secret forces in oregon cities, as in DC

[Leonhard]

Not such a good example, Leon, as I think all of us would be universally horrified, just as we all were with the George Floyd situation.

It was you who picked Israel. I don't exactly find the situation comparable considering how strong Israel's responses are. And Israel has a lot of sympathy here, so discussing any particular examples would devolve the discussion into whether Israel can in fact do any wrong.

I wish there were a kinder gentler way to oppose a bunch of rioters who are throwing bricks, rocks, bottles of water (and urine) and fireworks, and were destroying property and barricading exit doors of federal buildings...
And I wish there were a better way to identify an individual who, at the moment, is a "peaceful protester", but moments before was wreaking havoc and engaging in riot.

The gay bar owner was handing out water, letting people sit and get tear gas out of their eyes. Medical help. The police shooting that up wasn't a good signal to send. Especially shouting "Game over" at him before commencing with firing at the people. The LGBT community doesn't exactly have good experiences with the police to begin with.

Expound on this, please -- not sure what you're saying here.

I posted a video compilation of attacks of the police. I'll try to find it, but if you're not aware of the recordings you really should try to look up things on youtube about the police responses "from a liberal perspective."

Which is why I don't.

I'm tempted to say you're doing what you accuse liberals of doing. Downplaying it and excusing it. However I know you mean well and you just want someone to speak up for the police.

In a riot situation, you get the 'actors' [especially the instagators] out of the arena as quickly and safely as you can. Remember, the crowd had been targeting police vehicles, smashing police car windows, burning patrol cars --- why would any sane officer want to arrive on scene in a fully marked patrol vehicle?

I was asking out of curiosity. It would make sense in a "riot" situation you could do that. Sounds like it can be easily abused though.

I don't know. I don't know that they won't. I DO know that, in an ongoing investigation or police action, it's not at all unusual to keep such information "close to the vest" until all actors are arrested, served with papers, or whatever.

I don't like it Cow Poke, I really don't. And I don't think this should cause the protest to calm down. To be honest I didn't want to participate until I heard they were doing this, or shooting up that gay man handing out water and medical help. Now I wanna protest. In a situation like this they should have gone with maximal transparency.

[Cow Poke]

It was you who picked Israel. I don't exactly find the situation comparable considering how strong Israel's responses are. And Israel has a lot of sympathy here, so discussing any particular examples would devolve the discussion into whether Israel can in fact do any wrong.

I did. And, thought, at the time, bad example --- a lot of that depends on whether you are pro-Israel (I am) or not. BAD on me!!!
My only intent was to give an example where somebody tries to provoke an attack so they can complain they were "unjustly" attacked.

The gay bar owner was handing out water, letting people sit and get tear gas out of their eyes. Medical help. The police shooting that up wasn't a good signal to send. Especially shouting "Game over" at him before commencing with firing at the people. The LGBT community doesn't exactly have good experiences with the police to begin with.

Not really familiar with that - did I comment on it? Sounds like something I would oppose.

I posted a video compilation of attacks of the police.

OK, maybe I missed that - I don't always watch all the videos unless I have a particular interest in them.

I'm tempted to say you're doing what you accuse liberals of doing. Downplaying it and excusing it. However I know you mean well and you just want someone to speak up for the police.

I'm trying to filter out noise and nonsense, and get to the facts.

I was asking out of curiosity. It would make sense in a "riot" situation you could do that. Sounds like it can be easily abused though.

It's like the same thing in Iraq/Afghanistan, Leon. Since the "peaceful protesters" are not wearing uniforms, it's quite easy for them to act out violence, then fade into the crowd and be "peaceful protesters". It takes a lot of work and concentration to keep track of who the insurgents are when they act that way.

I don't like it Cow Poke, I really don't.

And I don't like the fact that the riot has been going on for MONTHS now, and the local "authorities" have done nothing to quell it.

And I don't think this should cause the protest to calm down.

Protest? or Riot. That's what makes this so difficult.

To be honest I didn't want to participate until I heard they were doing this, or shooting up that gay man handing out water and medical help. Now I wanna protest. In a situation like this they should have gone with maximal transparency.

How would you protest, Leon? Would you deface property, destroy property, set police cars on fire, throw rocks and bottles?

We both know that's not in you.

[Leonhard]

I did. And, thought, at the time, bad example --- a lot of that depends on whether you are pro-Israel (I am) or not. BAD on me!!!
My only intent was to give an example where somebody tries to provoke an attack so they can complain they were "unjustly" attacked.

I think we can both agree, though our sympathies might lie with different sides in this.

Not really familiar with that - did I comment on it? Sounds like something I would oppose.

I posted that in this thread not many posts ago. In post #165.

OK, maybe I missed that - I don't always watch all the videos unless I have a particular interest in them.

Noted.

I'm trying to filter out noise and nonsense, and get to the facts.

Ditto, that's why I'm hesitant to condemn what the police are doing. However there are other things they're doing in this riot that I don't like.

It's like the same thing in Iraq/Afghanistan, Leon. Since the "peaceful protesters" are not wearing uniforms, it's quite easy for them to act out violence, then fade into the crowd and be "peaceful protesters". It takes a lot of work and concentration to keep track of who the insurgents are when they act that way.

Do you have any non-military analogies. These are protestors and at worst vandalists, they're not terrorists. They can't be prosecuted as terrorists, they have rights. I get your point though.

And I don't like the fact that the riot has been going on for MONTHS now, and the local "authorities" have done nothing to quell it.

If it were up to me the protests would keep going on until the police force has begun restructuring themselves.

Protest? or Riot. That's what makes this so difficult.

Granted. Most of my friends have been to entirely peaceful protests, where the police force was there, but they were not antagonizing the protestors, there were no military vehicles or other useless nonsense, no tear gas grenades, or beat sticks or other things that are kinda counter-productive in a situation like that.

How would you protest, Leon? Would you deface property, destroy property, set police cars on fire, throw rocks and bottles?

Table with two hundred bottles of water, and pancakes ad infinitum. Some good friends of mine did that. I'd have recorders though, and if the police came over and without reason began to knock over and trash the table I'd see what I could do to sue them, and drag them and their department through some embarrassment, if only in the press.

We both know that's not in you.

It's not in me to be violent in anything other than a self-defense situation.

[Cow Poke]

Skipping all the stuff we agree on....

Ditto, that's why I'm hesitant to condemn what the police are doing. However there are other things they're doing in this riot that I don't like.

Wouldn't it be more fair to say that there are other things being REPORTED that they're doing that you don't like? Cause, still, I don't think we have all the facts, and only the "reporting" from the left and/or 'reporters'.

Do you have any non-military analogies. These are protestors and at worst vandalists, they're not terrorists.

Think about the definition of "terrorist" -- "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims".
Now, you might quibble about the part "especially against civilians", but the Federal courthouse is part of the "civil" process, and the 6 city blocks were part of the "civilian" infrastructure, and the residents who drive through there and are assaulted.

I mean, true, they're not "terrorists" in the sense that they're blowing up federal buildings or doing mass shootings at schools, etc...

They can't be prosecuted as terrorists, they have rights. I get your point though.

I think that's actually arguable -- think about the fact that they have definitely BURNED BUILDINGS, and they have barricaded the exits of federal buildings. They have not YET (and I pray they don't) burned a building with occupants in it where the exits were blocked, but we're creeping closer to that.

If it were up to me the protests would keep going on until the police force has begun restructuring themselves.

OK, look at NYC -- already cut a BILLION DOLLARS from the police budget, nutty NYC Mayor has pretty much caved in to the protesters' demands --- have the protests stopped?

Granted. Most of my friends have been to entirely peaceful protests, where the police force was there, but they were not antagonizing the protestors, there were no military vehicles or other useless nonsense, no tear gas grenades, or beat sticks or other things that are kinda counter-productive in a situation like that.

Which came first, the violent protests, or the police in riot gear?
And what is being called "peaceful protests" in this case is FAR different than the "peaceful protests" you'd see in front of an abortion clinic.

Table with two hundred bottles of water, and pancakes ad infinitum. Some good friends of mine did that. I'd have recorders though, and if the police came over and without reason began to knock over and trash the table I'd see what I could do to sue them, and drag them and their department through some embarrassment, if only in the press.

You, my friend, are FAR too reasonable to be a liberal! (kidding, but I DO know you'd not be involved in anything like we're seeing in Portland)

It's not in me to be violent in anything other than a self-defense situation.

And I believe that 100%.

[Gondwanaland]

This is beyond the pale - and really quite unnerving. We do not do this sort of thing in the US, and yet, Trump is doing it. The US attorney in Oregon has launched an investigation. These unidentified (presumably legitimate) law enforcement agents have been seen arresting peaceful protestors and hauling them off in SUV's.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/18/us/po...ies/index.html

So this is not just a strange anomalous thing that showed up in DC during the Floyd protests. This is some sort of 'force' that Trump has created and is deploying wherever he thinks it is 'appropriate'. They are not uniformed, they do not identify themselves.

I truly hope those posting here in favor of Trump can recognize the very real and present danger of secret, heavily armed and unidentified forces deployed at the behest of the president against the wishes of state governments across the United States.

I suggest you look up the Insurrection Act.

And also ponder the idea that someone can be arrested or taken in for questioning for something criminal/violent/damaging they did hours or days before (upon being identified from video or social media evidence, for example, or from someone informing on them) even if they are 'peacefully protesting' at the time of their arrest.

[Gondwanaland]

The states and the local governments did not request these forces. They do not want them to be there. This is a massive abuse of power and sets up for a special force at the presidents command on us soil. It is a very, very bad thing.

They're not actually required to request the forces. Go look up the Little Rock Nine.

[Cow Poke]

They're not actually required to request the forces. Go look up the Little Rock Nine.

And, actually, it's not the "state and local governments", it's the nutty leftist mayor and governor.

[Gondwanaland]

This CNN article has more spin than a whirling dervish (and is the reason why I hate CNN).

First, right out of the gate, it spins: "The US Attorney for the Oregon District on Friday requested an investigation into masked, camouflaged federal authorities without identification badges who are arresting protesters in Portland."

The only instance evidenced is here is where it states: Merkley also tweeted one video of such an arrest showing two masked, camouflaged individuals with generic "police" patches, detain a person dressed in a black outfit and place them in an unmarked van before driving away.

1) Everyone is wearing "masks" these days, so nothing unusual there
2) "camouflaged" = fatigues, so nothing unusual there
3) "police patches" = identification, so they aren't "without identification badges" as CNN stated
4) and a "person dressed in a black outfit" = antifa, he didn't look at all like a protester
The only part I agree is odd is the vehicle. It's unusual to see soldiers driving around in an umarked KIA, but I'm sure there is an explanation for it - although I doubt CNN was interested enough to investigate it.

One possible explanation is the video was staged. It isn't too difficult to get old military fatigues and appear as soldiers. It is more difficult to get a military vehicle. And what we have here are uniforms but no official vehicle. Someone orchestrating a video for political purposes, maybe? All the participants look like they're acting too.

One thing to keep in mind is that we are a modern nation with massive amounts of communication. People don't just disappear here - this isn't Backwaterland. If this guy on the street vanished his family would be screaming, and it would be all over social media and in the news.

So again, I see people who just absolutely hate Trump clutching at any straws that are thrown out there. Groups like CNN and New York Times will oblige you by spinning events to suit their narratives.

Yo, nice to see you outside of CARM.

My thoughts on the vehicle: we've seen in countless cities that marked police/Law Enforcement vehicles are immediately targeted for attack and destruction/burning, so it's not a surprise to me that they'd be rolling in unmarked vehicles for something like this. I do agree the video seems a bit off, perhaps staged, though.

[Cow Poke]

Yo, nice to see you outside of CARM.

My thoughts on the vehicle: we've seen in countless cities that marked police/Law Enforcement vehicles are immediately targeted for attack and destruction/burning, so it's not a surprise to me that they'd be rolling in unmarked vehicles for something like this.

EGGzackly. And, in an operation like this, the Federal police would be scoping out the operation beforehand, identifying the troublemakers, and tagging them for extraction. A fully marked police vehicle would destroy the required element of surprise, besides, as you observed, already being a target of destruction. The Portland police had already cited cases of their patrol vehicles being torched, windows smashed, vandalized...

[Gondwanaland]

Consider the idea that someone can commit a crime hours or days before, be identified by police (social media, surveillance vid, informant, etc.), and then be arrested well after having committed that crime, while they are doing other things ('peacefully protesting', shopping, going to the toilet, literally any number of things other than the committing the crime the previously committed).

[Gondwanaland]

Oh, I thought you cared about them not announcing themselves or not reading them their rights, things like that. My bad.

Fortunately there are people in power that understand how eggregious what you just viewed is and who are pushing for an investigation.

.I guess you also dont care about the peaceful protestor who AFAIK is still recovering from having his skull and jawbone fractured by a round fired randomly into a crowd.

You do understand that law enforcement is normally not required to read you your rights the moment you are being arrested, right? In fact, if they plan to only use what you say to further their investigation (i.e. get info from you about something/someone else and act on that) and not use your statements in court in criminal proceedings, they don't have to read your rights at all.

[Cow Poke]

You do understand that law enforcement is normally not required to read you your rights the moment you are being arrested, right? In fact, if they plan to only use what you say to further their investigation (i.e. get info from you about something/someone else and act on that) and not use your statements in court in criminal proceedings, they don't have to read your rights at all.

This is an excellent point. If, in fact, they had done their surveillance, and don't need a "confession", there's no need for Miranda Warnings, or even an interrogation or "interview".

[Leonhard]

Wouldn't it be more fair to say that there are other things being REPORTED that they're doing that you don't like? Cause, still, I don't think we have all the facts, and only the "reporting" from the left and/or 'reporters'.

Its hard to say. We're both biased in this.

Think about the definition of "terrorist" -- "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims".
Now, you might quibble about the part "especially against civilians", but the Federal courthouse is part of the "civil" process, and the 6 city blocks were part of the "civilian" infrastructure, and the residents who drive through there and are assaulted.

I mean, true, they're not "terrorists" in the sense that they're blowing up federal buildings or doing mass shootings at schools, etc...

I don't think they're terrorists. A guy painting grafitti on a wall, or knocking down a window isn't a terrorist.

I think that's actually arguable -- think about the fact that they have definitely BURNED BUILDINGS, and they have barricaded the exits of federal buildings. They have not YET (and I pray they don't) burned a building with occupants in it where the exits were blocked, but we're creeping closer to that.

I could never side with you in simply labelling people in a crowd terrorists, and then using the Patriots Act against them. That rule that came into existence in the 9/11 aftermath panic and should have been sunsetted by now is still kicking around. You really wanna toy with the idea of beginning to use that against US Civilians?

OK, look at NYC -- already cut a BILLION DOLLARS from the police budget, nutty NYC Mayor has pretty much caved in to the protesters' demands --- have the protests stopped?

Defunding is a topic where I have a lot of opinions. There's a lot of services that have been forced on the police which they are very inept at handling, they're simply not trained or equipped for it. There are also a lot of criminal cases where if there had been money for the right kind of help, early, things could have been prevented before it ever became a problem.

This should be a call for more money for those services. As for the police defunding them might not be a good idea, I'd have preferred that they would have looked into restructuring the police. There's been success stories of that they could look into.

Which came first, the violent protests, or the police in riot gear?
And what is being called "peaceful protests" in this case is FAR different than the "peaceful protests" you'd see in front of an abortion clinic.

I've been wondering, are you only talking about Portland, or are you talking to all the protests? I have a feeling you have a very specific situation in mind, and not the protests in general.

[Leonhard]

Consider the idea that someone can commit a crime hours or days before, be identified by police (social media, surveillance vid, informant, etc.), and then be arrested well after having committed that crime, while they are doing other things ('peacefully protesting', shopping, going to the toilet, literally any number of things other than the committing the crime the previously committed).

As long as the police have actual evidence to bring to bear and are not just snatching up random individuals to send a signal to the crowd and hope it disperses.

[Cow Poke]

Its hard to say. We're both biased in this.

Well, yeah, but I'm right, so that makes a difference.

I don't think they're terrorists. A guy painting grafitti on a wall, or knocking down a window isn't a terrorist.

But add to that the burning of buildings, the looting, the assault on police, the taking over of 6 city blocks..... It's not about 'one guy', Leon - it's about the movement.

I could never side with you in simply labelling people in a crowd terrorists, and then using the Patriots Act against them.

Meh.... I'm not calling for the Patriots Act --- simply noting that the local 'authorities' have abdicated their authority, and left a huge vacuum for other forces.

That rule that came into existence in the 9/11 aftermath panic and should have been sunsetted by now is still kicking around. You really wanna toy with the idea of beginning to use that against US Civilians?

Only the ones who are looting and rioting unchallenged by civil authorities.

Defunding is a topic where I have a lot of opinions. There's a lot of services that have been forced on the police which they are very inept at handling, they're simply not trained or equipped for it. There are also a lot of criminal cases where if there had been money for the right kind of help, early, things could have been prevented before it ever became a problem.

This should be a call for more money for those services. As for the police defunding them might not be a good idea, I'd have preferred that they would have looked into restructuring the police. There's been success stories of that they could look into.

And "defunding" has different meanings depending on to whom you are talking. Some of them absolutely declare NO police.

I've been wondering, are you only talking about Portland, or are you talking to all the protests? I have a feeling you have a very specific situation in mind, and not the protests in general.

Interesting questions, since the OP was so scatterbrained as to start off with a title about DC, then focusing on Portland, including a whole bunch of false statements.

I'm specifically addressing Portland, because that seemed to be the (possibly) unintended target of the thread.