Federal Law Enforcement Use Unmarked Vehicles To Grab Protesters Off Portland Streets (UPDATE: Trump admin. deploying federal LE to cities) (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Dragon

    Well-known member
    Staff member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    1,138
    Reaction score
    2,088
    Age
    61
    Location
    Elsinore,Denmark
    Offline
    “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.








    This story is very troublesome.
     
    60% of the arrests were for assaulting a police officer
    Dude, that's the "he didn't do anything I can arrest him for but have to arrest him for something" fall back charge. Just like getting arrested for nothing but "resisting arrest." Even outside of a protest or riot or whatever.
     
    Cool Brees, I’m not as far left as you are but I respect your point of view and am glad you are here to tell us your story.

    I saw a headline today about a 13 yo boy with mental issues (I think) who was shot by police when his mom called them for help. There has to be a better way to handle these crises, there just has to.
     
    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.


    " Floyd’s death prompted a surge of demonstrations associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM)1 movement that quickly spread from Minneapolis throughout the country. Between 26 May, the day after Floyd’s death, and 22 August, ACLED records over 7,750 demonstrations linked to the BLM movement across more than 2,440 locations in all 50 states and Washington, DC. "

    570 violent demonstrations out of 7,750. 220 locations had violence, out of 2,440.

    The violence is clearly significant, but not as crazy or as widespread as being portrayed.

    Also, very often, the violence starts after the protest ends. Well after it ends, and after any local leadership usually leaves. I think the side question is this.... is BLM responsible for the actions of every single group/individuals out there, especially after they leave?
     
    " Floyd’s death prompted a surge of demonstrations associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM)1 movement that quickly spread from Minneapolis throughout the country. Between 26 May, the day after Floyd’s death, and 22 August, ACLED records over 7,750 demonstrations linked to the BLM movement across more than 2,440 locations in all 50 states and Washington, DC. "

    570 violent demonstrations out of 7,750. 220 locations had violence, out of 2,440.

    The violence is clearly significant, but not as crazy or as widespread as being portrayed.

    Also, very often, the violence starts after the protest ends. Well after it ends, and after any local leadership usually leaves. I think the side question is this.... is BLM responsible for the actions of every single group/individuals out there, especially after they leave?
    As of June 4th, Minneapolis was reported to have 55 million in property damages losses and 220 buildings that were damaged or set on fire. Does that sound like a small amount of violence?
     
    As of June 4th, Minneapolis was reported to have 55 million in property damages losses and 220 buildings that were damaged or set on fire. Does that sound like a small amount of violence?
    Read what I wrote again. Thanks.

    I'm talking about the Forrest and you're talking about a tree.
     
    Last edited:
    When we lived in Denver my wife worked for the Mental Health Center of Denver on the High Intensity Crisis Team. Mostly mentally ill homeless. She would be accompanied by officers who would routinely tell her they were happy she was there. They simply don’t receive the training to deal with these people- nor should they in my opinion.

    Traffic stops & accidents, mental health calls, nonviolent drug offenders, domestic disputes. Police should be nowhere near these incidents. It isn’t fair to them to expect them to know how to de-escalate a mentally ill person or get involved with people’s family. A public safety org and a robust social work force are who should take care of this
     
    Trump’s security chief says the violence is mainly attributed to white supremacists in Portland.

    Apologies will be accepted.

     
    The post said the violence was "clearly significant"; it did not say it was "a small amount of violence."
    I was responding to him saying it's not as crazy or widespread as being portrayed. It's been downplayed by the national media so I'm curious who he was talking about when he said how it's being portrayed.
     
    I was responding to him saying it's not as crazy or widespread as being portrayed. It's been downplayed by the national media so I'm curious who he was talking about when he said how it's being portrayed.
    I'm sure the national media is just downplaying it to keep everyone calm and to avoid a panic.
     
    I was responding to him saying it's not as crazy or widespread as being portrayed. It's been downplayed by the national media so I'm curious who he was talking about when he said how it's being portrayed.
    You asked "does that sound like a small amount of violence?" rhetorically, which made it look like you were rebutting a claim by Wardorican that there was a small amount of violence, despite the post specifically saying "the violence is clearly significant."

    Then, to support your position that the national media is downplaying the violence, you cited two links from... *a national media outlet*... describing the violence and damage.

    I've been seeing federal indictments of people involved in violence, and I've yet to see one in which the suspect was associated with ANTIFA or BLM, while I've seen a handful that specifically reference right wing groups such as Boogaloo Boys (or however it's spelled). It doesn't mean there's no left wing violence -- and I am sure there will and should be indictments of left-wing-identified people who committed acts of violence -- but I've yet to see you offer evidence in support of your apparent belief that these acts are mainly being perpetrated by folks on the left. It's been asked of you many, many times on this board.
     
    I am just going to point out that all we heard was Portland is burning from the “president” during the height of the protests.

    Now that the state is actually on fire, he hasn’t said a freaking word.

    Something tell me if we were a swing state he would be commenting on us. And helping more importantly.
     
    I was responding to him saying it's not as crazy or widespread as being portrayed. It's been downplayed by the national media so I'm curious who he was talking about when he said how it's being portrayed.

    A few thoughts.

    1. I'm right here. You can talk to me. If you think I meant something, or might not be sure, then ask for clarification. I think that's the better way to find dialogue.

    2. To be fair, none of us are the arbiter of what is the appropriate type or amount of coverage. I'm just trying to take a logical approach to sort out about what level is 'bad' this is. It might not be meaningful, since we all have our hot topic issues, or 'triggers'. So, we will all naturally elevate certain stories higher than others. I think the question to try to apply is this.. "is this a reasonable amount of reaction?"

    3. This might get long....

    Other than the demonstrations months ago in Ft. Lauderdale and Miami, that mostly died down, I can't accurately tell you exactly what is going on in other cities. I doubt you can either. However, the post that First Time Poster started discussing statistics was a good first step to try to cut through the noise. The question is about 7% of protests turning violent.. is that significant or not? I'd say it's significant. However, is it on the precipice of anarchy? Not likely.

    I don't watch a lot of national news, but the little I see, seems to show it at an appropriate level. If anything, it might be a little under played. At one point, the focus was on the police response, or over response (in my opinion) that hurt a lot of those in the Media. In some cases, media members were specifically targeted. That's screwed up.

    I see the President over sell it as usual, fox news over sell it, especially the opinion shows, and I won't even touch anything from Breitbart. So, on a scale of 0 - 100, where 0 is a normal good day, and 100 anarchy... I'd say we're probably at a 10 overall. In certain cities, I'd say a 20. Significant, but not sending in every random militia, or the feds crazy. I'd say the national media is giving it a 5-10, and the president is selling it like an 80-90, with conservative media tipping on that side of the scale. At least, that's how some of you make it sound, in addition to the little I've seen. So, what's the real number? Does it matter? What actions should be taken?

    I'd rather see the local police and public contain the situations, restore order, with minimal or no violence, and let the situations play out. I'd rather encourage those angry to write their issues to their local government. Force them to hold town halls, open forums, have a public review board of police misconduct, etc. Create meaningful action. We all want law and order, but we don't want it under the boot of tyranny and that is how some people feel. And it's more than how they feel, it is somewhat (or fully) accurate in too many cases.

    4. What really grinds my gears is seeing these out of state groups, and militia show up, because they have a hard on for firearms and looking tough. They think they're going there to restore order in an area they don't know or understand. The police don't even want them there. All it does is encourage more violence against people. Why can't those people mobilize, like the Cajun Navy, or other members of this board and SR.com who go out of their way to volunteer their talents and time towards disaster victims, or the poor. If something needs protecting, it is those people and that property that need the protecting and fixing, not a Walgreens on State Street.

    4b. It's also ironic that most of those Militia type fear government tyranny. The poor and minority communities live in fear of government tyranny, but from local government/police in the way of police brutality, harassment, fines, etc. You'd think the two groups would talk about what they have in common and work towards fixing that.

    I'd like to think we can be tough on crime, yet kind towards people. Most arrests go down smoothly and humanely. Too often they don't, though. You might be a fool to fight for your rights on the street while being arrested, but it doesn't excuse the criminal behavior of the police. Who, don't forget, also write the police reports that are used as the 'truth of the situation'. The bad cops, and the ones who enable by turning a blind eye, stack the deck for themselves. Their written record (if no body cam) is the truth of the situation and when under an investigation, they don't have to fill it out, as it could incriminate themselves. They have a duty towards the truth, except if it makes them look bad or criminal. That is amazing power.
     
    When we lived in Denver my wife worked for the Mental Health Center of Denver on the High Intensity Crisis Team. Mostly mentally ill homeless. She would be accompanied by officers who would routinely tell her they were happy she was there. They simply don’t receive the training to deal with these people- nor should they in my opinion.

    Traffic stops & accidents, mental health calls, nonviolent drug offenders, domestic disputes. Police should be nowhere near these incidents. It isn’t fair to them to expect them to know how to de-escalate a mentally ill person or get involved with people’s family. A public safety org and a robust social work force are who should take care of this

    I don't know how I'm just seeing this post, but I wanted to express my agreement with this generally. This hits on a constructive way in we can rethink how police should be operating in a community. While I believe that social work/public safety system can work better, I do think a police officer should probably accompany those workers on some calls. In other words, it would be a team concept in which the social worker/public safety officer who is trained to deal with these issues is the primary person dealing with the principals, but the police officer monitors to ensure the safety of all parties, including the workers. As a former employee of the Department of Human Services, I know from experience how calls checking on child/adult welfare, domestic issues, even food stamp fraud investigations can turn violent.
     
    As of July 2018 the Proud Boys had 160 members with 300 pending applications. Does anyone have more current numbers on the Proud Boys? It is laughable that the left and the media would have us believe that the Proud Boys are a bigger threat than the left wing rioters.



     
    The Proud Boys are not a joke. People don’t join because they like McInnis’s humor. That’s a brutally inaccurate generalization by Maté. But not surprising coming from him.

    They aren’t new, either. They have been around since Trump’s first year. So to act like it’s new is nonsense and discussion on the group’s racism happened back on political forums prior to this site being formed.

    your tweets are incorrect on all kinds of ways.

    as for numbers, hundreds showed up in a single city recently. Thousands gathered in and around Charlottesville.

    and they had a major social media presence until they lost some of that platform for racism and Islamaphobia and misogyny. But they are still widely, easily found because their followere post all over social media.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom