LE Leaks show treatment of pro BLM protestors vs conservative militias

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-17-2020, 05:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have no idea.

You were the one who brought them up, so why don't you tell me?

You must have me confused with someone who works for the SPLC.  I don't.  It's a good question though, no?  I'd very much like to know the answer.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-17-2020, 05:30 PM)samhain Wrote: I don't have links, but I've been seeing articles on FB about Federal Law Enforcement driving around Portland in plain clothes and unmarked vehicles to scout out and detain leftist protesters.  The articles allege than many of the detainees are being held at Chicago-Style "black sites" and are not being charged with crimes.  I'll wait to see more info and other angles to pass judgement, but if this is the case, it's no bueno.

If Feds want to arrest and detain people for crimes, then I'm all for it.  If they want to but vandals and assailants, then go nuts.  Doing so minus charges is illegal as hell and should scare the hell out of everyone.  And yes, if they did this to right-wing groups, I'd say the exact same.  This sort of thing is a slide into authoritarianism.  If the Feds can do this to leftists, who's to stop them from doing it to people on the right if a Dem Justice Dept comes to power?  Who's to stop them from doing it to anyone?

Donut Operator had a YouTube video about this.  The tone wasn't as grim and didn't mention "black sites".  If someone is detained they should absolutely have been arrested for a crime.  I'm not familiar enough with Federal law and how long someone can be detained before seeing a judge or being formally charged.

[samhain]

(07-17-2020, 05:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Donut Operator had a YouTube video about this.  The tone wasn't as grim and didn't mention "black sites".  If someone is detained they should absolutely have been arrested for a crime.  I'm not familiar enough with Federal law and how long someone can be detained before seeing a judge or being formally charged.

The article I read focused on a guy leaving a rally that was picked up and tossed in an unmarked rental van with some armed gentlemen in the back.  The people that detained him did not identify themselves, and pulled the guy's beanie over his eyes to prevent him from seeing where he was taken, which turned out to be a Federal courthouse.  They allegedly read him his rights, tried to get him to waive them and have a discussion, then released him when he declined and asked for an attorney.  When asked about Pettibone's detention, the Feds denied ever having arrested him and said that there was no record of it happening.  I believe that one of the agencies being used is BORTAC.

Again, it may all be blown out of proportion, but even if some of these details are real, it's unnerving.

[Dill]

(07-17-2020, 05:53 PM)samhain Wrote: The article I read focused on a guy leaving a rally that was picked up and tossed in an unmarked rental van with some armed gentlemen in the back.  The people that detained him did not identify themselves, and pulled the guy's beanie over his eyes to prevent him from seeing where he was taken, which turned out to be a Federal courthouse.  They allegedly read him his rights, tried to get him to waive them and have a discussion, then released him when he declined and asked for an attorney.  When asked about Pettibone's detention, the Feds denied ever having arrested him and said that there was no record of it happening.  I believe that one of the agencies being used is BORTAC.

Again, it may all be blown out of proportion, but even if some of these details are real, it's unnerving.

One big problem with that sort of action is that the rest of us cannot tell legitimate police forces from vigilantes in tactical gear.

Especially tough if you are the one being arrested and have to decide if the people arresting you are really police.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-17-2020, 06:41 PM)Dill Wrote: One big problem with that sort of action is that the rest of us cannot tell legitimate police forces from vigilantes in tactical gear.

Especially tough if you are the one being arrested and have to decide if the people arresting you are really police.

Also especially tough when you live in a city in which the far left feels entitled to set up "autonomous zones" and murder people with their own security force.


I realize that was in Seattle, but trust me, Portland is worse.

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-17-2020, 08:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also especially tough when you live in a city in which the far left feels entitled to set up "autonomous zones" and murder people with their own security force.


I realize that was in Seattle, but trust me, Portland is worse.

Interesting. You being you I wonder how you feel about living in a country where the federal government rolls up in disguise kidnapping American citizens off of the streets of America with disregard for the states rights?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-17-2020, 08:29 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Interesting. You being you I wonder how you feel about living in a country where the federal government rolls up in disguise kidnapping American citizens off of the streets of America with disregard for the states rights?

If they're arresting people committing a federal crime, such as vandalizing a federal court house, then I have zero issue with federal law enforcement detaining people as prescribed by policy.  I would add that the almost complete abdication of responsibility by local government in both Portland and Seattle allowed for this to happen.  if they had let local law enforcement actually do their job properly in the first place things almost certainly wouldn't have reached this pitch.

[Dill]

(07-17-2020, 08:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also especially tough when you live in a city in which the far left feels entitled to set up "autonomous zones" and murder people with their own security force.

I realize that was in Seattle, but trust me, Portland is worse.

Divert to Seattle?  A far left "security force" killed someone there?

Back to Portland, where it is "worse"? More people killed by FLSF*?

It would be easier to trust you if you could provide some background information. As far as I can tell, "autonomous zones" in Portland are dismantled about as fast as they are put up. I have heard of a killing in Seattle, but haven't heard that connected to any FLSF.


Then maybe back to the question Nati and I have raised.

To double check, you are ok with federal law enforcement with no identifying insignia on their uniforms grabbing people off the street, if "as prescribed by policy"? 

*Far Left Security Forces.

[GMDino]

(07-17-2020, 08:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also especially tough when you live in a city in which the far left feels entitled to set up "autonomous zones" and murder people with their own security force.


I realize that was in Seattle, but trust me, Portland is worse.

(07-17-2020, 09:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If they're arresting people committing a federal crime, such as vandalizing a federal court house, then I have zero issue with federal law enforcement detaining people as prescribed by policy.  I would add that the almost complete abdication of responsibility by local government in both Portland and Seattle allowed for this to happen.  if they had let local law enforcement actually do their job properly in the first place things almost certainly wouldn't have reached this pitch.

I get the "LAW AND ORDER" crowd would support this but I'm having a hard time with unmarked groups in unmarked vehicle taking people from the street.  Very Gestapo to me. 

Using Seattle to defend it doesn't make it any better.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

And all that said this group is just doing whatever they want wherever and whenever they want.  I don't think that's the America most police officer or soldiers signed up to protect.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unmarked-vehicles-portland-protesters/#.XxD9y_CwH4w.twitter

Quote:Federal Law Enforcement Use Unmarked Vehicles To Grab Protesters Off Portland Streets
by Jonathan Levinson Follow and Conrad Wilson Follow OPB July 16, 2020 2:45 p.m. | Updated: July 17, 2020 9:53 a.m.

UPDATE (7:46 p.m. PT) — In the early hours of July 15, after a night spent protesting at the Multnomah County Justice Center and Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse, Mark Pettibone and his friend Conner O’Shea decided to head home.

It had been a calm night compared to most protesting downtown. By 2 a.m. law enforcement hadn’t used any tear gas and, with only a few exceptions, both the Portland Police Bureau and federal law enforcement officers had stayed out of sight.


A block west of Chapman Square, Pettibone and O’Shea bumped into a group of people who warned them that people in camouflage were driving around the area in unmarked minivans grabbing people off the street.

“So that was terrifying to hear,” Pettibone said.

They had barely made it half a block when an unmarked minivan pulled up in front of them.

“I see guys in camo,” O’Shea said. “Four or five of them pop out, open the door and it was just like, ‘Oh shit. I don’t know who you are or what you want with us.’”

Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14. Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off.

The tactic appears to be another escalation in federal force deployed on Portland city streets, as federal officials and President Donald Trump have said they plan to “quell” nightly protests outside the federal courthouse and Multnomah County Justice Center that have lasted for more than six weeks.

Federal Officers Shoot Portland Protester In Head With ‘Less Lethal’ Munitions
Federal officers have charged at least 13 people with crimes related to the protests so far, while others have been arrested and released, including Pettibone. They also left one demonstrator hospitalized with skull fractures after shooting him in the face with so-called “less lethal” munitions July 11.

Officers from the U.S. Marshals Special Operations Group and Customs and Border Protection’s BORTAC, have been sent to Portland to protect federal property during the recent protests against racism and police brutality.

But interviews conducted by OPB show officers are also detaining people on Portland streets who aren’t near federal property, nor is it clear that all of the people being arrested have engaged in criminal activity. Demonstrators like O’Shea and Pettibone said they think they were targeted by federal officers for simply wearing black clothing in the area of the demonstration.

O’Shea said he ran when he saw people wearing camouflage jump out of an unmarked vehicle. He said he hid when a second unmarked van pursued him.

Video shot by O’Shea and provided to OPB shows a dark screen as O’Shea narrates the scene. Metadata from the video confirms the time and place of the protesters’ account.

“Feds are driving around, grabbing people off the streets,” O’Shea said on the video. “I didn’t do anything ******* wrong. I’m recording this. I had to let somebody know that this is what happens.”

Pettibone did not escape the federal officers.

“I am basically tossed into the van,” Pettibone said. “And I had my beanie pulled over my face so I couldn’t see and they held my hands over my head.”

Pettibone and O’Shea both said they couldn’t think of anything they might have done to end up targeted by law enforcement. They attend protests regularly but they said they aren’t “instigators.” They don’t spray paint buildings, shine laser pointers at officers or do anything else other than attend protests, which law enforcement have regularly deemed “unlawful assemblies.”


Political Fight Over Violence By Federal Officers In Portland Deepens
Blinded by his hat, in an unmarked minivan full of armed people dressed in camouflage and body armor who hadn’t identified themselves, Pettibone said he was driven around downtown before being unloaded inside a building. He wouldn’t learn until after his release that he had been inside the federal courthouse.
“It was basically a process of facing many walls and corners as they patted me down and took my picture and rummaged through my belongings,” Pettibone said. “One of them said, ‘This is a whole lot of nothing.’”

Pettibone said he was put into a cell. Soon after, two officers came in to read him his Miranda rights. They didn’t tell him why he was being arrested. He said they asked him if he wanted to waive his rights and answer some questions, but Pettibone declined and said he wanted a lawyer. The interview was terminated, and about 90 minutes later he was released. He said he did not receive any paperwork, citation or record of his arrest.

“I just happened to be wearing black on a sidewalk in downtown Portland at the time,” Pettibone said. “And that apparently is grounds for detaining me.”

In a statement, the U.S. Marshals Service declined to comment on the practice of using unmarked vehicles, but said their officers had not arrested Pettibone.

“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 Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf was in Portland during the day. The spokesperson didn’t acknowledge the remaining questions.

“It’s like stop and frisk meets Guantanamo Bay,” said attorney Juan Chavez, director of the civil rights project at the Oregon Justice Resource Center.

Chavez has worked on litigation surrounding the weeks of protests and helped lead efforts to curb local police from using tear gas and munitions on protesters. He called the arrest by federal officers “terrifying.”

“You have laws regarding probable cause that can lead to arrests,” he said. “It sounds more like abduction. It sounds like they’re kidnapping people off the streets.”

Ashlee Albies, a civil rights attorney with the National Lawyers Guild, said Pettibone’s detention is an example of intimidation by federal law enforcement, and noted that people have a First Amendment right to demonstrate. She also said law enforcement officials have to follow procedures when they detain someone.

“I would be surprised to see that pulling up in an unmarked van, grabbing people off the street is an acceptable policy for a criminal investigation,” Albines said.

In a letter released Thursday, Wolf said, “Portland has been under siege for 47 straight days by a violent mob while local political leaders refuse to restore order to protect their city.”

“A federal courthouse is a symbol of justice,” Wolf wrote, denigrating protests against racism in the United States’ criminal justice system as an angry mob. “To attack it is to attack America.”

KOIN was first to report Thursday that Wolf was visiting Portland to view damage to the federal courthouse.

This week, Trump has repeatedly spoken out about what he calls lawlessness in the city. He praised the role of federal law enforcement officers in Portland and alluded to increasing their presence in cities nationwide. Speaking to Fox News on Thursday, Acting U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan called the protesters criminals.

“I don’t want to get ahead of the president and his announcement,” Morgan said, “but the Department of Justice is going to be involved in this, DHS is going to be involved in this; and we’re really going to take a stand across the board. And we’re going to do what needs to be done to protect the men and women of this country.”


Early Thursday morning, Portland police tried a new approach to stop the protests. Officers cleared Lownsdale and Chapman Squares, including Riot Ribs, a barbecue stand that had been cooking free food since July 4. The city said it was closing the parks for maintenance. By early afternoon, fences had been installed around both parks.

Police arrested nine people during the closure, including three of the people who ran Riot Ribs. They face a variety of charges, including trespassing and disorderly conduct.

Mayor Ted Wheeler’s office declined to offer comment on the latest events involving federal officers, but reiterated a statement from earlier in the week, saying federal officers should be restricted to guarding federal property.

“We do not need or want their help,” Wheeler said. “The best thing they can do is stay inside their building, or leave Portland altogether.”

Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkely said if Wolf is coming to inflame the situation in Portland so the President can “look tough,” the acting DHS leader should leave.

“Federal forces shot an unarmed protester in the face,” Merkely said in a tweet. “These shadowy forces have been escalating, not preventing, violence.”

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown similarly called for federal law enforcement officers to leave Portland. She added, Wolf is on a “mission to provoke confrontation for political purposes.”

“This political theater from President Trump has nothing to do with public safety,” Brown said in a statement. “The President is failing to lead this nation. Now he is deploying federal officers to patrol the streets of Portland in a blatant abuse of power by the federal government.”

In a country where people lose their minds over any proposed change to anything involving their "right to bear arms" I find it amusing and disturbing that the same group is "totally fine" with a sudden attack on the other rights because of politics.
Again, two wrongs don't make a right.

[GMDino]

Medics attending to a protester that is not moving are quickly chased down and beaten by Trump’s federal officers.

This is what the Portland mayor has no comment on. pic.twitter.com/NWdSGejz4e

— Gregory McKelvey (@GregoryMcKelvey) July 12, 2020

 

[GMDino]

This author of this tweet says the protestor (on a public street) "throws" something at the officers when it literally just rolls it waway and goes back to peacefully protesting...before being shot in the face (probably).

A person at the antifa/BLM Portland riot throws a gas canister at federal police. He is then hit by a less-lethal round, apparently in the face, immediately knocking him to the ground. Others carry him away and call for ambulance. Video by @TomasMorales_iv. pic.twitter.com/ungbjiMMUd

— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) July 12, 2020

 

[samhain]

(07-18-2020, 10:27 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Wow.  The people who claim to be the biggest supporters of "Constitutional rights" are fine with unregulated law enforcement.

We can't have agun reistry because obviosly it will just lead to a confiscation of all weapons.

But there is no slippery slope problem with unmarked federal law enforcement officers seizing people ff the streets with no probable cause or warrants.

They will be all for it if liberals start arming themselves.  Reagan had no problem with stricter gun laws when the Black Panthers gained numbers and influence in their communities while encouraging blacks to arm themselves.  As expected, the NRA had no problem with his actions.

I've been saying for a long time that liberals need to get more comfortable with the idea of owning more guns. The fringe right is armed to the teeth and full of dork gamers that believe they will be able to subjugate libs when the Boogaloo starts because of their proficiency in Call of Duty and Roblox.

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2020, 02:13 PM)samhain Wrote: They will be all for it if liberals start arming themselves.  Reagan had no problem with stricter gun laws when the Black Panthers gained numbers and influence in their communities while encouraging blacks to arm themselves.  As expected, the NRA had no problem with his actions.

I've been saying for a long time that liberals need to get more comfortable with the idea of owning more guns. The fringe right is armed to the teeth and full of dork gamers that believe they will be able to subjugate libs when the Boogaloo starts because of their proficiency in Call of Duty and Roblox.

They are trying: https://socialistra.org/

[samhain]

(07-18-2020, 02:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They are trying: https://socialistra.org/

I've seen groups like this, and most seemed to be heavily comprised of African Americans.  It's almost as if black folks don't have the same trust in the gubmint as white liberals that have probably never owned a gun or been in a position to need one.  

This is by far the one issue where I just can't get in line with the left mentality.  I wish they'd give up on championing gun control altogether.  It would remove a major boogeyman used to scare rural voters.

[NATI BENGALS]

For some reason hippies protesting concerns me less than an unidentified militarized federal police force kidnapping people and using excessive force on American citizens exercising their right to protest.

[samhain]

(07-18-2020, 02:35 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: For some reason hippies protesting concerns me less than an unidentified militarized federal police force kidnapping people and using excessive force on American citizens exercising their right to protest.

I think if they're breaking the law or not in line with my political beliefs, it's totally acceptable.  Maybe there's a local soccer stadium or football field we could herd them into for mass-execution.  I mean, these are bad people, so the law can be suspended just this one time to eliminate the existential threat, right?  The gubmint and fed law enforcement would never do it to anyone else after that, I'm positive.  Just this one time, and we make them pinky swear.  It will never happen to us, dude.  

Also, if you don't agree, you hate Murica and freedom.

[fredtoast]

(07-18-2020, 02:27 PM)samhain Wrote: This is by far the one issue where I just can't get in line with the left mentality.  I wish they'd give up on championing gun control altogether.  It would remove a major boogeyman used to scare rural voters.

The NRA is the one creating a boogey man.

We desperately need gun licensing and registration to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and to link guns used in crimes to owners.  It is a law that would save a lot of lives.  A majority of Americans support this when they understand that background checks are a joke as long as any individual can sell a gun to any other individual without a background check.

But the NRA has convinced them that gun licensing and registration is nothing but a tool for for gun confiscation.  In other words they want to protect the criminals who want to break the law by keeping guns if they ever are outlawd.  But the truth is that only a small minority of the public supports making all guns illegal. 

Also, remember how the NRA subjects freaked out and starting stocking up on ammunition and firearms when Obama mbecame President because LePierre convinced all of them that Obama was "COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!!!!".  The firearms manufacturers laughed all the way to the bank over that.

[GMDino]

Federalism, except for occupying cities and beating and detaining people on suspicion of vandalism

— SoManyMeanBooksHat (@Popehat) July 18, 2020

 

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2020, 02:27 PM)samhain Wrote: I've seen groups like this, and most seemed to be heavily comprised of African Americans.  It's almost as if black folks don't have the same trust in the gubmint as white liberals that have probably never owned a gun or been in a position to need one.

 

Well, the SRA is pretty white. Don't get me wrong, it's got a good rate of BIPOCs, but think about the Bernie Bros. This is their group.

(07-18-2020, 02:27 PM)samhain Wrote: This is by far the one issue where I just can't get in line with the left mentality.  I wish they'd give up on championing gun control altogether.  It would remove a major boogeyman used to scare rural voters.

Interestingly enough, I have brought this up before in here that gun control is really more of a conservative position than it is a liberal one. Gun control has routinely been used to oppress marginalized groups in this country and around the world. This isn't just about race or religion, either, it's also about socioeconomic status. Our current gun control framework is pretty much that you can get just about anything if you can afford it and the necessary paperwork. This means that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to be able to obtain a transferable automatic (not semi, but full) firearm. Because of the cutoff date of 1986 for full auto weapons on the civilian market, prices went prohibitively high and continue to climb due to limited availability. They can also afford suppressors and the NFA stamps required for them and all the AOWs. Essentially, gun control in this country creates a system of inequity.

If you limit these firearms to only law enforcement or military possession, you still create the inequity because (and here is where my more leftist tendencies kick in) the military and police are tools of the bourgeoisie. Because of our plutocratic society, the authorities should not be trusted to be the only ones with these weapons in hand.

Last, but certainly not least, are the dilemmas in political science. So, there is the original and modern dilemma. The original dilemma is individual freedoms versus security/order. This is what creates the difference between classical liberalism and conservatism. The modern dilemma is the choice between individual liberty and equity/equality (different things, but both fall into this). This complicated things a bit, but classical liberals became libertarians, which stand for liberty over both security and equity. Conservatives prefer liberty over equity, but will sacrifice liberty for security. Modern liberals will sacrifice liberty for equality, but are not as willing to sacrifice it for security, and communitarians just give it up for both security and equity. I know that probably got confusing, so here is a graphic I made last time.



So when you look at these things through this lens, it becomes a bit baffling as to why a liberal party would support gun control because that is sacrificing individual liberty for order/security. But, I've had this conservation with politicos in the Democratic party and, well, as of yet no one has been able to explain this to me. I am guessing that the reality behind it is that because we have a two party system, we have big tent parties and the GOP has libertarianish elements pulling them their direction and the Democrats have some communitarist folks over there.

(07-18-2020, 02:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The NRA is the one creating a boogey man.

We desperately need gun licensing and registration to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and to link guns used in crimes to owners.  It is a law that woulkd save a lot of lives.  A majority of Americans support this when they understand that backgroyund checks are a joke as long as any individual can sell a gun to any other individual without a backgroiund check.

But the NRA has convinced them that gun licensing and registration is nothing but a tool for for gun confiscation.  In other words the want to protect the criminals who want to break the law by keeping guns if they ever are outlawd.  But the truth is that only a small minority of the public supports making guns illegal. 

Yes and no. The NRA sucks, don't get me wrong, but elected officials have made it clear that the boogeyman is real with what has passed in some states. There is a reason SSF has his viewpoints and I tell him it's because California has ruined him.

[samhain]

(07-18-2020, 02:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The NRA is the one creating a boogey man.

We desperately need gun licensing and registration to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and to link guns used in crimes to owners.  It is a law that woulkd save a lot of lives.  A majority of Americans support this when they understand that backgroyund checks are a joke as long as any individual can sell a gun to any other individual without a backgroiund check.

But the NRA has convinced them that gun licensing and registration is nothing but a tool for for gun confiscation.  In other words the want to protect the criminals who want to break the law by keeping guns if they ever are outlawd.  But the truth is that only a small minority of the public supports making guns illegal. 

I mostly agree.  I bought my first Glock about 3 years ago.  I was mildly surprised with the ease of the buying process.  The guys there could probably tell that I wasn't a longtime gun enthusiast or collector.  I told them I wanted something easy for home defense, and they basically told me to either get a shotgun or a Glock.  They were pretty specific about what weapon would have the better likelihood of killing someone if the situation came down to that.  And yeah, background checks are pretty laughable.  They asked a few questions and got some personal info, but it went by fast enough that I asked them if that was all they needed from me, lol.