Federal law enforcement pulling people of the street in Portland

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Liquesence



" Prior criminal records have no relevance "

Hmm....Maybe Even Murder ? Read the LAW , They have that Authority .

No authority insofar as one being detained without cause.

Law. Constitution.

a reply to: Liquesence

Nah. It’s normal to have guys wearing marked body armor pull people out of crowds and take them elsewhere to question them. Happens at every protest. Cops aren’t big on wading into violent mobs unless they have to. There’s no constitutional requirement a cop tell you his name. That comes from some states laws, and even then it’s “when practical.” And cops certainly aren’t constitutionally required to identify themselves to random knobheads standing nearby who aren’t remotely involved in what they’re doing.

You can be detained without having anything explained to you other than you’re being detained and not free to leave. You can be arrested without being told the charges by the arresting officer. SCOTUS has ruled that while its “good practice” for an officer to tell you what the probable cause is for your arrest, there’s no constitutional requirement for him to do so. The requirement is that you be told your charges at your arraignment. That’s assuming an arrest was made, which in Pettibone’s case, there wasn’t.

You can be detained or arrested without ever being Mirandized. There is no constitutional requirement that a Miranda warning be given simply because an arrest was made.

For somebody who keeps harping about constitutionality, you seem to be a bit thin on actual constitutional law.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Liquesence

Nah. It’s normal to have guys wearing marked body armor pull people out of crowds and take them elsewhere to question them. Happens at every protest. Cops aren’t big on wading into violent mobs unless they have to. There’s no constitutional requirement a cop tell you his name. That comes from some states laws, and even then it’s “when practical.” And cops certainly aren’t constitutionally required to identify themselves to random knobheads standing nearby who aren’t remotely involved in what they’re doing.

You can be detained without having anything explained to you other than you’re being detained and not free to leave. You can be arrested without being told the charges by the arresting officer. SCOTUS has ruled that while its “good practice” for an officer to tell you what the probable cause is for your arrest, there’s no constitutional requirement for him to do so. The requirement is that you be told your charges at your arraignment. That’s assuming an arrest was made, which in Pettibone’s case, there wasn’t.

You can be detained or arrested without ever being Mirandized. There is no constitutional requirement that a Miranda warning be given simply because an arrest was made.

For somebody who keeps harping about constitutionality, you seem to be a bit thin on actual constitutional law.

That poster presumes a lot based on their experience from TV it seems.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: DBCowboy

You don't have an opinion if it's constitutional or not, if the OP is true?

If what is stated is true, do you agree it is unconstitutional and wrong for people to be apprehended, as they appeared to be, by badgeless unidentifiable (supposedly federal) agents without charge?

Why not ask the same question as "If what is stated is NOT true, do you agree it is ..."?

That is just as valid as your question given what we know as facts in this report. Yet, you repeatedly cling to it being true.

Why is that?

Because the reporting, OP, articles, ACLU, and Oregon Governor are treating it as true.

So presumption is that it's true.

Chief.

But nice try.

So, still uncomfirmed with FACTS, just presumptions.

I love the way some people leap upon presumptions and baseless accusations as if it was the word of God and beyond questioning.

That isn't even a nice try there "L".

Do you have FACTs or more presumptions to present your baseless accusations upon?


NO?

Then my post was still valid, child.

Got anything to prove it all wrong?

So, reporting remains true, unless you prove otherwise.

Funny how you stretch your neck out to condone fascist methods.

Your post is still invalid.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: DBCowboy

You don't have an opinion if it's constitutional or not, if the OP is true?

If what is stated is true, do you agree it is unconstitutional and wrong for people to be apprehended, as they appeared to be, by badgeless unidentifiable (supposedly federal) agents without charge?

Why not ask the same question as "If what is stated is NOT true, do you agree it is ..."?

That is just as valid as your question given what we know as facts in this report. Yet, you repeatedly cling to it being true.

Why is that?

Because the reporting, OP, articles, ACLU, and Oregon Governor are treating it as true.

So presumption is that it's true.

Chief.

But nice try.

So, still uncomfirmed with FACTS, just presumptions.

I love the way some people leap upon presumptions and baseless accusations as if it was the word of God and beyond questioning.

That isn't even a nice try there "L".

Do you have FACTs or more presumptions to present your baseless accusations upon?


NO?

Then my post was still valid, child.

Got anything to prove it all wrong?

So, reporting remains true, unless you prove otherwise.

Funny how you stretch your neck out to condone fascist methods.

Your post is still invalid.

Maybe fascist methods are the only thing the REAL fascists in the US understand?

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: DBCowboy

You don't have an opinion if it's constitutional or not, if the OP is true?

If what is stated is true, do you agree it is unconstitutional and wrong for people to be apprehended, as they appeared to be, by badgeless unidentifiable (supposedly federal) agents without charge?

Why not ask the same question as "If what is stated is NOT true, do you agree it is ..."?

That is just as valid as your question given what we know as facts in this report. Yet, you repeatedly cling to it being true.

Why is that?

Because the reporting, OP, articles, ACLU, and Oregon Governor are treating it as true.

So presumption is that it's true.

Chief.

But nice try.

So, still uncomfirmed with FACTS, just presumptions.

I love the way some people leap upon presumptions and baseless accusations as if it was the word of God and beyond questioning.

That isn't even a nice try there "L".

Do you have FACTs or more presumptions to present your baseless accusations upon?


NO?

Then my post was still valid, child.

Got anything to prove it all wrong?

So, reporting remains true, unless you prove otherwise.

Funny how you stretch your neck out to condone fascist methods.

Your post is still invalid.

You fail to realize the burden of proof is upon the accuser. You fall into the infamous "Evidence of absence" fallacy. See, it was very succinctly stated by philosopher Steven Hales when he said, "there is never 'proof' of non-existence", then they must also say that "there is never 'proof' of existence either".

You cannot ask me to prove a negative when you cannot prove a positive.

Another failed try there "L".


ETA: Next I expect you to pull out the Ad hominem and call me some form of NAZI or "ist" or "ism".... in 3....2...1......

a reply to: Krakatoa

The whole “they have to mirandize you!” thing is certainly a Hollywood manifestation. Zero basis in law or reality, but it is what it is.

a reply to: Shamrock6

It’s normal to have guys wearing marked body armor pull people out of crowds and take them elsewhere to question them

They weren't in crowds, they were walking on sidewalks.

They weren't marked, from what I understand.

You can be detained or arrested without ever being Mirandized. There is no constitutional requirement that a Miranda warning be given simply because an arrest was made.

For somebody who keeps harping about constitutionality, you seem to be a bit thin on actual constitutional law.

I know. But being bagged in an unmarked car by people who don't identify themselves as LE, without badges or insignia? Are you gonna tell me that is Constitutional or procedure?

That’s assuming an arrest was made, which in Pettibone’s case, there wasn’t.

He was never charged, or technically arested. So, you agree with the actions resultant in his detainment? And find them lawful and Constitutional?

a reply to: Liquesence

You stated,

I know. But being bagged in an unmarked car by people who don't identify themselves as LE, without badges or insignia?

So, if they were not indentified, not had any identifying markings or badges, how do you know for a fact they were law enforcement? Truth is, you DON'T.

They could just as easily be vigilantes or some other people (including the rioters themselves attempting a false flag operation).

All of those are probable until we have FACTS to substantiate the accusations. See, that is how the law works in the real world, not on a 60 minute TV show.

a reply to: Krakatoa

So, if they were not indentified, not had any identifying markings or badges, how do you know for a fact they were law enforcement? Truth is, you DON'T.

I know. I said that in my first post. And in other posts.

Maybe pay attention, stop trying to be clever. It's unbecoming.

See, that is how the law works in the real world, not on a 60 minute TV show.

Maybe read the thread, pay attention. Learn something.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Krakatoa

So, if they were not indentified, not had any identifying markings or badges, how do you know for a fact they were law enforcement? Truth is, you DON'T.

I know. I said that in my first post. And in other posts.

Maybe pay attention, stop trying to be clever. It's unbecoming.

See, that is how the law works in the real world, not on a 60 minute TV show.

Maybe read the thread, pay attention. Learn something.

Then why ask me to prove it wrong, and equate me to a fascist supporter?

Unless, of course, you so want it to be true you are blinding yourself and leaping to believing presumptions. Sort of like all that Russia Russia Russia stuff that was all presumptions and baseless accusations of someone that nobody seems to want to reveal nor prove with facts.

Just stop already.

It's embarrassing when people repeatedly fall into that same trap over and over.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Krakatoa

So, if they were not indentified, not had any identifying markings or badges, how do you know for a fact they were law enforcement? Truth is, you DON'T.

I know. I said that in my first post. And in other posts.

Maybe pay attention, stop trying to be clever. It's unbecoming.

See, that is how the law works in the real world, not on a 60 minute TV show.

Maybe read the thread, pay attention. Learn something.

You should take your own advice.
😉

a reply to: Liquesence

They weren't in crowds, they were walking on sidewalks.

Having left the protests. Which is my point. They weren’t detained at the protest they were detained later, rather than cops wading into a crowd to grab people. As happens all the time.

They weren't marked, from what I understand.

Apparently there’s either no video of Pettibone’s arrest, or he’s not identified in the video I saw which involved masked cops in camouflage and body armor marked with “POLICE” on the chest putting him into a black minivan. I assumed the video I saw was him, since everything he describes matches the video perfectly but I suppose it’s possible that he was grabbed by a different van full of cops. Guess we have no choice but to take him at his word that their vests weren’t marked but these other guys were.

I know. But being bagged in an unmarked car by people who don't identify themselves as LE, without badges or insignia? Are you gonna tell me that is Constitutional or procedure?

An unmarked car is irrelevant. Made all the more so if the guys in it are wearing vests that say “POLICE” on the front and they tell you who they are once they have you.

So, you agree with the actions resultant in his detainment? And find them lawful and Constitutional?

The constitutionality of his detainment depends on why he was detained, which we don’t know. Beyond that, he has one version of events and CBP has another version of events. As for the methods? Unmarked cars aren’t unconstitutional. Not mirandizing somebody isn’t unconstitutional. Not having a conversation with him while he’s in a group of people isn’t unconstitutional.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Krakatoa

So, if they were not indentified, not had any identifying markings or badges, how do you know for a fact they were law enforcement? Truth is, you DON'T.

I know. I said that in my first post. And in other posts.

Maybe pay attention, stop trying to be clever. It's unbecoming.

See, that is how the law works in the real world, not on a 60 minute TV show.

Maybe read the thread, pay attention. Learn something.

Then why ask me to prove it wrong, and equate me to a fascist supporter?

Unless, of course, you so want it to be true you are blinding yourself and leaping to believing presumptions. Sort of like all that Russia Russia Russia stuff that was all presumptions and baseless accusations of someone that nobody seems to want to reveal nor prove with facts.

Just stop already.

It's embarrassing when people repeatedly fall into that same trap over and over.

The reporting is known.

The ACLU has picked it up. So has the Governor. So has the news.

I have no idea the veracity, as I have said, and don't know who these people are. But if it's true, it's troubling.

And if it's true, it's fascist tactics that people condone.

Pretty simple actually.

But you don't want to talk about whether what supposedly happened is lawful or not. You want to attack the people talking about it might by unlawful.

Here's a statement form the U.S. Marshals Service about this unmarked detainment:

In a statement to OPB, the U.S. Marshals Service refused to comment on their use of unmarked vehicles and denied that Pettibone had been arrested by the agency.

“All United States Marshals Service arrestees have public records of arrest documenting their charges. Our agency did not arrest or detain Mark James Pettibone,” read the statement.

So urce

So, all of the news reports are all traced back to the Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) report from this one man. Still unsubstantiated by facts.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Do you normally make it a point to not wear your badge, rank, or identify yourself in certain instances?

Apparently there’s either no video of Pettibone’s arrest, or he’s not identified in the video I saw which involved masked cops in camouflage and body armor marked with “POLICE” on the chest putting him into a black minivan.

I saw that too. Can't speak to veracity. Is that SOP?

An unmarked car is irrelevant. Made all the more so if the guys in it are wearing vests that say “POLICE” on the front and they tell you who they are once they have you.

It's normal to bag people in unmarked vehicles?

The constitutionality of his detainment depends on why he was detained, which we don’t know. Beyond that, he has one version of events and CBP has another version of events.

Yeah, which is kinda what we've been saying. We don't know, so why the covert tactics? And what has CBP to with it bagging people? Is it SOP to bag people in unmarked cars and whisk them away?

a reply to: Krakatoa

The ALCU believe it to be true. The states U.S attorney who drafted the letter in a previous post believe it to be true, the Mayor and Govenor believe it to be true. If you are waiting for the government to declare its true, I doubt you will get that quickly if at all. I think there were at least three stories from the park police before they admitted pepper balling the clergy and protesters and I think they still claim they don't know who gave the order.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Krakatoa

The ALCU believe it to be true. The states U.S attorney who drafted the letter in a previous post believe it to be true, the Mayor and Govenor believe it to be true. If you are waiting for the government to declare its true, I doubt you will get that quickly if at all. I think there were at least three stories from the park police before they admitted pepper balling the clergy and protesters and I think they still claim they don't know who gave the order.

So you too fall for the presumption based upon the old appeal to authority fallacy as well.

Lots of people believe in ghosts, that does not make it true.
Lots of people believe in Bigfoot, that does not make it true.
Lots of people believe in all kinds of things. Belief does not make something true because lots of people believe.

I want facts...not presumptions.

a reply to: Krakatoa

And now we believe the federal government, because it's our brand.

Same # as in DC all over again.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: frogs453

US Attorney For Oregon Calls For Investigation Into Portland Protester Arrests

U.S. Attorney Billy Williams said Friday he wants an investigation into actions of federal officers who have pulled Portland protesters off the street and into unmarked vehicles.

Federal officers with U.S. Customs and Border Protection have come under significant scrutiny after OPB first reported Thursday that they may have been involved in constitutionally questionable arrests in Portland.
[...]
“Based on news accounts circulating that allege federal law enforcement detained two protesters without probable cause, I have requested the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General to open a separate investigation directed specifically at the actions of DHS personnel,” Williams said in his statement.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I may be wearing a tin foil hat tonight but if as the man claimed he was photographed but never charged nor given any paperwork can we believe that they did not have him? Would they admit to either searching or creating a database with the photo of people at the protest for whatever reason they may have, so possibly another time they could claim he's an ANTIFA terrorist as they claim the organization is?