(07-20-2020, 03:35 AM)Dill Wrote: 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."
None of this is a true recap of events but I'll keep to the spirit of the new P&R and let it go.
Quote: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.
The federal government does not need permission from local government to act. You just flat out stated people are being detained without probably cause. Where is your evidence of this? The people who were detained saying they didn't do anything? I've got news for you, no one has ever done anything when they're being arrested. If you have nothing but personal accounts then you absolutely cannot sy that people are being detained with no probably cause, especially as definitively as you just did.
Quote: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.
I haven't really seen questions in that regard, I've seen definitive statements that it is not. Look above for a example provided by yourself.
Quote: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.
I did answer the question, just not in the way you like. I don't need a lecture from you just because my answer does not meet with your approval.
Quote: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.
It didn't "skirt" anything, it just didn't assume facts not in evidence, which appears to be your main problem with it.
Quote:For the second time: Did a "criminal vigilante mob" acting as a security force for "the far left" murder someone in Seattle?
Here's a youtube video of the shooting with audio. There wasn't clear vision of the shooting itself but the audio captured the shots, then a pause followed by "Oh, you're not dead yet?" another pause and then a final gunshot.
(07-20-2020, 03:52 AM)Dill Wrote: 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.
This is an interesting question given your statements above. Even so, I'll happily answer, yes.
Quote: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.
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.
So, more of the same, personal statements held up as 100% factually accurate. As long as the people being arrested claim they didn't do anything, well that should be good enough for anyone right? I mean, why would they lie?
(07-20-2020, 09:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I apologize.
Accepted, thank you.
Quote: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?
That's a very lawyer question, asking four different things in one question when they four questions could potentially have four different answers. I'll put it simply, I am, of course, against the federal government breaking the law while ostensibly enforcing it. Do we know, for a fact, that this is happening?
(07-20-2020, 10:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is an interesting question given your statements above. Even so, I'll happily answer, yes.
So, more of the same, personal statements held up as 100% factually accurate. As long as the people being arrested claim they didn't do anything, well that should be good enough for anyone right? I mean, why would they lie?
Why would the police (or whoever the unnamed federal forces are) lie? They never* lie...right?
*extreme exaggeration.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Open in incognito to defeat the paywall if need be.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-20-2020, 10:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As long as the people being arrested claim they didn't do anything, well that should be good enough for anyone right? I mean, why would they lie?
(07-20-2020, 10:35 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: "Intentional exaggeration". If you're going to mock someone in defiance of the ToS at least do so correctly.
To make sure I do it right I'll use your exact words.
"As long as the LEOs being accused of misconduct claim they didn't do anything wrong, well that should be good enough for anyone right? I mean, why would they lie?"
Here's a youtube video of the shooting with audio. There wasn't clear vision of the shooting itself but the audio captured the shots, then a pause followed by "Oh, you're not dead yet?" another pause and then a final gunshot.
This video seems to confirms that the killing was in self defense.
Shots had already been fired from the Jeep BEFORE the video begins, and you can hear the Jeep crashing into a barricade before any more shots are fired. And you can't tell if the shots were fired from the Jeep or at the Jeep. But ramming a barricade would seem to indicate that they guys in the Jeep were the aggressors.
Here is what the officials investigating have said
Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best during a morning news briefing. "We’re not sure who shot at the car or why they shot at the car,"
So where is the link saying that CHOP security murdered these people?
(07-20-2020, 10:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: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.
This is an interesting question given your statements above. Even so, I'll happily answer, yes.
So, more of the same, personal statements held up as 100% factually accurate. As long as the people being arrested claim they didn't do anything, well that should be good enough for anyone right? I mean, why would they lie?
In post # 68 above I write: "I have heard of a killing in Seattle, but haven't heard that connected to any FLSF," and asked for evidence that a far left security force was responsible for the killing. Fred has asked for the same. In answer, you have posted links to a news report about someone killed in the Seattle autonomous zone and a hazy video "proving" what everyone already knows--someone was killed. But nothing connecting the killing to some "far left security force." Yet you continue to "happily" answer my question with "yes."
So far, looks like I have provided more evidence of unconstitutional arrests in Portland than you have provided evidence of Far Left Security Forces murdering people in Seattle. That needs to be said up front, before we evaluate the testimony in the reports I've quoted.
Using news reports to assess what is going on does not require that one accept "personal statements as 100% accurate" or "100% inaccurate (i.e., false)." It does require that one go through a collection stage to gather testimony and factual evidence to be judged in assessment of evidence finally assembled. People who already know who the "liars" are, are not following that procedure.
In our legal system, the principle is "innocent until proven guilty." That means we hear the testimony first, and then we relate it to a factual record and other testimony for final assessment. In many dictatorships, arrest is already proof of guilt. Trials aren't needed. (Why would the police lie?)
So the links I posted are there to assemble some kind of record for discussion, so that we citizens here in this forum can assess what is going on in our country at the moment. There is enough corroboration of witness/victim testimony (including videos) to trigger calls for investigation from local and state authorities. Even federal authorities are not disputing that uniformed federal agents were driving around in unmarked vans nabbing people. And no one is disputing that in some cases these people are released after being arrested, and the arrests are not being recorded.
So it's a bit premature to assume the witnesses are "liars." Not premature to question the constitutionality of unmarked federal agents yanking people off the streets and then letting them go without even recording an arrest.
(07-20-2020, 12:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This video seems to confirms that the killing was in self defense.
Shots had already been fired from the Jeep BEFORE the video begins, and you can hear the Jeep crashing into a barricade before any more shots are fired. And you can't tell if the shots were fired from the Jeep or at the Jeep. But ramming a barricade would seem to indicate that they guys in the Jeep were the aggressors.
Here is what the officials investigating have said
Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best during a morning news briefing. "We’re not sure who shot at the car or why they shot at the car,"
So where is the link saying that CHOP security murdered these people?
So the discussion around this story has been about the "Oh, you're not dead yet?" followed by a final gunshot. This has indicated to some people that it was almost an execution style killing since the threat had apparently been neutralized. I would need to see more evidence to say one way or the other, but I just wanted to clarify the discussion around this incident.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-20-2020, 12:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So the discussion around this story has been about the "Oh, you're not dead yet?" followed by a final gunshot. This has indicated to some people that it was almost an execution style killing since the threat had apparently been neutralized. I would need to see more evidence to say one way or the other, but I just wanted to clarify the discussion around this incident.
What would clarify the incident for current discussion is some connection to a CHOP security force.
(07-20-2020, 12:50 PM)Dill Wrote: What would clarify the incident for current discussion is some connection to a CHOP security force.
The video was supposed to be "proof" of that.
At one point in the video the reporter says that Chop security fired on the vehicle.
But none of this proves murder. In fact most of the evidence points to the guys in the Jeep being the aggressors and ramming the barricade. Multiple shots had been fired before the video begins.
The comment about "You not dead yet" could simply mean some one in the jeep was still trying to aim a gun at someone.
One of the people on the van survived. I assume there will be a lot more information coming out bout what happened.
But right now nothing even close to "CHOP security murdered people". Even the police Chief admits that at this point they don't know what happened.
There are plenty of videos that prove the CHOP security was just responding to a drive by shooting from a JEEP
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
