Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virtz]

Setting aside some of the broader trends of local or state police detaining nonviolent (often non-white) people without even filing proper charges and the like, what's going in here is federal enforcement officials taking the broadest possible interpretation of their legal rights/abilities in terms of policing.

The federal government does not have general policing power. Yes there's the FBI, but they are limited to the realm of federal crimes, which are a pretty limited subset of criminal law. Most criminal law, and general policing power, is within the realm of state authority and enforced by state police.

Under normal circumstances federal "police" (not sure this CBP is technically police) patrolling the streets would raise huge red flags among conservatives as a federal invasion of state rights, but these are the days we're in.

(All that said, you are correct that I was being at least somewhat excessive calling it gestapo. Not to say there haven't been plenty of incidents of both state and federal police murdering people, but there hasn't been true 'disappearing' yet here.)

I'm not well-versed enough in US law to say whether they're doing it fully legally, found a legal loophole, or they just don't care (and most news sources can't seem to decide on this either yet), but I simply see this as fairly just and effective means of countering anonymous instigators within a crowd that's essentially helping them escape justice (i.e. doing the exact same thing they accuse police of doing).

The fact that they're letting some go afterwards suggests they're not just snatching up anyone and then fabricating evidence. So far it seems they're just going after people in all-black clothing, then seeing if they can be linked to some instances of violence. It probably helps when they resist arrest with a deadly weapon, like this genius.

[Iduno]

I'm not well-versed enough in US law to say whether they're doing it fully legally, found a legal loophole, or they just don't care (and most news sources can't seem to decide on this either yet), but I simply see this as fairly just and effective means of countering anonymous instigators within a crowd that's essentially helping them escape justice (i.e. doing the exact same thing they accuse police of doing).

The anonymous instigators are frequently identified as working for the police or feds. The person who started the fire at the Autozone that started the violent crackdowns was a cop. Police have been photographed planting evidence and doing the vandalism.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

(comment removed)

[Reelya]

I'm not well-versed enough in US law to say whether they're doing it fully legally, found a legal loophole, or they just don't care (and most news sources can't seem to decide on this either yet), but I simply see this as fairly just and effective means of countering anonymous instigators within a crowd that's essentially helping them escape justice (i.e. doing the exact same thing they accuse police of doing).

It really is absolutely ridiculous to say that because some citizen broke the law, then the police are justified to also break the law to stop them. That logic just doesn't work.

Right now you have people in basically a military role randomly kidnapping people off the streets, illegally interrogating them without any due process, then dumping them again when they can't get anything on them, and it's easy to see from the accounts that they're either destroying records related to this, suppressing the information, or just not keeping any records about what's going on. So right now in the USA you have illegal detainment going on, but they're also keeping it out of the records, so they're testing the waters with random abductions without record keeping. If they get away with this, they'll go further in the future, that's how it works.
 
That's a very dangerous game to play. It's the type of things fascistic latin American governments routinely do, and the type of thing that easily leads to abuses. Like, if they accidentally kill one of these people they can and probably would just dump their body in a dumpster somewhere and agree to never mention it again.

Oh right, but this is justified I guess because sometimes protestors hide their identities, wear masks etc, so it's ok to be kidnapped by commandoes with balaclavas on in unmarked vehicles. Because, fundamentally ... that's the same thing the protestors are doing right? Sorry but that logic doesn't work.

[hector13]

Hey man, people who aren’t doing anything wrong have nothing to be afraid of.

Oh wait, I mean white people have nothing to be afraid of.

[kaijyuu]

White people that aren't speaking out against the status quo.

[Virtz]

The anonymous instigators are frequently identified as working for the police or feds. The person who started the fire at the Autozone that started the violent crackdowns was a cop. Police have been photographed planting evidence and doing the vandalism.

Links with evidence of this? Other than somebody saying so on Twitter or on some far-left site. Preferably mainstream media, cause they'd love that shit.

I'm not well-versed enough in US law to say whether they're doing it fully legally, found a legal loophole, or they just don't care (and most news sources can't seem to decide on this either yet), but I simply see this as fairly just and effective means of countering anonymous instigators within a crowd that's essentially helping them escape justice (i.e. doing the exact same thing they accuse police of doing).

It really is absolutely ridiculous to say that because some citizen broke the law, then the police are justified to also break the law to stop them.

It is, and it's not what I said. Try reading what I wrote again. I said I'm not clear on the legality of it and only commented on the method itself without consideration of whether it's allowed by US law or not. Police should abide by the law, and I didn't say otherwise. Haven't really mentioned lack of record keeping either, cause it sounds sketchy, but it's not exactly confirmed yet (so far I've only seen one claim of this, from Mark Pettibone, and Marshals Service denied it).


And if that's not an acceptable method (even if it is legal) according to you, then let me pose a challenge. Suggest an alternative method of apprehending masked persons with little to no distinguishing features, who commited a violent crime during a protest from within a large crowd. The crowd is uncooperative and will lie or simply refuse to answer questions, protecting these individuals. They also warn each other of when they spot identifiable police coming, and stand in the way. Feel free to choose to act during the protest or after it's over.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Maybe if the entire public body is against law enforcement as you say, that might be taken as some sort of indication as to the reality of the so-called "crimes".

[Toady One]

Removed a few remarks above.  We'll have to close the thread if it becomes more about personal attacks than the subject matter at hand, so please try to keep on track.

[Virtz]

Maybe if the entire public body is against law enforcement as you say, that might be taken as some sort of indication as to the reality of the so-called "crimes".

I've seen recordings where someone gets arrested by police shortly after they did something very clearly wrong in that very same recording (like assaulting a police officer), and there's still a bunch of clueless people surrounding them, interfering and screaming "he didn't do nothing!". They are either lying or willfully ignorant of any wrongdoing from their side, and any indications of that wrongdoing are clearly lies and fabricated evidence.

[hector13]

So, the Oregon attorney general has filed a lawsuit against the federal government for the unlawful detention of protesters in Portland.

[scriver]

Where does such a lawsuit go to court?

[martinuzz]

I guess the ICC in the Hague for lack of functional law system in the US?

[Jopax]

Doesn't the US kinda ignore the ICC? I don't remember any US folk ever being tried there.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That would because the US has bound itself by law to invade the Hague if US forces are ever tried there.

Also, the lawsuit goes to a federal court.