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.

 

[coldseat]

I'm still waiting to hear how the excessive federal DHS troop presence in these cities are helping to solve/stop murders and violent crime?

If it isn't, why is that being used as a justification for these authoritarian actions?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So, has anyone established what the criteria is supposed to be for sending in more federal police against the local authorities wishes to enforce what appears to be local laws and not federal laws?

This just seems really poorly conceived, and if you're one to worry about precedent, set bad precedent.

It also seems like a pretty poor way to establish order.

 

[brandon]

I dont think I betrayed my bias. I am bias. I am very very bias. We are all bias. We have all been on this board. We know each others bias. To pretend otherwise is silly.

But some are more biased than others.

And yes, you are someone who is “very very biased,” where others of us have biases but actively try to see the world in an unbiased way.

We may not always be successful, but it’s better than knowing you’re extremely biased and embracing it anyway.

 

[JLL]

The moms wall has not broken any laws and have not tried to burn anything down.

Well it’s pretty easy to put on a yellow shirt and claim Immunity from consequences of those they are sheltering. Also it’s a pretty good chance anarchists will use the yellow shirt moms as a photo op to claim peaceful protesting

Then there’s the truth, that anarchists have used the Floyd killing, BLM movement, media, local govt, and federal govt to assist them until there is a local collapse of the civil society. What’s next a Boston massacre event? Whats the ultimate goal, where’s the they’ve achieved their utopia moment?

Some one who understands these protestors please list the demands/goals 1-2-3. But don’t mention Trump, we know your thoughts on that matter. It’s abundantly clear.

 

[brandon]

What’s next a Boston massacre event?

Who do you think was the aggressor in the Boston massacre?

 

[brandon]

Some one who understands these protestors please list the demands/goals 1-2-3.

1. Stop killing black people.
2. That’s pretty much it.

 

[MT15]

I dont think I betrayed my bias. I am bias. I am very very bias. We are all bias. We have all been on this board. We know each others bias. To pretend otherwise is silly.

I meant reveal, really. But what I am getting at is that we should strive to stick to facts when discussing these issues, rather than use inflammatory terms. It’s inaccurate to refer to BLM riots. Thats an attempt to portray something happening that just isn’t there.

 

[JLL]

That’s history we can research, and can be debated in a separate thread if it interests you.

 

[MT15]

Well it’s pretty easy to put on a yellow shirt and claim Immunity from consequences of those they are sheltering. Also it’s a pretty good chance anarchists will use the yellow shirt moms as a photo op to claim peaceful protesting

Then there’s the truth, that anarchists have used the Floyd killing, BLM movement, media, local govt, and federal govt to assist them until there is a local collapse of the civil society. What’s next a Boston massacre event? Whats the ultimate goal, where’s the they’ve achieved their utopia moment?

Some one who understands these protestors please list the demands/goals 1-2-3. But don’t mention Trump, we know your thoughts on that matter. It’s abundantly clear.

Honestly, Antifa is not a true organization. I imagine they all have different goals. There’s no leader and I am not aware of any demands.

What I can tell you is that there are people who do wish for civil war who dress up and infiltrate these protests who are not “antifa” at all. They can do this because there isn’t a true organization. They slide in, and cause damage and then walk away.

Before Trump decided to try out his secret police in Portland, the demonstrations consisted of about 50 people per night. Now, they draw about 1500 a night, if one estimate I saw is correct. Suburban moms see the abuse of power from the federal secret police. A navy veteran, clearly identified as a veteran, attempted to talk to the secret police and was beat and gassed directly in his face. His hand was broken. Another person was shot between the eyes with a “non lethal” round and almost died. He has a fractured skull and is still in the hospital. The moms were told to vacate the area, which from what I understand was not federal property, and were not given enough time to actually accomplish that task considering the sheer number of them in a tight area, and were gassed and shot at. They were shoved and threatened with clubs. For standing in a protest area. Maybe you think that is such a crime that they should be treated like violent criminals, but I don’t think the majority of people in this country will agree with you.

 

[brandon]

That’s history we can research, and can be debated in a separate thread if it interests you.

Are you referring to the Boston Massacre here?

 

[JLL]

1. Stop killing black people.
2. That’s pretty much it.

Ok? There’s no way another black person is not going to get killed. That’s not realistic.

 

[brandon]

Ok? There’s no way another black person is not going to get killed. That’s not realistic.

I’m sorry, let me be more clear.

1. Stop the use of excessive force by police officers against black people.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Ok? There’s no way another black person is not going to get killed. That’s not realistic.

I suspect there's a wide range of goals and desires in the various groups and individuals protesting. The common thread appears to be a sense that the status quo is not just and the leadership is not committed to creating a more just system.

But I'm not sure that's the point in this case. The question in my mind, is what is the best way to deal with protests and civil unrest. Generally in my experience, if you ratchet up violence, if the opposition is committed, they respond with violence. So, generally, if you want to reduce violence, you or those who represent you should not use violence.

 

[Saintamaniac]

I dont think I betrayed my bias. I am bias. I am very very bias. We are all bias. We have all been on this board. We know each others bias. To pretend otherwise is silly.

Bias is one thing. Bias when faced with facts to the contrary of your bias becomes a whole other something else.

 

[JLL]

I’m sorry, let me be more clear.

1. Stop the use of excessive force by police officers against black people.

Agreed! The cops shouldn’t use any more excessive force against black people than they would other citizens of different races.

I understand what your saying.

If there was a law that could be passed tomorrow what would it say, to achieve the stop the use of excessive force against black people.

 

[Eeyore]

Two DHS Officials Apparently Just Admitted Their Troops Have Been Violating the Constitution | Law & Crime

Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf and one of his subordinates recently admitted their agents have been making unconstitutional arrests of Black Lives Matter protesters in Portland.

lawandcrime.com

 

[JLL]

I suspect there's a wide range of goals and desires in the various groups and individuals protesting. The common thread appears to be a sense that the status quo is not just and the leadership is not committed to creating a more just system.

But I'm not sure that's the point in this case. The question in my mind, is what is the best way to deal with protests and civil unrest. Generally in my experience, if you ratchet up violence, if the opposition is committed, they respond with violence. So, generally, if you want to reduce violence, you or those who represent you should not use violence.

You said it brother! No matter what the end game is, no matter which side wins, the peaceful citizens get forked up the arse! I can see it coming!

 

[superchuck500]

Just a minor legal question here - the federal government doesn’t have unlimited power to do policing where the president doesn’t think state and local police are doing a good enough job.

The Constitution provides that the federal government is a limited one and may only act in accordance with the roles and powers bestowed upon it in the Constitution. All other power and jurisdiction is left to the states.

Given how often the populist right lays claim to constitutional integrity and how their leader claims to so adore the Constitution, can anyone tell me what federal law these federal “law enforcement” officers are enforcing?