Jump to content
workswithseed

Things not going well in Chicago - a thread to discuss Portland

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

This is such a weird and interesting topic.  Especially from the lawyers that selectively cite the law.

Dude getting arrested by the van, definite problem and he most likely had his rights broken and should get some justice.

But, it is hard to even have a debate when people keep making obvious lies about the law, especially when they claim to be lawyers.

This is just not true at all.  To be clear, I am not saying what the cops/feds are doing is right, I am saying that it is legal (with the caveat of the case I cited above with the van).  Just standing in a protest actually can be grounds for being detained or arrested in many instances and the case law is unambiguous.  Just off the top of my head you have the following:

1) As soon as a protest becomes violent or dangerous, the police can clear the area and arrest those involved.  This one has some grey area to it and "violent and dangerous" are subjective terms but, legally speaking, the police can act, including detaining.

2) Once the cops declare a protest dangerous, they can legally declare it an unlawful assembly.  They have to announce it, but once announced, if you do not leave, you can be detained and arrested legally.

3) Curfew- Portland is and has been under a curfew at different times.  8 pm.  I do not know the exact dates of the curfews and how they correspond to arrests.  Again, not claiming an action is right or wrong morally, but legally you can be detained and arrested for violating a state imposed curfew. 

At almost all times in the Portland saga, one or more of these scenarios existed.  Perhaps the law should be changed, but it is current law.  So yes, if you are just hanging out in a protest that has turned violent or dangerous or that the police have determined is unlawful assembly, you can legally be detained and arrested.

So your points are funny, because the person arrested by the van was someone arrested because they were previously (15+ minutes ago) standing next to someone who started being violent. Shit, I even CITED the relevant case law supporting my argument that you cannot arrest someone for only being adjacent to a person of interest. Which is the case for the man getting disappeared into a van by the feds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

All your photos date back to May.  At least one of them is from Eugene.  Another one is from, I believe, Minneapolis.  Sure, in May and early June, there were several days where riots destroyed property across the USA.  Temporary curfews were put in place and then lifted.  Peaceful protests resumed nationwide.  Today is July 28.  The feds arrived in Portland in early July in order to attack peaceful protests.  They did not arrive in response to anything you posted, all of which occurred 2 months prior.

Lulz.  https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/portland-protests-continue-thursday-after-police-contract-vote-calls-for-change.html

Portland police declared protests "riots" on the day before the feds arrived and the day the feds arrived.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Lulz.  https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/portland-protests-continue-thursday-after-police-contract-vote-calls-for-change.html

Portland police declared protests "riots" on the day before the feds arrived and the day the feds arrived.   

Ooh. The police declared anti-police brutality protests to be "riots?"  You don't say.  Did the mayor of Portland declare "riots?"

Also, once again, the pics were not current, and some weren't even of Portland. BabaYaga is a liar. You are a well known liar. And both of you are fascists. 

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So your points are funny, because the person arrested by the van was someone arrested because they were previously (15+ minutes ago) standing next to someone who started being violent. Shit, I even CITED the relevant case law supporting my argument that you cannot arrest someone for only being adjacent to a person of interest. Which is the case for the man getting disappeared into a van by the feds.

I truly hope you are just pretending to be a lawyer.  I specifically agreed that the arrest of the dude in the van was bad.  Are really that stupid? 

The case you cited has absolutely nothing to do with people currently at a protest being detained or arrested.  Maybe you are channeling George Costanza who always wanted to pretend to be an architect and always wanted to pretend to be a lawyer.  You posted, multiple times, that people getting detained at a protest was unconstitutional and illegal.  I merely pointed out that you are dead wrong on the constitutionality and legality of those detentions and arrests.  Read any of the reports from all media.  In the cases of people being detained and/or arrested (again with the exception of the dude in the van) the police acted legally.  Once any type of violence occurs- breaking glass windows/doors, starting fires, using fireworks, throwing bottles etc- the cops have the legal right to call the protests riots and unlawful assemblies.  They did that.  They announced it over loud speakers.  They waited for people to disperse and, when they didn't, they legally cleared them out.

I do not like what is happening on either side of the protests.  I am not making a judgement on the morality of the situation.  I can see good arguments on both sides.  Protesters going too far and law going to far.  But the law folks did it legally under our current laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rioters should be arrested. Protestors should be left alone.

Trumps private army invading an American city with tear gas wearing no marks and camo should be opposed by all sides. 
 

It’s bizarre that it’s not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Rioters should be arrested. Protestors should be left alone.

Trumps private army invading an American city with tear gas wearing no marks and camo should be opposed by all sides. 
 

It’s bizarre that it’s not. 

Ted Wheeler think's you're a facist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Incredulity said:

Ted Wheeler think's you're a facist.

Who the fuck is ted wheeler? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Who the fuck is ted wheeler? 

Tear-Gas Ted for those in the know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Ooh. The police declared anti-police brutality protests to be "riots?"  You don't say.  Did the mayor of Portland declare "riots?"

Also, once again, the pics were not current, and some weren't even of Portland. BabaYaga is a liar. You are a well known liar. And both of you are fascists. 

LOL.  I love the cloakroom sometimes.  Maybe Baba is a liar.  What is not in question is you being a liar.  And the irony is fantastic that you called out another poster for lying by lying yourself.  I truly did laugh out loud, which is always fun.

Your direct quote once again:

"Peaceful protests resumed nationwide.  Today is July 28.  The feds arrived in Portland in early July in order to attack peaceful protests.  They did not arrive in response to anything you posted, all of which occurred 2 months prior."

Just bizarre.  In the 3 days leading up to the feds arrival, riots had been declared twice.  

If someone else (this is my last response to you) wants to have a debate on the merits of declaring something a riot, that would be a good debate.  But the law is very clear right now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I truly hope you are just pretending to be a lawyer.  I specifically agreed that the arrest of the dude in the van was bad.  Are really that stupid? 

The case you cited has absolutely nothing to do with people currently at a protest being detained or arrested.  Maybe you are channeling George Costanza who always wanted to pretend to be an architect and always wanted to pretend to be a lawyer.  You posted, multiple times, that people getting detained at a protest was unconstitutional and illegal.  I merely pointed out that you are dead wrong on the constitutionality and legality of those detentions and arrests.  Read any of the reports from all media.  In the cases of people being detained and/or arrested (again with the exception of the dude in the van) the police acted legally.  Once any type of violence occurs- breaking glass windows/doors, starting fires, using fireworks, throwing bottles etc- the cops have the legal right to call the protests riots and unlawful assemblies.  They did that.  They announced it over loud speakers.  They waited for people to disperse and, when they didn't, they legally cleared them out.

I do not like what is happening on either side of the protests.  I am not making a judgement on the morality of the situation.  I can see good arguments on both sides.  Protesters going too far and law going to far.  But the law folks did it legally under our current laws.

Sheeeeeit, I am talking specifically about the man who was abducted by the unmarked van. He was at a protest and was detained because someone next to him pulled out a laser pointer and shined it in the eyes of a federal agent. He was detained by federal agents for being adjacent to a person of interest at a protest. 

He is not the only case of this occurring, as DHS has "not arrested" dozens of people along the same lines and have charged fewer than a dozen with actual criminal charges, while releasing the rest due to lack of probable cause or chargeable offenses.

I am using the dude in the van example because it has a clearly defined fact pattern, and even the a deputy DHS head admitted they did not have probable cause or reason to hold van man.

You are being purposely obtuse and gish-galloping, and I am reminded why I ignored you. Have fun sheeeeeeeitposting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Rioters should be arrested. Protestors should be left alone.

Trumps private army invading an American city with tear gas wearing no marks and camo should be opposed by all sides. 
 

It’s bizarre that it’s not. 

Cats and dogs living together! I actually agree with this completely.  I think it was wrong to send in the feds.  I don't think it was illegal but I think it was wrong.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

LOL.  I love the cloakroom sometimes.  Maybe Baba is a liar.  What is not in question is you being a liar.  And the irony is fantastic that you called out another poster for lying by lying yourself.  I truly did laugh out loud, which is always fun.

Your direct quote once again:

"Peaceful protests resumed nationwide.  Today is July 28.  The feds arrived in Portland in early July in order to attack peaceful protests.  They did not arrive in response to anything you posted, all of which occurred 2 months prior."

Just bizarre.  In the 3 days leading up to the feds arrival, riots had been declared twice.  

If someone else (this is my last response to you) wants to have a debate on the merits of declaring something a riot, that would be a good debate.  But the law is very clear right now.

 

You seem to be rather easily amused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

LOL.  I love the cloakroom sometimes.  Maybe Baba is a liar.  What is not in question is you being a liar.  And the irony is fantastic that you called out another poster for lying by lying yourself.  I truly did laugh out loud, which is always fun.

Your direct quote once again:

"Peaceful protests resumed nationwide.  Today is July 28.  The feds arrived in Portland in early July in order to attack peaceful protests.  They did not arrive in response to anything you posted, all of which occurred 2 months prior."

Just bizarre.  In the 3 days leading up to the feds arrival, riots had been declared twice.  

If someone else (this is my last response to you) wants to have a debate on the merits of declaring something a riot, that would be a good debate.  But the law is very clear right now.

 

Sure.  The law is very clear in North Korea too.  We are becoming a fascist state.  We have long had laws that allow it to happen.  And now we have politicians, bureaucrats, and you who want it to happen.

Yes, the police can legally kill innocent people.  What do you think the protests are about?  And yes, while unelected, they can also unilaterally declare a riot and then initiate violence to push protesters into violence.  Neither are uncommon fascist tactics.  They can even hit the elected mayor of Portland with tear gas after declaring a riot.

And I really don't care what you think about me.  I don't value your opinions at all.  You're a troll who spreads bullshit on a variety of topics.  And you're a known liar.  On healthcare and on this.  You try to walk a thin line while you offer thinly veiled support for the alt-right or racist side of whatever it is you are discussing.  You then end up posting an outright lie from a dubious source, and then you run away.  Every time.  Right now, we are only at the beginning of you following your standard MO.  

However, it is hard to tell what your end goal is.  I guess you desire a Mad Max dystopia where the only thing the state can "legally" do is administer violence to the disadvantaged on behalf of robber barons.  Like most wannabe robber barons, you should be careful about what you wish for.  There is a 99% chance that in your perfect world scenario, you are eating shit with the rest of the populace rather than ruling over them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Sure.  The law is very clear in North Korea too.  We are becoming a fascist state.  We have long had laws that allow it to happen.  And now we have politicians, bureaucrats, and you who want it to happen.

Yes, the police can legally kill innocent people.  What do you think the protests are about?  And yes, while unelected, they can also unilaterally declare a riot and then initiate violence to push protesters into violence.  Neither are uncommon fascist tactics.  They can even hit the elected mayor of Portland with tear gas after declaring a riot.

And I really don't care what you think about me.  I don't value your opinions at all.  You're a troll who spreads bullshit on a variety of topics.  And you're a known liar.  On healthcare and on this.  You try to walk a thin line while you offer thinly veiled support for the alt-right or racist side of whatever it is you are discussing.  You then end up posting an outright lie from a dubious source, and then you run away.  Every time.  Right now, we are only at the beginning of you following your standard MO.  

However, it is hard to tell what your end goal is.  I guess you desire a Mad Max dystopia where the only thing the state can "legally" do is administer violence to the disadvantaged on behalf of robber barons.  Like most wannabe robber barons, you should be careful about what you wish for.  There is a 99% chance that in your perfect world scenario, you are eating shit with the rest of the populace rather than ruling over them.

 

He’s just trolling’ Jake. It’s Chinatown. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Sheeeeeit, I am talking specifically about the man who was abducted by the unmarked van. He was at a protest and was detained because someone next to him pulled out a laser pointer and shined it in the eyes of a federal agent. He was detained by federal agents for being adjacent to a person of interest at a protest. 

He is not the only case of this occurring, as DHS has "not arrested" dozens of people along the same lines and have charged fewer than a dozen with actual criminal charges, while releasing the rest due to lack of probable cause or chargeable offenses.

I am using the dude in the van example because it has a clearly defined fact pattern, and even the a deputy DHS head admitted they did not have probable cause or reason to hold van man.

You are being purposely obtuse and gish-galloping, and I am reminded why I ignored you. Have fun sheeeeeeeitposting.

Perhaps it was just a misunderstanding.  You say you were just talking about the van guy.  Fair enough.  I was confused by the following:

"Unidentified federal agents deployed into cities against their will to arrest people without probable cause, criminal charges, or a record of their detention is definitely on the that spectrum, jokes aside." 

"BUT, people have been getting arrested just for standing NEAR someone else who did that."

"The feds are arresting people to interrogate them for info about the person they were standing next to."

"People have been getting illegally arrested for the act of being outside,"

"Look, I'm not saying that the protesters are uniformly peaceful. I am saying that the feds are using the actions of a few people to justify collective punishment against that group"

"Extrajudicial arrests by unmarked irregular military forces is a fucking notable current event, "

"Guys, collective punishment is TOTALLY in alignment with the values of a democratic republic, GAWRSH! If you don't want to get brutalized by the police, just don't go exercise your right to free speech and assembly, and they won't arrest you in violation of the 4th amendment"

I thought "people", "group", "arrests" and "collective punishment" were plural terms.  My bad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barr and Trump were born 40 or 50 years too late.  All this bullshit would have worked in a world where everyone didn't carry a video recording device at all times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Sure.

I suppose I am easily amused because I laughed again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I suppose I am easily amused because I laughed again. 

I'm sure this is the only interaction you get with people at all, so I'm glad I could help you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Would it be okay if we started confiscating the guns of anyone at a protest, on either side (who knows what they might be planning to do), for a few hours if we give them back after? After all no harm, no foul. If they complain about their 2nd amendment rights then they need to stop being babies. They put themselves in that situation. If they get them back later they have no reason to complain. {Sarcasm off}

The government and the protesters need to follow the laws of this country. If someone at a protest is committing a crime arrest and charge them, but just grabbing people up for what the police/government thinks they might be planning, without any evidence, is complete horseshit. If you think what they are doing is bullshit, but legal, then go lobby your elected shitbirds to change the law so it is illegal. Until then enforce the laws as written and don't make up your own or ignore the ones you do not like. The rule of law made this country great and when it is ignored or enforced unevenly it spells trouble for our nation. 

Edited by Jhawkmvp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...