(07-24-2020, 12:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I said in the post you quoted, the baton strikes were unnecessary.  I have zero issue with the pepper spray being used if he was already instructed to leave the area.  You know better, Bel, if he was ordered to leave and he did not then that, by definition, is resisting.  You also can't say he wasn't behaving in a way that warranted arrest a few sentences after saying they should have just arrested him if he had refused to leave the area.  Well, you can, it's just contradictory.

(07-24-2020, 12:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Doing nothing wrong...but "ordered" to leave while doing nothing but defending his 1A rights so now he is "resisting"....so pepper sprayed and beaten.

Some people don't seem to see how that is the problem.

(07-24-2020, 12:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll explain since you don't seem to understand how this type of thing works.  Violent protesters are throwing rocks, bottles and explosives at police.  The police set up a "no mans land" between them and the protesters to prevent injury to themselves.  As the projectiles are being hurled from within the crowd it is virtually impossible to determine who is throwing what and entering the crowd to try and determine this would be dangerous for all parties involved.

Navy vet, well intentioned or not, goes in to said "no mans land" to lecture the police (this is by his own admission, the lecture part that is).  Police inform him he cannot be where he is and must leave.  Guy refuses.  He is instructed again to leave.  Guy refuses.  Law enforcement has a three tiered system in this regard, ask, tell, make.  At this point we are in the "make" phase.  While I agree, and have repeatedly stated, that the baton strikes were not necessary and were excessive, the pepper spray got him to leave the area, as instructed.

I'm sure you have a different view, that the police just saw this dude and said, "lets get him!", but that really doesn't make sense in the real world.  I know I haven't changed your mind, but hopefully other people reading will see why this likely occurred instead of just swallowing the media's narrative of the incident.

(07-24-2020, 12:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: This entire post is speculation even your description of "lecturing" versus "speaking to...including where you put words in my mouth (bold).

Quote:You saw the video and found a way to create a situation where beating and gassing a peaceful protest is acceptable to you...that doesn't make it true or right no matter what "view" you say I have.

Quote:The people patrolling the streets have INCREASED the tension and violence by not "protecting" by by rather "attacking".

(07-24-2020, 12:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Two things.  One, the guy stated he went up to the officers to ask them if they had forgotten their oath to the Constitution.  If you dislike the word "lecture", although it is being used appropriately, then pick another word that you find more palatable.  It doesn't change the facts of the encounter.  As to "putting words in your mouth", I absolutely did not do that.  It is clearly stated in sentence that you bolded that I was stating my opinion.



Now, who's putting words in people's mouth?  I have said repeatedly that the baton strikes were unnecessary and over the line, so your allegation that I am fine with the "beating" is both disingenuous and demonstrably false.  I explained how the scenario likely occurred based on all known facts.  If you have an alternative theory please feel free to advance it.  


Are they attacking or are they responding to being attacked?  I suppose you'd need more than a two minute video clip to determine such a thing so I'm sure you haven't made up your mind on this.

In the future do please try and limit your assertions of my, or anyone else, saying things that we can prove they did not say.  Trying to win an internet argument is not worth engaging in such falsehoods and it's certainly not in the spirit of the new P&R.  My thanks.

(07-24-2020, 12:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: I've explained my "theory".  A man peacefully spoke with officers who then beat and gassed him.

You know, what you can see with your own eyes. 

Quote:FEDERAL COURT ISSUES RESTRAINING ORDER ON FEDERAL AGENTS IN PORTLAND


ORDER IN ACLU LAWSUIT BLOCKS TRUMP’S MILITARIZED AGENTS FROM ATTACKING JOURNALISTS, LEGAL OBSERVERS AT PORTLAND PROTESTS WHILE UNDERLYING LAWSUIT PROCEEDS
JULY 23, 2020

PORTLAND, Ore.— U.S. District Judge Michael Simon today blocked federal agents in Portland from dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, or targeting force against journalists or legal observers at protests. The court’s order, which comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, adds the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Marshals Service to an existing injunction barring Portland police from arresting or attacking journalists and legal observers at Portland protests.

Under the court order, federal agents also cannot unlawfully seize any photographic equipment, audio- or video-recording equipment, or press passes from journalists and legal observers, or order journalists or legal observers to stop photographing, recording, or observing a protest.

“This order is a victory for the rule of law,” said Jann Carson, interim executive director of the ACLU of Oregon. “Federal agents from Trump’s Departments of Homeland Security and Justice are terrorizing the community, threatening lives, and relentlessly attacking journalists and legal observers documenting protests. These are the actions of a tyrant, and they have no place anywhere in America.”

ACLU state chapters have filed multiple lawsuits in response to the use of federal force in Portland and the violent clearing of protesters outside the White House on June 1. The ACLU of Oregon yesterday filed a lawsuit against DHS, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the city of Portland for attacking volunteer street medics. That case is currently pending before a federal court.

"The Trump administration is deploying federal agents around the country in a senseless and brutal attempt to silence dissent," said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "We are working to make sure that this unconstitutional nightmare ends in Portland, and is not replicated anywhere else."

The lawsuit subject to today’s ruling was filed on behalf of legal observers and local journalists. Named plaintiffs include: 

• The Portland Mercury (Index Newspapers LLC)
• John Rudoff, a 72-year-old photojournalist, who was shot on two separate occasions by federal agents
• Mathieu Lewis-Rolland, a freelance photographer who federal agents shot 10 times in the back (video)
• Justin Yau, a freelance journalist who federal agents attacked with tear gas
• Doug Brown, a legal observer who federal agents threatened to shoot. 
• Alex Milan Tracy, who was shot by federal agents on July 20 and then hit with a stun grenade by federal agents on July 22
• Kat Mahoney, a legal observer who was tear-gassed by federal agents
  

All individuals were wearing high-visibility shirts that said “PRESS” or “legal observer.”


“This injunction is a critical protection for journalists and legal observers exercising their fundamental right to record and observe police activities at these important protests, and it’s a victory for the nation’s right to receive a full account of these events,” said Matthew Borden, pro bono counsel for the ACLU Foundation of Oregon and partner at BraunHagey & Borden LLP.

The temporary restraining order is online here: https://aclu-or.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_tro_against_federal_defendants.pdf.

Case files are online here: https://aclu-or.org/en/cases/woodstock-v-city-portland. 

(07-24-2020, 12:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I said in the post you quoted, the baton strikes were unnecessary.  I have zero issue with the pepper spray being used if he was already instructed to leave the area.  You know better, Bel, if he was ordered to leave and he did not then that, by definition, is resisting.  You also can't say he wasn't behaving in a way that warranted arrest a few sentences after saying they should have just arrested him if he had refused to leave the area.  Well, you can, it's just contradictory.

(07-24-2020, 05:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The comment about not doing anything warranting arrest was about how they chose not to arrest him, but instead strike him with a baton and spray him with OC. It was a rhetorical statement to say that if he deserving of those actions, then why not arrest? So it wasn't contradictory, just a rhetorical tool that was misunderstood.

(07-24-2020, 05:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Copy that, my bad for the misunderstanding.

(07-24-2020, 01:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: That they even had to go to court to stop this is beyond the pale.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-issues-restraining-order-federal-agents-portland

(07-25-2020, 09:16 AM)GMDino Wrote:

(07-25-2020, 06:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Occupied a, at the time not in use, building far from any where else. I said it at the time, law enforcement handled that situation perfectly. Comparing this to violent protests in the middle of urban centers is the height of disingenuous argument.

I’d also remind people that one of those guys was shot and killed, appropriately, after a high speed chase.

(07-25-2020, 08:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He was shot after he tried to run over a federal agent. 

There's also been enough cases of non violent protests in the last two months being met with rubber bullets, batons, and tear gas to dismiss any attempts to characterize them all as violent protests, as you imply here. That is quite disingenuous. The justification is guilt by association, and yet we're referring to a terrorist act in which a group that had prior armed showdowns with federal agents and some ties to militias was not treated the same.

As you said, LE handled that situation the right way, but the point isn't that they should have been met with rubber bullets and tear gas, but rather that peaceful protests should not be. 

(07-25-2020, 10:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Simply one was right wing so some defend it.  One is left wing so some attack it.

Peaceful is peaceful and adding troops that are beating and gassing and shooting peaceful protestors now is bad no matter how they handled them then.

(07-25-2020, 09:16 AM)GMDino Wrote:

(07-26-2020, 09:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I remember how quickly many in this forum called them terrorist, but for some reason they are not as willing to apply the same moniker these days. 

(07-25-2020, 06:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Occupied a, at the time not in use, building far from any where else. I said it at the time, law enforcement handled that situation perfectly. Comparing this to violent protests in the middle of urban centers is the height of disingenuous argument.

(07-24-2020, 12:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I'll reiterate my original point, debate like an adult, that's all I'm asking. 

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

(07-20-2020, 08:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Your statement here is nauseating and quite simply you should be ashamed of yourself for making it.

(07-21-2020, 10:50 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: peak clown world.