07-20-2020, 10:10 AM
(07-20-2020, 03:35 AM)Dill Wrote: Recently you did indeed unload some "basic facts about firearms" already known to most on the list, by way of addressing a straw man argument--your second in a row--and the "near aneurysm which followed almost derailed the thread. That's what you remember as "teaching."
None of this is a true recap of events but I'll keep to the spirit of the new P&R and let it go.
Quote:My question addresses the problem of federal officers in unmarked vans, without permission from state and local authorities, who grab people off the street without probable cause and throw them into unmarked vans, while refusing to identify themselves. They way police authorities do in police states.
The federal government does not need permission from local government to act. You just flat out stated people are being detained without probably cause. Where is your evidence of this? The people who were detained saying they didn't do anything? I've got news for you, no one has ever done anything when they're being arrested. If you have nothing but personal accounts then you absolutely cannot sy that people are being detained with no probably cause, especially as definitively as you just did.
Quote:Most everyone on this list is fine with "federal law enforcement arresting people for federal crimes in a manner consistent with policy." So I was not asking whether you were. But there is some question as to whether such actions, as were taken in Portland, are consistent with existing policy and with Constitutional protections, or whether Barr is trying to create such a policy ad hoc. My question was about that.
I haven't really seen questions in that regard, I've seen definitive statements that it is not. Look above for a example provided by yourself.
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.
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.
Quote:For the second time: Did a "criminal vigilante mob" acting as a security force for "the far left" murder someone in Seattle?
Yeah.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/seattle-shooting-capitol-hill-chop-chaz/281-48392a9e-d760-42f3-9469-c99466ed7a9f
Here's a youtube video of the shooting with audio. There wasn't clear vision of the shooting itself but the audio captured the shots, then a pause followed by "Oh, you're not dead yet?" another pause and then a final gunshot.
