(07-20-2020, 06:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Did they admit this or was this the suspect's story?

(07-20-2020, 05:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, they definitely stated it was self defense, until they discovered it was the wrong car.  Then no one said anything.

(07-20-2020, 06:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It was clearly the white Jeep that tried to attack them by ramming the barricade.

Quote:Homeland Security making plans to deploy some 150 agents in Chicago this week, with scope of duty unknown






Federal agents use crowd control munitions to disperse Black Lives Matter protesters at the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse on July 20, 2020, in Portland, Oregon. (Noah Berger / AP)

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is crafting plans to deploy about 150 federal agents to Chicago this week, the Chicago Tribune has learned, a move that would come amid growing controversy nationally about federal force being used in American cities.

The Homeland Security Investigations, or HSI, agents are set to assist other federal law enforcement and Chicago police in crime-fighting efforts, according to sources familiar with the matter, though a specific plan on what the agents will be doing had not been made public.

One city official said the city was aware of the plan but not any specifics. DHS in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment, while the Department of Justice indicated an announcement could be forthcoming on an expansion of what has been dubbed Operation Legend, which saw several federal law enforcement agencies assist local police in Kansas City, including the FBI and U.S. Marshals Service.

One Immigration and Customs Enforcement official in Chicago, who asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak on the matter, confirmed the deployment was expected to take place. The official noted that the HSI agents, who are part of ICE, would not be involved in immigration or deportation matters.


It was unclear where all the agents would be coming from, though many were expected to be from agencies operating in the Chicago area. Questions remained about the chain of command they would fall under.
The Chicago Police Department issued a statement Monday.


“The Chicago Police Department does not maintain any authority over the federal government’s deployment of federal law enforcement agents to the City of Chicago. We regularly work alongside our local and federal law enforcement agency partners toward the common goal of keeping Chicago residents safe,” the statement read. “If federal agents are deployed, it is critical that they coordinate with the Chicago Police Department and work alongside us to fight violent crime in Chicago.”


Federal agents being used to confront street protesters in Portland, Oregon, has raised alarm in many circles. Chicago, too, has dealt with protests that have led to injuries in recent days.

At an unrelated news conference Monday morning, Mayor Lori Lightfoot said she has great concerns about the general possibility of President Donald Trump sending feds to Chicago based on what has happened in Portland.
If Trump wants to help, she said, he could boost federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives resources and fully fund prosecutors.

“We don’t need federal agents without any insignia taking people off the streets and holding them, I think, unlawfully,” Lightfoot said.

Later Monday, Lightfoot sent a four-page letter to Trump saying that, despite his “misplaced and incendiary rhetoric,” she will take him at his word that he wants to help Chicago.

And if that’s so, she said, the city needs gun safety reforms and investigations of illegal sales, more spending on community-based outreach and development in disinvested South and West Side neighborhoods.
“These acts will deliver on your promise to make Chicagoans safer – not derision, mandates, or militarized forces,” Lightfoot said.

Word of the Chicago plan comes as Trump last week made a vague announcement on how his administration intended to deal with crime in big U.S. cities like Chicago. The Republican president, who has been very critical of Chicago’s violence throughout his term, has been pushing a “law and order” message as he enters the final stretch of his reelection campaign against his presumptive Democratic challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden.
Trump alluded to the same issue in an interview with “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace, calling Chicago and New York “stupidly run” cities and blaming the violent crime there on Lightfoot and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio.

He repeated his pledge at the White House on Monday, and linked the effort to Portland.

“I’m going to do something that I can tell you, because we’re not going to leave New York and Chicago and Philadelphia, Detroit and Baltimore, and all of these — Oakland is a mess. We’re not going to let this happen in our country, all run by liberal Democrats,” Trump said, talking about violence in those places, and then mentioning Portland.

“We’re going to have more federal law enforcement, that I can tell you,” he said. “In Portland, they’ve done a fantastic job. They’ve been there three days and they really have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time, no problem.”

Lightfoot pushed back last week on criticism from Trump’s press secretary, saying the Trump administration is trying to put the blame for crime on Democrats for political purposes to “score points with their base.”
Without offering specifics, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told Fox News over the weekend that Trump, Attorney General William Barr and acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf would roll out a plan this week about tamping down crime in various U.S. cities.

“Some of the unrest that we saw, even in the last month or so, but particularly last night and in the week leading up to it in Portland, is just not acceptable when you look at communities not being safe and not upholding the rule of law,” said Meadows. “So, Attorney General Barr is weighing in on that with Secretary Wolf and you’ll see something rolled out this week as we start to go in and make sure that the communities, whether it’s Chicago or Portland or Milwaukee or some place across the heartland of the country, we need to make sure their communities are safe.”

As news of the plans spread, leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois issued a strongly worded statement opposing the move.

“Make no mistake: Trump’s federal troops will not be a constructive force in Chicago,” Colleen Connell, executive director of the group, said in the statement. “As our colleagues have seen in Portland, Trump’s secret forces will terrorize communities, and create chaos. This is not law and order. This is an assault on the people of this country, the specific protections of protest and press in the First Amendment, and the Constitution’s assignment of policing to local authorities — not from a president acting like a despot.”

On Saturday, the president of the Chicago police’s largest union had sent Trump a letter asking for help from the federal government in putting a lid on crime in the city.

“I am certain you are aware of the chaos currently affecting our city on a regular basis now,” John Catanzara, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 7, wrote in a letter that was posted on the FOP’s Facebook page. “I am writing to formally ask you for help from the federal government. Mayor Lightfoot has proved to be a complete failure who is either unwilling or unable to maintain law and order here.”

On Sunday, Black Lives Matter Chicago issued a statement condemning Catanzara's request, saying it "made even more frightening" the news of federal agents rounding up protesters in Portland.

“Escalating the level of surveillance and militarization of our communities does not make us safer, whether it is by federal agents or the Chicago Police Department,” the group said in the statement. “Defunding the police and investing in education, jobs, housing, and mental health care is what is needed to make us safe.”

Former Obama education secretary Arne Duncan, who now leads anti-violence group Chicago CRED, said he doesn’t believe Trump is trying to help the city.

“I have zero confidence that he’s trying to serve anyone’s interests but his own, that’s all he does,” Duncan said.
Like Lightfoot, Duncan said he’s concerned that Trump’s move could exacerbate problems if it turns into a situation like Portland.

“It’s creating lawlessness, it’s not stopping it. It is an act of lawlessness itself,” Duncan said. “If that’s the plan, if that’s the intent, nobody needs it, including Chicago.”

So far in 2020, Chicago has experienced one of its most violent years in recent memory, especially since late May with the fallout over the death of George Floyd at the hands of police in Minnesota. Through July 12, homicides in Chicago were up 48% with 385, compared with 260 at the same time last year, official CPD statistics show. Shootings were also up by 46%.

During a 28-day period through July 12, 116 people were slain in Chicago, the statistics show. That’s up from 41 during the same period in 2019.

Other cities around the country also have seen spikes in violence this year. For instance, through July 12 in New York, homicides were up 23% over the year-earlier period while shootings rose about 61% during that same time last year, according to NYPD statistics. In Philadelphia, homicides were up 21% through July 19, and shooting victims were up by 33% compared to that same period in 2018, Philadelphia police statistics show. In Los Angeles, homicides were up close to 13%, according to LAPD statistics through July 11.

In addition to Portland, Homeland Security agents have already been sent to other cities, including Washington, D.C., and Seattle.

Oregon’s attorney general sued Homeland Security and the U.S. Marshals Service on Friday, alleging in a complaint that federal agents in Portland, which has continued to see intense unrest since Floyd’s death on May 25, unjustifiably grabbed people from the city’s streets.

(07-20-2020, 08:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: Self defense doesn't matter because "thugs" and "vigilantes" but the police can murder people.  Good to know.

(07-20-2020, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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? 

Different car from the one from which shots were fired.  Maybe you should have educated yourself on the topic rather than playing Gotcha with someone else who is uninformed?  It is amusing to see you guys tripping over yourselves to defend a vigilante murder.

(07-20-2020, 04:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Are we talking about in a court of law or to form our opinions of current events?
Wrong.  There were no shots fired by anyone other than the CHOP thug patrol.
Incorrect.  This was a completely different vehicle to the one from which shots were fired.
Well, they flat out admitted to it on twitter and Instagram.  Good to know you need reams of proof to condemn this shooting but are very quick to condemn law enforcement based on nothing but someone's word.  Impressive.

(07-21-2020, 12:43 AM)Dill Wrote: I am not seeing any sources or secure background explanation here.

Quote:So far, Fred is still the only one who has provided any external evidence linking the shooting/shots to a "Far Left Security Force."

Quote:If there were "shots" and "vehicles" and "armed vigilantes" on the scene, and I were investigating them, I would want to know who fired shots at whom, for what reasons and in what sequence (e.g., was someone attacking, someone defending?). I'd look at whatever cameras and videos I could find and interview witnesses, to get the answers to my questions. Those answers would then be the basis for determining who was guilty or if any or all were.

Quote:I don't see why people in this forum can't do the same--either wait for or provide a full picture before rendering verdicts.

(07-21-2020, 12:53 AM)Dill Wrote: Well let's start with a shred of proof.  The links you provided earlier did not support your claims.

Quote:I haven't yet seen a definitive account of the shooting provided by the police or other authorities.
Why not get that straight before talk of "murder"?

Quote:You say Fred's account is "Wrong" and "incorrect," but where are your sources? 
Do you claim you were there? Have access to the investigation?

Quote:You are very quick to condemn "thugs" as murders based on--what? Fred's links?

(07-20-2020, 08:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Meanwhile....

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-chicago-police-dhs-deployment-20200720-dftu5ychwbcxtg4ltarh5qnwma-story.html




That oughta go really well.

In Oregon that had naked yoga and Navy veteran let them beat on him just for standing there talking...I don't think Chicago will be quite as nice.

Quote:Almost like Trump wants all kinds of chaos in the more Democratic controlled cities leading up to the election.

Almost.

(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. 

(07-21-2020, 01:23 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's clearly a lot you "don't see".

Case in point.  You misspelled vigilante thug murderers again btw.

Ahh, what you're describing is commonly known as an "investigation".  See, I have no experience in such manners, much like firearms, so I will bow to the expertise of Fred and yourself.  Alternatively you could watch the video I provided, read the news articles I posted and realize that dead bodies don't materialize out of thin air.

Ohhhh, is that what is happening in this thread, waiting for a "full picture" before we render a verdict?  Your posts, and those of other users, made me think otherwise.

Sure, except for the ones that did.

I see, you're under the impression that armed vigilantes roaming the streets gunning down those they determine to be dangerous is legal homicide.  I'll be sure to make note of this.

I didn't post sources?  I didn't cite facts?  You might have a more credible argument if you didn't post such obviously incorrect assertions.

Based on dead people killed by vigilantes?  Or is your assertion that that kid killed himself?  Keep defending George Zimmerman, Dill.  The intellectual disconnect is entertaining at the very least.

(07-20-2020, 08:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: GMDino Wrote: Self defense doesn't matter because "thugs" and "vigilantes" but the police can murder people.  Good to know.

Posts like this is why this forum has gone in the shitter.
Link to anyone EVER saying police can murder people or STFU. 

(07-20-2020, 08:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   They hunted this car down and then gunned the occupants down in cold blood.  It is indisputable that there is audio of someone saying, "Oh, you're still alive" an interval of several seconds and then a final gun shot. 

(07-21-2020, 08:23 AM)fredtoast Wrote: If they had really hunted ther car down I might agree.  But the shooters in the white vehicle shot at them first and came at them.

And the "Oh you're still alive" comment may have come as a shooter was still trying to raise his gun.

You accuse other people of forming opinions based on evidence like personal eyewitness testimony because that is not a "proven facts", but you are trying to call this a murder based on pure speculation without even hearing any evidence of what happened.

You are defending shooters who tried to kill protestors just because you don't like the protestors.  Suddenly guys doing a drive by shooting and bashing through barricades are the "victims".

(07-21-2020, 03:48 AM)Dill Wrote: I think Dino might be suggesting that police sometimes kill helpless unarmed people in violation of their own policies, and still get away with it because of qualified immunity and colluding prosecutors.

The families of the slain and their supporters often call such deaths "murder."

No one is ever going to say police have a right to murder people, though.

Dino may be suggesting there is a double standard at play when people give police the benefit of the doubt, but not people dubbed "vigilantes" before all the facts are in.

(07-21-2020, 09:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I never knew you were such a fan of those 2 guys in Houston that killed that black jogger for trespassing.

(07-21-2020, 09:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: Self-defense, being shot at vs guy running and getting literally hunted down.  You've just defended Fred's position.