(07-20-2020, 10:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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. 

(07-20-2020, 10:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

(07-20-2020, 01:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There are plenty of videos that prove the CHOP security was just responding to a drive by shooting from a JEEP.

(07-20-2020, 11:58 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 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?"

(07-20-2020, 12:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This video seems to confirms that the killing was in self defense.

Quote: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.

Quote: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, 01:43 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL so it is finally Fred who provides a link between the shooting and far left security forces.

Apparently responding to an attack on unarmed people?  

(07-20-2020, 01:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

(07-20-2020, 01:37 PM)Dill Wrote: Well yes, you did not answer "in the way I like" because the way I like involves answering the question posed about police with no identifying insignia yanking people off the street. I did not get an answer to that, only a vague and obfuscutory "I have zero issue with federal law enforcement arresting people for federal crimes in a manner consistent with policy."  Hence your answer did not meet my approval.

The "lecture" was an explanation/demonstration of how you answered a different question from the one asked, thereby avoiding a clear statement of approval or disapproval of any policy which enabled the actions in question. It appears you still won't do that.


No, the question was about a constitutional/legal principle, not "facts" in evidence or not. And your answer was not about facts in evidence in Portland, but about policy.

You skirted a question about principle, the basis of policy. That is my "main problem."  Still looks like you are ok with federal agents who refuse to identify themselves as such yanking people off the streets in unmarked vehicles, if that is the policy. And it will look like you are ok with that until you explicitly state otherwise. It will just look like continued obfuscation if you repeat that you are fine with federal agents acting according to policy.

(07-20-2020, 04:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wrong.  There were no shots fired by anyone other than the CHOP thug patrol.

(07-20-2020, 04:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect.  This was a completely different vehicle to the one from which shots were fired.

(07-20-2020, 04:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, they flat out admitted to it on twitter and Instagram. 

(07-20-2020, 04:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Is federal law enforcement policy, which is heavily vetted by teams of lawyers before being implemented, likely to be blatantly unconstitutional?  The answer to that will answer why I responded the way I did. 


Again, because you're apparently confused, if law enforcement is conducting legal arrests within the scope of approved policy than I have zero issue with it. 

(07-20-2020, 04:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Is federal law enforcement policy, which is heavily vetted by teams of lawyers before being implemented, likely to be blatantly unconstitutional?  The answer to that will answer why I responded the way I did. 

(07-20-2020, 04:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Link.

How can you tell who fired the shots?

I posted a video of the CHOP security responding to reports of the vehicle involved in a drive by shooting.

Quote:So what happened to the vehicle the shots were fired from?  Who was in it?  Who were they shooting at?  If CHOP patrol are the only people who fired shots then why would CHOP patrol be driving around shooting at themselves?

Quote:Why did this vehicle ram a barricade immediately after shots were fired from another vehicle?

Quote:Link to them admitting to "murder".  Not killing in self defense.

Quote:Everyone else here posts links to their info.  Why don't you?  It would make this all much easier.

(07-20-2020, 04:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: They are also beating people for standing in front of them or trying to help injured people and grabbing lots of people who are never charged with anything which is why when a group is allowed to seemingly do whatever they want *most* people think they should be reined in.  Most.

(07-20-2020, 04:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Would these be the same "teams of lawyers" who said Federal agents were not bound by California's SB 54 Sanctuary Bill?

Quote:Why do we even need a Supreme Court if Federal Law Enforcement policy never violate the constitution?

(07-20-2020, 05:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct, shots fired from a Silver SUV (likely a Nissan or Honda), not a White Jeep.  There were no firearms or shell casings found in the victim's vehicle.

(07-20-2020, 05:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct, shots fired from a Silver SUV (likely a Nissan or Honda), not a White Jeep.  There were no firearms or shell casings found in the victim's vehicle.

(07-20-2020, 05:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Link?

(07-20-2020, 05:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Link?

(07-20-2020, 05:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But what you're suggesting is occurring, based solely on unverified statements from unvetted people, is so blatantly unconstitutional as to be obvious on its face.

(07-20-2020, 06:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: US Customs and Border Patrol have admitted they took Pettibone into custody just like he claimed.

Not of Federal property.

Quote:They also admit that the officers had no identification on them.  They claimed the officers had CBP insignia on their "uniforms" but video of tghe agents on the street does not confirm this.

Quote:So far no warrant

Quote:no incident report,

Quote:no basis for probably cause shown.

Quote:They claim they "had information" they wanted to question him about, but they did not just question him.

Quote:Instead they seized him and took him into custody.

(07-20-2020, 06:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is the best source of publicly available information I've been able to find.  Keep defending these murderers. :andy:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/everybody-down-what-happened-at-the-chop-shooting-that-killed-a-teenager-and-led-to-the-areas-shutdown/

(07-20-2020, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Maybe you should have educated yourself on the topic rather than playing Gotcha with someone else who is uninformed?