Navy veteran says he was beaten 'like a punching bag' in Portland
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
PORTLAND (Reuters) - As a U.S. Navy veteran, Chris David said he thought he would be able to talk plainly with federal agents in Portland and ask them why they were using unmarked cars to snatch people off the street during recent protests in the Oregon city.
When he tried to speak with them outside the federal courthouse in Portland on Saturday night, he said a federal officer beat him with a baton, breaking his hand in two places. A second officer sprayed him with chemical irritant, David said.
"I wanted to ask them 'Why are you guys not following the Constitution?' But we never got there," David said in an interview. "They whaled on me like a punching bag."
A video appearing to show David being beaten by a federal officer and sprayed with a chemical by another while he stood passively went viral this weekend with 10.7 million views.
Afterward David, 53, was praised on social media for allegedly standing up to federal officers accused of excessive force and escalating violence as they protect federal buildings.
Top Homeland Security officials said on Monday they had no intention of pulling back in Portland and defended the federal crackdown on anti-racism protests, including the use of unmarked cars and unidentified officers in camouflage.
Ken Cuccinelli, acting deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, told CNN the officers involved in the incident were from the U.S. Federal Marshals Service.
Cuccinelli said he had seen the video but had not heard the audio or seen reports from officers involved in the event. He did not comment further.
Portland Police did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the incident.
Demonstrations began in Portland in May against police brutality and racial injustice triggered by the killing of African American George Floyd.
YOUTUBE Video here:
Tags
Who is online
135 visitors
So Trump's Storm Troopers went to work on a 53 year old Navy Veteran that wasn't armed, hands empty, and the jackbooted thugs refused to answer basic civics questions.
[Deleted]
Because the Constitution doesn't specifically state that it's ok to pick people up off the streets or to beat someone who asks a simple question.
So they have re-written the Constitution in their little brains to make it say what they want it to say
God damn disgusting and now Trump says he will send troops/marshalls/BP into more cities. This is the guy that said the governors/mayors are responsible for their states (coronavirus) and he does not accept the blame for anything, but now he will be in charge of ''law and order'' what a crock, it's nothing more than an election ploy.
I think it's an attempt to turn this country into dictatorship.
Mr Giggles and I were discussing buying more guns the other night.
Sure looks that way. And members here think that's just fine. Unbelievable.
So guns CAN protect us from what we might see as authority out of control? Good point TG! Funny how that logic goes out the window when another party is seen as the "authority" in power, or when a discussion of the Second Amendment is on the table. But I digress... (-:
Freewill, I've always been a big supporter of the Second Amendment. Just because I'm a left of center liberal (some might argue a radical leftist) doesn't mean I want to abolish it. I grew up with guns. My own mother had her own special .22 rifle for killing snakes.
it's cool to see that trumpski has set the legal precedent for Joe when tea party scum show up with guns to protest next year...
my source in the DHS says the agency is in crisis internally over this response by POS/POTUS
"I think it's an attempt to turn this country into dictatorship.
Mr Giggles and I were discussing buying more guns the other night."
Someone I work with thinks this is tRumps' way of instituting martial law and NOT leaving the White House when his time is up. No wonder the turd won't answer the question about leaving when Joe Biden wins.
if defeated in november he'll be leaving office in january. under his own power or feet first makes no difference to me...
I'd love to see that big fat sloppy turd hauled out by his ankles kicking and screaming and crying all the way!!!!!!!!
It will be the ultimate walk of shame, that is for sure.
He will be yelling at Malenia to grab his secret stash of Big Macs.
Is that what you think the primary duty is for officers trying to clear out rioters? Answer their questions? What makes you think they even have that option?
Or he could document the goings-on from a distance and then ask questions of someone in a position to answer his questions. There's nothing with the questions (though his presumptions may prove to be incorrect), but he is asking the wrong people at the wrong time.
Would be nice to see the video prior to the hitting. Notice that's all that was concentrated on. The beating and nothing that led up to it. Must be the driectors cut. .
I added what I thought might be a missing word in what you said above, and in general I think it is a good point. Although I have seen many officers, both in person and in the video coverage of many of these protests/rallies, actually engage those in the crowd in honest and productive conversation without it escalating to violence. I have also seen some incidents where the officers did answer the questions but were still met with violence by the other side. So it all comes down to controlling oneself and being perceptive enough to realize the situation one is in and whether one is adding to the potential for violence or not. This holds true for ALL parties involved, not just the cops. However, this is definitely something cops are (or should be) trained in, so one would expect that they could/would be able to handle such situations better.
I wonder if this Navy fellow might agree with you that while his questions were certainly valid, was that really the time and place to be asking them when those same officers were being shouted at, cursed at, and were having projectiles thrown at them by hundreds of other people as they tried to protect the Courthouse, which just so happens to be their job? Still they could have recognized the difference between this fellow and the others and handled it differently perhaps?
Now size matters?
good grief.
Yes, my bad. Thank you for that. Sometimes you think a word but somehow it doesn't get typed.
I just don't think they're trained to kind of drink in the details of their surroundings in these situations. Nor are they trained to employ their own personal judgment much. I've been in the middle of one these things (not with feds, though), and it was absolute chaos. People and objects appear and disappear on all sides. It's really not the time for a conversation.
Add to that the fact these are federal officers. Every aspect of federal law enforcement (from cops, to prosecutors, to judges, and even the law itself) is far less flexible and compassionate than you tend to get on the local level.
Just another reason to think twice about completely defunding local police forces. Better training and community involvement absolutely, but defunding? That makes little sense when the shit hits the fan, and the Feds are still the only backup.
Once sworn to uphold the Constitution is ALWAYS sworn to uphold the constitution MUVA.
Seems like you're okay with violence against peaceful 75 year old men, veterans, and the press. I've got to wonder where you are going to draw line at.... if at all.
TACOS...... They ALWAYS have that option not to be violent.
What about all the violence being committed by these "peaceful protestors" upon innocent citizens and police officers.
If the dumbass mayor was doing his job there would not be a need to send the marshals in. Why was this idiot vet on the street and what did he do to start the alleged beat down?
The rioting really needs to stop and Democrats need to lead the way. How is the Constitution being violated.
Is that what you think the primary duty is for officers trying to clear out rioters?
I've read coverage of this on several news outlets. Apparently its claim is that they were sent to "defend Federal office buildings".
(Which strikes me as bizarre, because of all the coverage of peaceful demonstrators to a few outsiders who were not protesters-- the latter were attacking stores ... but IIRC since the protests started, they have not targeted federal Office buildings.
I won't speak to why the feds were out there or whether or not they had a right to be doing what they were doing. I think that is beside the point. It's just not sensible to get into an argument with a cop who is clearly in an anti-crowd kind of mode. If you think they are out of line, take them to court. You will lose a fight with cops every time.
You can be in the right, and that's fine. But there are two ways to be right. You can be right in the hospital or morgue; or you can be right in court. The latter takes longer, but there is no question of whether or not you acted rightly, and when you win, you will have the force of law on your side. And maybe a nice cash judgment, too.
Well to be honest, not sure it was protesters who targeted the buildings but certainly someone there with them has been attacking Federal buildings for quite some time. Quite an extensive day to day accounting of that HERE and in multiple local news casts. In fact, the building being defended the night of this incident was completely covered in graffiti, windows broken out and several attempts had been made in previous nights to light it afire as can be clearly seen in the local news.
Still no excuse for the Federal officers to injure those otherwise peaceful protesters not being a threat to Federal property or personnel.
What came first..... Police violence against citizens, or the protests and riots?
Get your timeline straight, then you can lecture me on violations of the Constitution
He is a Naval Academy Graduate, SEABEE flavor MUVA, that knows an enemy to the constitution when he sees better than you do.
This morning I've learned that local VFWs and American Legions are looking to counter these goon squads. You might take a moment and consider why?
Masochistic tendencies?
Bullshit! You don't know that. If you do, please let us know how you do
And i've know my share of ring knockers in my day. Some of them were not all that impressive.
Do some research would you......
Protests in Portland, Oregon have been a nightly occurrence for more than 50 days , but one man hadn't attended any until Saturday night.
Navy veteran Chris David, 53, told CNN over the phone Sunday that he had never been to a protest, but felt "enraged" when he saw federal officers on the scene and wanted to ask them what they were doing there.
Officers from federal agencies have been spotted in the city taking protesters off the street, arresting them and putting them in unmarked vehicles over the past week.
"I was going to ask why they weren't living up to their oath of office, the Constitution," David explained. " All I wanted to do was ask them why?"
He put on his Naval Academy gear with the hope they would listen, and would feel like he was one of them. What he was met with couldn't have been further from that.
When approaching them to talk, David said they pushed him down, and started beating him with their batons and using pepper spray.
"I was hoping they wouldn't shoot me, because one had a weapon pointing it right at my chest, " said David. "I'm relieved that I only got hit by batons and pepper spray.'
When asked how he was able to not react during the beating, David said he knew if he acted it would escalate the situation.
"The baton hits weren't the issue but when they used pepper spray it was over; it felt like they dumped a gallon of burning gasoline on my head."
He says he suffered a broken hand in two places, and plans to have surgery later this week.
David said he doesn't want his story to take attention away from the original reason for the protests which is Black Lives Matter. He wants the public to know that the people going down there to protest "are just like him, normal people."
When contacted by CNN, a spokesperson for the Portland Police Bureau said that their officers were not involved in the incident.
Customs and Border Protection also told CNN that their officers were not involved.
CNN has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security and US Marshals for a comment but has not yet heard back.
And exactly how does that prove David can identify an enemy of the constitution better than MUVA?
Pretty simple...... MUVA has been all in on the recent police brutality like you have since day one, as where as this guy is standing up and questioning their motives.
Wrong, David clearly doesn't understand the applicable parts of the Constitution.
Which doesn't speak real well for his Naval Academy education does it?
Very interesting encounters. 50 days of protest?!
So you have no problem seeing a fellow vet being beaten with a baton and getting his arm broken in two places and pepper sprayed?
Said Navy vet should have known better than to walk into what was already a very tense and volatile situation and try to question federal agents. I do not condone what was done to him, but he should have known better. He just picked the wrong time and place for a verbal confrontation. Not too smart a move for a Annapolis grad.
That was my take as well.
Please cite the statute that authorizes Federal Agents to beat and pepper spray a citizen standing on a PUBLIC street, doing NOTHING illegal.
What authority did Federal Agents have to tell him to move from a PUBLIC street?
He wanted to ask the people, like him, who took an OATH to the Constitution.
That's a big IF there Kathleen.
There has been no claim that a riot was going on during the attack. The Feds were standing on the street, outside of their legal jurisdiction. Portland Police have jurisdiction over the streets of their city, the Feds have no authority over law abiding citizens within a state.
There was a time when conservatives cared about the Constitution and the law.
That's your opinion and obviously not the opinion of the officers who were there on the scene (unlike you). If there is disagreement on that, it can be worked out in court.
Are you suggesting that local police are authorized to beat and pepper spray a citizen standing on a public street, doing nothing illegal? If not, there is no point in making the distinction specific to federal agents.
Now, if you want to know the statute that authorizes federal agents to detain or arrest people for doing something illegal, that statute does exist if you are interested. But I bet you knew that.
The issue here for us: Conservatives have never minded a good pretext to 'envelop' their over-bearing activities in.
Or the vast majority of the thousands who have seen the video.
Yes and I hope he gets a huge settlement and it causes legislators to further limit Federal police powers.
BTW I note that you failed to cite a statute that authorizes the use of force we saw on the video.
It's calls jurisdiction.
BTW, that means the Mayor of Portland may have a case of his own to make after he was "gassed" by the Feds. I will like to hear how it is explained to a judge that the city's mayor was 'rioting,' simply for being on his city street during a protest.
You know that there is a galactic grey area between rioting and peaceful protesting right?
That's what Trump sent them there to do.
I think that you are ignoring the fact that the Navy Vet committed NO CRIME.
Yep, it was a part of their platform and many try to pretend it still is.
Not if true.
No.
You are the one that stated that their 'primary duty is for officers trying to clear out rioters'.
Prove it.
Why yes, YES I did and unlike most here, I read it and understand it.
I also know it's irrelevant for many reasons, the first being that the Navy vet WASN'T arrested, he WAS beaten and pepper sprayed.
The second reason is that all available evidence proves that the Navy vet did NOTHING illegal.
I doubt you have polling on that, and even if you did, it would be legally irrelevant. We don't do criminal justice in this country by taking a freakin' poll.
I wasn't asked for anything like that, so I saw no reason to produce it. Are you suggesting that law enforcement is allowed to use force?
No, that is not precisely what I said. You have taken words out of the middle of a statement, distorting the meaning of the whole statement.
I asked someone else (Navy) if he thought that answering questions was the primary duty of law enforcement officers who were trying to clear out rioters. That is: if the officers are engaged in the task of clearing out rioters (or any other duty for that matter), should they be expected to set that task aside so that they can answer random legal questions from any random person who approaches them?
You are welcome to list a few.
All the evidence available to you is not all the evidence relevant to the case. For example, you have heard no testimony from officers on the scene, nor - I suspect - have you read their reports. Therefore, you are not really in a position to make final legal declarations.
Typo: Should read "not allowed."
The feds are authorized by Oregon state law to enforce the law wherever they happen to be.
I doubt very much that it was "simply" for being on out on the street. There is probably a little more to it than that.
You have any proof (links) to any of what you appear to be supposing? Because the state officials do not see it that way and are in court because of fed activities in the state.
Again, do you have any proof of what you suppose? You are entitled to opine, but are you suggesting the mayor of Portland would be foolhardy enough to break the law while scrutinizing activities taking place for attention to local laws?
Yeah I think that's pretty weird, actually. Just shows how unattached from reality they have become. I gave this to you before, down in section 12, but I don't mind doing it again.
It's Oregon's law. You'd think they would be aware of it.
Becoming mayor of Portland - or any city - doesn't mean you are immune from doing something stupid or illegal. I'm not going to assume he's in the right just because he's the mayor, any more than we should assume the feds are right because they are feds.
I'm guessing that most likely the feds decided they had probable cause to feel that the mayor, the guy in the Navy sweatshirt - and anybody else they gas, spray, or beat - is in the act of interfering with a law enforcement officer in the process of executing his lawful duty.
It's the kind of thing that basically is the officer's call to make and it is widely abused by every level of cop. Nevertheless, it is a law in every jurisdiction that it is a crime to interfere with a cop.
Alternatively or additionally, they can decide that someone approaching them is a threat and needs to be repelled or subdued with physical force. Again, this kind of thing is abused a lot.
Okay. So you are straddling the fence now. Officer X is absolute right in every circumstance? Kind of like you feel President Trump is absolute in his authority to send Officer X on a mission to "dominate" state and local officials and citizenry?
I see you now. You are exposed for your Selecto.vision. I will conclude that Trump supporters do not give a damn about the proper use 'and spirit' of the Rule of Law.
As I told you before, that is why we have courts. Some matters were thought manageable and not needing a prescriptive law written. In Trump 'world,' it is evidenced that everything needs to be spelled out and placed in books on shelves.
Yeah, well, it's a lot easier when you don't have a political agenda that depends on the need to instantly demonize or lionize everyone in the news. I prefer to be fair.
I just said that wasn't the case. So I don't know why you are asking me that.
You seek to establish your prejudice and and employ stereotypes? I don't know what you mean by "Trump supporter" but I don't think that applies to me.
I don't remember you telling me that, but I generally endorse taking disagreements to the courts. That is why I would rather see a citizen make his case to a judge instead of getting in the way of cops.
Actually, you were.
What lead you to that ridiculous conclusion?
Yet you have no evidence that 'clearing out rioters' is part of their 'duties'. THAT question will be litigated in the very near future.
Well gee, IF the Navy vet HAD done something illegal, one would think that he would have been taken into custody after the beat him and pepper sprayed him. He didn't run, he moved across the street and sat down because he was blinded by the pepper spray. Witnesses and EMTs who treated him have stated as much. He was also taken to the hospital. So the Feds had multiple opportunities to arrest him for any action that they allege he did to warrant their attack on him. They didn't.
Since then Christopher David has been interviewed by multiple national media outlets. There is no indication that he is wanted by ANY law enforcement Agency.
So I will make a declaration, either the Feds suck at their jobs because they attacked an innocent man, or they suck at their jobs because they allowed a guilty man to walk free.
WTF does that have to do with the gray area between peaceful protest and riot?
I'm sure that you can cite the law that states it's a crime not to leave a dangerous area? I await the link.
Who said that? Not I.
Glad to see you haven't altered your MO.
Haven't read the TRO I see.
Sure I do. That is t he situation described by the acting Secretary of Homeland Security , who has given these officers their duties in Portland.
(He describes the rioters as "violent anarchists" and I take that to have the same kind of meaning.)
Do you think the officers have some other mission?
That's not necessary if he stops interfering. They probably want to arrest as few people as possible. It's more trouble to arrest a person than to just chase him away. Legally, it sounds like the officers cut him a break (and not just his bones). I wonder if he sent them his thanks.
Is that supposed to mean something? If he wanted 15 minutes of fame, it sound like he's getting it. But that doesn't tell us much about what actually happened that night.
Your declaration seems to reflect an anti-law enforcement bias. There are several possibilities beyond your simplistic feelings.
Just more of that Summer of Love thing! Just further proof of the old adage about there being none so blind as those who will not see.
How does his statement that they are there to 'protect the federal courthouse' prove that they are in Portland to 'clear out rioters'?
Really? Then why are the inflating the numbers of how many arrests they've made in Portland and elsewhere?
You posted the statute about arrests. Where is their authority to 'chase him away'? As I said, they have no jurisdiction on the streets of Portland.
Why does it matter what happened that night if all they can't be bothered to arrest 'rioters' and they just 'chase him away'?
Your comments seem to reflect an anti-civil rights bias.
My statement wasn't a feeling, it was an informed opinion.
Wrong case Tex...try harder.
You demand is not my wish, go look it up.
Seems like plain enough language to me. Maybe follow the link if it's not clear to you. Otherwise I have to assume you just don't want to face the obvious truth that has been laid out for you. Shut your eyes to reality, if it makes you happy. I'm not going to waste my time if you're going to be that deeply in denial. I notice you still offer no alternative explanation.
I have no idea if your claim is true, but I can see right away that it's irrelevant to the discussion. Officers on the street have no part in publishing numbers. Arresting someone takes them off the street and writing up reports wastes their downtime.
The legal authority of law enforcement to do things like control public spaces, declare unlawful assemblies, protect property and lives (including their own) is well known. For you to even question it is bizarre. I suggest you look up some of these laws since you seem to think they don't exist.
That's either dishonest or you aren't reading with comprehension. I have stated multiple times that the person on the street should seek redress in the courts and that I endorse that process.
You clearly lack a lot of information, as detailed above. I suggest you get educated because your comments either demonstrate a lot of ignorance or a lot of bias.
You've NEVER laid out 'truth', only twisting. . .
These thugs lives were never in danger from the peaceful protesters.
[deleted]
I did in this seed 8 hours ago.
Are you so sure? A riot was declared and he and others were told to leave the area. He did not and that is a violation if the law (that means he committed a crime). Also remember, the video does not show the entire incident only that which someone wanted you to see to create more unrest.
POSITIVE. The Navy Vet indeed committed NO CRIME
The only 'riot' was created by Barr/tRumps'/Erik Prince's thug/goon squads.
Of course the video shows the 'entire incident'
The only unrest that is being created is by tRump's goons/thugs/scum.
While the person may not have committed a physical crime, he did show a severe lack of sound judgement in that in a period high stress and tension he thought it was a good idea to approach a couple of tense federal agents to attempt to discuss the relative merits of the Constitution of The United States. While I in no way condone what was done to him, if he had shown the halfway decent judgement to avoid trying to play social justice warrior and just gone on his way, his injury might have been avoided. Like I posted above, he just picked, the wrong time, place, and people to confront. Again, not terribly smart for a Annapolis graduate.
They "Rodney King-ed" a veteran for just standing still in a vulnerable posture! It would have been easier to just hand-cuff/zip-tie him and lead him away even to a new zone and set him free.
You do that to animals, at least. /s
No, clearly the easier thing was to do what they did. Wack him with sticks until he gets the hint and leaves on his own.
The officers broke bones. So you like your vets dominated? Gotcha. Dogs and cats don't get their bones broken without someone to cry foul!
Ya think they were going for that specifically, huh?
So it would be ok if they did this to a non-vet? Gotcha.
Where did I say I liked any of this? That's pretty dumb.
Well, there was this 'two-hander' clubbing, and that 'geyser' of pepper spray in the face and eyes. So, yes t-they decided to 'going after that.' Actually, you don't appear delegated to anything other than the feds in this. It's an observation.
No it isn't. It's bias.
Prove it.
The founders codified our right to petition our government for redress. There is NO wrong time, place or people to do so.
So your 'high' expectations of Federal Agents is to do the 'easiest thing' and commit illegal assault.
I reject your low standards. The government cannot claim their mission is law and order and then violate the law.
Very true, plus the fact that I doubt we are getting the whole story here anyway. We are probably only getting what the liberal mainstream media wants us to get. It sells more that way.
Testing them how? By standing there? So he deserved to get his hand broken in two places and pepper sprayed in the face?
So what would you say if you were beaten with batons and your hand was broken in two places, oh and pepper sprayed in the face?
A smart person would not have been standing there in the first place!
Those 'sticks' were batons and they broke his hand in two places.
Whatever 'doc' . . . . [Deleted]
You have zero clue what I do or do not have, so don't try to preach to me. You have not walked in my shoes or served like I have. So save your condescending attitude for somebody who cares. I already stated previously that I in no way condoned what was done to him but he also had a hand in bringing it upon himself. And as far as empathy, I just have very little for stupid people, veteran or not!
[Deleted]
Brought it on himself . . . got it. . . by just standing there . . . got it!
[Deleted]
Anger? Not even close. I save real anger for those that deserve it. That was just a minor irritation on my part to somebody making a feeble attempt to bait me.
One can't 'look up' an undocumented fantasy.
[Deleted. Enough, tessy. Further personal comments will result in points toward suspension.]
No, he doesn't.
Yet there are those who are compelled to stand up for the Constitution when the see it being violated by those who swore an oath to uphold it.
There are also those of us who believe that it takes courage to do so.
Then there are those who can't or won't acknowledge their right and duty to do so.
"Yet there are those who are compelled to stand up for the Constitution when the see it being violated by those who swore an oath to uphold it.
There are also those of us who believe that it takes courage to do so.
Then there are those who can't or won't acknowledge their right and duty to do so. "
It did indeed take a lot of courage to stand up to Barr/tRumps'/Erik Prince's paramilitary thugs/goons and look what he got for it. . . isn't it appalling how some say he got what deserved, that he was stupid, that he was asking for it?
What point?
I presume that in your scenario, Federal Agents are the 'dog foaming at the mouth' and that admits that our government has devolved to an unacceptable level.
The founders of this country threw 'common sense' to the wind when they stood up to the most powerful military in the world and put everything on the line. Christopher David did his small part in emulating them.
Little enough.
Yet to make that argument you have to try to conflate Federal and State law enforcement.
You acknowledged the statute that documents Federal police powers. That statute also LIMITS those powers.
It's bizarre to champion the powers delineated in a statute while ignoring the limitations it also contains.
Trump, who claims to be all about 'law and order' has sent Federal Agents who have violated the Constitution in American cities. There has already been a TRO issued against the Feds in Portland because of their targeting of the press and legal observers. The Feds have already violated that TRO.
Federal Agents have NO authority to issue a dispersal order [unlawful assemble] unless and until the POTUS declares Martial law.
I suggest YOU look up the Constitution.
Money damages do NOTHING to regress the violation to Christopher David's civil rights.
As the Judge noted in the TRO I sited yesterday:
So as much you may think that money is the answer to everything, the Court recognizes that it isn't.
I refuted the 'details' above with FACTS.
I'm not the one exhibiting ignorance in this 'discussion'.
As I said, my comments are are based on informed opinion and documented FACTS.
Where did I make that claim? Cite the # of the comment.
Yep, we did. As far as the taunting it's all they have left at this point.
You are making a lot of wild claims but don't support them.
So you are admitting ignorance on your part.
Really? So your comment:
Should be read to mean you would not walk up to a rioter and pet one because it's your have a right to do so?
That makes NO SENSE and strikes me as a weak attempt to justify your comment.
No, you didn't.
Dulay supports all of his claims with facts.
All you have is supposition.
Nah ..... Dulay's comments are usually rife with just opinions.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Do you deny that the statute you acknowledge both documents and limits federal police power?
Do you deny that a Federal Judge has issued a TRO that documents MULTIPLE First Amendment violations by Federal Agents?
Surely you can't deny that I supported that the courts have ruled that the loss of First Amendment rights "unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury". The court decision is cited in my comment.
So what 'wild claims' are you talking about? Please be specific.
Oh and BTFW, speaking of making 'wild claims', I'm STILL waiting, after 2 days, for you to support this comment:
So you are intentionally misrepresenting my comment.
This from the guy that posted comment #12 and refused to support it.
Yah, Dulay always supports himself with facts.
I've never seen you support yourself with facts, ever. Just opinions, nothing more, nothing less.
Just saving myself some time.
I'll say no and ask if you have proof they didn't. You'll come up with some unsubstantiated first person hearsay or some other irrational opinion to "prove" they didn't and back and forth it would go. Nah, not really that interested in that goat rodeo.
Not at all but suffice it to say, they weren't there for a dance or a question and answer session with the ring knocker ....
Nope, not even close. He injects opinions all the time. Because you simply happen to agree with them, does not automatically make them facts
Wrong again. I use facts all the time. That you possibly don't like them, doesn't automatically make them just opinions.
Strike three ... you're out.
Yet you seem to have had all the time in the world to criticize my comments in back door comments to another member.
No to what and proof they didn't what? Here is the question you decided to save time on:
From your #12 thread:
You didn't answer, yet you've been back to this seed since.
Wow, that's a pretty hypocritical statement considering the fact that you failed to substantiate YOUR claim.
Again, they didn't WHAT Sparty? Be specific.
What RULES were you talking about Sparty?
Actually I refute opinions with facts all the time. This seed is evidence of that.
Now, what RULES?
Get it?
No, it's nonsense.
So what?
Like anyone else here i respond how, when and where i want. And you've got nothing to say about that
Learn to deal it that .... you'll be much happier.
Of course it does WHAT?
Are you actually trying to say that it makes sense that you meant not to pet protesters? That claim lacks all credulity.
Yes, I can clearly see just how 'violent' Christopher David was.
The 'dumb asses' that violated the law are the Federal Agents that physically attacked an American citizen practicing his First Amendment right to free speech.
My argument is a STRONG attempt to side with the Constitution and the law.
Over and over again in this seed, members have defended Federal Agents violation of the Constitution under the pretense that it is somehow justified in the name of law and order.
With that comes tyranny.
You alleged that Christopher David committed a crime yet refused to support your claim. Instead you made another FALSE allegation that there was a riot at the time.
I've asked multiple members to support their claim that Federal Agents have authority to 'clear out rioters' and after days, not one member has cited evidence of such authority. You repeating that falsehood doesn't make it any more true.
I've also asked multiple members to support their claim that the protesters were given a lawful order to disperse and AGAIN, not one even attempted to support those claims.
It is my posit that the Federal Agents [or ANY law enforcement agency for that matter] are precluded by the Constitution from violating the civil rights of protesters and that their failed attempt at hiding behind the pretense of 'law and order' is a loosing argument. The Federal TRO bolsters that posit.
Over the years I have shed blood on the streets of 2 cities in the fight for civil rights so I already KNOW how I feel.
In my experience, every person who participates in a protest understands the possible consequences.
BTFW, the vast majority of the documented injuries are to protesters, the press and legal observers. and they are caused by law enforcement.
Get it?
Therefore, your future comments should be viewed as lacking all credulity.
Yes, mostly because my position is based on facts and yours seems to be based on false scenarios.
LEGALLY Kathleen.
That's the option that the Federal Agents have failed to take in almost every case.
Your choice, i view much of your stuff in the very same manner.
C'est la vie eh?
I HAVE been more specific in the last THREE DAYS by pointing out the Federal Agents violations of the Constitution.
LEGALLY is how I would handle the situation.
A Judge issued an TRO to the Portland Police and Oregon state. They stipulated to the Judge's findings, agreed to comply and have managed to figure out how to 'handle the situation' LEGALLY. In the subsequent TRO issued to the Federal Agencies, the Judge stated that their argument that Constitutional First Amendment rights were too much of a burden to follow failed because Portland law enforcement has done so for over 2 weeks.
Yet have invariably been incapable of making a cogent argument to support your view. It's SO much easier to express your views about ME than to address my comments or support your own claims.
Nah, i've good arguments not to discuss things with you. That you don't LIKE them is your problem not mine
What part of LEGALLY don't you understand Kathleen?
This from the member, who after 2 days has yet to cite the law that states it's a crime not to leave a dangerous area.
That has been answered. Meanwhile, you have continually refused to answer questions put to you or cite anything specific supporting the wild claims you have made.
Multiple people have asked this question multiple times. We are never going to get an answer.
Cite the comment #.
All you need do is answer this question :
Oh and while you are at it how about answering the other questions I asked?
If you could play in my ballpark Kathleen, you would have acknowledged that I answered you question the FIRST time.
The same way the Portland police are now required to do. Arrest the people who violate the law and allow those peacefully protesting to continue to do so.
Not to me they haven't.
Join the club.
Oh and BTW, YOU still did not answer my question.
Whoosh, right over your head.
You can disagree all you want but the FACT is that Federal Agents do NOT have the authority to order people to clear a public street. PERIOD, full stop.
Can you cite the law that states it's a crime not to leave a dangerous area?
I answered your questions, THREE TIMES.
It's more than either of you can say.
It is if the area is deemed dangerous, and you are told to disperse, and you don't, you are breaking the law.
I thought you were an expert internet (fill in the blank), so it is surprising you don't know this.
Well first of all bugsy, Oregon isn't North Carolina.
Second of all, Federal Agents do NOT have the authority to shut down a public street or to issue a dispersal order. That is the jurisdiction of the local LEOs. The TRO that I sited DAYS ago states that fact quite clearly. Go read it.
No, the local LEOs have jurisdiction. All the Feds need do is work in collaboration with them and request that they issue the order, instead of violating the Constitution.
Doesn't matter where you are. If LEO tells you to disperse, you disperse, or you get arrested. Every state has this law.
Also, Dulay, it was pointed out to you in 1.3.37 that federal agents have jurisdiction over areas OUTSIDE of federal property, including streets and sidewalks, in order to keep the peace.
I'm going to step into one of your roles as expert internet (fill in the blank), and it is cite, not site.
You're welcome and good evening.
There's no indication anywhere on these thugs/goons that they are law enforcement officers. There is no difference between these goons and the armed extremists who are escalating peaceful protests into riots like Barr/tRumps' thugs/goons.
You are 100% incorrect as usual.
Dulay is 100% correct as usual and backs up all his statements with FACTS.
My god, how uninformed you are.
How do you keep from tripping over your own shadow?
How about showing us some.
I'm still waiting for you to provide facts on anything.
Are you NOW claiming that Federal Agents are calling the police?
Oh it sure as fuck DOES matter where you are.
Yet ONLY State or local LEO's have the authority to issue a dispersal order on the streets. It's that 10th Amendment thingy bugsy. The Feds can clear you out of their building but they can't make you 'clear off' of a street.
NOWHERE in 1.3.37 does it say a fucking word about keeping the peace OR that the Feds have 'jurisdiction' over ANYTHING. Just stop and perhaps learn to read a fucking statute.
When ordered by local LEO's in NC.
Nope, you just don't like my answers.
Oh? What was that?
The Department of Homeland Security says they do have authority.
"At 1:10 a.m. local time federal officers were forced to go outside of the fence perimeter to repel rioters’ attacks. They were immediately met with a large mortar firework attack. They also came under an intense laser attack while outside the perimeter.
While outside the courthouse perimeter, per authority granted by federal law, officers swept a nearby park for weapons being used to damage federal property and attacks on their fellow officers. During the sweep chemical sprayers, gas cans, spike strips, and paint were found."
So they didn't find the mortars?
Seriously, just because the DHS says they have an authority doesn't mean they do. All their losses in court should have proved that to any thinking person long ago.
[deleted]
Wise words .......
If you say so...
Like some others here posting here on NT now, there are those who are absolutely convinced they are right no matter what and have to verbally attack those that disagree with their polotical viewpoints even down to having to have the last word no matter what. I am not perfect and I make mistakes and will apologize when someone proves me wrong. Others that I described above would rather chew on a mouthful of maggots rather that admit they could be wrong and admit it. Both very sad and amusing at the same time.
That is your opinion only, not fact. As I stated elsewhere, Federal Agents are in fact duly appointed Law Enforcement Officers no matter how much you wish otherwise. Deal with it.
Oh so YOU didn't like MY question.
No, I think your comment was not only funny but ridiculous.
See the difference?
You know that everyone can see that you continued posting replies to me right?
If one is told to leave a area that is deemed dangerous by a law enforcement officer, one can be charged with obstruction of justice if they do not. Plain and simple.
Yep - What they did is bullshit! He was not being violent in any way, nor was he advancing toward them as far as we can see in this video. Those officers should be made to answer for what they did. Such Federal officers should have strict rules of engagement which most certainly do not include beating or pepper spraying those who aren't being violent, destructive of the facilities/people they are charged to protect, or threatening. This dude should sue them for violating his civil rights and causing him injury. No doubt about that.
Not sure how one jumps from a few federal officers violating a man's civil rights to a sweeping generalization about a whole group of people hating the Constitution or other American people, but I suppose I understand the tendency to lash out. But isn't it clear from this story that when we generalize about large groups of people some will tend to lash out, sometimes violently? Clearly that's what these cops did, figuring this guy was just like all the others shouting and throwing things at them in an attempt to damage the facilities they were asked to protect. Do we learn from this and hold those who act out violently accountable, or do we simply double down on the generalizing/stereotyping and throw more gasoline on the fire?
Go back and read the comments from the trump supporters on this thread. I think that should address your puzzlement.
What? All 3 or 4 of them? And what did they say specifically that indicates that they hate the Constitution or worse hate the American people as was claimed above? Perhaps they are defending the Federal officers for doing their job in protecting a federal building from the destruction that was illegally planned, and who were clearly being assaulted by the others in the crowd in that and other videos. But that doesn't indicate a hatred for the Constitution nor hatred for the American people. So no it doesn't address my puzzlement. Give me a reason for jumping to such a conclusion about all Trump supporters and we can discuss.
I don't even know how to respond to your comment. I'm imagining you as a very flexible individual the way you are twisting your explanation all over the place to justify an act of unnecessary brutality.
Clearly.
Really? I am twisting? Did you read my comment 1.3 above? If it went down as indicated in that video I very clearly said that those officers should be held accountable for what they have done, just as the officer who shot the protester in the head the night before with the rubber bullet injuring him critically. Even if they were there as the law allows/requires to protect Federal property and personnel, which they were , they still need to conduct themselves as officers of the law and avoid unnecessary force. What we have seen in these two instances, at least with the video evidence so far, appears to be excessive force against those not posing an immediate danger or threat to Federal property or personnel. And those officers should be held accountable. How might I make that clear enough for you?
I don't care if a few others here appear to be defending the officers beyond that, it still does not justify what the officers did, nor the leap to the conclusion (the "twisting" if you prefer) that they or any other Trump supporters hate the Constitution or other Americans. Again, give me a reason for jumping to such a conclusion about all Trump supporters and I'd be happy to discuss. That is my only point, and I find it interesting that you can't or won't justify that accusation, but yet felt compelled to falsely accuse me of trying to justify the police brutality. Why don't you want to have an honest discussion about this?
Friend Freewill, Donald Trump supports the citizenry being roughed up and injured. Remember, Trump is in-charge of the federal government and he likes to threaten people with conforming or being roughly man-handled ('move your hand away when putting them in the back of the car, don't protect their heads').
We have enough commentary about this kind of activity from Donald Trump to understand he complies, respects, and amplifies those who use rough street justice in the moment.
Since no one but you stated 'all Trump supporters' why ask anyone to defend it?
The original question asked by FlyNavy1 in comment 1 was:
Do you see a determiner, adjective, anything of the sort? Some, many, a few....no? Then you tell me what it means. By the way, that part of his comment was actually deleted by a mod as a sweeping generalization, so I suppose I was not the only one to read it that way.
But thanks for weighing in.
Well it sure as fuck doesn't mean 'all'.
That makes two of you.
You can count on it whenever I see a member misrepresent what another member posted.
Yeah, clear as mud as these thugs were the only ones acting violently when these peaceful protesters were unarmed and non-violent.
What thugs do this kind of thing, 'figuring just guy was just like all the others'
Makes no goddamned sense whatsoever.
These thugs were only there to throw gasoline on the fire.
ALSO, THESE THUGS WEREN'T COPS.
What federal buildings or property was being damaged? NONE.
The Mark Hatfield Federal Court House building. The rioters have vandalized it, have thrown rocks and bottles at it and have attempted to set it on fire.
You are kidding right?
One would need to be purposefully ignoring the facts and reality not to acknowledge this.
Oh for fuck sakes! Have you watched any of the news coverage? Have you seen the buildings? Have you seen the pelting of the officers with all manner of projectiles, firing fireworks at and into the buildings, starting fires, aiming lasers that can blind people at the officers, destroying fences around the buildings? Honestly how in the hell can anyone in their right mind say that the cops were the only ones acting violently?
This is the bullshit that has to stop. This intellectual dishonesty is not helping the situation any more than Trump’s dumbass tweets and highly partisan rhetoric. Sanity has flown the coop. People have lost their minds, especially the politicians who are bent on nothing more than destroying and belittling each other rather than putting their heads together for real change. The focus should be on building stronger communities not burning them down.
Excellent! I’ll look you up the next time someone does that to me here. Happens all the time. I’m sure I can count on your support.
Of course I misrepresented nothing in this case and merely asked how such a conclusion was reached given the first part of the initial comment. Is it my question that bothered you? Why?
that is the game they play....
one minute they got it all figured and then suddenly they pretend to have no clue what is going on.
I no longer reply to the brain dead. they are not worth the time.
Yet the DOJ/DHS have argued in Federal court that past THEIR past actions do not predict what actions they will take in the future. Why would they then assume protesters would repeat past actions?
Oh and BTFW, Christopher David did NONE of that. Punishing him for the actions of others is NOT lawful.
One would need to be purposefully ignoring the fact that the sidewalk outside of the courthouse is NOT federal property to claim that the Feds have jurisdiction.
Where did you ask that question FW? I see your statements but no question on that topic.
Since I see no question, NO.
Not having a proper permit might cause some protests to be be shut down with strong local response but not others, Seems one side gets watched much more closely with extra enforcement standing by
My statement is not an 'assumption', it's a fact of jurisprudence.
Does that include opposing the illegal deployment of federal agents on the streets of America?
The protesters in Portland are on a PUBLIC street, NO permit necessary.
Umm.. That's not how that works.
OF course you need a permit to obstruct public streets.
Yes, again, clear as mud.
So do the Feds have a permit to obstruct public streets with their barricades? The protesters sure as hell didn't erect them.
Why are tRump supporters so angry for Heaven's sake?
[deleted]
Although I did not place a question mark at the end of my sentence in 1.3 I did make it clear that I was wondering how he concluded that Trump supporters hated the Constitution and the American people from his previous paragraph. I clarified what I was asking in subsequent comments complete with the requisite question marks. I’ve been clear and consistent in my questions and comments.
I’ve also been clear in this and other threads that I am not a fan or supporter of Trump and his assinine rhetoric yet those like Tessy continue to insist on calling me one. Look no further than those comments from her and others for intellectual dishonesty and lack of answers to reasonable questions.
Already provided the link in 1.3.4 above regarding the law and jurisdiction.
.
Trying do this via phone. Hope link works for you.
Thanks for finally admitting that there was no question to be bothered about.
Since the sidewalk outside of the courthouse is NOT federal property, it should be obvious to any thinking person that the link that you cited is irrelevant.
LOL!!! Have a nice day in your universe Dulay. I truly do wish you the best.
I doubt you have proof it is not federal property (another wild claim with no support). But even it isn't federal property, the federal officers almost certainly have jurisdiction over the area as well as the streets surrounding it.
40 U.S. Code § 1315. Law enforcement authority of Secretary of Homeland Security for protection of public property
"ALSO, THESE THUGS WEREN'T COPS."
Wrong! As Federal Agents, they are in fact Law Enforcement Officers. So yes, they are in fact COPS so deal with it!
I've already said that issue is in litigation. Try to keep up.
I already pointed out that they failed to even attempt to arrest the Navy vet. Harping on that point is ludicrous.
What pray tell were they investigating when they beat and pepper sprayed Christopher David?
Well they sure as hell ARE 'increasing public awareness' of the machinations of the DHS, et al, I'll give them that.
Oh baloney. You have been going on and on about how illegal the activities of these officers are and how certain and obvious it is. In actual fact, what they are doing is supported both by Oregon and Federal law (I have linked both now in this seed), which it is pretty clear you didn't know about beforehand.
At least you finally admit that you don't know. Although you sure seemed happy to reach legal conclusions in spite of your ignorance.
You're the one harping on it. I only pointed you to the law so that you might finally understand these officers have the same powers as any regular cop. Regular cops discourage criminal activity every day (sometimes with physical force) without necessarily arresting the person - especially in a riot situation. If you truly think that is out of the ordinary, you know next to nothing about police work.
None of that is to say that what happened to this specific individual was the correct and proper thing. That probably remains to be determined.
But your complaints have gone way beyond that to say that these federal officers have no business being where they are, or trying to do the things they are doing. You accuse them of violating the Constitution, the law, and their legal authority. The point of showing you the law is to show you how wrong that is.
Oh baloney. I read the statute that you linked two fucking weeks ago while reviewing an article.
I have already refuted your mistaken interpretation of the statute and I supported it by quoting portions of the TRO issued by a Federal Judge on 7/23/20.
I have also pointed out to you that their police powers to arrest are MOOT because they failed to arrest him, yet you keep beating that dead horse.
Really? So 'regular cops' are limited to arrests for FELONY crimes that they WITNESS?
Who knew?
A Federal Judge ruled that they WERE indeed violating the Constitution, the law AND their legal authority.
Permanent restraining orders are yet to be fully litigated, as is the suit brought by the state.
Why do you cite to something that's irrelevant? All the TRO did was restrict the amount of force that can be used against legal observers and journalists. That has nothing to do with how officers respond to the people they see violating the law or to random idiots who approach them when they are trying to manage a rioting crowd.
The legal observers, by the way, are supposed to wear special hats or vests. Journalists have media identification to identify them. None of that is relevant to anything we have been talking about, so stop citing it. It makes your argument sound ridiculous.
You keep misstating things. Is it on purpose or are you just being negligent? I have not talked about them arresting anyone. I have pointed out to you a couple of times now that you are the one who keeps bringing it up. You're obsessed with whether or not they arrested him.
I even clarified that I was not concerned about powers to arrest but police powers in general. I am repeating it here again. But by continually misstating what I have said, you create a strawman. I get it though. Perhaps it's the only way you can hope to prevail with what has been a losing position from the beginning.
And here is another strawman from you:
You attributed something to me I never said so you could mock it. I don't know if the rest of us should be disgusted or pity you.
If you are talking about your irrelevant TRO again, that's not what TROs do. A judge issuing a TRO isn't interpreting the law and making a ruling on it. TROs are emergency measure pending actual rulings from actual hearings.
The TROs do far more. Your inability to understand the motivation and effect of the restrictions in both TRO's makes YOUR argument ridiculous.
The fact that both local LEOs and Federal Agents are now restricted from targeting and dispersing the press and legal observers with the abandon they argued for in court is significant. Ensuring access and the safety of the press and legal observers not only protects them but also protects protesters by ensuring that there is documentation of the actions of local LEOs and Federal Agents. The Judge made that clear in the TROs. The arguments made by the Feds in favor of giving them carte blance to violate First Amendment rights proves that they sure as hell think that any restriction on their actions is indeed significant.
Oh and BTFW, ALL of the Plaintiff's in the TRO were CLEARLY identified as either press or legal observers and were INTENTIONALLY targeted by Federal Agents.
What utter bullshit. I haven't misstated anything. There is evidence throughout this seed that you HAVE been talking about Federal Agents having the authority to make arrests and used it in an attempt to bolster your position.
When questioned about the Feds authority to 'enforce the law' YOU chose to cite the statute on ARREST authorities of Federal Agents, MULTIPLE times, and YOU highlighted the 'make arrests' section in that statute in bold .
I have merely continued to make the point that YOUR obsession with Federal Agents ARREST powers is IRRELEVANT since they did NOT take advantage of that power in this case.
You stated:
I asked you a question to point out to you that 'regular cops' are NOT restricted by the very statute you hang your hat on. Your comments continue to highlight the authorities while failing to acknowledge the RESTRICTIONS contained in law.
Regular cops have MUCH MORE authority in their localities than Federal Agents. PERIOD, full stop.
There you go, right into your ad hominem attack MO.
Thank you for your uninformed and unfounded legal analysis.
Federal standards for justifying a TRO:
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction generally must show that: (1) he or she is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he or she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his or her favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.
EVERY one of those standards require an 'interpretation of the law' and a ruling on the facts of the case by the Judge.
Oh and BTFW, an ACTUAL hearing WAS conducted and oral arguments were heard by the Judge prior to the TRO being issued.
Anyone who had actually read the fucking TRO against the Feds would KNOW the above FACTS.
For the millionth time, we are talking about some doofus in a Navy sweatshirt and his interaction with federal officers. As an extension to that, we have addressed your ridiculous claims abut how the feds have no business enforcing the law or even being on the sidewalk. The TRO has nothing to do with that. Stop citing to it. It's irrelevant.
Something you have mentioned multiple times and in spite of being asked for specifics several times, you haven't mentioned any restriction relevant to the discussion except for invented ones about the sidewalk.
You keep saying this but it is apparently a red herring. I'd ask you to support it, but 1) I don't think you would and 2) it's irrelevant because federal agents have all the authority they need to do what they are doing.
You are the last person who is in a position to complain about that.
This was not the discussion. You claimed first of all that the TRO was relevant to the discussion and we have clearly established that it does not. Then you said the judge made a ruling. That has not happened. A TEMPORARY Restraining Order has been granted. It's temporary pending the full hearing. TROs are absurdly easy to obtain because most of the time they do no harm and arguably prevent some potential harm. But NO ONE was arguing about whether or not the TRO was justified. No one. You are arguing something no one cares about.
You keep going on and on about a TRO that has no connection to the seed and you keep treating it as if it is some kind of final legal decision. It is not either one of those things. What a waste of time!
What an utter load of bullshit. I NEVER said that the feds have no business enforcing the law or even being on the sidewalk.
Lying about my comments is all you've got.
Carry on.
You:
Hmmm. Also you:
Also you :
And you keep making this nonsense claim even though I pointed you to a federal law stating:
Meaning: YES, they can kick your ass off the street if they think they need to to protect federal property. And your claim that they lack jurisdiction to kick people off of streets and sidewalks is 100% flat out wrong.
Thanks for proving that you can't provide any evidence that I EVER said that the feds have no business enforcing the law or even being on the sidewalk.
Thanks for finally admitting that the feds are totally authorized and justified in doing what they are are doing where they are doing it. Maybe now we have finally heard the end of pointless whining over federal officers doing their job.
Lying about my comments is all you've got.
BTW..... Fox is reporting it too.....!
I read the Washington Post's article on this. The the Trump Secret Police broke the guy's hand in 2 places. Setting a mask mandate is a step too far, but cheering this blatantly illegal use of federal law enforcement is perfectly fine with many Trump Humpers.
Was that necessary?
He was a single person-- there were several of them so they outnumbered him,
They were armed with batons-- he was unarmed.
He was not threatening them.
They were obviously using excessive force (breaking bones)....
Hopefully he will file a lawsuit.
Thats a no brainer:
Yeah, well they had probably just gotten through telling him to leave the area or he would be hit with a baton and pepper sprayed. That's usually how these things go.
Because these officers don't set policy and it's not their job to engage in a legal debate with people they are trying to clear out of an area.
I cannot believe anyone is excusing the behavior of these officers...
Oh wait, never mind.
Just another in a long line of suits against the US Marshals.
I can't speak for others, but my intent is not to excuse anything in particular. If you don't approve of the way cops break up illegal gatherings or riots, I think there is a conversation to be had about how best to do that. In the meantime, we have laws to enforce and cops are trained to enforce them in a certain way. Sometimes that results in things we aren't comfortable watching.
I mean everybody know that cops are equipped with guns and batons. What do people think they use them for? Deer hunting?
Did this guy deserve to be beaten? Perhaps not, but he certainly could have avoided it.
You know how many times a day, when a cop is trying to enforce the law or restore order, he has some person claim they "just want to ask a question?" In a setting like this, it's almost guaranteed to be bullshit. If you really have a question, try asking that cop's supervisor in his office - not out in the street with tear gas blowing around and a riot going on.
And Americans exercising their right to peaceful assembly are equipped with the U.S. Constitution. LEO's of all persuasion need to have that burned into their characters.
You enforce those rights in a court of law - not by interfering with law enforcement officers at work.
Yeah, but..........
How many of these protests stay peaceful when the full aim of the demonstrators is to riot and cause trouble and attack innocent citizens and local police?
Most people in this country support law enforcement. Remember that come election day.
"not by interfering with law enforcement officers at work."
You mean the gestapo?
Bull..... The right to assembly is already predetermined, and requires no court of law to exercise, as does free speech, and the right to bear arms.
I'll support the officers over the moronic decision of some putz walking up to police during unlawful activities without a second thought.
Veteran or not, Chris David make a real dumb decision and paid the price.
I see, so you think we can do away with courts where our rights have historically been enforced.
But do you really think that a conversation here on NT will have any significant effect on policy?
Maybe. Maybe it will spawn some good ideas and somebody will call their mayor, governor, or congressman with a proposal. My point was that confronting a cop while he is in the act of dispersing a crowd (particularly if he isn't hurting anybody yet) is probably not the smartest or most effective way to get something done about it.
You know better than that Tacos..... the courts have no endemic enforcement arm. Their job is to settle disputes through the legal process, determine guilt, assign punishment, and in some cases determine validity of laws or challenges to laws using the US Constitution as it's lens.
So you're all in on allowing police to violate peoples rights and then maybe scolding them later. Sorry, the police have to follow the Constitution, or we are what many want us to become..... a banana republic.
As you defend mob violence... That's funny.
Or else what? You'll personally kick some ass?
Are you kidding Tacos? There is no "Or else" when it comes to the constitution
Are you telling me you won't stand up for your rights under the constitution, or even consider defending the document?
And FYI...... The surrounding VFWs are working to organize veterans groups to go to Chicago to oppose Trumps goon squads if they show up there. How do you think that is going to look on the Five O'clock news? Unarmed vets, peacefully protesting being attacked by these jackbooted thugs?
You are way on the wrong side of this argument Tacos. I strongly recommend some self reflection.
No, and if that's what you think, then you haven't been paying attention. I pick my fights in the courtroom, though. I'm not retarded enough to try and pick a fight with an armed cop on the street who is trying to clear out a riot. You have to have your head deeply up your ass to pull a stunt like that.
You keep misrepresenting my argument, which makes me think you either don't understand it, or you're just here to argue.
I asked you a question. Are you going to answer it or not?
Oh, the irony.
What, your question in 5.1.15?
If you were to care.... it looks as thought the suburban Chicago VFWs are coordinating a protest with our intercity brothers if and when the Trump Stormtroopers show up in Chicago. So yes, we are going to take an active part in defending the constitution rather that hiding in courtrooms.
And for your information those of us that you claim to have "our heads up our asses" have always been willing to walk the walk when it comes to defending the US Constitution rather than just talking. If things evolve, I'll be sure to send you pictures from the front so you can view them from the safety of your couch.
The same suburban VFWs that boycotted NFL games on TV over the disrespect to the flag are going to join with communist groups hoping to overthrow the US and attack police and federal marshals?
Interesting.
You won't be sending shit because you'll be dead.
That's where shit actually gets done. Pick up a paper or a history book.
Well Sean..... the beating of a vet at the hands of some unidentified paramilitary types does tend to open minds when the country is at stake. You might try it.
And you can stick that communist overthrow crap where the sun don't shine.
So what..... defending the constitution from those that would take it away from the people is something I swore an oath to in the early 80's. Now is as good a time to fulfill that oath as any.
There is an Indian phrase that Kavika and 1st taught me years ago..... "Today is a good day to die." look up it's meaning and learn from it
So which innocent people will these suburban VFW's hurt in the name of justice for the Vet in Portland?
that communist overthrow crap where the sun don't shin
Oh, right. I forgot paternalistic whites don't take what minorities say seriously. It's okay to ignore them and let you tell us what they "really" mean when they call for the abolition of the US.
Nah.... we will be exercising our right to free speech and the right to assemble, nothing more.
It the LEO's get out of line and start attacking us..... we'll get hurt of course, but how is that going to look on the five-O'clock news? The more violence dished out by this administration, especially when vets are concerned, will be another nail Trump's coffin. You just don't screw with vets.
Let's see what happens. This may become nothing more than a bluff by Trump to be lapped up by his followers. Maybe the message that vets are in opposition to his deployments will be enough to stop the deployment by both sides.
What you think we're stupid enough to go in with ax-handles?
Nope, the current word, armed with the right of peaceful assembly and free speech we plan to put ourselves in harm's way. Considering there are only to be 150 of the Storm troopers, and there are around 15,000 VFW members in the area we should be able keep things cool and move them towards some federal building they are suppose to be protecting. even if only a tenth of us show up.... we'll still be 10 to 1 in numbers.
Are you calling us thugs? You think we want a violent confrontation? No.... none of us do, but what they did to that veteran yesterday in Portland cannot go unanswered.
Considering even the cop hating mayor of Chicago has no problem with the feds being there to help, why do you?
we plan to put ourselves in harm's way.
So you going to Englewood and protecting kids?
obviously, exercise your right to protest, but try and pay attention to what your fellow travelers are actually doing. Hurling racial slurs at blacks, threatening to rape kids, threatening reporters etc and that’s If it’s a peaceful protest. Not my cup of tea, but to each their own.
I didn't know just standing there was a reason to be hauled off the street and not identifying who is hauling you off the street and thrown in jail without being told why.
non ferrous meddling came immediately to mind after reading 'you're just here to argue' !
You are implying, most definietely, that until YOU see the exercising of their rights to free speech and assembly, that the VETERANS will turn their 'peaceful protests' into violent protesters, due to "Too many" turned violent protests in the past ! Which past protests did veterans turn into thug beating police attacking Riots ???
Do word games amuse you ? Asz, eye could C me helping you to knot sea, what delves in the deeper depths of my oh shunned and fore gun conclusion, causes worth fighting for, are just that, and this Germanesk type militia sounds to me to be pretty close to the damn ACTUAL PURPOSE OF/FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT, as all of the normal tough gun toting folk, seem to have shot themselves in their soles, and right through their tongues, quite D Feat.
Unlawful activities?
You mean peaceful protesters?
What is this? Please elaborate.
An American citizen is not compelled to follow unlawful orders.
It IS their job to judge whether they are upholding their oath to the Constitution.
Again, Federal Agents have NO authority to 'clear out an area' over which they have NO jurisdiction. They do not have jurisdiction over the PUBLIC streets of ANY American city.
Gee, I wonder why Oregon wasn't Able to succeed with that argument before a federal judge, since you seem to think it’s so cut and dried.
Oregon was found not to have standing in the case.
The suit brought by the INDEX NEWSPAPERS LLC et. al DID succeed and the Judge shot down EVERY argument that the Feds made. The Judges TRO states in part:
And:
Oh boy they drew first blood this could get ugly.
Lol ..... nice one!
NO, it's stupid.
? a stupid nice one...
Nah, it's still nice one, regardless of what the afflicted say.
No, it is and always will be, stupid.
Cool, which means i'm spot on once again.
As always, thanks for the input.
Aren't people wise to the M.O. yet? Protesters try to provoke assaults by cops and then release videos that conveniently start after the provocation is complete. Then they get to play "victim" which is victory in oppression Olympics. Maybe everyone should wait until the investigation is complete before starting the hysterics? How many times do you have to be burned?
. I notice the same people so upset by this have been awfully quiet about the hundreds of polices officers who've been shot at, had Molotov cocktails thrown at them etc... But I suppose if they couldn't be bothered to
give two shits that an eight year old girl sitting in a car who was killed by "peaceful protesters," asking them to oppose the attempted murder of cops is way too much to ask.
And the simple minded sheep can then expose their faux rage. You don't see leftwing apologist condemning these groups for burning down peoples businesses.
What I see is the cement headed conservatives that can't fathom that the entire cause of these protests was police brutality to start with, and their only answer is more public brutality at the hands of law enforcement.
Where are your complaints when "peaceful protesters" attack an actual peaceful demonstration to support police, like in Denver yesterday?
You are awfully quiet about protests being stopped, unless the "protesters" are trying to destroy a federal courthouse.
I'll let you guess which came first Sean.... Police brutality of citizens, or citizens protesting police brutality.
I'll let you guess which came first rule by the mob, or the police.
Here's a first person account of a protest where 100 cops protected the cop hating mayor of Chicago (while dozens of citizens were shot):
So my team rotated in the line. Why? To protect the mental well being of the officers. . One of the officers was black, he took the worst of the insults since, in the eyes of the protesters, he was a “sell out”, “uncle tom”, “coon”, etc... Funny how openly racist white BLM protesters are.
The agitators turned to me. hurling the usual abuse. Then they used our badges to look on the internet for personal information about the officers, which they yelled to the crowd with bullhorns. Finally one agitator made yelled “you know what this world needs? I do. I’m going to go to this white shirts house and rape his daughter! I’m going to darken up his bloodline!”
There were cheers from the crowd at this statement... that someone wanted to commit a rape...
I guess you've picked your side....
Here's more detail on the "peaceful protests" none of our constitutional defenders seem to care about, where 49 cops were hurt,
"Officials said the six-minute compilation video released by the Chicago Police Department shows demonstrators dressed in black using umbrellas to shield themselves while hurling frozen water bottles and cans, rocks, explosives and other items at officers. In the video, many officers retreat behind the statue or hold up riot shields during the incident.
Protesters hid behind the umbrellas and banners to change into black clothing, police said. The footage also captures people distributing items to throw at police, while others used sharpened PVC pipe to stab officers, officials said.
Forty nine police officers were injured, including one with a broken eye socket and another who had a broken kneecap.including one with a broken kneecap and one with a broken eye socket :
And George Floyd was murdered on 25MAY20.... 23 days prior to your posted video.
Brianna Taylor was murdered on 13MAR20..... three months prior to that video
So thanks for providing the benchmark Sean....... The police violence against citizens most definitely PREDATES the demonstrations and the riots.
This has gone way beyond George Floyd and Brianna Taylor. The CONTINUING rioting and mob violence against peaceful citizens and especially the tactics being used against cops are beyond the pale, and should be put down...by the Feds if necessary.
Whose side are you on, anyway?
I'm on the side of the constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States of America..... Why aren't you?
The way you portray it, you seem to think the US should become more like Turkey, Syria, North Korea and Russia.
And no.... this is still all about police not being held accountable for using deadly force, and changing how they deal with ALL the people in their respective communities.
So, in your world, you can shoot little girls in Atlanta and attack cops across the country because of something that happened elsewhere in the past. How long is open season on police?
But thanks for providing some insight straight out of the totalitarian handbook of collective justice. Unlike the American system of justice where one is accountable for one's own actions, you, like every mass murdering dictator in history, believe in punishing people for their membership in a group.
How monstrous.
This isn't about protests. No one disputes anyone's right to peacefully protest the police. That's a strawman.
This is about riots.
Yep, spot on.
And frankly, i find it hard to believe ANYONE is supporting rioters and looter.
Yeah until it affects them directly.
Then they expect the bad man in DC to bail them out
Wow Sean.... by your book the continental army of 1775 would have been a totalitarian effort. We know where your idea of justice lies when people should just "move along.... nothing to see here" when people of color are killed without justification by the police.
Come back when you have a real argument.
Furthermore..... looks like all of you Trump Fluffers are on the wrong side of the issue, and you are becoming a smaller group as time passes by.
63% support Black Lives Matter as recognition of discrimination jumps: POLL
A record 69% say minorities are denied equal treatment in criminal justice.
Sixty-three percent of Americans support the Black Lives Matter movement and a record 69% -- the most by far in 32 years of polling -- say Black people and other minorities are denied equal treatment in the criminal justice system, two of several signs of deep changes in public attitudes on racial discrimination.
That's nonsensical. Can you really not tell the difference between a uniformed army fighting a declared war and rioters attacking random police and calling it a protest? Are you claiming this is an insurrection?
lies when people should just "move along.... nothing to see here" when people of color are killed without justification by the police.
Textbook strawman! Nice!
No wonder you resort to strawmen and deflection rather then explaining why you think it's okay to try and kill police removed by time and space from the original cause for complaint.
Says the king of strawman arguments on NT......
Address the cause of the protests, and riots, and you will have address the assault on police. Simple solution Sean.
Nonsense. I'm addressing your actual statements. You believe it's okay to assault police who did nothing wrong merely because they are police. I don't.
All your rationalizations don't change that simple fact.
That is nowhere near your first statement..... very nice of you to move the goalposts.
Now substitute protester and protesting and answer the same question you just asked. All your twisting doesn't change the simple fact that police have been attacking and killing people of color at greater ratios than whites and are now being called to account for it.
So in Leftwing liberal land it's okay to burn down and destroy other peoples belongings. What a fucking joke.
What I see is cement headed conservatives that want to protect their personal property. I can understand that some people can not appreciate the pride that people take in building or accomplishing something with their lives and why they take it personal when left-wing cry babies destroy the fruits of others labor.
If elected officials did their job the Fed wouldn't be in there doing it.
No... as usual, the cement headed conservatives want to maintain the status quo of white privilege rather than deal with the root cause of these protests which is inequality in it's many facets.
LMAO I love it when people use worn out left wing talking points like white privilege.
Again protest away. more power to ya. Destroying a mans personal property is wrong, i don't care how left wing apologist try to excuse it. It really disgust me that people think it's alright to destroy what someone else worked for. Makes me think that the people defending this have never accomplished nothing in life.
It's jealousy, nothing more, nothing less. The participation award generation. Generation P
Lets just cut to the facts of the matter KD.... I don't care (KDMichigan 7.1.26)
And asking for equal rights and justice as per our constitution for everyone is a worn out talking point, or just your excuse to not face the truths of the matter and proof of you being content in your white privilege world.
Again, you are on the wrong side of the argument and out of step with the direction that America wants to go.
"I notice the same people so upset by this have been awfully quiet about the hundreds of polices officers who've been shot at, had Molotov cocktails thrown at them." My opinion hasn't changed at all. I believe it's wrong to throw Molotov cocktails at cops who did nothing wrong. You are fine with it, because some police, somewhere, did something wrong.
That's the essence of our disagreement. You believe in collective guilt and punishing groups rather than individual wrongdoers, I don't.
been attacking and killing people of color at greater ratios than whites and are now being called to account for it.
First, no they haven't. Second, what you call "calling to account" is attacking innocent people. If a former member of the armed forces murders a black person tomorrow, do you agree it fair to execute you for the crime as a member of that group? Or does your support for collective justice end when your ass is on the line?
You know what we are? A generation of selfish assholes who can't even wear a mask to protect others lives
yup
"At this point, after three+ years of pointing fingers, blaming the opposition, ignoring the science, and absolving himself from responsibility, can anyone truly have any expectations from this administration in coherently addressing any issue? No policies, no plans, no empathy, no concern...other than re-election at all cost.
As he has no forum, as his self-aggrandizing rallies have been quieted, his daily COVID briefings will have to suffice. Bookies should place a number on the over/under on how many seconds are actually spent on dealing with the virus vs. the hours spent on anything but."
We have no leader/leadership or President. All states have been left to their own devices pretty much since day 1 of his 'presidency'.
There's a lot of really brave people on the internet.
You know nothing about my world so save your judgement for someone who cares.
What privilege did you have? you seem to be all knowing about privilege.
Is privilege wearing 200 dollar sneakers when you never had a job?
Is privilege sporting 300 dollar Beats while you live on public assistance?
Is privilege having a smartphone and never receiving a bill?
Is privilege spitting out as many kids as you want never being employed?
If white privilege is a thing why do biracial people label themselves black?
Yeah I got your white privilege.
I can only relate to what it’s like hiring them.
Of course I generalize because we have several squared away youngsters working for us but by and large they just don’t have the same work ethic as previous generations. Ours is mostly a skilled trades situation.
From what I’ve seen most will hardly ever consider working with their hands to build something. They’d rather go to college, get a dime a dozen college degree. The easier the better. Then go flip burgers at MacDonalds because they can’t or won’t get a job in their field of study and then bitch about not making a living wage.
I am constantly amazed as I’m working for my 45th year straight now, how protestors have time to protest and burn shit down when I can’t find enough motivated people to do the work we get. It’s a constant battle and frankly, I’m glad I’m almost done.
It depressing as hell to watch. So many looking for more free shit, so many unwilling to work. Never thought I’d see anything like it here but here we are.
Smells like an opportunity to redirect the discussion, if you ask me. No one supports rioting, looting, or arson. It is the last actions of a desperate (or opportunist group of ) people.
Yes! There you go! We expect the "Man" to do his job for all the people; all the time! And not just to suit a single quarter of hardcase supporters.
Deep!!
The police have a job to perform it is to keep the peace and to serve and to see justice is accomplished. That is not done when anybody is shot down in the street and never reach it to a jail cells due to an unjustified killing!
You must have never heard of the good old days of 'Passing' as white? Also, biracial people can be black-skinned. So you never heard of white privilege and wouldn't know it if it happened to you? Now that is remarkably interesting.
So, the “single quarter of hardcore supporters” as you say, are not part of “all the people, all the time?”
Interesting distinction and typical considering the source .....
speak for me, not yourself
"There's a lot of really brave people on the internet."
Indeed!
Your insinuations are irrelevant to me. I will not be distracted by such 'intimacies.' The bold is for you to read and comprehend. If you have an new off-color reflection to add upon doing so-bring it. Otherwise, I will consider any other clarification to the bold or drop this matter as resolved.
I do not support riots, per se. I can never support looting, or arson, though I can understand the desperation of being driven to steal or committing the ugliest of a foul act.
Grandstanding is unseemly, nevertheless. Should you want to be seem as properly concerned about these matters, you would come down off a hasty call for tranquility and a return to a false sense of peace and the status quo, and seek to run to ground why peaceful protest can deteriorate or condense down to social standoffs between the UNHEARD and those with CLOSE Minds.
Protestors have a recourse it is to take to the streets. Thus, this implies that someone will come to hear what they are upset and deeply agitated about!
When you in your wisdom advocate that such people be ignored, or worse, rounded up and made to return to a distorted so-called, "peace." What you do not acknowledge is it has been suggested, 'repeating the same thing over yet again is the definition of insanity' or words to the same effect!
Your lack of empathy for the protestors, your simple and singular focus on the worse activities of protests demonstrates you are not one for solving the protestor issues, no matter what the cause. It seems to me, you simply want them to go home and accept the status quo once again.
Where am I wrong?
One more thing: Do not defend law and order to 'lovers' of it. Consider it is the duty of all sides in this social 'problem' to find workable solutions. After all, the founders of this country, broke away with anger, fire, gunpowder, and this country's resources in putting the King of England on notice that not only would they not endure unreasonable and "slavish" devotion to the Crown, but they would fight to tear themselves out of the 'belly' of England through protests and revolution!
those people need to be put down like rabid dogs.
While the photo is disgusting and these people should expect a visit from child welfare types, where except in your mind did you get the idea that democrats or anyone for that matter cheered?
Trumpers don't respect the Constitution because Trump doesn't and they are after all, his lemmings.
The city gets to define its terms of protest. First, I do not defend what is going on in this situation across 50 plus days. However, you do not get to tell the city federal agents can 'muscle in' and beat up on its citizenry.
As for my tone, you're get no apology or change from me. The status quo has gone wrong in Portland Oregon in some manner and the people are seeking action from those in charge there. Like it or lump it.
If change is going to come in the extreme, civil disobedience is to be expected!
they only think they are woken... when actually, they are "broken"
It's tRump and his goon/thug squads who are escalating these protests.
NOT THE PEACEFUL PROTESTERS.
We don't know where these federal thugs are from. My guess is they were flown in from Moscow.
I caught a clip from the local news and watched Ken Cuccinelli laugh about it and basically say it wasn't his guys. Trump's leaders are as dysfunctional and lacking in basic skills in humanity or at minimum leadership. Who cares which Agency these federal thugs are from. He should have expressed concern and maybe even commented that he would look into it.
Yeah, we call them Democrats.
Right......because Trump put democrats in charge of his Administration.
So you do agree that putting the inept and incompetent is something that shouldn't happen.
But since I was referring tot he mayors and governors of where these riots are taking place you know that's a different story and situation.
Meh....probably shouldn't have been in the middle of a riot asking stupid ass questions in the first place.
So bugsy..... Just when is it a good time to speak up about your rights under the constitution? How about when they are in the process of being violated?
Well, not in the middle of a riot where the police have been getting things thrown at them, dumb fucks getting in their faces, probably spitting on them.
The cops looked at this dumb fuck as just another loser rioter who wanted to get too close.
Bet he won't do it again.
Guess you don't understand that if you don't fight for your rights 24-7, then someone will think it is okay to violate them.
You didn't care when a 75 year old man got pushed down and had skull cracked. You didn't care when members of the press were attacked for a photo-op, now you don't care that non-threatening, unarmed vets are attacked by unmarked federal thugs. Just when are you going to care about citizens rights under the constitution?
Speaking of the constitution, where are all those conservatives that said that they carried a copy of the constitution with them? They've been pretty silent now haven't they? Maybe someday you will realize that it was progressives that penned the bill of rights, and it is progressives willing to stand up for them.
That unmarked comes up a lot here at NT. If you see someone in camo with a helmet and a billy club shouldn't you KNOW what they are and what they are there for?
Seems pretty simple to me that one should steer clear of those people lest you get maced and sometimes, even worse.
Drop down to 13.1 and watch. Especially at the 3:40 mark (man touches officer) to the 3:52 mark (walks away flipping them the bird). Lends a bit more clarity to what transpired and why........................
Barr's/tRump's thugs/goons are practically identical to the paramilitary/white supremacists/goons/thugs
Where in the Constitution and Bill of Rights does it cover riots?
Wrong...If your Constitutional rights were violated, you take the violator to court, not approach them while they are trying to stop a bunch of progressives from burning anything and everything they can, getting spit on, just like progressives did during Vietnam, throwing frozen water bottles at officer's heads and overall being a bunch of liberal pussies.
THAT is gonna get you hurt...and rightfully so.
You see, Jeremy, most liberals only watch CNN and MSDNC, where they are not covering any of the riots because they don't want them to know about them. Their sheep know that they will bleat only what they are told, as they have done on here.
To most liberals, rioting and burning are in the exact same league as marching with signs and bull horns.
I'm a little young to remember this, but I have seen video of democrats in southern states cracking heads and beating people, mostly African Americans, during the civil rights riots of the 60s.
The tide has turned on them and they don't like it.
And those are the vloggers that keep repeating "Orange man bad" over and over.
That was before my time as well. One thing I do remember from my history class (is that still taught?) is that most of those states cracking heads were run by the same end of the spectrum that liberals support.
Thankfully, we sent most of those democrats packing decades ago, and they simply moved to northern states and now call themselves "progressives"
So, somebody has been hiding the 'southern democrats beating the black people and their friends bloody' from today's youth? Riigght. So much history, so little time—I reckon!
.....camo with a helmet and a billy club shouldn't you KNOW what they are.
Who are they? Can you tell? Could they be a different version of the "little Green Men" that Putin used to infiltrate Crimea?
Sorry Jim, I figure you 2nd Amendment types would care enough to stand up for the rest of the bill of rights..... Guess not.
Address the issue of deadly force being used without accountability by police, and the demonstrations will go away. Get to the root cause of the matter.
But you Breitbart/Fox types think that the answer to solving issues involving excessive force is to apply more force..... how stupid is that!!!
It already has been. It's called "don't do stupid shit to win stupid prizes."
Fair enough. If that were all it was and there were no other factors, then your point would be valid. Although lets consider some other factors.
First, the violent and destructive elements at these protests have been going on for over 50 days, even before the Feds arrived. Buildings were being destroyed people were being hurt and local police were being overwhelmed by their own admission.
Second, when they got tired of ransacking local police and government buildings and looting local stores they turned their focus almost entirely on Federal buildings, and the local police could not or would not adequately protect them. Have you ever wondered why that might be? Isn’t it possible that they were purposefully trying to elicit a Federal response?
Third, the Feds started with just a few agents hoping to cooperate with local police to protect the Federal property which is well within their legal right/obligation. Not getting that cooperation and amid increased efforts to destroy these buildings they had no choice but to increase their numbers to protect federal property and personnel. The people they pulled off the nearby streets were ones they had previously identified as those responsible for previous attempts at destruction. Otherwise their actions have been restricted to stopping the destruction and danger to lives in and around those buildings.
Fourth, you have mentioned the Constitution and rights being violated and with respect to those peacefully assembled I agree. But the First Amendment is clear
Destroying buildings, arson, putting peoples lives in danger, trying to blind and hurt police officers (Federal or otherwise), is NOT peaceable assembly.
So the force is commensurate with the threat, and is not entirely unconstitutional or unlawful, and it is a separate issue from that of local police officers wrongly killing unarmed people of color for no apparent reason which most agree is a very important issue requiring absolute attention and swift resolution.
Certainly these observations are reasonable factors to discuss given all of the circumstances revolving around this violence and the resultant Federal response.
I own all of those items. NONE of it gives me the authority to assault an unarmed peaceful protester.
Why would I give up my freedoms so cheaply?
After being beaten and pepper sprayed I doubt that the Feds expected him to plow them kisses. Oh and BTFW, flipping them the bird isn't illegal, beating and pepper spraying the Navy vet was.
I agree. Based on the video he was not being violent or threatening like many of the others. The agents were taking things too far and it appears his civil rights were violated.
Yet that does not mean the agents did not have every legal right to protect those federal properties including picking up those from the immediate vicinity where they had probable cause, clear video evidence of violence against federal personnel or property, etc.
Never argued that they didn't.
It is clear to me as day: Trump will order conservatives an ass-whupping too-when they cross him! Just look at how the man throws generals, ambassadors, and AG Sessions around like they are/were lightweights! Hey, 'silent majority' time to get loud before your 'mad-man' Trump turns and bite y'all! This is your last chance in November!
Typical ring knocker. Clearly thinks rules don't apply to him.
And still a O3 after eight years? He should have been at least an O4 had he gotten normal promotions.
Must be a screw up somehow.
And what constitutional rules don't apply to these Trump issue jackbooted thugs Sparty?
Ring Knocker or not..... The man is standing up for the constitution which is more that I can say for the Trump supporters here on NT.
Do your research. I suggest studying up on the Supremacy Clause.
Pass it on to your ring knocker buddy as well. He must have missed that day in class at the Academy.
wow... big turnaround for someone that has always screamed about states rights.
I guess for you, both are just tools that allow you to support the current tool in the WH no matter which way the wind blows.
Besides..... the Supremacy clause still does not allow for the rights of the individual to violated.
Ah so you do understand the Supremacy Clause. Which makes one wonder why you are defending this dipshit with his stupid question. Why are you defending him? Do you want to have your cake and eat it too?
As for states rights, this is a perfect application of the Supremacy Clause in my opinion. Violent protestors are threatening other citizens property and person and the local law enforcement is doing nothing to stop it. Perfect application. Now setting up an ambush, and murdering a rancher who was threatening nothing or no one, is clearly a bad application. It's not that hard to apply actually if you don't a have a pre programmed partisan bias that is
Wrong, see above.
perfect application of the Supremacy Clause in my opinion.
So then you are still okay that it is fine for police to continue to use lethal force without being held accountable for it...... such as in the cases of Floyd and Taylor. Got it.
This is what these protests and riots are all about. You want to continue to live in your white privilege world, while the larger part of America is moving towards racial equality. You're fine with members of the press being beaten, old men being abused, and vets being attacked and people of color being murdered just so you can maintain your spot at the top. Damn sad.
Even Rand Paul came out and condemned this.
I guess he will be considered by some an enemy to the trump vision.
Honest question. What is it about this tactic? Going personal, emotional and trying to put words in other peoples mouths. Not answering the questions posed to you. Do you get some sort of satisfaction from that? Does it make you feel superior somehow? You've got no reasoned response to the comment at hand so you resort to this sophomoric tactic? Why is that?
What's sad is people labeling other people without even knowing them. Damn sad and a huge part of the problem.
Especially coming for the supposed party of inclusion. What a joke that moniker is .....
And you think you are not doing the same thing?
Calling what happened to the 'rancher' an ambush?
You seem to have no problem with a group that actually had an armed insurrection, taking over a federal property, all because they think they have a right to rape federal lands without having to pay.
Yet somehow protests against actual brutality is somehow a bridge too far and should include having federal (whatever they are) beat people up, snatch them off the streets and in one case blinded a man when a tear gas canister hit him in the face.
I know i'm not. Where for example have i tried to put words in anyone's mouth?
I know how to set an ambush and I know one when i see it
Where did i say that? My problem was with the ambush. I was very clear about that.
Same tactic you use constantly....... that being said.
Do you support the police use of lethal force without being held accountable for it? This is what is at the base of these protests and riots. Solve this issue, and the protests will go away.
Bullshit and you didn't answer ..... yet another question
Answer one of my questions already posed and i'll answer one of yours. Mine is: why do you support someone who clearly doesn't understand the Constitution?
Mine is: why do you support someone who clearly doesn't understand the Constitution?
Obviously you do..... so now I see why you are so confused as to why I do support the constitution for the good of the country.
Sparty, as I pointed out on another seed somewhere 69% of the country believes that minorities do not receive equal treatment at the hands of law enforcement while 63% support the BLM movement. Go spin, deflect and bitch about being besmirched all you want. You are on the wrong side of this entire argument.
How can you support the Constitution when you support violence against innocent people?
How can you support the Constitution when you support violence against innocent people?
How can you support the Constitution when you support LEO's murdering people of color and not being held accountable for it? The rights and safety of the individual citizen are to be protected under the constitution by the same law enforcement organizations charged with their safety, while you are willing to turn a blind eye on them Sean.
Yeah, can't even answer one simple question. Sad!
We're done. Go play your reindeer games with someone else.
You may want to read this. Although disproportionate to population of the US, it isn't JUST people of color..............
" Victims were majority white (52%) but disproportionately black (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites. Most victims were reported to be armed (83%); however, black victims were more likely to be unarmed (14.8%) than white (9.4%) or Hispanic (5.8%) victims.
Another strawman.
I fully support punishing any police Officer who murders anyone of any color. The idea that I don’t support holding them accountable exists only in your imagination.
Supporting a rioter throwing a Molotov cocktail at officer b in State D is not holding Officer A accountable for something he did in state in C.
When you learn to talk from the standpoint of data and facts, please come back and try your hand at debate.
I appreciate the data link Jim... It is a bit dated and limited with the statistical analysis on data from 2009 and 2012. Even so, the data at that time indicates that when adjusted for percentage of population people people of color are killed at the hands of the police at a three times higher rate then their white counterparts.
Something I didn't see in the NCBI calculation is an adjustment based upon the number of interactions with the police. The actual numbers on that 3x higher rate may even be diluted due to the higher number of police interactions that people of color have with the police.
From statistics (which I mistakenly took from the business department rather than the engineering department per my advisor...) we leaned about "Simpson's Paradox"
in which a trend appears in several different groups of data but disappears or reverses when these groups are combined. This result is often encountered in social-science and medical-science statistics...( YUCK! )
I'll see if I can dig it up and share it here..... Thanks again
The idea that I don’t support holding them accountable exists only in your imagination.
We.... let's be honest here Sean, you've got a bunch of post out there to where you really come down on the protesters with little or no regard for what the police have been doing to earn their wrath.
The truth is ( and I hope you feel this way too ) that both of us want to see the elimination of racial bias with regards to policing, the protesting and riots to go away, and the police to be able to go home to their families everyday.
For this to happen though, the root cause of all of this which is racial bias within the ranks of police has got to be solved.
I doubt it.
Oh is that what you think you're doing? Hilarious!
FINALLY! Yes this is what most people want, including many Trump supporters. So how does saying "Why do Trump supporters hate the Constitution and the American people so much?" help us get there? Why cut off any sort of coming together or establishing common ground with talk like that? Fucking Trump does that shit and look what it causes. So why mimic it? Why keep the violence locomotive engine stoked by getting behind more violence?
Absolutely, I don't think many really disagree with this at the core. Some may disagree about the extent of the problem or the data or what the solution might look like, but I think most will agree that we need to do something about police brutality especially where it might be racially motivated, and hold police departments and officers more accountable. So let's discuss it rationally instead of with knee jerk over the top reactions and spiteful characterizations of each other. How does destroying buildings and targeting police officers, burning down or looting local minority-owned businesses, destroying local and federal government offices that provide services to the poor and unemployed, and perpetuating more violence from those officers trying to protect them help to achieve that result? Trump doesn't help much either with asinine comments and tweets. Fuck him, we need to do this ourselves. We need to be smarter than that.
Certainly one could argue that all of this started with terrible incidents like the murder of George Floyd. That was an absolute tragedy and most (including most police) will agree that Chauvin and the others need to pay for what they have done. So let's start where we all agree and work from there rather than making sweeping generalizations about each other and reacting in ways that drive us further and further from agreement. Is that too much to ask?
And FLYNAVY1, I hope you realize that I am not addressing this just to you, but everyone here. We have to stop fighting fire with more fire and find ways to work together, or things will get nothing but worse.
I posted a video (below) @13. In the video at 1:03 David says he was standing off federal property and on a city street.
Sparty On, this individual is standing on a city roadway (directly in front of these agents). Are you claiming federal property extends out into the street? Could be, but is that what you are suggesting? Where does this individual have a right to stand, mere inches, further away? (After he turned and walked 'away' he was not pursued.)
Was this man not an innocent person, Sean? Please elaborate. What exactly did he do wrong? (This was his virgin 'rodeo' as being among protestors.)
Perhaps "All LIves Matter" should merge with "Black Lives Matter" and we can collectively figure out what the hell is going on! Don't you think the families of the dead would like this?
Who here is supporting throwing Molotov cocktails?
It doesn't extend into the street, but then it doesn't need to. Federal officers are allowed to enforce all laws - not just federal ones - wherever they happen to see them violated. Here are some excerpts from Oregon state law:
That's from Oregon Revised Statutes, Section 133.245 And it doesn't even matter what branch the officers are serving for. I think in Oregon, they're using Customs and Border Protection agents.You answered my question in your 'opening.' Er' how does the remainder relate to a man standing in the street in a non-violence protest posture?
Or do you not find in morally reprehensible that a man can stand on the street during unrest and have his physical body molested by a federal agent or several without cause? Funny, because Trump usually decides he has little to no use for "feds"—until and unless they bow down to his needs of the moment.
This supposes that a good "fed" to you is one who obeys his conservative bosses instructions to go "sic em." Well, this incident may leave a bad taste in the mouth of veterans (on land, air, ships and shores home and abroad).
Trump supporters can't dehumanize or demonize the entirety of the people not on your side, before people catch on Trump supporters are the problem.
You labeling it "non-violent" does not make it so. The people are being ordered to disperse. Officers have reached the point where they consider people to be resisting that lawful order and are using tear gas and pepper spray. At that point, a man standing in the street - and not just standing, but approaching the officers - is not an innocent man. He is actively resisting and interfering with law enforcement officers. And by approaching them in that context, he is likely considered a threat. I don't know what you expect to happen in that situation. Hugs all around?
I find it reprehensible that a man who takes pride in his service and swore an oath related to that service would now seek to interfere with federal officers in the performance of their duty.
I would say so. I am sure many veterans are sickened by this grandstanding prima donna who thinks his sweatshirt gives him special privileges to interfere with law enforcement. Most veterans I know like being appreciated for their service, but they aren't interested in special treatment. Also, I don't know where you got the idea that every veteran agrees with every other veteran, but they don't.
Easy peasy. You have video of him being violent, I suppose. Let's see it, please. I do not have that video moment. I would love to have it.
I do not and can not find that full video either. If you have a full 'episode' of this occurrence- I'd (and others) would like to see it. You may be right. Let's check it out. Produce your video, please.
I have never wrote veterans agree with "EVERY other veteran" that would be presumptuous and rather stupid. After all, I am a veteran and been called a liberal by conservative veterans who disagree with me about most matters Trump-induced.
However, this goes to the problem here: He says he was not being provoking. He may have not moved and it may have been the "feds" call. However, it is not a good look and appearances matter to voters. You can be defaming if you wish about about some prima donno (you conservative handle your own with kid gloves in the White House's Oval Office), but all the facts are not fully known about this "fed" activity and how it may be stretching the law over its pretext to 'act up.'
Not necessary. Crimes that are defined as "violent" almost always include something like the words "violence or threat of violence." That's why robbery is considered a violent crime even if no one gets hurt or tries to hurt anyone. So a lack of video showing an act of violence doesn't help.
You don't have a fuller video than the short clips posted? It is necessary to verify your claims against this man. If you can not then what right do you have to tear him down or discount his view of what happened that night (he was witness to it happening)? Deflection is not helpful.
all that is required by the castle doctrine is one FEEL threatened.
those that simply trespass are lucky if they do not get shot.
around here... king ranch comes to mind.
I don't even think they bother calling the police all the time.
they just fire up the backhoe and put em ten feet under.
poachers are very afraid of king ranch... for good reason.
What comment are you responding to, please share.
No. It isn't. This has been explained to you. I can't help it if you won't face reality.
Your denial is what's not helpful.
This has been explained to you. I can't help it if you won't face reality.
So now we are to take the word of Trump supporters.....? Those that support a habitual liar...?
I suggest you try something else. Those that support lies are in themselves lying.
What about the murders of non white people or are we on our own here?
Our Constitution has to apply equally for everyone or it isn't worth the parchment it's written on.
Jefferson and other progressives at the time knew it, but got done what they knew could be ratified. We are two centuries later and it is high time we become the people the constitution says we are.
"and Trump doesn't help much"
depends, if you are referring to stoking the flames of division, he leads all divisions, asz he's out of his leagues, at a different Conference, and when the Chairman gets bored with a president who's out of his gord, cause hell just let him fall on what he just sucked, Putin's sordid Will pushed upon the ignorant schrill,via a complacent no surprise party that you endlessly attempt to excuse, as in sum, factor in that we all have bias, some others, just say buy us.
Make up your mind, as to what you wish to teach to far gone to reach, cause around, are those dirty, with brains washed clean, f you no what i don't mean, as level headed interaction issite unseen as it cannot reach around the kool aid blocked thirst for those who've let the worse, be theirs, without the layered onions, as it can be D livered, if used as D filter, that removes the Truth,
cause it was meant to be omitted, Trump is and should be committed
as he multiplies division in his ranks, but jeepers, no Tanks...?
I am sure I do not know what the "h" you are talking about. You wrote this @12.1.36:
It is being contested in court whether federal officers (even mixed up different agencies) have the required authorization to step off federal property to 'police' specifically protestors. And non-violent protestors at that.
You are doing a great deal of supposing. And, you have not established anything you said as actually seen by you in person or through a camera len!
I want you to make a proper case or admit you have only a biased opinion of what law enforcement is in this specific man's situation. Courts exist for just these kind of close calls when rules and regs 'trump' common-sense.
"The people are being ordered to disperse. Officers have reached the point where they consider people to be resisting that lawful order and are using tear gas and pepper spray. At that point, a man standing in the street - and not just standing, but approaching the officers - is not an innocent man. He is actively resisting and interfering with law enforcement officers. And by approaching them in that context, he is likely considered a threat."
Yes of course, that man was asking for his arm to be broken in two places and to be pepper sprayed in the face for approaching these goons.
What an upside down ass backward world tRump supporters live in.
Unfrigginbelievable
Here! Here!
Unfrigginbelievable
What law did they see him violate?
What evidence do you have that an order to disperse was issued before this attack? Please be specific.
Supposition only.
"What comment are you responding to, please share."
The one in his head . . . a very scary place
Glad you agree.
That's a ridiculous comment. Public streets are NOT covered by the castle doctrine.
What rules are you talking about?
This after-video engenders many questions all-around. . . .
KGW News: Navy veteran hit with baton, pepper-sprayed at Portland protest
Here's my favorite clip of the issue being discussed by a real soldier and patriot.
Whit all this complaining about Unmarked Police, does that mean they should get rid of radar in unmarked police cars?
Why? That makes no sense.
only when reign is forecast
I have to admit. I've never liked unmarked LE cars. I always told the kids if you get stopped by an unmarked LE vehicle don't roll your window down all the way and don't get out of the car until you see a supervisor or another officer in a marked car.
Also detectives should stop wearing suits instead of uniforms and let's also do away with undercover cops.
Anyway, how unmarked can they be? It's not like it's hard to distinguish the cops from the vandals. Nobody thinks the the Navy guy was beaten by civilians. Everybody knew immediately he was getting it from the federal agents.
Where is the "tea party" crowd and the Libertarians? I thought they were about freedom? I also thought they believed in "Support Our Troops". The failure to comprehend that "our troops" consist of people from all political parties. What if this had happened to the fake militia right wingers who stormed the various statehouses protesting with AR15's? These hypocrites only want freedom for themselves, not for everyone.
Support the Troops...?
The libertarians and tea party types are still silent with respect to Russian bounties paid for Americans killed in Afghanistan. Now this beating of a vet at the hands of federal goons, they never really cared about troops, and never have.
Bullshit! One doesn't have to goosestep to your preferred narrative to support our military 100% and your sweeping generalization regarding the same is insulting as hell to those of us who do. You don't have that military support market cornered. Not even close.
As for this eight year O3 ..... what did he think was going to happen? Did he think he was going to get a peck on the cheek and some kind of sympathy from them? Well, you know where you can find sympathy? In the dictionary right between shit and syphilis
He went down there to intentionally provoke the Feds and unfortunately one one of them reacted badly.
Rosa Parks he is not.
Since you want to disparage a service member because of lack of advancement, you just might want to do some math..... or better yet.... educate yourself before you post.
The guy is 57. He graduated the NA at 22-23. That puts him on active duty 24 years ago or 1996 through 2004, a time when the military was contracting in size, and advancements were tough. Furthermore, advancement in the SeaBees has always been more difficult than some of the other branches simply due to the small size of the force, and because many of their typical projects have been outsourced to civilian contractors.
And all your whining aside.... NO vet deserved the treatment he received from these Trump Goons. You're willingness to ignore the blatant violation of civil rights, the US Constitution, and the honor of veterans in an effort to support this aberration in the WH is sickening.
Hey, i'm not saying there isn't a systemic problem and that it's worse for folks of color but the supposition that it only happens to folks of color is ridiculous.
A bad cop like the prick that killed Floyd doesn't care what color you are. A bad cop is a bad cop and that's what needs to get managed. I say managed because we will never be rid of it as to some degree it's human nature. A bad cop is like a bad teacher. Not worth a plug nickel and yet in our world they get protected for some reason. That's what has to change.
This perfect "bad cop" utopia everyone is talking about will never exist but no doubt it can be managed much better. Much better.
You talk about treating vets badly and yet you do it here every day to people who simple disagree with you so don't preach to me. You don't know wtf are talking about. I tell like it is, unaffected by bias. You don't like it? To bad!
This guy IS likely a screw up in some way. I know lots of Navy men from that era. One fop them is my brother who served in roughly the same time frame. He just happened to be a Seabee as well with two deployments to the sandbox. Just a plain old CEC officer like this guy apparently was. He easily made O4 in that time frame. He got medical'd out before he could make 06 and now is on full disability.
The radical tilt of leftist comments here is the real disgusting thing. The only reason they are propping this guy up is because of his, stupid, radical actions. Dumb ass is a ring knocker and doesn't even understand the constitution or the oath he took for that matter.
Unbelievable!
No argument there. Unions like that tend to protect the dead weight at all costs.
I've never understood that. Even when i was in one.
Now I know you're full of shit Sparty
Rank of Lieutenant Commander
Selection for commander -- the O-4 officer pay grade equivalent to a major in the Army, Air Force or Marine Corps -- requires that the candidate for promotion must have served three years as a lieutenant to meet the required time-in-grade. A lieutenant must also have between nine and 11 years of military service. While nearly all ensigns are promoted to lieutenant J.G., and almost 95 percent of lieutenants junior grade, make lieutenant, the O-4 selection board only promotes about 80 percent of eligible officers.
My bad, we were talking about O3 and thats was what i meant to say not O4. Easily O3 in that 8 year time frame
Great... everyone is straight on that point..... have a good day.
Not only sickening to read about it, he is tearing the man down simply because he 'stood his ground' in a bad situation. The federal officers 'castrated' this veteran before the world on the orders of a non-serving civilian with an authoritarian complex. Shame! Shame! Shame! Nothing from that one about the honor and integrity of the veteran for maintaining control of himself in this crisis moment from a conservative fellow. Politics be damned in this moment! I am disgusted. And he really tries to make the veteran defend his time in rank instead of asking why the feds made a show of beating him like a standing pinota
Well then you are getting sickened over nothing since the accusations are total, unmitigated bullshit.
The lengths that kooks on the left will go to push their narrative is the real sickening part. Anti US radicals hiding beneath the cloak of patriotism. It is sickening as hell. They are nothing but useful idiots, as are the people who believe them.
Wow.... so the "wall of moms" are all anti-US radicals...?
Them being attacked with teargas is all in a day's work for Trump and you?
More redirectional tripe.
Let me know when you want to stop trying to put words in other peoples mouths and have a respectful adult conversation.
If such a thing is possible here ......
They way you are putting every one of these protestors sparty is that they are Un-American..... The vet... the moms..... just about anyone that is protesting the use of excessive and deadly force by the police.
Now you tell me..... is it possible to have a conversation with someone that lumps all of these people as Anti-US Radicals? Lets just unpack this.
Is the vet that got beaten... an anti-US radical? Yes or no?
Are the moms that linked arms to protect other protestors and attacked Trump's goons anti-us radicals? Yes or no?
Are those that are protesting the deaths of people of color at the hands of police, anti-us radicals? Yes or no?
That might be true if that was what i was doing but i since it's not, yours is just more irrational whining. Un-American? Hilarious. I just love it when a "patriot" tells me i'm un-American. Absolutely hilarious!
The 8 year Lieutenant was asked to disperse. He didn't. He asked a question that didn't apply and clearly was trying to agitate law enforcement. Unfortunately his gambit worked and uncharacteristically for the last few months law enforcement responded to the agitation but like i've told you before. Lets not make him Rosa Parks just yet eh? And what was he protesting? Law enforcement trying to bring more peace and safety to Portland? Yes or no? The question he was asking was clearly uninformed so what was it?
So yeah, i call that anti US radical. So do most other people in Portland that aren't radical fuks.
Lol .... love the colorful language. Lets follow suit eh?
So yeah, the anti US mom goons are protesting what exactly? More peace and safety for their children? Yes or No? They want less peace and safety for their little future goon babies? Yes or no? How many of these goons do you think aren't really moms? Any?
Protestors no. Rioters, looters, people who don't follow lawful orders to disperse? Absolutely, those are all anti US radicals goons.
I'll tell you we can agree on one thing. As i've said before, i don't think the federal troops should be there either. I think we should draw line through the middle of the Cascades and let the radical leftists have their left coast nirvana. 100% on their own, no federal intervention, personnel wise, monetary wise or in any other manner. They like walking through human shit on their streets and getting accosted by criminal goons and mentally unstable leftists on their streets then i said let it be. Let the exodus begin.
Knock yourselves out hippies and good luck paying for your "nirvana" but don't dial federal 911. No one will be there for you.
Well what do you expect he was in the navy. I remember a guy from my high school who wasn't the brightest....well kind of a idiot to be honest. He went down to detroit for a military recruitment day. Anyhow when he came back he was joining the Navy. I asked him why he would join the navy. Well it was because they were the only ones who would have him.
So that brings us to this moron. What did he think was going to happen when he wanted to interject himself in the middle of a riot. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
So what exactly is/was your MOS, or rating that makes you think you are so superior in intelligence to this former officer or even me?
Ever take the ASVAB.... Care to compare scores?
Some of the smartest people I've ever met where Sailors. That wasn't a very nice thing to say in public.
I've also met smart Airmen, Soldiers, and Marines. I don't disparage any of the services because they all watch our collective sixes each and every day
No non vet does either. But to do it to one of my fellow vets from a POTUS who claims to be a fan of the military passed wrong a mile back down the road.
Don't see KD's name in this article.
It's not about him.
Well for starters I'm not stupid enough to think approaching officers who are being accosted by ANTFA to ask them questions is a wise idea.
Let me make something crystal clear Sparty, anyone that starts to disparage veterans of any kind just because it matches their talking points... I'll make it about them!
I'll tolerate it somewhat out of someone like you that have raised their hand and taken the oath. But someone that never served...... Stand by!
[deleted]
Wow... Who knew that all those moms being shoved around by Trump's goons were ANTIFA too....
So you also think that the violation of civil rights of others will never touch you? If everyone in the colonies were to have followed your lead, we'd still be part of merry old England.
Very "virtuous" of you but against the rules here and you know it.
[delete]
Sparty, you and I go round and round quite a bit, but never will I disparage you or any other vet here. You stood up, raised your hand, and did something very few of our fellow countrymen have the spine to do..... You put your ass on the line for the concept that is the United States, and those in your unit.
Rules or not..... Sometimes a vacation from NT is a good thing.
There is something i can understand and agree with. BTDT.
Thank you for your service as well. It might not sound like it but it is appreciate by me as is the ring knockers service as well.
That said, some of my favorite people in the world are squidlys.
Navy Corpsman will always be tops in my book ...... always
I trained with grunts in both electronics school and aircrew training. Man you guys were wound tight after basic!
And yeah..... Navy Corpsmen are on a different level.
Well I've stood up and raised my hand, the only difference is I don't think being a vet gives me some kind of upper hand in a conversation. Tell you what. My dad died in Viet fucking nam. So I couldn't care about your self righteousness. when you give the ultimate sacrifice get back with me on how glorious you are because you served.
Why'll you are being a ANTIFA apologist what do you think of them hiding behind housewives while accosting leo's? thats real brave behavior. LMAO
Best I can see is in the video at 13.1. Watch (or FF) to 3:40 through 3:52
Lol .... you would be as well if you just got done with what they did.
No the one under that by PJ at 13.1
Problem is, veterans have no special privilege than anyone else to step in front of riot police and be dumb enough to ask them why they are there.
As we know, veterans are not immune to getting roughed up by RIOT POLICE trying to quell a RIOT.
I think I'm going to need to have a discussion with the site admin on your 15.1.33 post.....
I'll get back to you KD.
What's wrong with that post?
Your vitriolic response has been read. I hope you feel better now. Can we get back to the veteran who is recuperating from his beat down now? Calling something "unmitigated bullshit" does not make it so. From your past commentary, I feel comfortable stating that you do believe some things are worth asking questions about and standing up for! So, don't make this one instance weird or dehumanizing for us!
Yes, you do think the federal agents should be there as you have implied so much with your nod to "federal intervention." There is only going to be one nation on this 'spot,' your displeasure has been noted, nevertheless.
And we will have federal intervention as often as liberals find it necessary, if some conservatives want to be jerks about it-they can go pound sand somewhere else in the world!
That comment is slanderous. Really, it's come down to this: Someone is literally here defaming an entire branch of the Military. Class-less.
Next, I'd suppose you would like us to just get along without our fleets of ships? Sailors are not needed and nor are the departments air and helicopter wings? Speak up, already!
Why are you defending Chad Wolf, Acting DHS Secretary, a cabinet level position, held by a man with no law enforcement experience? Tell me again about self-righteous appointments.
Here I will try to help:
Repost:
Russel Honoré On Feds in Portland: 'What Kind Of Bullsh-t Is This!?' | The 11th Hour | MSNBC
Watch (or FF) to 3:40 through 3:52
Are riot police immune to 'bad press'? I think not! Or, getting ran out of town, back to their rather limited departments once the public has enough of their harsh and over-the-top tactics?
I stand by everything I’ve said here regardless if it offends some delicate sensibilities.
Ridiculous
You put down a fellow veteran for what? Trump? Feds? A building? Somehow that building means more to you than the shared bond between those who serve and are otherwise acting within the framework of law? You and some other conservatives here have defamed this veteran simply, because of Trump's "domination" strategy of policing in his era of leadership. Had Trump not wanted "domination" or, if Trump flips his strategy tomorrow (as he did with face mask) you would caught locked-in with no out for your present stance.
Bad form, Sir!
My understanding is Friday night (July 24, 2020) more ("a wall of") veterans arrived to protest alongside the regular 50 plus day crowd. Will you defame them and their "sensitivities" too?
So tell us this, o "wise" one.
If you are tasked to protect federal property, and you have rioters trying to burn you alive in a building, blind you, throw explosives at you, throw frozen blocks of water at you, as a few things being done, how would you handle it?
“Put down?” “Defame?”. “Bad form?”
Your hyperbolic style of speak would be funny if it wasn’t so sad and out of line.
I earned the right to judge my fellow Veterans however I want and I could care less what you think about it. That guy is simply an agitator working to illicit a negative response. His question wasn’t even valid.
The supposition that all Veterans are automatically always righteous is ridiculous. We have all the same flaws and foibles as anyone else.
You can put up a wall of whatever radicals you want. Mom’s, Veterans, cats, dogs, cupie dolls, etc but it doesn’t change a thing. Not abiding by established law, legal orders or protesting violently ain’t gonna cut it. Just because some sensibilities have been offended doesn’t give anyone the right to do so.
Hey, I respect any fellow Veterans service but that doesn’t mean they were all super human beings and/or remained that way their entire life. Anyone who served and is being honest knows that.
I’m of the mind that some of the people here defending his actions in Portland are cut out of the same cloth as those who spit on Nam Vets. It’s just that his actions here support one of their coo-coo progressive narratives, so they support him.
Any other day they’d be looking down their nose at him like they do General Flynn or any other Veteran that supports Trump.
I can't find footage of any or all of that bad activity happening, and to the degrees you want me to imagine it. Were are you getting your source information for this comment? Let's start there and then I would like to ask you to connect it to this veteran getting "Rodney King-ed."
Not really. You can't admit Trump is this country's most prominent liar. In fact, he may be in the running for thid planet's most prolific liar in the world leader category! And yet you can't utter a tinny-winny: "Tell the Truth, Donald!" Therefore, why should I think you would tell the truth about anything occurring in Portland?
Yeah, why should I, "Texan"?
Lots of words. However, when conservatives are the 'radicals' next we shall test a theory. No one claimed veterans are to be venerated ("sacred cows") in our culture.
Now then, for the record, are you against this group: "Wall of veterans."
Wall Of Veterans Join Wall Of Mums Portland day 58
Are these veterans standing at, "Parade rest," disobeying a legal order or committing multiple crimes for being on site?
Oh. Well. I didn't know you supported that coward, who looked down his nose on military service in 'Nam.' I guess you gave Donald Trump a "mulligan" when you were informed he dished the draft back in the day. But, here you are defaming and 'shit-canning' this veteran for no other reason than "Trump did it."
Let's abide by the rules of NT shall we? Can you say a tinny-winny, "Tell the Truth, Donald!" Or, will the Trump 'universe' explode all around the 'neck and shoulders'?
Unlike many here, I don’t allow myself get popularized for political reasons. Resisting lawful orders to disperse is against the law. Period, full stop.
That said I support ANY “lawful” protest. Which is to say peaceful. Peaceful protests that impede others ability to pursue their own liberty and commerce are not legal and I don’t support illegal.
Using this old left wing canard: your rights don’t trump my rights.
Do you think protestors rights overrule my rights to live my life the way I want to or to just simply operate my business?
Let’s abide by NTers rules and not make this personal shall we? Your words to another poster here.
That said and again, using your word, I bet you supported the “coward” Clinton as well. Twice.
You are nowhere near as clever as you think you are.
What evidence do you have that a lawful order to disperse was issued?
Not surprising being that CNN and MSDNC does not want you to know about them.
Maybe this footage from a CANADIAN press will let you see the light. Seems that are more honest than most US media.
You probably still see these as "peaceful" protests, huh?
Sorry, it too so long to get back here to the thread. That stated, I am not sure you answered the question about without ambiguity. Can you explicitly answer the question above?
I do not support rioting for rioting sake. However, social justice which can not be solved through the established channels literally demands people protest and that done on the streets out in public with signs and banners flying. Problems can not persist in going unheard by those who ignore or delay (infinitely) problem-solving. If tranquility can be restored it should be restored righteously and not as a heavy burden on the rights to live and the operational success of one group of the citizenry against the others.
I do not know enough about Clinton's deferments to comment intelligently. I will share this and then wait for your opinion.
I will wait your assessment of the information. Though, as I see it, it is not relevant to Donald Trump. Two different people two distinct reactions. I digress. Was Clinton a draft dodger under the circumstances. I don't know rightfully. Politics aside: He appears to have straddled the fence and succeed at doing so. If that makes him a cowar in some people; all people; or most people opinion. So be it.
Now back to the present: In your straightforward assessment of Donald Trump do you think he was a coward not willing to serve or an attentive civilian looking to serve his nation (remember he has commentary about his concept of 'war':
Far and away from the topic of Trump as it can get: What you personally think of my intelligence, does not interest me in the least. So much for "let's not make this personal" (Your statement to me.)
They are disobeying a legal order if they were asked to disperse and they don't but that's the purpose right? No one is going to care if they go stand at parade rest in a nondescript field somewhere where no one is going to ask them to disperse.
Signs and banners. That's not rioting if not done violently.
This sounds like an excuse for violent protesting to me. Is that what you are condoning here? Do you support rioters rights to overrule others right to pursue their own happiness and liberty?
A clear and concise answer that doesn't contradict itself later on would be nice.
I was quoting you, largely tongue in cheek as you preached that to another poster here..
And Clinton's 311 number made him draft eligible in 1969. You can waste your time looking it up if you want but its true. By the way, had i been born a few years earlier my draft number would have been 2. Wouldn't have matter since i volunteered anyway after the war was over and would have had it been on as well but that just shows my luck.
A two!
So Clinton had played the deferment game up till then since he actually turned 23 in 1969. Meanwhile many other 18+ yo boys and girls went and did their duty. That is all that really need be said about it.
So Clinton has no high ground on Trump in that regard and yet he gets a pass from the left and Trump gets the usual TDS treatment.
SOP hypocrisy coming from our friends on the left .....
Civil disobedience is a standard (permissible) form of protest, yes. Therefore, the method of standing, sitting, or laying does not simply call for federal authorities to demand dispersal. Making a demand for dispersal does not immediately allow for the breaking of bones (assault and battery) on a civilian veteran.
Granted. Illustrate (if you can) in words or pictures this specific veteran acting violently. As you may know from experience or television, authorities during protests when seeking particular "bad actors" or criminals for an offense or breaking of a law, will SIDE-STEP (envelop) non-violent protestors in order to go after the culprit or culprits they have targeted earlier. There was no moral justification for "Rodney King-ing" - committing violence on this one individual for simply standing in place. Himself being a symbol of a sign and banner.
Look again @15.1.69 this is what I partially wrote for which you left off the opening of a paragraph:
"I do not support rioting for rioting sake. However, social justice which can not be solved through the established channels literally demands people protest and that done on the streets out in public with signs and banners flying. Problems can not persist in going unheard by those who ignore or delay (infinitely) problem-solving. If tranquility can be restored it should be restored righteously and not as a heavy burden on the rights to live and the operational success of one group of the citizenry against the others."
Do me the favor of not segmenting my paragraphs and in the next breath as me to restate myself (if you can that is. I realize it is not always easy on message boards to keep up with everything, nevertheless.)
There is a give and take in a democracy. People make space for others to be heard through protest demonstrations - which can take place non-violently as well as violently. (See: American Revolution.) One side or the other does not get to determine the level of anger of an unsettle group's grievances. We all do what we can, or should make every attempt to, to allow justice for all.
Therefore, your right to happiness does not out-weigh my right to pursue happiness. Your righteous tranquility ends where my righteous tranquility begins.
Finally, if civility breaks down, because one democratic set of citizens ignores the gripes and complains of its counterparts, violence is a recourse. Friction will heat up. Skirmishes will break out and can escalate. Even to as high as war.
yeah, i know that’s true in unicorn snowflake land but not in the real world. Your momma probably should have impressed that upon you but there you go.
Don’t do the crime if you ain’t willing to do the time.
I don’t need to look again. You are clearly trying to find a way to justify unlawful behavior. Case in point, how much have you admonished the physical damage being done to cops? None that I can see. A helluva lot more cops are being hurt that these rioting little bitches. Where’s your “liberal compassion” for them?
And don’t try to use the old “they should know what they are getting into” gambit since i can say the same thing about “protestors” that are breaking the law.
Like Clinton and the rioters you’ve got no high ground. None at all.
We have to go over this again?
Not dispersing after a lawful order to do so is illegal.
Full stop ... end of story
It’s really not that complicated CB
And claiming you are being civilly disobedient does not make you immune from being arrested or from being forcibly removed.
[deleted]
That is not peaceful. But do not conflate the beating of the navy veteran (this article's title) with all-out nightly skirmishes in Portland and Seattle. I really don't know who is responsible for what set of activities! Complex issue. What say you?
Let me make this as plain as I can, I don't give a rat's patooey about Clinton's cowardice at this point in the timeline! Take it up with the FORMER President should he run again. Damn all cowards, Clinton included. Stop being so blatantly obvious in your defense and near non-existent mentioning of Donald Trump. Your Trump SILENCE is LOUD-TALKING!
That is hypocrisy and it exposes a weakness in your 'case.' WHATABOUTISM is not something to play with those who are aware of it. It would seem that you can not tell the truth on Donald Trump. Why is that, Sparty On?
Why can't you talk about Donald Trump truthfully, is someone 'securing' your keyboard?
Point blank: How do you know when President Trump is telling the truth?
Excuse me? Did you really mean to bring my mother into this generic, online, discussion? For real, 'Player'?
Trying to deflect to the larger issue, I see. Standing with one's hands at one side is not an unlawful act. You can pretend it is and repeat your mantra over and over again and it won't change a thing. This veteran did nothing wrong for being there in that instance. And now I am nearing the end of repeating myself to you. Stick with your point and I will stick with mine: this veteran did not deserve to be beat, period.
Well, he was forcibly removed by the authorities. That happened, for sure. One more veteran with acrimony for policing authorities, I guess.
Libertarians are about freedom, but not at the expense of the lives or property of others.
I doubt very much that these officers stopped to check what political party this guy favors.
And we sure as hell know they didn't stop to think about the number of civil right they were violating either....
In your mind, was the attack on fort Sumter a protest? Just some patriotic citizens exercising their civil rights? And I bet you have a big list of the civil rights the feds violated by firing back at those patriotic protesters.
looks like you’ve been influenced by some ultra southern interpretations of the civil war, where attacking federal property is a “right.”
Do you ever get tired of pushing a noun and a verb together just to watch things blow up?
Leave it to you to compare treason committing sesionists to those that are protesting for changes in law enforcement methods that treat people of color like second class citizens.
Furthermore you taking the position that the rights of something made of concrete and steel paid for by American Citizens needs to be defended and has greater rights than the American Citizens themselves...
Trumper's favorite food is apples and oranges.
they keep forgetting that bit... LOL
they will find the vast majority of americans do not support the violence and destruction.
the good news is blm and the dnc are now permanently connected at the hip.
going to be tuff for dems running as the anti-police party
LOL, only when washed down with liberal tears...
they are...
and now more voters than ever fully understand that.
Yup more voters than ever will be voting for Joe Biden!
Yup more voters than ever will be voting for Joe Biden!