Is it still government overreach regardless of the politics of those involved?

News & Current Events Current Events
41

@Dawn – you always sound so surprised when we’re getting along…

As I mentioned, this is literally the only venue that I participate in where there is (mostly) civil dialogue across all our great divides, due in no small part to your (subtle) guidance. And I don’t know if you are aware of what a treasure that is in this day and age. There are so few places where someone can go to get their preconceptions fact checked by people with different views and information, and for me this thread is the perfect example. I posted originally with one set of views based on the information I had from my own echo chamber, and because folks here are knowledgable and civil, it is easy to listen and learn from them, and finally to modify my position accordingly.

Thank you!

2 Likes
42

Thank you so much for the kinds words, @CascadiaNow! You have no idea how much they mean to me.

I am a firm believer in learning from everyone through respectful conversation (I’m sure you’ve gotten that through my commentary here). It’s what will make us a great country again- respect for diversity and respect for finding a common ground. And a fair amount of grace and forgiveness when we stumble or need to clarify what we mean (especially in text).

Thanks, @CascadiaNow! You made my day!!

1 Like
43

Jeff, thank you for the Allen West reading link! I Loved :purple_heart:it! I have always taken his advice! Of course he puts a little humor in his comment! EVERYONE SHOULD READ IT. Excellent explanation of what is happening with young people!

1 Like
44

@KittyLovesGod Allen West is a terrific guy and someone I admire. He is well spoken and has his heart set on serving God, Texas and our country. You ought to check out his YouTube postings.

1 Like
45

@CascadiaNow I meant to reply to this last week, but the week got away from me…

AAAAAIIIIIIIIEEEEEEE please no ire & derision :wink:

So I’m really trying to dig through the muck to find out what the feds are doing in Portland

With the benefit of a week in hindsight, it looks like they were in fact in Portland (and other places), and were/are defending Federal buildings. According to a decision in a recent court case (Portland sued the Feds to stop) there are really only two instances of the unmarked van “kidnapping”.

…I still worry that federal law enforcement, generally untrained in deescalation and crowd control, are being brought in and exacerbating the situation, possibly to make political points. I’m also worried that the entire political aparatus of Portland and Oregon, including the local police, have asked them to leave and they’re not…

I will agree that Feds in general, and from reports on “who” they sent specifically, are likely ill-trained for crowd control and de-escalation. But I think that this is not their role here. From accounts they are mostly holed up in the federal buildings defending it from the rioters. It seems like the few instances where they came out it was to grab someone they suspected had been causing damage to federal property and they grabbed them away from the crowds which is actually a good way of not escalating.

It’s only exacerbating the situation because the rioters haven’t been able to burn the building down yet :rofl:

The question of whether or not the state can force them out is an interesting one, but in this case I think because they are defending federal property the local and state can’t (and shouldn’t) really kick them out. If the Feds were running around the rest of the city/state without city/state approval then we have problems.

It sounds like the Feds are doing what I would consider to be their reasonable best in a situation that is a veritable minefield of political traps. Is it perfect? No… but this whole thing is a pile of :poop:

To roll it back to the original Question though… Gubment overreach is Gubment overreach. While I don’t think that is the case here, we should always be vigilant. If the Feds were just snatching people willy nilly, for no reason, then yeah I think that’s wrong and they shouldn’t be allowed to do that. Because you are right, if they do it to “them” then eventually they will do it to “us”.

Every time one side learns a trick, the other side learns it better.

6 Likes
46

Cool, what tricks have we learned from terror mobs and cancel culture?

3 Likes
47

Actually, Portland local PD requested Federal assistance because they could not handle the rioters.

6 Likes
48

@Zavier_D – this is new information for me, as everything I’ve seen out of Portland suggests otherwise (and certainly media would never exclude relevant facts…)

Would you be willing to share where you learned this?

Thanks!

1 Like
49

There are numerous others where the mayor or a politician “may” say they are not requesting help. But have the federal officers walking shoulder to shoulder with Portland PD as they clear rioters from non federal grounds. So the official kow towing line may be “Nope, don’t throw me in that there briar patch” they seem perfectly willing to use them when the rioting got out of control… Again.

There’s lots more if you Google.

3 Likes
50

Thanks, @Zavier_D – this is really helpful. I read both closely, and unless I’m missing something, what these suggest is that PPD coordinated with the Feds, not that they requested their assistance or wanted them to stay. From what I’ve heard in the past (I live a bit south of Portland), PPD tries to coordinate with everyone involved, including protesters when possible, which can make good tactical sense – it’s good to know who the players are and what they are doing (and also where the opportunities for de-escalation exist).

In this case, from what I heard (no evidence, only anectotal) is that everyone local wanted the heavy, visible Fed presence gone, including the PPD. They simply are not trained for the work they were trying to do, and they became the focus for ever increasing escalation by their visible presence and their actions.

I think you and @Harvey are right that they have a right to be there to protect the Federal buildings, but from what I hear the protests were on the wane until they came and started flexing – then they became the target. Lots of folks who had not shown up suddenly did, including the walls of moms, dads, and vets. I’ve done that kind of work back in the days in uniform, and I know there are ways to confront protests that escalate, and ways that de-escalate.

Again, the cynic in me wonders if some part of the strategy was intentional, to feed a particular narrative. We’ll see if things improve now that the State Police are taking on that role.

In any event, thanks for passing on these sources and, as ever, for engaging.

1 Like
52

@P365 The snatch and grab technique is VERY effective at “snatching” a known criminal without the hazard of them being at home or in a large crowd. It is more common than you might think there was even one in NYC that AOC was whining about, trying to jump on the bandwagon. Very effective and precise (unless you grab the wrong person) and generally very safe to all parties.

I also agree with you on the water cannon thing as that is another highly effective way to deal with protesters and especially those that play with fire and fire works. You would think the Feds / NG / Mil would have a couple f “Dragon Wagon’s” with water cannons pulling 9,000 gal of water in inventory.

Cheers,

Craig6

4 Likes
53

I think you and @Harvey are right that they have a right to be there to protect the Federal buildings, but from what I hear the protests were on the wane until they came and started flexing – then they became the target. Lots of folks who had not shown up suddenly did, including the walls of moms, dads, and vets.

The sequence of events as you’ve laid it out, may be the truth. But that doesn’t make it right. IMO, it is not reasonable or logical that if someone shows up to defend their stuff that makes it OK to go ahead and break the thing they were protecting.

If a woman is walking down the street, sees a group of thugs taking a bunch of purses, clutches her purse tighter, does it make it right that the thugs now want to take her purse even more? You could argue that “well if she didn’t clutch her purse so tightly maybe they would have left her alone”. That doesn’t sound like a reasonable argument to me.

“Just give them what they want and they’ll go away” is what you say about bullies and criminals and then you hope that they actually go away. But you know what? They always come back for more. Always.

The wall of moms, dads, vets, etc. I do not know but I would assume those folks are part of the peaceful protests that usually start each night. It’s not until late night, early AM that the rioters start setting stuff on fire. I would assume all those moms and dads have gone home for the night because they have to goto work the next day.

5 Likes
54

Oh, what a difference a week makes…

Yeah, @Harvey, I think you turned out to be right on all counts. Like you, I’ve only seen evidence of two off- site arrests, and one was aknowledged as a case of mistaken identity. As @Craig6 and @45IPAC said earlier, it looks like legitimate policing, arresting people away from the crowds.

…which is SO frustrating! It was so comforting in my little blue bubble of self-affirmation, and then you guys went and talked me down by tricking me with skepticism and evidence. I miss my righteous indignation!

In all seriousness, as I mentioned to @Dawn, I can’t tell you how valuable it is to be able to groundtruth my own preconceptions with you all and the other folks on this stream who have access to different views, experiences and information, and are willing to share without (too much) condemnation. Much too rare in this day and age, and much appreciated!

I still think the crowd control tactics were wrong, counter-productive and, as I mentioned to @Zavier_D, perhaps intentional, but the story of out of control, unmarked feds arresting people willy nilly seems to have pretty much dissipated. And, as I challenge my hippie friends, give me an alternative that also protects the federal building and those whose job it is to protect it.

Here are my latest, possibly paranoid concerns, in case anyone has thoughts or advice:

  1. I’m still not sure I entirely understand the legal relationship between the feds and state and local law enforcement. You all have made a persuasive case for federal presence to protect federal property, but what happens if the feds involved in law enforcement decide they need support from the military. Is that legal, noting posse comitatus? I think that happened in LA during the Rodney King protests, but I believe in that case the governor (mayor?) asked for their presence. What if the entire state apparatus is opposed to the military presence? Again, the only time I can think of that happening was during the civil rights movement in the south, for example to protect enrollment at the University of Alabama. By what authority did that happen? Anyone know?

  2. On a related note, about a month ago, Bill Barr said, “The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.” I also note in the 52 federal crimes that DHS lists linked above, ALL of them are blamed on “violent anarchists,” included graffiti and property damage. Again, the cynic in me asks, could this be a justification for federalizing what is essentially a crowd control problem? Since “antifa” is so informal and, by definition, loosely organized, is this possibly a bit of a stretch?

Again, I know there is little sympathy here for the protesters in Portland, but imagine a future mandatory buyback of “assault weapons,” or some such. In that case, most of the people here suddenly become criminals; could these same tactics be used to federalize enforcement of laws we have way less sympathy for?

Asking for a friend…

2 Likes
55

  1. If President Trump’s chose to Federalize some states National Guard, then yes it would be perfectly legal. As he has already done so in Washington DC. If local authorities didn’t like it (using your Southern States allegory) when the University of Alabama was to be integrated. Governor George Wallace stood in the doorway and said NO. The National Guardsman moved him and integrated the school.

  2. Could they be using the vandalism of Federal property as an excuse, sure I guess so. But there are other laws that would achieve the same results.

Could some arcane rule be made to enforce a gun buyback program that the Feds could then use to escalate. Yes. But I doubt it would be feasible.

P.S. @CascadiaNow
Google Feds helping Portland PD and read past the political posturing and you will find dozens of stories of Federal agents working hand in hand with PPD as Federal agents and Portland PD marched shoulder to shoulder with the PD after they called the “peaceful protests” riots.

4 Likes
56

Thanks, as ever, for engaging, @Zavier_D. You bring a lot of good information to these discussions, and I appreciate your diplomacy.

I did as you suggested on Google and you’re right – I found a bunch of interesting stuff, and much deeper coordination that I was aware of. Again, this makes good tactical sense, as the missions overlap.

Thanks too for your thoughts on the fed/state relationship. From what I understand, DC is a bit different cause the feds have jurisdiction over the entire place. I can’t think of a time since the civil rights movement that federal troops mobilized against the wishes of a state government, but I’ll keep digging. Interestingly, for feds to mobilize in Oregon, they have to be certified by the state that they are appropriately trained. Curiouser and curiouser.

In any event, thanks again for the good info, and for engaging so thoughtfully.

4 Likes
57

One point to consider,

Federal agents are in most major cities already. Federal agents do not need local permission to enforce federal laws or protect federal property such as a federal court, nor do they need permission to protect the rights of citizens, though that should be the state and the local law enforcement, if they fail, it does fall to federal agents.

Now, regarding this specific arrest, we do not know what charge the person arrested was charged with…

  1. Not sure it would happen. Most pro-Second Amendment people, do not riot, burn, assault, vandalize or do the things most of these lawless rioters and looters are doing.

  2. If unidentified armed men jumped out of a vehicle, without any markings, no unit patches, and no verbal identification, there could ensue an armed encounter, but again, not sure that would happen unless the one carrying a firearm was already wanted on criminal charges.
    Edit: It also depends on the situation and location. When overseas, an unmarked van pull up and armed individuals jump out without any identifying markings… an armed encounter was a strong possibility as they might be terrorists, rebels, insurrectionists… but in the US, if you are innocent, and it has not become common to have terrorists or drug cartels killing or kidnapping people (except perhaps in border states) you let them take you and call a lawyer. So, depends on what is the current environment.

  3. As stated previously, federal agents are already in most major cities, and do not need local permission to protect federal personnel, property or enforce federal laws.

4 Likes