Federal law enforcement pulling people of the street in Portland

a reply to: Krakatoa

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

You literally just quoted the US Marshal Service as defense of your argument.

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

#Fail.
#irony

a reply to: Krakatoa

So the only acceptable proof is video or the word of the government officials involved. I'm sorry that I do not believe the government will admit this.

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.

Do you even read AND comprehend what you yourself are posting? (see the bolded sections above)

Is it worth investigating, YES...it is. But until the investigsation is completed, it is still not substantiated. See, that is how the REAL law works, and sicne you advocate for that so much, why not not assume and let it play out to know the FACTS?

Unless, of course, it might fly in the face of your hatred for this administration?

Could be?

Hmmmm????

All I am saying is it is not true until proven so to be. THAT IS HOW THE LAW WORKS, not in the court of public opinion.

a reply to: Liquesence

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

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? What I may or may not do “in certain instances” has zero bearing on Portland and CBP.

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

Ask CBP. I was talking about constitutionality.

It's normal to bag people in unmarked vehicles?

Ask CBP. I was talking about constitutionality.

Yeah, which is kinda what we've been saying.

No, you’ve been saying his version of events is true till proven otherwise.

We don't know, so why the covert tactics?

If wearing uniforms with insignia is and issuing a statement about it later on is “covert” in your eyes, I’m not sure which dictionary you’re working with.

Is it SOP to bag people in unmarked cars and whisk them away?

Are you repeating yourself to add filler to your comment or something?

a reply to: Liquesence


And you are quoting multiple news reports that ALL trace back to the OPB and a single accusation form one man.

Fail...fail...fail.

a reply to: Shamrock6

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? What I may or may not do “in certain instances” has zero bearing on Portland and CBP.

I dunno, maybe wearing one's badge while in the course of duty, or attempting to hide it/one's identity?

Or whether there is a standard. To identify.?

Ask CBP. I was talking about constitutionality

Constitutionality? So was I.

Is constitutionality contingent?

If wearing uniforms with insignia is and issuing a statement about it later on is “covert” in your eyes, I’m not sure which dictionary you’re working with.

Then why hide insignia or a badge, unless one wants to remain anonymous or one doesn't have one?

Are you repeating yourself to add filler to your comment or something?

One repeats oneself when sees attempts to avoid issues or questions. You should understand this.

DM

All I can say is MOAR! Lock these bottom feeders up.

a reply to: Krakatoa

o you even read AND comprehend what you yourself are posting? (see the bolded sections above)

Again, for the Nth time, read my posts. If you can't comprehend, just say, and I will spell it out in little wooden blocks for you.

Unless, of course, it might fly in the face of your hatred for this administration?

So that's what is boils down to: This is negative toward Trump, so it must be argued and combated against at all costs.

Here I though it was about potentially unconstitutional detainment.

All I am saying is it is not true until proven so to be. THAT IS HOW THE LAW WORKS, not in the court of public opinion.

Law also doesn't allow for unconstitutional detainment, jenius.

If it's true, are you ok with it? Yes or no?

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't think anyone disputes looters or attackers should not be arrested. What do think about someone who attended a protest being pulled off the street by unidentified agents into unmarked vehicles, searched, photographed, and then released with no charge, no paperwork to even note they were stopped?

They are not snatching up innocent bystanders. I say MOAR!

originally posted by: frogs453
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?

Again, it's all based upon BELIEF. Belief in the accusations of one man that none of us even knows personally. All I am trying to say is that is not enough to make a determination or decide the legality of any of these alleged actions.

We need to wait until it is proven that they were LEO (of some form). If not, then the constitutionality argument is moot.

Perhaps I am alone in thinking that we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (not the court of media and public opinion).

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Krakatoa

o you even read AND comprehend what you yourself are posting? (see the bolded sections above)

Again, for the Nth time, read my posts. If you can't comprehend, just say, and I will spell it out in little wooden blocks for you.

Unless, of course, it might fly in the face of your hatred for this administration?

So that's what is boils down to: This is negative toward Trump, so it must be argued and combated against at all costs.

Here I though it was about potentially unconstitutional detainment.

All I am saying is it is not true until proven so to be. THAT IS HOW THE LAW WORKS, not in the court of public opinion.

Law also doesn't allow for unconstitutional detainment, jenius.

If it's true, are you ok with it? Yes or no?

Well, "jenius", if proven true in a court of law, then yes I will agree this is unconscionable behavior. But, alternatively if not proven to be true in a court of law then I do NOT advocate the use of baseless accusations against LEO or ANYONE based upon a political motivation of any kind.

Will you admit the same in the event it is NOT proven true?

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Krakatoa

o you even read AND comprehend what you yourself are posting? (see the bolded sections above)

Again, for the Nth time, read my posts. If you can't comprehend, just say, and I will spell it out in little wooden blocks for you.

Unless, of course, it might fly in the face of your hatred for this administration?

So that's what is boils down to: This is negative toward Trump, so it must be argued and combated against at all costs.

Here I though it was about potentially unconstitutional detainment.

All I am saying is it is not true until proven so to be. THAT IS HOW THE LAW WORKS, not in the court of public opinion.

Law also doesn't allow for unconstitutional detainment, jenius.

If it's true, are you ok with it? Yes or no?

Well, "jenius", if proven true in a court of law, then yes I will agree this is unconscionable behavior. But, alternatively if not proven to be true in a court of law then I do NOT advocate the use of baseless accusations against LEO or ANYONE based upon a political motivation of any kind.

But until then you believe the US Marshal Service absent proof to the contrary?

You believe what the federal government tells you is true?

Why? Because Trump!?

Will you admit the same in the event it is NOT proven true?

Of course. Then again, I'm not a fascist apologist.

Wake me when it's not true.

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't think anyone disputes looters or attackers should not be arrested. What do think about someone who attended a protest being pulled off the street by unidentified agents into unmarked vehicles, searched, photographed, and then released with no charge, no paperwork to even note they were stopped?

They are not snatching up innocent bystanders. I say MOAR!

How many you want?

I gotta few. Real cheap...

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Krakatoa

o you even read AND comprehend what you yourself are posting? (see the bolded sections above)

Again, for the Nth time, read my posts. If you can't comprehend, just say, and I will spell it out in little wooden blocks for you.

Unless, of course, it might fly in the face of your hatred for this administration?

So that's what is boils down to: This is negative toward Trump, so it must be argued and combated against at all costs.

Here I though it was about potentially unconstitutional detainment.

All I am saying is it is not true until proven so to be. THAT IS HOW THE LAW WORKS, not in the court of public opinion.

Law also doesn't allow for unconstitutional detainment, jenius.

If it's true, are you ok with it? Yes or no?

Well, "jenius", if proven true in a court of law, then yes I will agree this is unconscionable behavior. But, alternatively if not proven to be true in a court of law then I do NOT advocate the use of baseless accusations against LEO or ANYONE based upon a political motivation of any kind.

But until then you believe the US Marshal Service absent proof to the contrary?

You believe what the federal government tells you is true?

Why? Because Trump!?

Will you admit the same in the event it is NOT proven true?

Of course. Then again, I'm not a fascist apologist.

Wake me when it's not true.

I never said I believed the U.S. Marshal service, did I? I only posted a snippet from the other side of the accusation. My political perspective is immaterial to the facts.

Again, you latch onto belief as the basis for your statements.

Wake up, if you truly want to adhere to the law, then BELIEF is the last thing your should trust.

Otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

Fox news reporter to be thrown under twitter bus soon? says no evidence of defund the police in charter, full interview on Sunday




Federal agents 'abuse power' in Portland protester arrests

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Krakatoa

o you even read AND comprehend what you yourself are posting? (see the bolded sections above)

Again, for the Nth time, read my posts. If you can't comprehend, just say, and I will spell it out in little wooden blocks for you.

Unless, of course, it might fly in the face of your hatred for this administration?

So that's what is boils down to: This is negative toward Trump, so it must be argued and combated against at all costs.

Here I though it was about potentially unconstitutional detainment.

All I am saying is it is not true until proven so to be. THAT IS HOW THE LAW WORKS, not in the court of public opinion.

Law also doesn't allow for unconstitutional detainment, jenius.

If it's true, are you ok with it? Yes or no?

Well, "jenius", if proven true in a court of law, then yes I will agree this is unconscionable behavior. But, alternatively if not proven to be true in a court of law then I do NOT advocate the use of baseless accusations against LEO or ANYONE based upon a political motivation of any kind.

But until then you believe the US Marshal Service absent proof to the contrary?

You believe what the federal government tells you is true?

Why? Because Trump!?

Will you admit the same in the event it is NOT proven true?

Of course. Then again, I'm not a fascist apologist.

Wake me when it's not true.

I never said I believed the U.S. Marshal service, did I? I only posted a snippet from the other side of the accusation. My political perspective is immaterial to the facts.

Again, you latch onto belief as the basis for your statements.

Wake up, if you truly want to adhere to the law, then BELIEF is the last thing your should trust.

Otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

I'm not the one posting quotes from the US Marshal Service to back my argument against appeal to authority, now am I?

Otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

Speak for yourself.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Krakatoa

o you even read AND comprehend what you yourself are posting? (see the bolded sections above)

Again, for the Nth time, read my posts. If you can't comprehend, just say, and I will spell it out in little wooden blocks for you.

Unless, of course, it might fly in the face of your hatred for this administration?

So that's what is boils down to: This is negative toward Trump, so it must be argued and combated against at all costs.

Here I though it was about potentially unconstitutional detainment.

All I am saying is it is not true until proven so to be. THAT IS HOW THE LAW WORKS, not in the court of public opinion.

Law also doesn't allow for unconstitutional detainment, jenius.

If it's true, are you ok with it? Yes or no?

Well, "jenius", if proven true in a court of law, then yes I will agree this is unconscionable behavior. But, alternatively if not proven to be true in a court of law then I do NOT advocate the use of baseless accusations against LEO or ANYONE based upon a political motivation of any kind.

But until then you believe the US Marshal Service absent proof to the contrary?

You believe what the federal government tells you is true?

Why? Because Trump!?

Will you admit the same in the event it is NOT proven true?

Of course. Then again, I'm not a fascist apologist.

Wake me when it's not true.

I never said I believed the U.S. Marshal service, did I? I only posted a snippet from the other side of the accusation. My political perspective is immaterial to the facts.

Again, you latch onto belief as the basis for your statements.

Wake up, if you truly want to adhere to the law, then BELIEF is the last thing your should trust.

Otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

I'm not the one posting quotes from the US Marshal Service to back my argument against appeal to authority, now am I?

Otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

Speak for yourself.

I guess now you can't read MY posts??? Proven Hypocrite.

If you can't comprehend, just say, and I will spell it out in little wooden blocks for you.

I. p.o.s.t.e.d. i.t. t.o. d.e.m.o.n.s.t.r..a.t.e. t.h.e. p.o.i.n.t. y.o.u. w.e.r.e. s.e.l.e.c.t.i.v.e.l.y. c.h.o.o.s.i.n.g. y.o.u.r. q.u.o.t.e.s. t.o. m.e.e.t. y.o.u.r. o.w.n. b.e.l.i.e.f.s. a.n.d. t.h.e.r.e.f.o.r.e. u.n.w.i.l.l.i.n.g. t.o. s.e.e. b.o.t.h. s.i.d.e.s.

Had time to think on this one... Refined answer.

While this is over-the-top posturing and an overt power play by the Trump administration, it's completely legal.

Federal buildings are under the Jurisdiction of the Federal Government and every citizen is subject to the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

That in part states:

(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or orga-
nized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

As unnecessary as the Federal Police may seem, and as much as it pushes the application of the letter of this law (and it absolutely does), the rioters lost their instrisic rights (privileges) when they joined a mob threatening and intent on damaging government property, while bearing distinct insignia of an organized anti-state cause.

The actions mirror that of a "terrorist" group enough to apply this, if reasonable suspicion isn't enough.

Nothing like leftist politicians allowing the antifas and blms of the sorors funded world, to blow off some steam....

and target FEDS deployed by POTUS authority to protect and defend FED property....


Good Luck socialist supporters.... You will not destroy this "Grand Experiment" this time....


You miscalculated.... too MANY die hard DEMS still love this nation formed for LIBERTY and FREEDOM


Look no further than all of the BUSINESSES that DEMS are using as leverage for this NOV election....

Stupid SOB's... PLENTY of LIFE LONG DEMS owned plenty of those Businesses now used as leverage by LOCAL LEADERS......... good luck in securing their vote NOV 3 .....

a reply to: frogs453

If they are peaceful I don’t see them having an issue. I read another article that said they were going after agitators.