07-20-2020, 04:26 PM
(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.
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.
