Navy veteran says he was beaten 'like a punching bag' in Portland

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  flynavy1  •  2 weeks ago  •  582 comments

By:   Deborah Bloom Reuters

Navy veteran says he was beaten 'like a punching bag' in Portland
"I wanted to ask them 'Why are you guys not following the Constitution?' But we never got there,"

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

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
FLYNAVY1
1  seeder  FLYNAVY1    2 weeks ago

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]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    2 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.1  Kavika   replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

I think it's an attempt to turn this country into dictatorship.

Mr Giggles and I were discussing buying more guns the other night.

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.1.3  pat wilson  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
I think it's an attempt to turn this country into dictatorship.

Sure looks that way. And members here think that's just fine. Unbelievable.

 
 
 
Freewill
1.1.4  Freewill  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
Mr Giggles and I were discussing buying more guns the other night

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...  (-:

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Freewill @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
1.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    2 weeks ago

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...

 
 
 
devangelical
1.1.7  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

my source in the DHS says the agency is in crisis internally over this response by POS/POTUS 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

"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.  

 
 
 
devangelical
1.1.9  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.8    2 weeks ago

if defeated in november he'll be leaving office in january. under his own power or feet first makes no difference to me...

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1.9    2 weeks ago

I'd love to see that big fat sloppy turd hauled out by his ankles kicking and screaming and crying all the way!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.11  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  devangelical @1.1.9    2 weeks ago

It will be the ultimate walk of shame, that is for sure.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.12  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

He will be yelling at Malenia to grab his secret stash of Big Macs.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2  Tacos!  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    2 weeks ago
refused to answer basic civics questions

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?

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.1  MUVA  replied to  Tacos! @1.2    2 weeks ago

It’s fucking ridiculous the over sized malcontent should have kept his inquisitive ass at home.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  MUVA @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.3  MUVA  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

Yep he didn’t use judgment he used leftist logic.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MUVA @1.2.3    2 weeks ago

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. .

 
 
 
Freewill
1.2.5  Freewill  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.2    2 weeks ago
There's nothing [wrong] with the questions (though his presumptions may prove to be incorrect), but he is asking the wrong people at the wrong time.

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? 

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.6  Split Personality  replied to  MUVA @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

Now size matters?

good grief.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.7  Tacos!  replied to  Freewill @1.2.5    2 weeks ago
I added what I thought might be a missing word in what you said above

Yes, my bad. Thank you for that. Sometimes you think a word but somehow it doesn't get typed.

Still they could have recognized the difference between this fellow and the others and handled it differently perhaps?

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.

 
 
 
Freewill
1.2.8  Freewill  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.7    2 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.9  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.10  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.9    2 weeks ago

I’m going to draw the line wear I see mother fucking fit.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.11  Greg Jones  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.9    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.12  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @1.2    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.13  Tacos!  replied to  Krishna @1.2.12    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Freewill
1.2.14  Freewill  replied to  Krishna @1.2.12    2 weeks ago
but IIRC since the protests started, they have not targeted federal Office buildings.

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.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.15  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.11    2 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.16  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.17  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.16    2 weeks ago
You might take a moment and consider why?

Masochistic tendencies?

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.18  Sparty On  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.16    2 weeks ago
 MUVA, that knows an enemy to the constitution when he sees better than you do.

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.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.19  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.18    2 weeks ago

Do some research would you......

https://www.wthitv.com/content/national/571831551.html

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.20  Sparty On  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.19    2 weeks ago

And exactly how does that prove David can identify an enemy of the constitution better than MUVA?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.21  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.20    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.22  Sparty On  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.21    2 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.23  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.16    2 weeks ago

You can be a leftist moron and have gone to the Naval academy.

 
 
 
CB
1.2.24  CB   replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.19    2 weeks ago

Very interesting encounters. 50 days of protest?!

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.25  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.2.1    2 weeks ago
'It’s fucking ridiculous the over sized malcontent should have kept his inquisitive ass at home.'

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?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.26  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tacos! @1.2    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.27  Kathleen  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

It looks like he was testing them to see what they would do if he did not leave, well, he found out.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.28  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.27    2 weeks ago

That was my take as well.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.29  Kathleen  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.28    2 weeks ago

DUH...  I will just stand here and experiment and see what happens.... DUH....

Ouch.. they hit me.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.30  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2    2 weeks ago

Please cite the statute that authorizes Federal Agents to beat and pepper spray a citizen standing on a PUBLIC street, doing NOTHING illegal. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.31  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.27    2 weeks ago

What authority did Federal Agents have to tell him to move from a PUBLIC street? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.32  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

He wanted to ask the people, like him, who took an OATH to the Constitution. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.33  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.31    2 weeks ago

If there is a riot going on, shouldn’t they?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.34  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.33    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.36  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.2.30    2 weeks ago
doing NOTHING illegal

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.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.37  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.34    2 weeks ago

So there were no riots at all... it was just peaceful people protesting?

Why would they be so forceful if there was absolutely no problems whatsoever? 

I think you are ignoring crime.

All conservatives? I call that Generalization which is a violation on the site. Don’t you think?

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.38  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.2.30    2 weeks ago
Please cite the statute that authorizes Federal Agents to beat and pepper spray a citizen standing on a PUBLIC street, doing NOTHING illegal. 

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.

 
 
 
CB
1.2.39  CB   replied to  Dulay @1.2.34    2 weeks ago
There was a time when conservatives cared about the Constitution and the law. 

The issue here for us: Conservatives have never minded a good pretext to 'envelop' their over-bearing activities in.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.40  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.36    2 weeks ago
That's your opinion and obviously not the opinion of the officers who were there on the scene (unlike you).

Or the vast majority of the thousands who have seen the video. 

If there is disagreement on that, it can be worked out in court.

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. 

 
 
 
CB
1.2.41  CB   replied to  Tacos! @1.2.38    2 weeks ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.42  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.37    2 weeks ago
So there were no riots at all... it was just peaceful people protesting?

You know that there is a galactic grey area between rioting and peaceful protesting right? 

Why would they be so forceful if there was absolutely no problems whatsoever? 

That's what Trump sent them there to do. 

I think you are ignoring crime.

I think that you are ignoring the fact that the Navy Vet committed NO CRIME. 

All conservatives?

Yep, it was a part of their platform and many try to pretend it still is.  

I call that Generalization which is a violation on the site.

Not if true. 

Don’t you think?

No. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.43  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.38    2 weeks ago
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.

You are the one that stated that their 'primary duty is for officers trying to clear out rioters'.

Prove it.

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.

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. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.44  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.2.40    2 weeks ago
Or the vast majority of the thousands who have seen the video.

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.

BTW I note that you failed to cite a statute that authorizes the use of force we saw on the video. 

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?

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.45  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.2.43    2 weeks ago
You are the one that stated that their 'primary duty is for officers trying to clear out rioters'.

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?

I also know it's irrelevant for many reasons

You are welcome to list a few.

The second reason is that all available evidence proves that the Navy vet did NOTHING illegal.

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.46  Tacos!  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.44    2 weeks ago
Are you suggesting that law enforcement is allowed to use force?

Typo: Should read "not allowed."

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.47  Tacos!  replied to  CB @1.2.41    2 weeks ago
It's calls jurisdiction.

The feds are authorized by Oregon state law to enforce the law wherever they happen to be.

the city's mayor was 'rioting,' simply for being on his  city street during a protest.

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.

 
 
 
CB
1.2.48  CB   replied to  Tacos! @1.2.47    2 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.49  Tacos!  replied to  CB @1.2.48    2 weeks ago
Because the state officials do not see it that way and are in court because of fed activities in the state.

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.

(1) A federal officer may arrest a person: 
(a) For any crime committed in the federal officer's presence if the federal officer has probable cause to believe the person committed the crime.
(b) For any felony or Class A misdemeanor if the federal officer has probable cause to believe the person committed the crime.
(c) When rendering assistance to or at the request of a law enforcement officer, as defined in ORS 414.805.
(5) A federal officer when making an arrest for a nonfederal offense under the circumstances provided in this section shall have the same immunity from suit as a state or local law enforcement officer.
- Oregon Revised Statutes, Section 133.245

It's Oregon's law. You'd think they would be aware of it.

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?

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.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.50  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.42    2 weeks ago
You know that there is a galactic grey area between rioting and peaceful protesting right? 
No gray area, you must abide by the law. Either you do or you don't.
He did commit a crime, by not leaving the dangerous area.
Again, classifying all conservatives as not caring about the Constitution is simply wrong.
Obviously we both disagree and will go around in circles. So it's best to end the back and forth. You said your piece and I said mine, unless you have to have the last word, I am done.

 
 
 
CB
1.2.51  CB   replied to  Tacos! @1.2.49    2 weeks ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.52  Tacos!  replied to  CB @1.2.51    2 weeks ago
So you are straddling the fence

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.

Officer X is absolute right in every circumstance?

I just said that wasn't the case. So I don't know why you are asking me that.

I will conclude that Trump supporters do not give a damn about the proper use 'and spirit' of the Rule of Law.

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.

As I told you before, that is why we have courts.

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.53  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.44    2 weeks ago
I wasn't asked for anything like that, so I saw no reason to produce it.

Actually, you were.

Are you suggesting that law enforcement is allowed to use force?

What lead you to that ridiculous conclusion? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.54  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.45    2 weeks ago
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?

Yet you have no evidence that 'clearing out rioters' is part of their 'duties'. THAT question will be litigated in the very near future. 

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.

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.55  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.50    2 weeks ago
No gray area, you must abide by the law. Either you do or you don't.

WTF does that have to do with the gray area between peaceful protest and riot? 

He did commit a crime, by not leaving the dangerous area.

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. 

Again, classifying all conservatives as not caring about the Constitution is simply wrong.

Who said that? Not I. 

Obviously we both disagree and will go around in circles. So it's best to end the back and forth. You said your piece and I said mine, unless you have to have the last word, I am done.

Glad to see you haven't altered your MO. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.56  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.54    2 weeks ago
THAT question will be litigated in the very near future. 

Looks like the judge didn't prevent the feds from arresting folks already.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.57  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.56    2 weeks ago
Looks like the judge didn't prevent the feds from arresting folks already.

Haven't read the TRO I see. jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.58  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.2.54    2 weeks ago
Yet you have no evidence that 'clearing out rioters' is part of their 'duties'.

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.

Each night, lawless anarchists destroy and desecrate property, including the federal courthouse, and attack the brave law enforcement officers protecting it.   DHS will not abdicate its solemn duty to protect federal facilities and those within them. 

(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?

one would think that he would have been taken into custody after the beat him and pepper sprayed him

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.

Since then Christopher David has been interviewed by multiple national media outlets.

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.

So I will make a declaration

Your declaration seems to reflect an anti-law enforcement bias. There are several possibilities beyond your simplistic feelings.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.59  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.2.57    2 weeks ago

Post the TRO

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.60  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.57    2 weeks ago
 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.61  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.37    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.62  Texan1211  replied to  loki12 @1.2.59    2 weeks ago

I have only heard that the judge did not grant the TRO the suit sought.

Has one been issued after yesterday's ruling?

I can't find it anywhere. If you see it, please send me the link.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.63  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.58    2 weeks ago
Do you think the officers have some other mission?

How does his statement that they are there to 'protect the federal courthouse' prove that they are in Portland to 'clear out rioters'? 

That's not necessary if he stops interfering. They probably want to arrest as few people as possible.

Really? Then why are the inflating the numbers of how many arrests they've made in Portland and elsewhere? 

It's more trouble to arrest a person than to just chase him away.

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. 

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.

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 declaration seems to reflect an anti-law enforcement bias.

Your comments seem to reflect an anti-civil rights bias. 

There are several possibilities beyond your simplistic feelings.

My statement wasn't a feeling, it was an informed opinion. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.64  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.60    2 weeks ago

Wrong case Tex...try harder. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.65  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.2.59    2 weeks ago

You demand is not my wish, go look it up. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.66  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.64    2 weeks ago
Wrong case Tex...try harder. 

If you are referring to a different case, please cite it. I can't read your mind when you say "That question will be litigated in the near future".

This is the comment I responded to:

Yet you have no evidence that 'clearing out rioters' is part of their 'duties'. THAT question will be litigated in the very near future. 

jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.67  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.2.65    2 weeks ago

You made the claim, post it!

the only TRO I see covers reporters only, not the worthless bags of human excrement flowing through the city that a judge said the feds can flush like the little turds they are.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.68  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.2.63    2 weeks ago
How does his statement that they are there to 'protect the federal courthouse' prove that they are in Portland to 'clear out rioters'?

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.

Then why are the inflating the numbers of how many arrests they've made in Portland and elsewhere?

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.

Where is their authority to 'chase him away'?

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. 

Your comments seem to reflect an anti-civil rights bias.

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.

it was an informed opinion

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.69  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.68    2 weeks ago

You've NEVER laid out 'truth', only twisting. . . 

These thugs lives were never in danger from the peaceful protesters.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.70  Tessylo  replied to  CB @1.2.48    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.71  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.66    2 weeks ago
If you are referring to a different case, please cite it. I can't read your mind when you say "That question will be litigated in the near future".

I did in this seed 8 hours ago. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.2.72  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @1.2.42    2 weeks ago
I think that you are ignoring the fact that the Navy Vet committed NO CRIME. 

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. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.73  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.2.72    2 weeks ago
"I think that you are ignoring the fact that the Navy Vet committed NO CRIME." 
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.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.74  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.71    2 weeks ago

Well, I guess if I cared more, I could scroll through all of these posts, since I know telling me is too much of an imposition.

It's all cool.

jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.75  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  arkpdx @1.2.72    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
1.2.76  CB   replied to  Tacos! @1.2.58    2 weeks ago
It's more trouble to arrest a person than to just chase him away.

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

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.77  Tacos!  replied to  CB @1.2.76    2 weeks ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
CB
1.2.78  CB   replied to  Tacos! @1.2.77    2 weeks ago

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!

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.79  Tacos!  replied to  CB @1.2.78    2 weeks ago
The officers broke bones.

Ya think they were going for that specifically, huh?

So you like your vets dominated? Gotcha.

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.

 
 
 
CB
1.2.80  CB   replied to  Tacos! @1.2.79    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.81  Tacos!  replied to  CB @1.2.80    2 weeks ago
It's an observation.

No it isn't. It's bias.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.82  Kathleen  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.61    2 weeks ago

It’s getting harder and harder to explain right from wrong. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.83  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @1.2.72    2 weeks ago
A riot was declared and he and others were told to leave the area.

Prove it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.84  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.75    2 weeks ago

The founders codified our right to petition our government for redress. There is NO wrong time, place or people to do so. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.85  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.77    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.86  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.82    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
loki12
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.88  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.27    2 weeks ago
"It looks like he was testing them to see what they would do if he did not leave, well, he found out."

Testing them how?  By standing there?  So he deserved to get his hand broken in two places and pepper sprayed in the face?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.89  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.29    2 weeks ago
"DUH...  I will just stand here and experiment and see what happens.... DUH.... Ouch.. they hit me."

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?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.90  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.88    2 weeks ago

A smart person would not have been standing there in the first place!

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.91  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.77    2 weeks ago
"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."

Those 'sticks' were batons and they broke his hand in two places.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.92  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.90    2 weeks ago

Whatever 'doc' . . . . [Deleted]

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.93  Kathleen  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.89    2 weeks ago

I wouldn’t be standing there to begin with. So I wouldn’t say anything.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.94  Kathleen  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.90    2 weeks ago

You got it!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.95  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.92    2 weeks ago

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!

 
 
 
JBB
1.2.96  JBB  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.95    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.97  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.95    2 weeks ago

Brought it on himself . . . got it. . . by just standing there . . . got it!  

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.98  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1.2.96    2 weeks ago
Removed for context - sandy
Lot of angry tRump supporters, I wonder why?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.99  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JBB @1.2.96    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.100  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.2.87    2 weeks ago

One can't 'look up' an undocumented fantasy. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.101  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.99    2 weeks ago

[Deleted.  Enough, tessy.  Further personal comments will result in points toward suspension.]

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.102  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.94    2 weeks ago
"You got it!"

No, he doesn't.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.103  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.93    2 weeks ago
I wouldn’t be standing there to begin with. So I wouldn’t say anything.

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. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.104  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.2.103    2 weeks ago
"I wouldn’t be standing there to begin with. So I wouldn’t say anything."

"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. "

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

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?  

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.105  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.103    2 weeks ago

Well.... the next time you see a situation like that happening in your area, go there, stand there if you think it’s your right to do so.

I personally wouldn’t, because if you see a dog foaming at the mouth, you would not walk up to it and pet it because it’s your right to do so.

It has nothing to do with being a coward, it has a lot to do with common sense.

Again, That’s all I have for you.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.106  Kathleen  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.99    2 weeks ago

Yes, and don’t let them do it.  I think we made our point. 

Now it’s just taunting. 

Ignore it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.107  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.106    2 weeks ago

What point?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.108  Texan1211  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.106    2 weeks ago
I think we made our point. 

Yes, you did!

Good job doing it, too!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.109  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.105    2 weeks ago
I personally wouldn’t, because if you see a dog foaming at the mouth, you would not walk up to it and pet it because it’s your right to do so.

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. 

It has nothing to do with being a coward, it has a lot to do with common sense.

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. 

Again, That’s all I have for you.

Little enough. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.110  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.2.100    2 weeks ago

Like the TRO you claimed prevented federal officers from arresting the human bags of excrement rioting in Portland?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.111  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.68    2 weeks ago
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. 

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. 

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.

Money damages do NOTHING to regress the violation to Christopher David's civil rights. 

As the Judge noted in the TRO I sited yesterday:

This chilling of First Amendment rights is not adequately compensable with money damages. Cf Otter, 682 F.3d at 826 (noting that the loss of First Amendment rights "unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury")

So as much you may think that money is the answer to everything, the Court recognizes that it isn't.

You clearly lack a lot of information, as detailed above.

I refuted the 'details' above with FACTS. 

I suggest you get educated because your comments either demonstrate a lot of ignorance or a lot of bias.

I'm not the one exhibiting ignorance in this 'discussion'.

As I said, my comments are are based on informed opinion and documented FACTS. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.112  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.2.110    2 weeks ago
Like the TRO you claimed prevented federal officers from arresting the human bags of excrement rioting in Portland?

Where did I make that claim? Cite the # of the comment. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.114  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.109    2 weeks ago
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. 

No, it means a dangerous situation, meaning the agents trying to control the rioters 'the rioters are the dogs foaming at the mouth'.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.115  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.106    2 weeks ago

Yep, we did. As far as the taunting it's all they have left at this point. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.116  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.2.111    2 weeks ago

You are making a lot of wild claims but don't support them.

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.2.117  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @1.2.111    2 weeks ago
I'm not the one exhibiting ignorance in this 'discussion'.

So you are admitting  ignorance on your part. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.118  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.114    2 weeks ago
No, it means a dangerous situation, meaning the agents trying to control the rioters 'the rioters are the dogs foaming at the mouth'.

Really? So your comment:

I personally wouldn’t, because if you see a dog foaming at the mouth, you would not walk up to it and pet it because it’s your right to do so.

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. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.119  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.115    2 weeks ago

No, you didn't.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.120  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.116    2 weeks ago

Dulay supports all of his claims with facts.

All you have is supposition.  

Similar words
supposition
noun

belief
surmise
idea
notion
suspicion
conjecture
speculation
view
inference
theory
thesis
hypothesis
postulation
guess
guesswork
feeling
hunch
assumption
 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.121  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.120    2 weeks ago
Dulay supports all of his claims with facts.

Nah ..... Dulay's comments are usually rife with just opinions. 

Nothing more, nothing less.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.122  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.116    2 weeks ago
You are making a lot of wild claims but don't support them.

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:

The people are being ordered to disperse.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.123  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @1.2.117    2 weeks ago
So you are admitting  ignorance on your part. 

So you are intentionally misrepresenting my comment. jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.124  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.121    2 weeks ago
Nah ..... Dulay's comments are usually rife with just opinions.  Nothing more, nothing less.

This from the guy that posted comment #12 and refused to support it. jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.125  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.121    2 weeks ago

Yah, Dulay always supports himself with facts.

I've never seen you support yourself with facts, ever.  Just opinions, nothing more, nothing less.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.126  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @1.2.124    2 weeks ago

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 ....

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.127  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.125    2 weeks ago

Yah, Dulay always supports himself with facts.

Nope, not even close.   He injects opinions all the time.   Because you simply happen to agree with them, does not automatically make them facts

I've never seen you support yourself with facts, ever.

Wrong again.   I use facts all the time.   That you possibly don't like them, doesn't automatically make them just opinions.

  Just opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

Strike three ... you're out. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.128  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.118    2 weeks ago

Of course it does, the rioters are the violent ones. The agents are clearing out the rioters and the dumb asses that are interfering with law and order. 

Your argument is a weak attempt to side with rioters and others that are trying to obstruct the law.

Now... Do your duty, go to the next area where there is riot and stand there. Make sure you look out, you may get hit with a bottle, broken glass or a laser that will blind you for life. Then see if you feel the same way about what they have to do for the safety of others and their homes and businesses. Oh, another thing, by just standing there, you are in their way to help stop the rioting that is going on. So while the agents are dealing with a person standing in the way, a bottle might hit you that could have been stopped by the agent. Instead they had to deal with the nitwit standing in the way first.... Get it?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.129  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.126    2 weeks ago
Just saving myself some time.  

Yet you seem to have had all the time in the world to criticize my comments in back door comments to another member. 

I'll say no and ask if you have proof they didn't. 

No to what and proof they didn't what? Here is the question you decided to save time on:

From your #12 thread:

Clearly thinks rules don't apply to him.
What rules are you talking about? 

You didn't answer, yet you've been back to this seed since. 

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.

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. 

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 ....

What RULES were you talking about Sparty? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.130  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.127    2 weeks ago
He injects opinions all the time.  

Actually I refute opinions with facts all the time. This seed is evidence of that. 

Now, what RULES? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.131  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.128    2 weeks ago

Get it?

No, it's nonsense.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.132  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @1.2.129    2 weeks ago
Yet you seem to have had all the time in the world to criticize my comments in back door comments to another member. 

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.133  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.128    2 weeks ago
Of course it does,

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. 

the rioters are the violent ones.

Yes, I can clearly see just how 'violent' Christopher David was. 

The agents are clearing out the rioters and the dumb asses that are interfering with law and order. 

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. 

Your argument is a weak attempt to side with rioters and others that are trying to obstruct the law.

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. 

Now... Do your duty, go to the next area where there is riot and stand there. Make sure you look out, you may get hit with a bottle, broken glass or a laser that will blind you for life. Then see if you feel the same way about what they have to do for the safety of others and their homes and businesses.

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. 

Oh, another thing, by just standing there, you are in their way to help stop the rioting that is going on. So while the agents are dealing with a person standing in the way, a bottle might hit you that could have been stopped by the agent. Instead they had to deal with the nitwit standing in the way first.... Get it?

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? 

 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.134  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.132    2 weeks ago

Therefore, your future comments should be viewed as lacking all credulity. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.135  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.133    one week ago

Well Dulay, we disagree on this.

Out of curiosity, how would you handle a situation with rioters and protesters in the same area, all mixed up ( meaning you can't tell who is who) with bottles, glass and rocks being thrown at you if you were an agent or local police? 

Tell me how you would take care of that?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.136  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.135    one week ago
Well Dulay, we disagree on this.

Yes, mostly because my position is based on facts and yours seems to be based on false scenarios. 

Tell me how you would take care of that?

LEGALLY Kathleen.

That's the option that the Federal Agents have failed to take in almost every case. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.137  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.136    one week ago

Can you be more specific?

Your answer did not address how you would handle the situation.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.138  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @1.2.134    one week ago

Your choice, i view much of your stuff in the very same manner.

C'est la vie eh?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.139  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.137    one week ago
Can you be more specific? Your answer did not address how you would handle the situation.

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.140  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.138    one week ago

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.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.141  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.139    one week ago

You did NOT answer the question. You are avoiding it. 

Lets try this... If you were an agent or the local police and you are watching over the area. Then a riot broke loose and there were protesters and rioters mixed up in the same group, how would you handle it? How would you keep the protesters safe, businesses not set on fire and stop all the rocks,bottles and glass being thrown? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.142  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @1.2.140    one week ago
Yet have invariably been incapable of making a cogent argument to support your view.

Nah, i've good arguments not to discuss things with you.   That you don't LIKE them is your problem not mine

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.143  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.141    one week ago
You did NOT answer the question. 

What part of LEGALLY don't you understand Kathleen? 

You are avoiding it.

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. jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.144  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.143    one week ago

Again, you did not answer the question. You keep saying Legally, so I will play in your ballpark. 

Lets try this...  Lets say there are no police around in the area.  There are peaceful protesters protesting.  All the sudden it starts to turn violent. There are protesters and rioters mixed in with each other. 

How would you LEGALLY handle that in a emergency situation?

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.145  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.2.122    one week ago
I'm STILL waiting, after 2 days, for you to support this comment:

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.146  Tacos!  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.144    one week ago
How would you LEGALLY handle that in a emergency situation?

Multiple people have asked this question multiple times. We are never going to get an answer.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.147  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.145    one week ago
That has been answered.

Cite the comment #. 

Meanwhile, you have continually refused to answer questions put to you or cite anything specific supporting the wild claims you have made.

All you need do is answer this question : 

So what 'wild claims' are you talking about? Please be specific. 

Oh and while you are at it how about answering the other questions I asked? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.148  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.144    one week ago
Again, you did not answer the question. You keep saying Legally, so I will play in your ballpark. 

If you could play in my ballpark Kathleen, you would have acknowledged that I answered you question the FIRST time. 

How would you LEGALLY handle that in a emergency situation?

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.149  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.146    one week ago
Multiple people have asked this question multiple times.

Not to me they haven't.

We are never going to get an answer.

Join the club. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.150  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.144    one week ago

Oh and BTW, YOU still did not answer my question. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.151  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.148    one week ago
If you could play in my ballpark Kathleen, you would have acknowledged that I answered you question the FIRST time. 

By that I meant that I used the word 'legally', you used that to answer the question twice. So I then used that in with the question.

Well, I agree with you about arresting the rioters, however, the problem is that they mingle in with the crowd that is not rioting. Perhaps they throw a bottle and then hide in with the rest of the crowd. So it makes it very difficult to distinguish between the two.  So they then have to ask everyone in the area to leave. Now, some refuse to do so, that is where I disagree.  It would be much safer if everyone leaves and protests another day. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.152  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.150    one week ago

I am sorry, what was the question again?

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.153  Kathleen  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.146    one week ago

Well, its worth a try... lol

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.154  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.151    one week ago
By that I meant that I used the word 'legally', you used that to answer the question twice. So I then used that in with the question.

Whoosh, right over your head. 

Well, I agree with you about arresting the rioters, however, the problem is that they mingle in with the crowd that is not rioting. Perhaps they throw a bottle and then hide in with the rest of the crowd. So it makes it very difficult to distinguish between the two.  So they then have to ask everyone in the area to leave. Now, some refuse to do so, that is where I disagree.  It would be much safer if everyone leaves and protests another day. 

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.155  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.152    one week ago

Can you cite the law that states it's a crime not to leave a dangerous area?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.156  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.153    one week ago

I answered your questions, THREE TIMES. 

It's more than either of you can say. 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.157  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.2.155    one week ago
Can you cite the law that states it's a crime not to leave a dangerous area?

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.

https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-288.5.pdf

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.158  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.2.157    one week ago
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. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.159  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.154    one week ago

Even if it’s dangerous? It’s a law that needs to be changed for the safety of us all.

So you would rather see a city get destroyed and people hurt, because you think it’s not the law and it interferes with your rights. That is surly screwed up thinking.

The rioters are breaking the law...

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.160  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.159    one week ago

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. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.161  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.156    one week ago

You only answered one partly. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.162  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.155    one week ago

If you are told to leave in a dangerous situation, then the police come and you can get arrested. Then the law takes over from there.  You are breaking the law if you do not do what the police say.  

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.163  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.2.158    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.164  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @1.2.163    one week ago

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.  

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.165  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.164    one week ago

My god, how uninformed you are.

How do you keep from tripping over your own shadow?

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.166  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.164    one week ago
Dulay is 100% correct as usual and backs up all his statements with FACTS.  

How about showing us some.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.167  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.164    one week ago
You are 100% incorrect as usual.

c49144fff30402292c73288947968186.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.168  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @1.2.165    one week ago
My god, how uninformed you are. How do you keep from tripping over your own shadow?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.169  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @1.2.166    one week ago
'How about showing us some.'

I'm still waiting for you to provide facts on anything.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.170  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.154    one week ago

Nope... I knew what you were angling for. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.171  Kathleen  replied to  bugsy @1.2.157    one week ago

Okay... I see that it is a crime.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.172  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.162    one week ago

Are you NOW claiming that Federal Agents are calling the police? jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.173  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.2.163    one week ago
Doesn't matter where you are.

Oh it sure as fuck DOES matter where you are. 

If LEO tells you to disperse, you disperse, or you get arrested. Every state has this law.

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. 

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.

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.174  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.171    one week ago
Okay... I see that it is a crime.  

When ordered by local LEO's in NC. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.175  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.161    one week ago

Nope, you just don't like my answers. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.176  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.170    one week ago
Nope... I knew what you were angling for. 

Oh? What was that? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.177  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @1.2.163    one week ago

the gutless idiots that have been elected there would rather have their city be looted and burned than to upset the cupcakes any further, so do6 expect local Leo's to be able to do anything with the shyster politicians protecting rioters.

thank god I don't have to live there!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.178  Texan1211  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.170    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
1.2.179  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Dulay @1.2.173    one week ago

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."

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/07/27/portland-riots-read-out-july-27

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.181  Texan1211  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.2.179    one week ago

Don't think the expert will see things that way.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.182  Dulay  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.2.179    one week ago

So they didn't find the mortars? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

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. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.183  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.174    one week ago

You think this is funny? 

I was trying to have a civil discussion with you  and you act like this. This is why I do not like conversing with you Dulay.  It’s a complete waste of my time when you act disrespectful.

We are done. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.184  Kathleen  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.178    one week ago

It was a complete waste of my time.  I guess when you don’t understand what is truly right, you will never understand.  Then you laugh it off instead of using reason.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.185  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.175    one week ago

You didn’t like my questions. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.186  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2.172    one week ago

You are rude Dulay. 

 
 
 
devangelical
1.2.187  devangelical  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.186    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.188  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.178    one week ago

Wise words .......

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.189  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.119    one week ago

If you say so...jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.190  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.184    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.191  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.164    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.192  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.186    one week ago

Oh so YOU didn't like MY question. jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.193  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.183    one week ago
You think this is funny? 

No, I think your comment was not only funny but ridiculous. 

See the difference? 

We are done. 

You know that everyone can see that you continued posting replies to me right? 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.194  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  bugsy @1.2.157    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Freewill
1.3  Freewill  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    2 weeks ago
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.

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.

Why do Trump supporters hate the Constitution and the American people so much?

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?

 
 
 
PJ
1.3.1  PJ  replied to  Freewill @1.3    2 weeks ago
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,

Go back and read the comments from the trump supporters on this thread.  I think that should address your puzzlement.  

 
 
 
Freewill
1.3.2  Freewill  replied to  PJ @1.3.1    2 weeks ago
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.  

 
 
 
PJ
1.3.3  PJ  replied to  Freewill @1.3.2    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Freewill
1.3.4  Freewill  replied to  PJ @1.3.3    2 weeks ago
I don't even know how to respond to your comment. 

Clearly.

the way you are twisting your explanation all over the place to justify an act of unnecessary brutality.

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?

 
 
 
CB
1.3.5  CB   replied to  Freewill @1.3    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.6  Dulay  replied to  Freewill @1.3.4    2 weeks ago

Since no one but you stated 'all Trump supporters' why ask anyone to defend it? 

 
 
 
Freewill
1.3.7  Freewill  replied to  Dulay @1.3.6    2 weeks ago
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: 

Why do Trump supporters hate the Constitution and the American people so much?

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.8  Dulay  replied to  Freewill @1.3.7    2 weeks ago
Do you see a determiner, adjective, anything of the sort?  Some, many, a few....no?  Then you tell me what it means.

Well it sure as fuck doesn't mean 'all'. 

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. 

That makes two of you. 

But thanks for weighing in.

You can count on it whenever I see a member misrepresent what another member posted. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  Freewill @1.3    2 weeks ago
"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?"

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.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.10  Tessylo  replied to  Freewill @1.3.4    2 weeks ago

What federal buildings or property was being damaged?  NONE.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.3.11  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.10    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Freewill
1.3.13  Freewill  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.10    2 weeks ago
 
 
 
Freewill
1.3.14  Freewill  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.9    2 weeks ago
Yeah, clear as mud as these thugs were the only ones acting violently when these peaceful protesters were unarmed and non-violent.

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.

 
 
 
Freewill
1.3.15  Freewill  replied to  Dulay @1.3.8    2 weeks ago
You can count on it whenever I see a member misrepresent what another member posted. 

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?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.3.16  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Freewill @1.3.13    2 weeks ago
One would need to be purposefully ignoring the facts and reality not to acknowledge this.

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.17  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.11    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.18  Dulay  replied to  Freewill @1.3.13    2 weeks ago
One would need to be purposefully ignoring the facts and reality not to acknowledge this.

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.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.3.19  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @1.3.18    2 weeks ago
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. 

Really simple response to your assumption.

Exigent circumstances.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.20  Dulay  replied to  Freewill @1.3.15    2 weeks ago
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.

Where did you ask that question FW? I see your statements but no question on that topic. 

 Is it my question that bothered you?  Why?

Since I see no question, NO. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.21  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @1.3.18    2 weeks ago

Why do protesters usually have to get a permit and protest in a designated area but the leftist horde can meander burn, graffiti where ever the chose? 

 
 
 
charger 383
1.3.22  charger 383  replied to  MUVA @1.3.21    2 weeks ago

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 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.23  MUVA  replied to  charger 383 @1.3.22    2 weeks ago

Either a permit is required or it's not this is just another example of a double standard.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.24  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @1.3.19    2 weeks ago
Really simple response to your assumption.

My statement is not an 'assumption', it's a fact of jurisprudence. 

Exigent circumstances.

Does that include opposing the illegal deployment of federal agents on the streets of America? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.25  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @1.3.21    2 weeks ago

The protesters in Portland are on a PUBLIC street, NO permit necessary. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.3.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.3.25    2 weeks ago
testers 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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.27  Tessylo  replied to  Freewill @1.3.14    2 weeks ago

Yes, again, clear as mud.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.28  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.26    2 weeks ago
Umm.. That's not how that works.  OF course you need a permit to obstruct public streets.

So do the Feds have a permit to obstruct public streets with their barricades? The protesters sure as hell didn't erect them. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.29  Tessylo  replied to  Freewill @1.3.14    2 weeks ago
"Oh for fuck sakes!"   "Honestly how in the hell can anyone in their right mind say that the cops were the only ones acting violently?"
They weren't cops.  They were paramilitary/thugs/goons/unidentifiable 

Why are tRump supporters so angry for Heaven's sake?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.30  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @1.3.19    2 weeks ago
"Exigent circumstances."

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.3.31  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.30    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Freewill
1.3.32  Freewill  replied to  Dulay @1.3.20    one week ago
Where did you ask that question FW? I see your statements but no question on that topic. 

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.

 
 
 
Freewill
1.3.33  Freewill  replied to  Dulay @1.3.18    one week ago
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.  

Already provided the link in 1.3.4 above regarding the law and jurisdiction.

https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-66000-protection-government-property#:~:text=The%20Department%20of%20Homeland%20Security,on%20the%20property.%E2%80%9D%2040%20U.S.C.&text=The%20Inspector%20General%20Act%20of%201978%2C%205%20U.S.C .

Trying do this via phone.  Hope link works for you.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.34  Dulay  replied to  Freewill @1.3.32    one week ago

Thanks for finally admitting that there was no question to be bothered about. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.35  Dulay  replied to  Freewill @1.3.33    one week ago

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. 

 
 
 
Freewill
1.3.36  Freewill  replied to  Dulay @1.3.35    one week ago

LOL!!!  Have a nice day in your universe Dulay. I truly do wish you the best.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.37  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.3.35    one week ago
Since the sidewalk outside of the courthouse is NOT federal property

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

(a) In General.—
To the extent provided for by transfers made pursuant to the   Homeland Security Act of 2002 , the   Secretary of Homeland Security   (in this section referred to as the “Secretary”) shall protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed-ownership corporation thereof) and the persons on the property.
(b) Officers and Agents.—
(1) Designation.—
The Secretary may designate employees of the   Department of Homeland Security , including employees transferred to the Department from the Office of the Federal Protective Service of the   General Services Administration   pursuant to the   Homeland Security Act of 2002 , as officers and agents for duty in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.
(2) Powers.— While engaged in the performance of official duties, an officer or agent designated under this subsection may
(A)
enforce Federal laws and regulations for the protection of persons and property;
(B)
carry firearms;
(C)
make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of the officer or agent or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony;
(D)
serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the authority of the United States;
(E)
conduct investigations, on and off the property in question , of offenses that may have been committed against property owned or occupied by the Federal Government or persons on the property; and
(F)
carry out such other activities for the promotion of homeland security as the Secretary may prescribe.
(g) Limitation on Statutory Construction.— Nothing in this section shall be construed to—
(1)
preclude or limit the authority of any Federal law enforcement agency
 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.38  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.9    one week ago

"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! 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.39  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.37    one week ago
including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.

I've already said that issue is in litigation. Try to keep up. 

make arrests without a warrant for any offense

I already pointed out that they failed to even attempt to arrest the Navy vet. Harping on that point is ludicrous. 

conduct investigations, on and off the property in question

What pray tell were they investigating when they beat and pepper sprayed Christopher David?

carry out such other activities for the promotion of homeland security as the Secretary may prescribe.

Well they sure as hell ARE 'increasing public awareness' of the machinations of the DHS, et al, I'll give them that. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.40  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.3.39    one week ago
I've already said that issue is in litigation. Try to keep up.

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. 

What pray tell were they investigating when they beat and pepper sprayed Christopher David?

At least you finally admit that you don't know. Although you sure seemed happy to reach legal conclusions in spite of your ignorance. 

I already pointed out that they failed to even attempt to arrest the Navy vet. Harping on that point is ludicrous.

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.41  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.40    one week ago
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. 

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. 

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.

Really? So 'regular cops' are limited to arrests for FELONY crimes that they WITNESS? 

Who knew? jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

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.

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.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.42  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.3.41    one week ago
the TRO issued by a Federal Judge

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.

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.

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:

Really? So 'regular cops' are limited to arrests for FELONY crimes that they WITNESS?  Who knew?

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.

A Federal Judge ruled

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.43  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.42    one week ago
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.

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. 

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.

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 attributed something to me I never said so you could mock it.

You stated:

I only pointed you to the law so that you might finally understand these officers have the same powers as any regular cop.

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.

I don't know if the rest of us should be disgusted or pity you.

There you go, right into your ad hominem attack MO. jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

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.

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. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.44  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.3.43    one week ago
The TROs do far more.

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.

Your comments continue to highlight the authorities while failing to acknowledge the RESTRICTIONS contained in law.

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.

Regular cops have MUCH MORE authority in their localities than Federal Agents. PERIOD, full stop.

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.

your ad hominem attack

You are the last person who is in a position to complain about that.

Federal standards for justifying a TRO: 

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!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.45  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.44    one week ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.46  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.3.45    one week ago

You:

I NEVER said that the feds have no business enforcing the law or even being on the sidewalk.

Hmmm. Also you:

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. 

Also you :

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.

And you keep making this nonsense claim even though I pointed you to a federal law stating:

The Secretary may designate employees of the      Department of Homeland Security  , including employees transferred to the Department from the Office of the Federal Protective Service of the      General Services Administration      pursuant to the      Homeland Security Act of 2002  , as officers and agents for duty in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the property,  including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.47  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.46    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.48  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.3.47    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.49  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.48    one week ago

Lying about my comments is all you've got.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
1.4  MonsterMash  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    2 weeks ago
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]

Someone that has served military doesn't automatically mean they aren't an asshole, nor does it mean they weren't participating in unlawful activity.

There's more to the story than left wing anarchist want to be known.

"I just walking home when I was attack by federal officers" I wanted to ask a question, but I was beaten by federal officers for no reason. " I was minding my own business singing a song when I was nearly beaten to death by the police"  Yeah right, fucking lairs 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.4.1  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MonsterMash @1.4    2 weeks ago

The Vet was a 57 year old Naval Academy Graduate...... Above everything else he, as all vets, had taken an oath to defend the constitution above all else.  This wasn't some anarchist as you want to dismiss him as.  This is someone that took his oath to heart.

Trump's goon squads, and their actions are in clear violation of the rights of the individual, and powers granted to the states. 

There is nothing more to this story.

Let me add, that since this video and the corresponding interview with this man came out, the local VFWs, and American Legion Posts are now organizing directed efforts to counter these jackbooted thugs.  Do you want to lump them in the anarchist pile too?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2  seeder  FLYNAVY1    2 weeks ago
 
 
 
evilgenius
3  evilgenius    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1  Krishna  replied to  evilgenius @3    2 weeks ago
I read the Washington Post's article on this. The the Trump Secret Police broke the guy's hand in 2 places.

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.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
4  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 weeks ago
ask them why they were using unmarked cars

Thats a no brainer:

256

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    2 weeks ago
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.

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.

"I wanted to ask them 'Why are you guys not following the Constitution?' But we never got there,"

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.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @5    2 weeks ago

 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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @5.1    2 weeks ago
I cannot believe anyone is excusing the behavior of these officers...

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.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.2  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
I mean everybody know that cops are equipped with guns and batons.

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.   

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
And Americans exercising their right to peaceful assembly are equipped with the U.S. Constitution.

You enforce those rights in a court of law - not by interfering with law enforcement officers at work.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

"not by interfering with law enforcement officers at work."

You mean the gestapo?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.6  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.6    2 weeks ago

the right to peacefully assemble doesn't include the right to burn, destroy, and loot private or public property.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
5.1.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Split Personality @5.1    2 weeks ago
 I cannot believe anyone is excusing the behavior of these officers

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.6    2 weeks ago
The right to assembly is already predetermined, and requires no court of law to exercise

I see, so you think we can do away with courts where our rights have historically been enforced.

 
 
 
Krishna
5.1.10  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
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.

But do you really think that a conversation here on NT will have any significant effect on policy?

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  Krishna @5.1.10    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.12  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.9    2 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.13  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.11    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.13    2 weeks ago
a banana republic.

As you defend mob violence... That's funny.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.15  Tacos!  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.13    2 weeks ago
Sorry, the police have to follow the Constitution

Or else what? You'll personally kick some ass?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.16  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.15    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.16    2 weeks ago
Are you telling me you won't stand up for your rights under the constitution, or even consider defending the document?

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 are way on the wrong side of this argument Tacos.

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?

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.18  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.17    2 weeks ago
or you're just here to argue.

Oh, the irony.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.19  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.18    2 weeks ago

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.20  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.17    2 weeks ago

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.

 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.20    2 weeks ago
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.

More planning of assaults on LE?

More ambushes planned?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.20    2 weeks ago
t the suburban Chicago VFWs are coordinating a protest with

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.23  Tacos!  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.20    2 weeks ago
If things evolve, I'll be sure to send you pictures

You won't be sending shit because you'll be dead. 

rather that hiding in courtrooms

That's where shit actually gets done. Pick up a paper or a history book. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.24  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.22    2 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.25  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.23    2 weeks ago

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  https://www.manataka.org/page1909.html

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.24    2 weeks ago
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 i

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.  

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.27  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.21    2 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.28  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.26    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.27    2 weeks ago
Nah.... we will be exercising our right to free speech and the right to assemble, nothing more.

I'll believe it when I see it. Too many "peaceful" protests have turned violent when thugs attack police.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.30  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.29    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.30    2 weeks ago
Are you calling us thugs?

Not at all. Did you read that I did?

You think we want a violent confrontation? 

Don't know, don't care what you want.

No.... none of us do, but what they did to that veteran yesterday in Portland cannot go unanswered. 

Seems like you are motivated by revenge.

if you can't even acknowledge the proven fact that many of these so-called "peaceful" protests have turned violent, then that is all on you. I refuse to be blind to it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.32  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.27    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.33  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.1.34  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.18    2 weeks ago

Oh, the irony.

non ferrous meddling came immediately to mind after reading 'you're just here to argue' !

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.1.35  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.31    2 weeks ago
Nah.... we will be exercising our right to free speech and the right to assemble, nothing more.
I'll believe it when I see it. Too many "peaceful" protests have turned violent when thugs attack police.

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.36  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.8    2 weeks ago

Unlawful activities?

You mean peaceful protesters?

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.38  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.35    2 weeks ago

I have told you repeatedly, please respond to me in a better manner,

I don't do gibberish.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
5.1.39  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.36    2 weeks ago
You mean peaceful protesters?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
5.1.40  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.32    2 weeks ago
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.

What is this? Please elaborate.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @5    2 weeks ago
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.

An American citizen is not compelled to follow unlawful orders. 

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.

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. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.2    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.1    2 weeks ago
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:

The Federal Defendants argue that journalists have no right to stay, observe, and 
document when the government "closes" public streets. This circular logic does not help the Federal Defendants. First, the Federal Defendants are not the entities that "close" state public streets and parks; that is a local police function.

And:

 The public streets, sidewalks, and parks historically have been open to the press and general public, and public observation of law enforcement activities in these public fora plays a significant positive role in ensuring conduct remains consistent with the Constitution. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
6  Dean Moriarty    2 weeks ago

Oh boy they drew first blood this could get ugly.

384  

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1  Sparty On  replied to  Dean Moriarty @6    2 weeks ago

Lol ..... nice one!

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @6.1    2 weeks ago

NO, it's stupid.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @6.1    2 weeks ago

? a stupid nice one...

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.2    2 weeks ago

Nah, it's still  nice one, regardless of what the afflicted say.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.3    2 weeks ago

No, it is and always will be, stupid.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.4    2 weeks ago

Cool, which means i'm spot on once again.

As always, thanks for the input.

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.1  KDMichigan  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    2 weeks ago
Protesters try to provoke assaults by cops and then release videos that conveniently start after the provocation is complete.

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. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.1  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  KDMichigan @7.1    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.3  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

I'll let you guess which came first Sean.... Police brutality of citizens, or citizens protesting police brutality.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1.3    2 weeks ago

I'll let you guess which came first rule by the mob,  or the police. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1.3    2 weeks ago

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...

The rape of a child - cheered by democrats. 

I guess you've picked your side.... 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.5    2 weeks ago

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 :

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.7  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.6    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
7.1.8  Greg Jones  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1.7    2 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.9  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Greg Jones @7.1.8    2 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1.7    2 weeks ago
The police violence against citizens most definitely PREDATES the demonstrations and the riots. 

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. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
7.1.11  r.t..b...  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.10    2 weeks ago
Unlike the American system of justice where one is accountable for one's own actions,

Hence the protests.

When every American can one day be guaranteed the same expectation of justice, there will be no more need to protest the present day injustices.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  r.t..b... @7.1.11    2 weeks ago

This isn't about protests.   No one disputes anyone's right to peacefully protest the police.  That's a strawman. 

This is  about riots.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.12    2 weeks ago

Yep, spot on.

And frankly, i find it hard to believe ANYONE is supporting rioters and looter.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.13    2 weeks ago
And frankly, i find it hard to believe ANYONE is supporting rioters and looter.

Come on, you can't really be surprised by it now, can you?

Seems like more and more people simply support rioters, looters, and arsonists.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.14    2 weeks ago

Yeah until it affects them directly.  

Then they expect the bad man in DC to bail them out

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.16  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.10    2 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
7.1.17  r.t..b...  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.12    2 weeks ago
This isn't about protests.

It is all about protesting the status quo.

The leaders of the movement would be better served to disassociate themselves from those whom see violence as an ends to justify the means. Better to remember and honor John Lewis and his call to lending a voice to 'good trouble'.

It seems there is no faction, no party, or no movement that has proactive and thus effective leadership. Perhaps that explains the confrontational attitudes coming from all sides; the streets, the school boards, the city councils, in every statehouse, in the halls of congress, and in the White House.

We can't even come to grips with the wearing of a mask for fuck sake...how can we expect to deal with a serious issue?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.18  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1.16    2 weeks ago

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.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/63-support-black-lives-matter-recognition-discrimination-jumps/story?id=71779435

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.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
7.1.19  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.15    2 weeks ago
expect the bad man in DC

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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1.16    2 weeks ago
ntal army of 1775 would have been a totalitarian effort. 

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. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.21  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.20    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1.21    2 weeks ago
Says the king of strawman arguments on NT..

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.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.23  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.22    2 weeks ago
You believe it's okay to assault  police who did nothing wrong merely because they are police.

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. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.1.24  KDMichigan  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1.1    2 weeks ago
entire cause of these protests was police brutality to start with,

So in Leftwing liberal land it's okay to burn down and destroy other peoples belongings. What a fucking joke.

What I see is the cement headed conservatives 

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. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.25  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  KDMichigan @7.1.24    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.1.26  KDMichigan  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1.25    2 weeks ago

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.   

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.27  Sparty On  replied to  KDMichigan @7.1.26    2 weeks ago
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

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.28  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  KDMichigan @7.1.26    2 weeks ago

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.

 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
7.1.29  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.27    2 weeks ago
The participation award generation.

And how would we honestly label this generation?

The dysfunction, divisiveness, and vitriol we witness with every post and with every tweet are remarkable in their childishness, particularly given the times of relative peace abroad. That this is a self-imposed conflagration speaks to either our collectively boredom or our willful ignorance of those internal forces that pose a far greater threat than any other. Maybe both.

We have razed the bar to the point that it no longer matters who can rise to the challenge of even stepping across it, saying more about this generation than the specious disparagement of those left to clean up our mess. We have left them nothing.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.30  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1.23    2 weeks ago
hat is nowhere near your first statemen

"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? 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.31  Trout Giggles  replied to  r.t..b... @7.1.29    2 weeks ago

You know what we are? A generation of selfish assholes who can't even wear a mask to protect others lives

 
 
 
r.t..b...
7.1.32  r.t..b...  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.31    2 weeks ago
A generation of selfish assholes

#dontforgetaboutme

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.30    2 weeks ago

The "woke" crowd seems to think of police being assaulted as mere collateral damage.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.34  Trout Giggles  replied to  r.t..b... @7.1.32    2 weeks ago

yup

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.35  Tessylo  replied to  r.t..b... @7.1.19    2 weeks ago

"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'.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.36  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.33    2 weeks ago

There's a lot of really brave people on the internet.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.1.37  KDMichigan  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1.28    2 weeks ago
you being content in your white privilege world.

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.38  Sparty On  replied to  r.t..b... @7.1.29    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.39  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.14    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.40  CB   replied to  Sparty On @7.1.15    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.41  CB   replied to  r.t..b... @7.1.17    2 weeks ago

Deep!!

 
 
 
CB
7.1.42  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.22    2 weeks ago

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!

 
 
 
CB
7.1.43  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @7.1.37    2 weeks ago
If white privilege is a thing why do biracial people label themselves black?

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.44  Sparty On  replied to  CB @7.1.40    2 weeks ago

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 .....

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
7.1.45  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.31    2 weeks ago

speak for me, not yourself

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.46  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.36    2 weeks ago

"There's a lot of really brave people on the internet."

Indeed!

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.47  Texan1211  replied to  CB @7.1.39    2 weeks ago
Smells like an opportunity to redirect the discussion, if you ask me.

I did not.

No one supports rioting, looting, or arson. It is the last actions of a desperate (or opportunist group of ) people.

It certainly doesn't look like it now. Many of the "protests" have evolved into riots, looting, and arson, along with destruction of both private and public property. Selfish bastards don't mind destroying what isn't theirs. Fuck that nonsense. And if that is taking place in the MIDST of "peaceful protests", then the whole group is supportive of it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.48  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.36    2 weeks ago

yeah, I don't know how they manage to find the time!</