Federal law enforcement pulling people of the street in Portland

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: DBCowboy

You didn't say those exact words.

But you did say:

"That's why people should shoot the looters WHILE they are looting."

Yes.

Were there too many words?

Nope, but "people should start shooting shooting them" sounds awfully like "gunning down criminals (looters)."

The implication is pretty clear.

Personally, I think people committing crimes should be punished.

But that's just me.

My bad.

I think so, too.

But according to due process and law.

Surely you agree with that.

Gosh golly!

Going to be hard to do when you leftists get rid of the police!

Golly Gosh.

Too bad this isn't the pit.

Because this thread seems to be about extrajudicial and unwarranted "arrests" of American citizens by unidentifiable people (feds?).

Anyway.

The judiciary still exists, as well as the Constitution, and due process. If we can keep it, and not turn into a fascist state.

*shrug*

Thought you stood up for and against that stuff.

I do hold the Constitution in high regard.

But I hold no quarter with those who voluntarilly spit on it.

Good. So do I.

Does that include citizenry only, or also LE?

Because if the OP is correct, that # is not Constitutional and a violation of rights.

Do you agree?

I don't know.

Have we determined it is true, or some one-sided bullcrap?

I look to facts.

Truth is just someone's interpretation of facts.

a reply to: HalWesten

This didn't just occur on the 16th. They have been there over a week now. The man they shot in the head was last Saturday. I first saw the twitter reports with pics of some of the unmarked vehicles a few days ago.

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?

a reply to: Liquesence

Maybe.

a reply to: Liquesence

People are apprehended without charge regularly.

They are typically let go. This is not considered unconstitutional. It would be unconstitutional if they continued to hold a person without charges.

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?

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: HalWesten
That doesn't really address the apparent extrajudicial potentially unlawful detainment (kidnapped) of citizens by agents lacking proper identification, now does it?

Which is what this thread is about.

The Gov and ACLU concur.

First, I posted earlier that I do not like the fact that people were taken off the street by unidentified people, presumably some sort of law enforcement but we don't know, do we?

Second, I also stated that I was going to hold my opinion until more facts were out. More facts are out, which I posted tonight. Specifically to dispel the rumor that these were all peaceful protesters that were snatched off the street by unknown people. The article I posted states that many people were in fact arrested on these sites by police officers.

So who were the still unidentified people? Do you know? We still don't have all of the information about the one guy in the original article, was he telling the truth? We don't know now do we?

There's no need to be snarky, especially when you didn't read my whole post.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: HalWesten

This didn't just occur on the 16th. They have been there over a week now. The man they shot in the head was last Saturday. I first saw the twitter reports with pics of some of the unmarked vehicles a few days ago.

I never said it did.

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.

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?

Exactly. It's a whatifism. Instead of asking the question IF, why not wait until more information is available so the question can start with the facts? That is the reason I said I wanted to wait before I formed an opinion. I'm still not convinced that it was an illegal act, I simply said that kind of detention makes me very uncomfortable. On the other hand, no one has stated the legal reason why it would be inappropriate if the person were questioned and let go. Police do this all the time, they pick someone up, take them to the police station, question if possible and if not arrested, let them go. They don't always arrest first.

a reply to: Liquesence

CBP says their agents told him who they were and why they had detained him. CBP is treating their statement as true, so I guess that’s that.

a reply to: Liquesence


" 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? "



If I Might Chime in here Mr. L . It All Depends on their Criminal Records that are Available to Any Federal Agency . More than Likely " Some " of these Individuals Might have PRIOR Concerns . So .......

a reply to: HalWesten

Second, I also stated that I was going to hold my opinion until more facts were out. More facts are out, which I posted tonight. Specifically to dispel the rumor that these were all peaceful protesters

Which has no relevance to people being bagged by unidentifiable people without badges or insignia and taken away in unmarked cars, without being properly "arrested" or mirandized.

Try again.

So who were the still unidentified people? Do you know?

I don't. Which is part of the problem. And which I addressed in my first post. Fed, contractor, or acting militia, it's unlawful and unconstitutional to bag people without charge. That's the #n concern.

a reply to: Liquesence

You keep mentioning the Miranda warning.

You do understand it’s entirely normal to get arrested, let alone detained, without ever being given the warning, right? Not getting Mirandized isn’t a get out of jail free card.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

If I Might Chime in here Mr. L . It All Depends on their Criminal Records that are Available to Any Federal Agenc

Prior criminal records have no relevance on unlawfully detaining or kidnapping someone without legal cause by people who fail to identify themselves as LE.

It's unlawful and unconstitutional. It's fascist tactics.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Liquesence

You keep mentioning the Miranda warning.

You do understand it’s entirely normal to get arrested, let alone detained, without ever being given the warning, right? Not getting Mirandized isn’t a get out of jail free card.

I do.

It's not normal to get apprehended and bagged, taken away, without being first informed of the charges by someone who fails to properly identify as LE.

But being informed of charges for which one is arrested is entirely different. Apparently, these people weren't. They were never charged, but bagged.

a reply to: Liquesence



" Prior criminal records have no relevance "

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

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.

I hope we get some good footage of extremist, left-wing, domestic terrorists getting beat up tonight or party vanned!