LE Leaks show treatment of pro BLM protestors vs conservative militias

[Dill]

(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. 

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.

(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.

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.