

Yes, it is. The Nazi streetgangs responsible should face every penalty applicable.

 

[RobF]

I have trouble with the 100+ day protests in Portland as well. The suggestion that people protest during the day isn’t unreasonable when there were 8 pm curfews in place. Protesting after that time was asking for confrontations with police. I also understand that quite a few of the protests broke up earlier, but the rowdiest ones — the ones that “erupted into violence— didn’t even really get going until closer to 11 pm, well after curfew.

How are legitimate protests heard when they can so easily be grouped with those protests that have more interest in creating anarchy than solutions. Even legitimate protests have ill-defined or unreasonable goals, making it nearly impossible to reach a point where daily protests can end. Lumping demands for the resignations of elected officials with racial justice demands that can’t be met with the wave of a hand is a recipe for self-perpetuating protests. It begins to look more like vanity than an honest effort to reach substantive dialogue with persons of authority.

I was initially encouraged by the numbers of people willing to march in support of racial equality and against the brutality of some police. The non-violent protests caused a lot of people to look inward and ask themselves what they can do. We have seen communities start conversations about the role of police and the use of force. These are good things and I support all of that. Never ending protests, burning, looting, damaging property and seeking to harm law enforcement, not so much.

I think you raise some important points. For my part:

I don't have a problem with continuing protests when there's a continuing problem.

I was also encouraged by the numbers marching, including internationally, and the responses, which are certainly good things. But the thing is, I was also encouraged the last time there were numbers marching, including internationally. And the time before that, and...

I do not think violence is a solution. I do think it is incumbent on everyone to ensure that there are non-violent paths to solutions to critical problems.

"Protest peacefully and without causing disruption" can very easily become "be quiet so we can pay lip service to the problem and then go back to ignoring you" if there is a lack of good faith. And I think that touches on the notion you put forward there that, "It begins to look more like vanity than an honest effort to reach substantive dialogue with persons of authority"; I don't think that's the case here, I think it's a natural reaction to the problem that it is not seen to be possible to have substantive good faith dialogue with persons of authority when those persons of authority have shown themselves to be unwilling to enter into good faith substantive dialogue. When people have been told, "we've heard you, we're going to take action," before, many times, and then the problem persists and little of consequence happens, they're less likely to take heed of it when they're told it yet again. That, in itself, is not on them; that's on the people making promises they don't deliver on. It is natural to get to the point where the response is, "We're not stopping until we see action and not just words."

Additionally, there's also the effect of a sensationalist media, in that, when it stops covering things that aren't sensational as it tends to do, things are forced to become sensational if they seek attention through the media. The ACLED study refers to 7,750 demonstrations; how many of those received significant coverage? And which ones were they? I would bet they were overwhelmingly the first ones, and then the ones which contained violence, be that from the police (use of tear gas against protesters refusing to disperse for example) or from thugs associating themselves with the protests. Wholly peaceful protests without conflict tend to be covered initially, if at all, and then ignored.

And there's also the reality that violence tends to beget violence, which is tied in with the nature of policing in the USA and elsewhere. A police force that reacts to non-violence with violence, or that responds to violence from a few with violence against many, will tend to foster more anger and violence, not less.

To be explicit, I am saying those problems together foster an environment in which protests are effectively encouraged to be continuous and disruptive, and create an environment in which violence is more likely. I am not saying those problems justify violence; as mentioned, despite those problems, the vast, vast, majority of protests and protesters continue to be peaceful, and they should be heard. I am saying that violence and disruption do not occur in a vacuum, that addressing those problems will help, and that's what we need to do. To simply condemn the relatively little violence there is while not recognising or addressing the context in which its occuring is to not really accomplishing anything (and I'm not saying you're doing that @Richard, I'm just noting it as something which can be seen to be happening in some circles).

Basically, I don't think it's realistic to demand the problems of violence in and around protests are solved by protesters, or to demand that protesters provide a complete solution to problems stretching back centuries. The protesters are trying to highlight the problem; it's on all of us to address it.

The solution lies in taking heed, recognising the underlying issues that perpetuate and exacerbate the problems, and offering real paths to real change that can foster and sustain good faith. And much of that is on all of us, individually and collectively; we individually determine how we engage with the people around us, we collectively determine the nature of our media, we collectively determine who those persons of authority are, and if they're not willing to engage with difficult problems, that's on all of us. That's what we need to engage with.

 

[Richard]

Well said Rob. I have tried to think of what else can be done by the Portland authorities to ensure the safety of persons and property while allowing legitimate protests to continue. They have set curfews that have been largely ignored. They have alternated between a significant police presence and times when police were withdrawn. While state and local officials wrestled with finding an effective means to maintain order, Trump inserted himself into the situation, which only escalated tensions. As an aside, I think it was entirely proper for federal property to be protected; I do have issues with how that was supposedly achieved. State and locals officials could have maintained order without the insertion of federal law enforcement.

So I have continued to ask myself what local officials nationally can do to stop the violence and anarchy without impeding legitimate protests. I keep going back to the fact that curfews have been ignored, so if people are unwilling to acknowledge the curfew, I see no end. Curfew enforcement would require an escalation of police presence, which would in turn bring more defiance to police actions.

It all brings to mind a situation we had locally in the 1980s on a much smaller scale. There was an issue that the local NAACP president had deemed unjust and he organized a march and some picketing. He was organizing another march to coincide with the picketing when I decided to give him a call. I asked him what his end goals were and he told me. I asked if he thought that the community and local officials were aware of the problem after the first march and picketing and he said he thought they were. Through our conversation, I sought to get him to recognize that more marching and picketing would not help him reach his goals if he did not simultaneously seek to meet with those in a position to change circumstances. He resisted the notion at first, but eventually came to understand that dialogue with persons in position to bring about the changes he sought was the only way things had a chance to change. So he continued the picketing while talking with those people. After talking with them, he ended the picketing. Ultimately, he didn't get what he wanted, but soon after ran for office and became a longtime elected official in this community. I don't recall a march or picket line since then. He put himself in a position to affect outcomes as a respected city councilman.

I bring that up only to say that we can all become outraged at injustice. Taking our anger to the streets can make us feel like we are doing something to let persons of authority know how we feel. But IMO, nothing actually happens until the volume comes down and people begin to communicate on these issues. The protests are valid and I think were necessary. It's now time to get in a room with officials and see how we can do some things that will make a difference. As a former elected official myself, I can tell you that I wouldn't have any desire to sit down with people who are more interested in shouting than they are in talking.

 

[CoolBrees]

Richard-

The 8pm curfew was in effect for less than a week over two months ago. It had the opposite effect so Wheeler quietly repealed it.

 

[CoolBrees]

Please watch the documentary I posted from the Oregonian. It gives a great view of the city from all perspectives - including police.

I know you don’t believe me but the protests are peaceful until the Proud Boys show up. Every. Night. At Mayor Wheeler’s house we were dressed up in pool floaties and doing the Macarena until 11. Then a bunch of people showed up and lit the place on fire.

State police are arresting protestors for being in the street and not the sidewalk. And calling it a riot. My wife’s google album has excellent video of all of this if you (or anyone else) is interested.

My wife is down at the police station right now waiting for those who were arrested last night are released. She has joined the group to wait for them to come out every day since her group’s leader (who is interviewed by the Oregonian) was arrested. These people are never charged with anything. They are being held for up to 18 hours without charges.

The new thing is police are using their personal phones and video equipment to film protesters and are harassing them off duty. A PPS teacher had An officer show up I plain clothes at her house - just to say hi. I am fully expecting them at my house soon.