LE Leaks show treatment of pro BLM protestors vs conservative militias

[samhain]

(07-18-2020, 06:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  

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.


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.


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.

I could see how SSF would think that.  I learned fast when looking at 50 cal and 44's online that there's what California gets and what the rest of us can get, and they even make them pay more for the modified California weapons.

[GMDino]

NEW: An internal Homeland Security memo warned this past week that tactical teams sent to control unrest in Portland had no training in managing such demonstrations.

w/ @KannoYoungs and @MrOlmos https://t.co/plQJYh1JiV

— Mike Baker (@ByMikeBaker) July 18, 2020

 

[fredtoast]

(07-18-2020, 06:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

I understand that more people in California are against all guns.  But no matter what happens we can't let individuals decide what is leagl and what is not.  If you disagree with a law you can fight it through proper channels or move to another state.  Those are the only two choices.  The NRA is saying that if guns are outlawed then individuals are allowed to break that law.  

This idea that an individual gets to decide what is legal is what leads to things like people killing abortion providers.  Why don't they feel the same about individuals who think it is okay to tear down statues just because they feel it is the right thing to do?

[fredtoast]

(07-18-2020, 07:18 PM)samhain Wrote: 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.

At least there was a pretense of a background check.  What I am talking about is individuals like you who can pass a background check selling your gun to whoever you want with no background check required.  And if that guns ends up in the hand of akiller their is no way to track where he got it from.

Right now if police were to encounter a large group of people with guns thay would have no idea if these people could legally posses them without detaining the people long enough to run the criminal history of all of them, and they still would not know if any of them had mental illness problems.  Or if they have to deal with a group of convisted felons in a car with a lot of guns as long as there is one non-felon in the car he can claim all of the guns are his and there is nothing the police can do about it.

The lack of licensing and registration make it way too easy for criminals and people with mental health problems to buy and posses guns.

I was raised around guns.  I currently own a gun. I am not for banning guns.  But the state of the law regarding gun ownership is ridiculous.

if licensing and registration automatically lead to gun confiscation then why are people still allowed to legally own fully automatic weapons?  They have been required to be licensed and registered for decades.

[GMDino]

(07-19-2020, 09:28 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I understand that more people in California are against all guns.  But no matter what happens we can't let individuals decide what is leagl and what is not.  If you disagree with a law you can fight it through proper channels or move to another state.  Those are the only two choices.  The NRA is saying that if guns are outlawed then individuals are allowed to break that law.  

This idea that an individual gets to decide what is legal is what leads to things like people killing abortion providers.  Why don't they feel the same about individuals who think it is okay to tear down statues just because they feel it is the right thing to do?

And the idea that people are okay with unnamed officers in unmarked vehicle pulling people from the street with no rights because they "did something" is wrong.  At least it used to be in America.

No one who supports that can ever say they "would be" liberal if they lived somewhere else.

[GMDino]

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-18-2020, 04:21 AM)Dill Wrote: Divert to Seattle?  A far left "security force" killed someone there?

Uh, yeah.  No diversion either. 

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

The attitude of the local government is "worse".  The general attitude of the residents protesting in Portland is worse.  Portland is further left than Seattle, it's very possibly the most far left urban area outside of Berkeley.

Quote: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.

Not asking for you to trust me on anything, as we already know you won't.  I nearly had an aneurysm trying to teach you basic facts about firearms.

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

Quote: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"?

Asked and answered.  I have zero issue with federal law enforcement arresting people for federal crimes in a manner consistent with policy.  I stated this previously, not sure why you didn't read or process it.

Quote:*Far Left Security Forces.

You misspelled criminal vigilante mobs.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-18-2020, 09:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: 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.

Comparisons to Nazi Germany is the hyperbole you incorrectly identified earlier. 

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

No one is using the tolerated lawlessness in Seattle or Portland to defend anything.  What was said is that the complete abdication of their responsibility by the local government have allowed the situation to reach the current pitch.  This is just basic logic.

Quote: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

Probably not.  The one where far left mobs are given virtually free reign to turn a city into a warzone isn't the America we signed up to protect either.  

Quote: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.

Who said they were totally fine with it?  If someone said it simply produce the quote, the whole quote btw, not a blurb removed from context.  If federal law enforcement is acting in an illegal fashion then that's unacceptable.  If they are not then there's no issue.  Maybe the local government should actually protect the citizenry instead of pandering to an angry mob and this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion to begin with?

[GMDino]

(07-19-2020, 03:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Comparisons to Nazi Germany is the hyperbole you incorrectly identified earlier. 



No one is using the tolerated lawlessness in Seattle or Portland to defend anything.  What was said is that the complete abdication of their responsibility by the local government have allowed the situation to reach the current pitch.  This is just basic logic.



Probably not.  The one where far left mobs are given virtually free reign to turn a city into a warzone isn't the America we signed up to protect either.  


Who said they were totally fine with it?  If someone said it simply produce the quote, the whole quote btw, not a blurb removed from context.  If federal law enforcement is acting in an illegal fashion then that's unacceptable.  If they are not then there's no issue.  Maybe the local government should actually protect the citizenry instead of pandering to an angry mob and this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion to begin with?

Oh no that was "extreme exaggeration" on my part. 


As to the rest your post is there for people to see.  You used Seattle to justify what is going on Portland and you said you were fine with what the officials were doing and with the Federal government sending them in to a city without the city or state requesting  them or wanting them.  And you did so by ignoring that they are taking people without proof of a crime and ignoring the videos of them beating medics for no reason.

When you can pigeonhole your responses to "I agree they are absolutely right to do this..." while ignoring everything else you are supporting the everything else also.  The rest of us are against any possible "right" that might be being done when the outcomes are also so bad.

And, again, for a group that believes their 2A rights cannot be violated they sure are quick to agree on all the 1A violations and police brutality that has gone with it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-19-2020, 03:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh no that was "extreme exaggeration" on my part.   

I think you meant to type "intentional exaggeration".  Glad to see you don't really view what's going on as Gestapo like though.

Quote:As to the rest your post is there for people to see.  You used Seattle to justify what is going on Portland and you said you were fine with what the officials were doing and with the Federal government sending them in to a city without the city or state requesting  them or wanting them.  And you did so by ignoring that they are taking people without proof of a crime and ignoring the videos of them beating medics for no reason.

I would ask that if you're going to quote me than actually do so.  What you typed here is not true.  I stated I am fine with federal law enforcement arresting people for federal crimes as long as the arrests occur as required by policy.  Please refrain from deliberately misstating my position in the future, it's against the ToS and definitely against the spirit of the new P&R.  Things are going rather well with the reboot, kindly do not ruin that.

Quote:When you can pigeonhole your responses to "I agree they are absolutely right to do this..." while ignoring everything else you are supporting the everything else also.  The rest of us are against any possible "right" that might be being done when the outcomes are also so bad.

You just used quotes to indicate I said something that I did not say.  Kindly amend your post to exclude the quotes.  I would, again, point out that this response is not in keeping with the spirit of the new P&R.

Quote:And, again, for a group that believes their 2A rights cannot be violated they sure are quick to agree on all the 1A violations and police brutality that has gone with it.

Of course 2A rights can be violated, it's done on a daily basis.  The first amendment guarantees you the right to "peaceably" assemble.  Not sure what adjective you'd choose to use for what's being going on in Portland, but I have a hard time you, or anyone else, would choose "peaceable".  Also, if the arrests are being conducted per policy, as I have stated should be the case from the beginning, then they are almost certainly not violating the Constitution.  Policy is well vetted by legal experts before being approved, it would be very odd for something as blatantly unconstitutional as you are describing to make it past all those lawyers and be enshrined in policy.

[GMDino]

https://ktvz.com/news/oregon-northwest/2020/07/16/homeland-security-leader-visits-portland-calls-protesters-anarchists/

Quote:Homeland Security leader visits Portland, calls protesters ‘anarchists’
U.S. Attorney's OfficePyrotechnic mortar exploding in Hatfield Federal Courthouse lobby after glass door was broken


PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The head of the Department of Homeland Security visited Portland on Thursday, just hours after issuing a scathing statement that called the protesters who have taken to the streets every night for nearly two months “violent anarchists” and a “violent mob” that have kept the liberal Northwest city under siege.


Acting Secretary Chad Wolf, whose visit was met with anger from local officials, said state and city authorities are to blame for not putting an end to 47 days of protests in Portland that have increasingly targeted the federal courthouse.

The protests in Oregon’s largest city following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis have often devolved into violent clashes between smaller groups and the police. The unrest has caused deep divisions in a city that prides itself on its activism and progressive reputation.


“Each night, lawless anarchists destroy and desecrate property, including the federal courthouse, and attack the brave law enforcement officers protecting it,” Wolf wrote.

“Instead of addressing violent criminals in their communities, local and state leaders are instead focusing on placing blame on law enforcement and requesting fewer officers in their community. This failed response has only emboldened the violent mob as it escalates violence day after day,” his statement said.

Federal officers recently sent to Portland by President Donald Trump have escalated tensions in the past two weeks, particularly after an officer with the U.S. Marshals Service fired a less-lethal round at a protester’s head on July 11, critically injuring him.

Mayor Ted Wheeler and other local officials have said they didn’t ask for help from federal law enforcement and have asked them to leave.

“A number of people have asked if I know DHS leadership is in town, and if I’m going to meet with them. We’re aware that they’re here. We wish they weren’t. We haven’t been invited to meet with them, and if we were, we would decline,” Wheeler tweeted Thursday.

Democratic Gov. Kate Brown called Wolf’s visit “political theater from President Trump” and said he “is looking for a confrontation in Oregon in the hopes of winning political points in Ohio or Iowa.”

The state’s four Democratic federal lawmakers also sent a letter this week to Wolf and U.S. Attorney General William Barr to oppose the federal deployment in Portland.

Demonstrators have set fires, launched fireworks and sprayed graffiti on public buildings, including police precincts and the U.S. courthouse. Federal and local authorities have responded with tear gas and dozens of arrests.

A temporary federal court order banned Portland police from using tear gas unless a riot was declared after officers fired it multiple times to dispel crowds. Federal agents have used tear gas at least twice since their arrival over the Fourth of July weekend, prompting concerns that they are being used to circumvent the court order.

Before Wolf arrived, Portland police arrested nine people early Thursday as they cleared protesters from two parks near the courthouse. It wasn’t immediately clear if the parks were cleared because of the visit.
Meanwhile, journalists and legal observers will remain exempt from Portland police orders requiring protesters to disperse under an injunction issued by a federal judge Thursday.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon issued a 14-day temporary order after a class-action lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon against the Portland Police Bureau and the city on behalf of journalists and legal observers. The journalists and observers say they have been targeted and attacked by the police while documenting protests.

As part of Thursday’s order, which is in effect through Oct. 30, police also cannot arrest, threaten to arrest or use physical force against a person “who they know or reasonably should know” is a journalist or legal observer.

Read more at: https://apnews.com/4f95127c2543a8a70188941f5bf7d18c
____
Follow Gillian Flaccus on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/gflaccus.

So federal officers (that were not requested and not wanted in a city that was already arresting offenders) who are ignoring the law and attacking everyone whether they "committed a crime" or not.

All so Trump can tweet "LAW AND ORDER" and folks can complain about "leftists".

Seems legit.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-19-2020, 04:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://ktvz.com/news/oregon-northwest/2020/07/16/homeland-security-leader-visits-portland-calls-protesters-anarchists/




So federal officers (that were not requested and not wanted in a city that was already arresting offenders) who are ignoring the law and attacking everyone whether they "committed a crime" or not.

All so Trump can tweet "LAW AND ORDER" and folks can complain about "leftists".

Seems legit.

The Portland mayor is not doing his job.  Impose a curfew, arrest violators and do not cite and release them.  Of course, this would require appearing like you actually need and want the police, hence the reason it is not occurring.  I'm sure there are a substantial number of citizens in Portland who are relieved that someone is finally standing up to the mob.  I can tell you every friend I have who lives there is happy something is finally being done, and these are not conservative people by any means.

[*bfine32*]

What should we do in communities where local government prevent Law Enforcement Officers from enforcing the law?

I equate the liberal stance to Mike Tyson's famous quote.

"Everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the face".

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2020, 06:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What should we do in communities where local government prevent Law Enforcement Officers from enforcing the law?

Who is "we"?

Local citizens, State Government, Federal Government?

What "law" is not being enforced?

Federal law, State Law, Local ordinanace?

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2020, 03:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I stated I am fine with federal law enforcement arresting people for federal crimes as long as the arrests occur as required by policy.  Please refrain from deliberately misstating my position in the future, it's against the ToS and definitely against the spirit of the new P&R.  Things are going rather well with the reboot, kindly do not ruin that.

Yes I think we should all work toward making things less aggressive ariund here.

Here is something that might help.  you are obviously unaware that many people intentionally use a "Refuse to condemn" stance to try and dance around a point they don't like. 

It is like if a bunch of people are talking about how evil gang rape is and all one person will say is "I think it is absolutely fine for a woman to have sex with multiple men as long as they are all consenting."   

Maybe you missed some posts and did not realize that we were talking about unlawful detainment of people who were not vandalizing any Federal property or brealing any federal laws.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-19-2020, 08:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes I think we should all work toward making things less aggressive ariund here.

I agree.

Quote:Here is something that might help.  you are obviously unaware that many people intentionally use a "Refuse to condemn" stance to try and dance around a point they don't like. 

Not sure I appreciate your condescending tone.  I am a reasonably intelligent man who can determine when someone is obfuscating or refusing to answer a direct question.

Quote:It is like if a bunch of people are talking about how evil gang rape is and all one person will say is "I think it is absolutely fine for a woman to have sex with multiple men as long as they are all consenting."   

I have yet to see such an analogous circumstance in the new P&R.

 

Quote:Maybe you missed some posts and did not realize that we were talking about unlawful detainment of people who were not vandalizing any Federal property or brealing any federal laws.

Oh, are both of those statements agreed upon facts?  If so I was certainly unaware.  I was under the impression that some people were of the opinion that these were unlawful detentions of people who had not violated federal law.  Do we have any corroboration of these allegations from anyone not directly affected?  Do we know, for a fact, that unlawful detentions have occurred?  Do we know for a fact that those so detained did not violate any federal law?  If you have these answers please provide them as this would make you remarkably well informed about the situation and I am keen to know more.

[Dill]

(07-19-2020, 03:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not asking for you to trust me on anything, as we already know you won't.  I nearly had an aneurysm trying to teach you basic facts about firearms.

(07-17-2020, 08:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I realize that was in Seattle, but trust me, Portland is worse.

Recently you did indeed unload some "basic facts about firearms" already known to most on the list, by way of addressing a straw man argument--your second in a row--and the "near aneurysm which followed almost derailed the thread. That's what you remember as "teaching."

(07-19-2020, 03:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote: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"?

Asked and answered.  I have zero issue with federal law enforcement arresting people for federal crimes in a manner consistent with policy.  I stated this previously, not sure why you didn't read or process it.
You misspelled criminal vigilante mobs.

My question addresses the problem of federal officers in unmarked vans, without permission from state and local authorities, who grab people off the street without probable cause and throw them into unmarked vans, while refusing to identify themselves. They way police authorities do in police states. 

Most everyone on this list is fine with "federal law enforcement arresting people for federal crimes in a manner consistent with policy." So I was not asking whether you were. But there is some question as to whether such actions, as were taken in Portland, are consistent with existing policy and with Constitutional protections, or whether Barr is trying to create such a policy ad hoc. My question was about that.

Had you answered "No, I am against police with no identifying insignia yanking people off the streets, regardless of policy" or "Yes, I approve unidentified police grabbing whomever they deem suspicious, and if it's not consistent with existing policy then we should change the policy," or "Yes I'd approve but I'm not sure what existing policy is," you'd have answered the question asked.

So I did not "process" your answer because it skirted the political and constitutional issue built into my question, by simply repeating the answer to a different question. Best I can get from the repetition is that you'd likely be ok, not just with the above-mentioned actions, but with A POLICY which allowed federal officers in unmarked vans and uniforms without identifying insignia yanking people off the streets. You had your chance to clearly distance yourself from such a policy but chose not to.

(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.

For the second time: Did a "criminal vigilante mob" acting as a security force for "the far left" murder someone in Seattle?

[Dill]

(07-19-2020, 08:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, are both of those statements agreed upon facts?  If so I was certainly unaware.  I was under the impression that some people were of the opinion that these were unlawful detentions of people who had not violated federal law.  Do we have any corroboration of these allegations from anyone not directly affected?  Do we know, for a fact, that unlawful detentions have occurred?  Do we know for a fact that those so detained did not violate any federal law?  If you have these answers please provide them as this would make you remarkably well informed about the situation and I am keen to know more.

Do we "know for a fact" yet that a far left security force murdered someone in Seattle? I am keen to know more about that one.

Meantime there is this link from Dino's post #69, which raises the issues a number of us are addressing. Reporting is the "level of corroboration" we have at the moment. 

Federal Law Enforcement Use Unmarked Vehicles To Grab Protesters Off Portland Streets
https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unmarked-vehicles-portland-protesters/#.XxD9y_CwH4w.twitter

In it one "witness" is reported saying: “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.”
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. . . .

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.

Corroboration from other news organizations as well. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/18/us/portland-arrests-federal-authorities/index.html

(CNN)The US Attorney for the Oregon District on Friday requested an investigation into the masked, camouflaged federal authorities without identification badges who are arresting protesters in Portland.

The request is aimed specifically at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel who have been captured on various videos arresting protesters and putting them in unmarked SUVs.

Demonstrators in Portland have been protesting racial inequality and police brutality for the last 50 nights, US Attorney Billy J. Williams said in a statement. Federal authorities have protected the Mark O. Hatfield US Courthouse and, at times, interaction between protesters and law enforcement has gotten violent. Last weekend, one protester was seriously injured after the man was shot in the head with impact munition.


Oregon's governor and Portland's mayor demanded the troops be withdrawn and a US senator joined them in condemning the arrests.

[Belsnickel]

In all seriousness, is a citizen supposed to just trust that these are legit LEOs? Without agency identification on them and just a generic "POLICE" across their kit, which could be purchased online with relative ease, and a lack of an official marked vehicle, why should the citizenry accept their authority? Could it be considered within the rights of a citizen to defend themselves against such armed assailants with deadly force because of that questionable authority?

These are the problems with law enforcement through this method. When we accept this type of activity it is a degradation of our free society. I am not one that decries the militarization of police like some, and I certainly have zero issues with federal law enforcement enforcing federal laws. But the methods being employed in this situation are questionable at best. I see serious concerns with regards to individual liberties of the citizenry.

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2020, 08:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not sure I appreciate your condescending tone.  I am a reasonably intelligent man who can determine when someone is obfuscating or refusing to answer a direct question.

I apologize.


Do you have a problem with unidentified federal agents making warrantless arrest and illegal detentions without probable cause that are not on federal property and have nothing to do with federal crimes?