LE Leaks show treatment of pro BLM protestors vs conservative militias

[Dill]

(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. 

I, and many others, including the major of Portland and one Senator from Oregon, think it is entirely possible that federal officers were deployed illegally. That is certainly possible whether policy is "heavily vetted" or not, but in this case it looks like deployment occurred with very little vetting, much like Trump's foray into Lafayette park for a photo op.

But it sounds like you are TRUSTING policy is vetted, ready to accept and obey, not applying your own judgment as to whether it is in this case, or about what is constitutional or not.

My question was: 1) "you are ok with federal law enforcement with no identifying insignia on their uniforms grabbing people off the street, if "as prescribed by policy"?  That asks whether you accept the legality and constitutionality of law enforcement with no identifying insignia on their uniforms grabbing people off the street. Were the arrests legal? Should they be? It's that issue which has led to a suit against the DOJ. My question also presumes that law enforcement conducting legal arrests within the scope of approved policy is what all parties would like to see. (Bels makes the same points, I believe, in post #99.)

But instead of answering my question directly, you, for the 3rd time, answer a different question, one which no one asked, about the one issue upon which there is no disagreement: 2) "Do you take issue with law enforcement conducting legal arrests with the scope of approved policy?"  That's the question you are answering when you tell us you have "zero issue" with law enforcement conducting legal arrests with the scope of approved policy.

You cannot refute this account in logical terms. You cannot show that your answer responds to 1) and not 2), the question no one asked.  

So as "a reasonably intelligent man who can determine when someone is obfuscating or refusing to answer a direct question," you have 3X decided not to answer, directly, whether you are ok with the specific policy of federal law enforcement with no identifying insignia on their uniforms grabbing people off the street, as it was applied in Portland.   You can't gaslight your refusal into "my" confusion.

If you want to call your "zero issue" with LEGAL arrests an indirect way of saying you are fine with unidentified officers grabbing people off the street, then you are just begging the question of what constitutes legal/constitutional in the Portland case rather than actually defining your own stance toward it.