LE Leaks show treatment of pro BLM protestors vs conservative militias

[*bfine32*]

(07-21-2020, 04:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This entire post has been a personal attack, Fred.  I am being courteous and responding in a calm and rational manner.  Please know that further personal attacks by you (this entire post of yours is a clear violation of the ToS) will not be tolerated.  Thank you.

I'll say this at the risk of loosing one of my few forum "Allies". Fred has taken no more than he has given in this debate and I personally have enjoyed the back and forth between a LEO and a Lawyer. I must say I side with your view more than his; as I feel his position is quite "fluid" but it doesn't take away from the debate.

I appreciate reading both the views (expertise) of you and Fred on this matter and I for one would like to have a non-biased discussion on this very important matter, but I realize where I'm at

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/21/portland-protests-trump-administration-response-raises-legal-questions/5481418002/

Quote:PORTLAND, Ore. – In one video, a man clad in black at a protest raises his arms and shakes his head as two men in green military fatigues walk toward him. Without a word, they grab his arm and take him to an unmarked van parked across the street.



In another video, a woman lies face down on the ground before a group of men in street clothes yank her to her feet and take her to an unmarked car. "Who is it? Who are you?" a bystander screams. 


Before the car speeds away, one of the men says, "If you follow us, you will get shot. Do you understand me?" 


The widely circulated videos, at the heart of a lawsuit filed by Oregon's attorney general against the Trump administration, raise questions about the legality of the federal government's aggressive response to the unrest in Portland, where protests over police brutality and racial injustice have stretched into several weeks. 

The events could present a legal test on how far the federal government can go in asserting its authority in cities where federal assistance is neither requested nor, local political leaders say, desired. 


"What they can’t do without an invitation from Portland and/or Oregon is attempt to enforce Oregon laws or Portland ordinances. Those are state and local responsibilities," said Michael Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell University. "If the situation were such that you thought that the city of Portland was conspiring with people who are rioting and violating federal rights, then there might be authority for some federal action."

Officials from the Trump administration said federal officers and agents were deployed to Portland to protect federal properties and monuments. 


Some of the videos and at least one protester's personal account of his brief detention suggest federal authorities have gone beyond that mandate, legal experts said. Officers have grabbed people off streets, arrested them without explaining or saying which agency they're from or which authority they work under – requirements that law enforcement officers, federal, state and local, are all supposed to follow, experts said. 

"I find very plausible the protesters’ claims that the federal officers are not simply protecting federal property, and part of the reason for that is the president himself and the high-ranking officials in DHS have not made that the primary rationale," Dorf said, referring to the federal Department of Homeland Security.


The primary rationale, based on President Donald Trump's comments, is that cities besieged by "anarchists" failed to contain the chaos, so the federal government stepped in.


"They grab them, a lot of people in jail," Trump said Monday, praising the actions of federal officers in Portland.


In an interview with Fox News, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows acknowledged that the federal presence in Portland is no longer just about protecting statues. 


"The statues are one thing, but it's really about keeping our communities," Meadows said.


Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf on Tuesday rejected allegations that authorities arrested people without cause as "offensive, hyperbolic and dishonest."


Calling the "smear attacks against our officers disgusting," Wolf maintained that officers have been properly identified and that the camouflage uniforms worn by tactical units are "completely appropriate" because they are the uniforms worn in their normal assignments.


'A bad fit'


The wide array of federal agencies involved has also raised questions. The Trump administration deployed federal agents from Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Marshals Service. 


Gil Kerlikowske, a CBP commissioner in the Obama administration and a longtime police chief, said deployments may not violate the law because many states authorized federal agents to enforce local statutes.

But he said the use of agents from the Border Patrol Tactical Unit, known as BORTAC, to assist urban police was "a totally bad fit" and appears to be nothing more than political theater for an audience of one: the president. 


"It’s just not their role or expertise," Kerlikowske said. "These are people who are used to operating in a rural environment, not in a large city. I was shocked that BORTAC would be used."


"Policing in an urban area and policing civil disturbance is not anything they have experience or training for. What a disaster."


Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, said the deployment of federal officers to cities, without an invitation from leaders, may run afoul of local laws.


"That may be something for the courts to decide," he said


Traditionally, mutual aid agreements between federal and local governments are meant to address specific law enforcement issues, such as drug trafficking, gun violence and terrorism, Acevedo said.


"When it comes to crowd control, that's not something that's in the federal government's wheelhouse. Using federal officers that way may put them at risk, as well as escalate the unrest," he said.


Federal officers do have the authority to arrest people outside federal properties or boundaries when there's probable cause that they've violated federal or state law. In Oregon, state law requires federal officers to have state certification and proper training, said Steve Vladeck, a constitutional law expert from the University of Texas-Austin.

It's unclear whether any of the federal officers in Portland have received such training, Vladeck wrote on Lawfareblog.com.


'We will not retreat'


Wolf contended that the units are there to protect federal property because of "a lack of action" by local leaders and law enforcement.


"We will not retreat," Wolf said. "We will take appropriate action to protect our facilities.  If we left tomorrow, they would burn that (federal courthouse) down. What we have in Portland is different than we have in any other city."


Wolf rejected allegations that federal officers, many of them drawn from immigration enforcement duties along the border, patrolled the city without appropriate identification and rounded up protesters who did not present a threat.


"These police officers are not storm troopers," Wolf said.


Mark Morgan, acting commissioner of CBP, acknowledged that names have been removed from some officers' uniforms because their personal information was published on social media, putting them at risk.


He said all uniforms carry markings identifying officers as police or law enforcement. He described the use of unmarked vehicles as "standard procedure" and appropriate "especially under the circumstances."


He said the officers represent some of the "most highly trained" in the CBP. Morgan defended the use of BORTAC, saying the unit is trained to subdue rioting at DHS detention centers. 


'Unprecedented' response


As state and local leaders mount a full resistance against the federal presence in Portland, the Trump administration is weighing a broad deployment of officers to Chicago and other cities nationwide.


The mayors of major cities, including Portland and Chicago, wrote a joint letter saying the federal presence fuels tensions instead of quelling them. The mayors said federal officers have blatantly disregarded local rules and expectations about how to interact with citizens. 

A statement from the U.S. Conference of Mayors condemned the federal government's unrequested presence in Portland.


"There are many things the federal government can do to help cities and support local efforts, but sending in federal agents without any coordination with mayors and governors is not among them," the organization said. 


The Trump administration's aggressive and militaristic response is "unprecedented," Dorf said, and goes against the federal government's long-standing role of assisting state and local efforts.


"The president is proposing the use of federal law enforcement officials all around the country not to protect federal interests that are distinctly under attack but simply to displace state and local enforcement," he said, adding that federal assistance usually comes in the form of money appropriated by Congress and dispensed to state and local authorities. "And it's all cooperative. This is not cooperative."


State officials have made clear their intent to challenge the federal government's actions. The Oregon attorney general asked a judge to bar federal authorities from using tactics state officials called a violation of protesters' rights. 


"This is a democracy, not a dictatorship," Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said in a statement. "We cannot have secret police abducting people in unmarked vehicles. I can’t believe I have to say that to the president of the United States." 


'Feds go home!'

In downtown Portland Monday night, activists repeatedly clashed with DHS officers protecting the federal courthouse.


"Feds go home! Feds go home!" activists chanted at the officers in body armor and gas masks outside the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse. "Whose streets? Our streets!"


Protesters threw plastic water bottles toward the armored officers, who pushed them back with volleys of tear gas, flash-bang grenades and pepper balls fired from paintball guns.

"The feds assaulted Americans here" was scrawled on a street near the courthouse.


Federal officers  responded only when protesters tried to rip down or break plywood boards blocking the courthouse entrance. Officers ignored shouted questions and taunts from protesters.


Police had no visible presence in the area all evening and into the early hours of Tuesday.


Since the surge of federal officers this month, Wolf said there have been 43 federal arrests. 


"I'm ready to pull my officers out of there when the violence stops," Wolf said. 


A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Portland said federal officers arrested, then released two people over the weekend.


Five were arrested Monday night on charges such as assault on a federal officer, creating a disturbance, failure to comply and trespassing.


"Ever since the feds showed up," said protester Ted Park, 31, "it’s been like war."

Protester Conner O’Shea, 30, said it’s hard for protesters to know exactly how many federal officers are on the street, but he and friends see "snatcher-style vehicles, unmarked vans, leaving the back of the federal building every night, and that’s been worrisome."


He said he worries that the events in Portland will happen in other cities.


"This is a testing ground, that’s what we’re telling people," he said.

[fredtoast]

(07-21-2020, 09:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm going to cease this back and forth as it is not productive and you don't appear to want to engage in a good faith discussion, instead parsing hairs, (deliberately?) misinterpreting what was said or engaging in semantic arguments.  I'll be happy to reengage when that ceases.

I have done n othoing but attempt to have a good faith discussion with you.  Asking for proof of your claims is not "parsing hairs".  My posting of videos as evidence of my position is not a semantic arguments.  

And every post I have made has been about the issues and the validity of your claims.  I ever once appealed to emotions.  I never once made a judgement about your personal values.  I have not used a single insulting term.  And I still won't.  Instead I will just quote what you have said in this thread.

(07-20-2020, 05:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then again, you are defending vigilante murders while excoriating law enforcement.  Quite the bizarro world we currently reside in.

(07-20-2020, 06:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Keep defending these murderers. :andy:

(07-20-2020, 08:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  this thread, and your position in it, is depressing in multiple ways.

(07-20-2020, 08:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've been waiting to make this point because I honestly wanted to see how much of a knot you could tie yourself in defending vigilante murderers.

(07-20-2020, 08:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Horribly untrue and inflammatory statement.

Your statement here is nauseating and quite simply you should be ashamed of yourself for making it.

(07-21-2020, 01:23 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:    The intellectual disconnect is entertaining at the very least.

(07-21-2020, 10:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am fascinated by some of our far left members almost literally tripping over themselves to defend this blatant act of vigilantism while simultaneously raking law enforcement over the coals.  Peak clown world.

(07-21-2020, 10:50 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed.  The response by some on this board is even more amusing 


Like I said, peak clown world.

(07-21-2020, 11:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite sad really.

No judgement on my part.  

Just repeating what you have said.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-21-2020, 09:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Instead I will just quote what you have said in this thread.

Out of context.  Which is, unfortunately, an old habit of yours and why I'm done with this particular back and forth.  However, if you feel the need to have the last word, please feel free.

[fredtoast]

(07-21-2020, 10:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Out of context.  Which is, unfortunately, an old habit of yours and why I'm done with this particular back and forth.  However, if you feel the need to have the last word, please feel free.

So you are not going to provide the context to explain how "peak clown world" is polite adult discourse that you have been fighting to preserve around here?

Or how calling my opinions "nauseating", "embarrassing", "sad", "amusing" and "shameful" are not personal attacks on my values and morals instead of a discussion about the factual validity of my claims or the evidence I supply to support them?

I am not going to judge you or say anything bad about you if you don't.

But, damn, I'd love to hear that story.   

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2020, 01:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So you are not going to provide the context to explain how "peak clown world" is polite adult discourse that you have been fighting to preserve around here?

Or how calling my opinions "nauseating", "embarrassing", "sad", "amusing" and "shameful" are not personal attacks on my values and morals instead of a discussion about the factual validity of my claims or the evidence I supply to support them?

I am not going to judge you or say anything bad about you if you don't.

But, damn, I'd love to hear that story.   

The context is the parts of the quoted posts that you decided to abscise.  C'mon, Fred, that should be obvious.

[GMDino]

"proactively arresting" doesn't sound like "arresting people attacking federal buildings"

Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf tells Fox that they're "proactive arrest[ing] people" in Portland. pic.twitter.com/eM8aAg6hPq

— Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) July 21, 2020

 

[Belsnickel]

(07-22-2020, 09:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: "proactively arresting" doesn't sound like "arresting people attacking federal buildings"

Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf tells Fox that they're "proactive arrest[ing] people" in Portland. pic.twitter.com/eM8aAg6hPq

— Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) July 21, 2020

 

Yeah, I'd like to know more about that because that sure sounds a lot like suppressing free speech.

[GMDino]

Long read of a series of tweets.  A little above my paygrade but a good read.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1285738001004482561.html

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Today on TV, the Deputy Director of the federal paramilitary force in #PDX discussed the infamous van video. He described a textbook example of an unconstitutional arrest.

But... he doesn’t seem to know it.

That is a BIG PROBLEM. Let’s unpack this. It’s important.
(thread)[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Here (again) is the video of the van encounter.
Unroll available on Thread Reader


[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]And here's the press conference, in which a reporter (at 35:02) asks @DHS_Wolf "what level of probable cause are you getting" in these encounters? Wolf turns it over to Kris Cline, Deputy Director of the Federal Protective Service.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Cline says "you're probably talking about the van," and goes on to give the government's account of what happened.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]The agents, Cline says, were interested in the man in the video because, earlier, they'd seen him "in a crowd and in an area" where someone ELSE was aiming a laser at the eyes of officers.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]I don’t know if shining a laser at someone is a federal crime.

It doesn’t matter.

The police do not have probable cause to arrest you just because you are standing near someone else who may have committed a crime.[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]We’ve all heard the saying that people shouldn’t be treated as “guilty by association.” Well, that’s also the law. To wit, Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979).[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Cline goes on to say that the agents followed the man in the video—whom they had no basis to arrest—to a calmer location, away from the courthouse, because they wanted to question him.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]So far as the Fourth Amendment goes, if that’s all they’d actually done, there wouldn’t be an issue. The police are allowed to walk up to you and question you, in a “consensual” encounter, so long as a reasonable person in your shoes would think it's ok for you to walk away.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)](Side note: These encounters often don’t feel consensual in the moment, even though a court will often deem them consensual as a legal matter after the fact. That’s a problem for another day.)[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Maybe these agents planned to execute one of those “consensual” encounters, maybe not. But in any event, Cline admits—and the video is clear—that they did something very different: they forcibly removed the man from the scene.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Again, not because of anything he did.

According to Cline, the agents grabbed the man because they saw *other* people coming toward them and felt unsafe.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]They wanted to leave. They didn’t want to let him leave. So they grabbed him and put him in a van and took him, in Cline's words, "to an area that was safe for both the officers and the individual to do the questioning."[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Cline doesn't say explicitly where they took the man. But we know from other reporting that another person taken off the street in similar fashion, Mark Pettibone, was taken inside the federal courthouse.

Federal Law Enforcement Use Unmarked Vehicles To Grab Protesters Off Portland StreetsFederal 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 …https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unmarked-vehicles-portland-protesters/
[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]And Cline does explicitly say that the man he is describing (the man from the van video) was questioned for approximately 20 minutes -- something unlikely to have happened out on the street, given the agents' apparent fear of the surrounding crowd.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]And then, after those ~20 minutes, the agents "released the individual." Why? Well, let's let Cline explain:[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]"They released the individual because they did not have what they needed."[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Translation: They did not have probable cause.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)](Note how this plays out. Eventually, government lawyers show up and apparently say to the agents -- you gotta let this guy go, you have no lawful basis to detain him.)[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Ok. Those are the facts, according to the Deputy Director of the federal police force deployed in Portland (and, apparently coming to a city “lead by Democrats” near you).

As far as the Fourth Amendments goes, there's two important points here:[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]1. Cline admits the agents NEVER had probable cause to arrest this person. That’s why they let him go. They didn't have probable cause when the lawyers showed up. They didn't have probable cause when they put the man in the van. They never had it. And they aren't saying they did.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]2. This man was arrested.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]This isn’t one of those law school exam types of cases where you’re supposed to say “Well, *maybe* he was arrested.”

This is one of those bar exam types of cases where they ask you “Was this an arrest? (A) Yes (B) No.”[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]The answer is yes.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]To wit, Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979), where the Supreme Court considered whether the police violated the Fourth Amendment when, without probable cause, they took someone "into custody, transported him to the police station, and detained him there for interrogation."[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]The answer is yes.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Just as in Dunaway, this man was "taken" from the street "where he was found," put into "a police car" (sorta), "transported to a police station" (inside the courthouse), "and placed in an interrogation room," where he was questioned.

That is an arrest. Period.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)](See also Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 815 (1984))[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]So.... the most troubling part of Cline's statement is NOT when he acknowledges the lack of probable cause.

It's when he says that this "simple engagement" was perfectly constitutional because "it's not a custodial arrest."[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]That statement is glaringly wrong.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]It's been wrong since at least 1979.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Let that sink in.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]The person in charge of this newly beefed up, paramilitary federal police force DOES NOT KNOW WHAT AN ARREST IS.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]That means he doesn’t know when he or his officers are committing one... illegally.

In violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Like they unquestionably did here.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Look, you can’t possibly conduct arrests lawfully if you don’t know your conducting them in the first place.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]And if the Deputy Director of this new federal force will say on national TV that what these officers did was legal because "this wasn't an arrest," that raises serious concerns about what his officers are doing out on the street. When the cameras are on, and when they’re not.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]That's it.[/color]

[Dill]

(07-21-2020, 02:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This entire post is unnecessary.  I could explain that using the words in direct conjunction as a term is not the same as referring to the "security" forces of the CHOP as "far left".  But you already knew that and made this post anyways.

What was "unnecessary" was claiming, in the first place, that I misspelled "security forces." The term you first used.

And then continuing to replace that term with your more extreme and prejudicial term "far left extremist vigilante thugs."


Your insistence on prejudicial rather than factual terminology is just another indication of how much your account of the Seattle shooting rests primarily upon your own adjectives rather than any agreed upon factual record.

[Dill]

(07-21-2020, 02:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Google is a thing, try using it.  I'm not here to educate you on the basic facts of what happened at CHAZ/CHOP.  If you want to engage on the subject educate yourself on the basic facts before attempting to do so.  At the very least don't expect me to hold your hand through the process.

Please refer to a post I made above, it should clear all of this up.

I can't tell you how amusing this sentence is.

No, it's a fact.

Even a police shooting?  Very generous of you.  I didn't know you were a George Zimmerman defender, this topic has revealed some very interesting things about our fellow posters.

Again, please see above, all of this is answered.  Also again, please educate yourself about basic facts before attempting to pursue this topic further.  I know I would appreciate it and I'm sure others reading the thread would as well.

It's precisely because you have made so many claims which cannot be substantiated by Google search, and which are corrected by others, that I am asking you for external proof.  

Fred has done the thread a service by listing not only your unsupported claims , but statements offering your own unsubstantiated speculation as "fact."

Telling me to "educate myself" when I ask for proof is simply your way of covering the fact you don't have it.

Same for calling Fred's list of your unsupported claims a "personal attack."   Another dodge.

[fredtoast]

(07-22-2020, 09:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: Long read of a series of tweets.  A little above my paygrade but a good read.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1285738001004482561.html

But, all these policies were vetted by Justice Department lawyers.  Trump even showed their report.  It was written in sharpie and said "Many people are saying these activities are completely legal.  Hugely legal.  In fact probably more legal then any policy in history"

[Dill]

(07-21-2020, 09:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm going to cease this back and forth as it is not productive and you don't appear to want to engage in a good faith discussion, instead parsing hairs, (deliberately?) misinterpreting what was said or engaging in semantic arguments.  I'll be happy to reengage when that ceases.

Jeezus.

No one on this thread has worked harder than Fred to establish a factual account of the Seattle shooting, separate from unsupported speculation.  No one has worked harder than you to substitute speculation for fact, defending that in part by calling factual challenges "personal attack" and in part by personally disparaging others, leading to these constant digressions into forum ethics, diverting discussion from the main topic of discussion.

Fred has not only done the work of providing and neutrally parsing sources, but when challenged by you to "prove" that you've posted unsupported claims, he has done that as well.  

When you accused Fred of personal attack for providing the example of your own statements, he quickly (because it is so easy to do) massed evidence that you have been the one engaging in personal attacks in this discussion. You cannot produce similar evidence of his "bad faith." But you demand that HE "keep things cordial." 

Where Fred puts in the work to secure claims and actually, logically REFUTE arguments, you simply dismiss them, and those who make them, and count that as a "win."  All part of the forum record now.

(07-21-2020, 10:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Out of context.  Which is, unfortunately, an old habit of yours and why I'm done with this particular back and forth.  However, if you feel the need to have the last word, please feel free.

LOL No "context" can save you from what Fred's demonstration establishes--your posts are peppered with disparaging comments aimed at the person of other posters.  His are not. No one else's are, in fact.

Your "old habit" is to make claims without support, then to deflect requests for proof, and then to accuse others of your bad faith actions.  They are suddenly "parsing hairs" or "(deliberately?)misinterpreting" or "engaging in semantic arguments" if they don't "trust you" without proof. They are "carrying water for China" or "supporting ISIS" or, in this case, "defending vigilantes" if they want to get the facts straight before judging. Your "new habit" is to weaponize the toc as part of your personal attack, demanding others stop doing what you are actually doing.

Fred's "old habit" is to support his claims with evidence, and build those into a logical demonstration--which is exactly what he has been doing on this thread--so far, better than anyone, putting more work into establishing what is and is not known about the Seattle shooting than anyone else.

OF COURSE you'll "be happy to reengage when that ceases. Then the discussion will be "productive" again.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2020, 02:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Jeezus.

No one on this thread has worked harder than Fred to establish a factual account of the Seattle shooting, separate from unsupported speculation. 

If you call stating opinion as fact then sure.  I call it the exact opposite.  Thanks for trying though.

[Dill]

(07-22-2020, 02:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Where Fred puts in the work to secure claims and actually, logically REFUTE arguments, you simply dismiss them, and those who make them, and count that as a "win."  All part of the forum record now.

For example.

(07-22-2020, 02:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you call stating opinion as fact then sure.  I call it the exact opposite.  Thanks for trying though.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2020, 02:49 PM)Dill Wrote: For example.

I get it, you're willfully blind when it comes to the shortcomings of your friends.  Consequently, you'll please excuse me if I give your opinion in this matter absolutely zero credence.  No need to respond, I'm done discussing this.

[Dill]

Post #191

(07-21-2020, 04:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:-You claimed that CHOP security admitted to murder on Twitter.  Never happened.

They admitted they shot the occupants of the Jeep.  Given the evidence it strongly appears that a murder was committed.  Too bad they contaminated the crime scene, which is what innocent people tend to do, right?

(07-21-2020, 09:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote:

(Yesterday, 07:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wrote:They admitted they shot the occupants of the Jeep. 

Lots of people admit to shooting people but deny murder.  So you were wrong when you said they admitted to murder. 

You have refuted a number of factual claims in your post #198, and SSF appears unable to contest, so I guess the refutations stand.

But I want to note the above exchange for a moment because it illustrates how pre-judgments get projected onto facts, so the judgments are then misrepresented as themselves factual because they about facts. 

Claiming that the shooters in this case had "admitted to murder"--when the "proof" is merely that the shooters admitted to shooting--[b]is a clear example of injecting "opinion" into fact, and then "stating opinion as fact."  [/b]

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2020, 03:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Post #191




You have refuted a number of factual claims in your post #198, and SSF appears unable to contest, so I guess the refutations stand.

But I want to note the above exchange for a moment because it illustrates how pre-judgments get projected onto facts, so the judgments are then misrepresented as themselves factual because they about facts. 

Claiming that the shooters in this case had "admitted to murder"--when the "proof" is merely that the shooters admitted to shooting--[b]is a clear example of injecting "opinion" into fact, and then "stating opinion as fact."  [/b]

You keep doing you, Dill, no worries.  I'm very confident that other people reading the thread will be able to discern what is factual and what is opinion.  If you feel you need to get in the last word, that's ok, I'm used to that.

[fredtoast]

(07-22-2020, 04:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You keep doing you, Dill, no worries.  I'm very confident that other people reading the thread will be able to discern what is factual and what is opinion.  If you feel you need to get in the last word, that's ok, I'm used to that.

Just for the record.

Is calling the killing of the guy in the jeep a "murder" fact or opinion?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2020, 04:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just for the record.

Is calling the killing of the guy in the jeep a "murder" fact or opinion?

I'll be an adult and answer directly, don't make me regret it, please.  It is an opinion strongly backed by the following known facts;

Armed vigilantes actively looked for the Jeep.

Armed vigilantes shot into the Jeep.

There is no evidence that anyone in the Jeep fired any shots.

The Jeep rammed a concrete barrier (perhaps while attempting to flee).  The barrier could not be penetrated by the car.

After the initial flurry of shots a person can be clearly heard saying, "Oh you're not dead yet?", followed by an ~10 second pause and then a final gun shot.

When police arrived to investigate the crime scene had been heavily tampered with.


None of these are facts are in dispute and all strongly point to this confrontation being instigated by the vigilantes, which would make the killing a murder.  Additionally, someone fired a single shot, well after the initial confrontation after someone commented on the victims not being "dead yet".  If you disagree that these facts don't point to a murder occurring, fine.  Just please don't waste my time further disputing any of the above.