Feds in Portland Brutalize Navy Vet.

[busybee01]

Bullshit, like I said, if the asshole breaks federal law and runs, the feds have every right to pursue them and throw their commie ass in jail.

nobody got arrested, kitty. so there is that. why? no probable cause.

If they were not "arrested" in the legal sense, then they were kidnapped, which happens to be a federal crime.

Do you know the difference between "detained" and "arrested"? Probably not!

uh-huh. why were pettibone's miranda rights given AFTER he was detained for some time & why was he asked if he wanted to waive them? that's not kosher by any means.

It's not just not kosher.

It's unconstitutional and illegal.

I believe the people who kidnapped people off the streets need to face justice for their crimes of kidnapping. It's a federal felony.

I think rioting and looting is against the law. Mkay?

the vet, nor pettibone were involved in any of that. the feds have attacked 'medics', journalists, & legal observers.

the lawsuits have already started, lenny. they overreached & it seems alot of the feds involved have not been trained properly. the trump administration are taking dregs & turning them into CBP & boppers that used to get turned down from those kinda jobs.

ROFLMAO

So tell the class how you sort "journalist and legal observers" from a violent mob, when they are in the crowd. This is just another ploy by you commies to tie the hands of law enforcement. I'm sure your intent is to leave the cops with no options but to use deadly force. Tell the truth, you think bodies in the street is a path to power. You are really sick puppies.

.

THEY HAD IDENTIFYING MARKERS .



also a judge put out an order that they, along with journalist & legal observers are protected. the order has merit, based on evidence that had to be presented showing that it is happening, also the order read that the feds aren't allowed to confiscate CREDENTIALS. that means they can be distinguished & also by the fact that they aren't showing any signs of aggression.

doy.

And when they're in a violent crowd, they get whatever the crowd gets. Perhaps they should stay away from the violent people and up wind. But hey, you've convinced me, it's time for the anarchist to be put in ******* body bags. Law enforcement will have no choice when less lethal means are taken from them, let the snipers do their job.

.

Then protestors should arm themselves and do the same to these federal thugs. The fact is that Trump has made the situation worse by escalating it.

 

[busybee01]

Not true, plainclothes police do not have to identify themselves until they apply their police powers, that is until the take someone into custody.

Actually that requirement starts when an officer exercises "control" over someone.
They must identify themselves before they can detain a witness or suspect for questioning

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You've Been Arrested or Detained

In general, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave an encounter with the police, then there’s been either a detention or an

www.nolo.com

Absolutely, so they drive up in their unmarked car, wearing civilian clothes grab the person and tell him they want him for questioning. That's exactly what the federal agents did.

Show me a video of people in civilian clothes doing this.

Show you a video of plainclothes detective picking up a suspect? What planet do you live on?

They have a badge dumbass!

They have badges but they are concealed until the detectives apply their police powers, dumbass. They same is true for some of the federal law enforcement officers operating in the failed city of Portland.

the little green goons are not identifying themselves; nor are 'detectives'. they were finally outed by ' acting ' DHS flying monkey, chad wolf as being CBP & FBP.

They are federal law enforcement officers working within the framework of federal and they function in the same way local SWAT teams do. Just as plainclothes detectives drive around in unmarked cars and don't reveal their police identities until applying taking someone into custody, so do these federal law enforcement officers, and just as SWAT teams dress in military style gear and sometimes facemasks to hide their identities, so do these federal officers. If you don't object to the local police doing these things, then your objection to federal law enforcement officers doing them can only be attributed to your political bias.

bullshit. they didn't give probable cause when they put their hands on him, & started taking him away.

that is not standard protocol no matter who you are.

you can't 'resist' arrest nor be charged with assaulting a police officer if they don't say who they are & why they are taking you, & especially if you are not read your rights AT THE TIME THEY TAKE YOU.

pettibone should have resisted because any lawyer would have been able to get him off if they tried to charge him without following protocol.

why did they wait to readhim his rights until after he was taken into custody, frisked, & his backpack searched?

& why was he then asked if he wanted to waive them?

when he said no - they simply let him go.

now, spin all that into a web of reason - if you can.

Were your brain functioning properly you would realize you have no idea what was said at the time these people were arrested. However, in general police are not required to present probable cause to someone who is arrested but only to a court, when necessary. The federal standard for making an arrest, however, is different from the standard used by state and local police. State and local police must be able to show a court probable cause for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid, whereas federal law enforcement officers must only be able to show a court reasonable suspicion for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid. The slightly different standards were established by federal and state courts, not by the law enforcement officers.

While Crazy Nancy seeks to incite more violence in our cities and more divisions among Americans along racial lines with these ridiculous rants, it is noteworthy noone is taking federal officers to court over her bizarre claims that the arrests are "kidnappings" or that the arrests are in any way illegal or improper.

The federal government does not have the right to enforce any laws in the streets of Portland. They have to prove a federal crime was committed. They have no jurisdiction.

 

[toobfreak]

YOU ARE THE BLOCKHEAD.

I'm a blockhead buzzbomb?

The video clearly shows he was doing none of that. The video clearly shows he was standing right there so close they could swing their arm and hit him. Better clean your glasses.

Also worth noting that he was not arrested Yes, once again, the Fed showed overwhelming compassion and restraint.

If I were the Democrats, I would use this in a campaign ad. No doubt that was the point all along to force a confrontation, have someone nearby conveniently taking pictures to use as another faux news attack ad trying to keep Sorry Joe off the front page.

WHERE IS JOE?

WHERE IS JOE?

WHERE IS JOE?


If Joe is as absent as a president as he has been throughout Covid and these riots showing no leadership, we are one sorry nation for the next four years with him in office.

 

[OKTexas]

Bullshit, like I said, if the asshole breaks federal law and runs, the feds have every right to pursue them and throw their commie ass in jail.

nobody got arrested, kitty. so there is that. why? no probable cause.

If they were not "arrested" in the legal sense, then they were kidnapped, which happens to be a federal crime.

Do you know the difference between "detained" and "arrested"? Probably not!

uh-huh. why were pettibone's miranda rights given AFTER he was detained for some time & why was he asked if he wanted to waive them? that's not kosher by any means.

It's not just not kosher.

It's unconstitutional and illegal.

I believe the people who kidnapped people off the streets need to face justice for their crimes of kidnapping. It's a federal felony.

I think rioting and looting is against the law. Mkay?

the vet, nor pettibone were involved in any of that. the feds have attacked 'medics', journalists, & legal observers.

the lawsuits have already started, lenny. they overreached & it seems alot of the feds involved have not been trained properly. the trump administration are taking dregs & turning them into CBP & boppers that used to get turned down from those kinda jobs.

ROFLMAO

So tell the class how you sort "journalist and legal observers" from a violent mob, when they are in the crowd. This is just another ploy by you commies to tie the hands of law enforcement. I'm sure your intent is to leave the cops with no options but to use deadly force. Tell the truth, you think bodies in the street is a path to power. You are really sick puppies.

.

THEY HAD IDENTIFYING MARKERS .



also a judge put out an order that they, along with journalist & legal observers are protected. the order has merit, based on evidence that had to be presented showing that it is happening, also the order read that the feds aren't allowed to confiscate CREDENTIALS. that means they can be distinguished & also by the fact that they aren't showing any signs of aggression.

doy.

And when they're in a violent crowd, they get whatever the crowd gets. Perhaps they should stay away from the violent people and up wind. But hey, you've convinced me, it's time for the anarchist to be put in ******* body bags. Law enforcement will have no choice when less lethal means are taken from them, let the snipers do their job.

.

Then protestors should arm themselves and do the same to these federal thugs. The fact is that Trump has made the situation worse by escalating it.

FOAD commie, no one is forcing them to congregate at that court house. There's a large city out there they can destroy and never see a fed.

.

 

[playtime]

Not true, plainclothes police do not have to identify themselves until they apply their police powers, that is until the take someone into custody.

Actually that requirement starts when an officer exercises "control" over someone.
They must identify themselves before they can detain a witness or suspect for questioning

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You've Been Arrested or Detained

In general, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave an encounter with the police, then there’s been either a detention or an

www.nolo.com

Absolutely, so they drive up in their unmarked car, wearing civilian clothes grab the person and tell him they want him for questioning. That's exactly what the federal agents did.

Show me a video of people in civilian clothes doing this.

Show you a video of plainclothes detective picking up a suspect? What planet do you live on?

They have a badge dumbass!

They have badges but they are concealed until the detectives apply their police powers, dumbass. They same is true for some of the federal law enforcement officers operating in the failed city of Portland.

the little green goons are not identifying themselves; nor are 'detectives'. they were finally outed by ' acting ' DHS flying monkey, chad wolf as being CBP & FBP.

They are federal law enforcement officers working within the framework of federal and they function in the same way local SWAT teams do. Just as plainclothes detectives drive around in unmarked cars and don't reveal their police identities until applying taking someone into custody, so do these federal law enforcement officers, and just as SWAT teams dress in military style gear and sometimes facemasks to hide their identities, so do these federal officers. If you don't object to the local police doing these things, then your objection to federal law enforcement officers doing them can only be attributed to your political bias.

bullshit. they didn't give probable cause when they put their hands on him, & started taking him away.

that is not standard protocol no matter who you are.

you can't 'resist' arrest nor be charged with assaulting a police officer if they don't say who they are & why they are taking you, & especially if you are not read your rights AT THE TIME THEY TAKE YOU.

pettibone should have resisted because any lawyer would have been able to get him off if they tried to charge him without following protocol.

why did they wait to readhim his rights until after he was taken into custody, frisked, & his backpack searched?

& why was he then asked if he wanted to waive them?

when he said no - they simply let him go.

now, spin all that into a web of reason - if you can.

Were your brain functioning properly you would realize you have no idea what was said at the time these people were arrested. However, in general police are not required to present probable cause to someone who is arrested but only to a court, when necessary. The federal standard for making an arrest, however, is different from the standard used by state and local police. State and local police must be able to show a court probable cause for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid, whereas federal law enforcement officers must only be able to show a court reasonable suspicion for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid. The slightly different standards were established by federal and state courts, not by the law enforcement officers.

While Crazy Nancy seeks to incite more violence in our cities and more divisions among Americans along racial lines with these ridiculous rants, it is noteworthy noone is taking federal officers to court over her bizarre claims that the arrests are "kidnappings" or that the arrests are in any way illegal or improper.

^ more bullshit. the feds are obligated to follow the constituion - just like any other law enforcement officer. the video showing pettibone, shows that NO WORDS WERE SPOKEN to pettibone when he was taken. & i'll go by what he said - since he was let go without being charged with anything. had he waived his rights ( why would he even be asked to waive them?) then chances are, he would have been charged with somethig he did not do & they knew he didn't do.



The Department of Justice ("The Department") vigorously investigates and, where the evidence permits, prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. The Department's investigations most often involve alleged uses of excessive force, but also include sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. These cases typically involve police officers, jailers, correctional officers, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, and other federal, state, or local law enforcement officials. The Department's authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, so long as he/she is acting, or claiming to act, in his/her official capacity.

In addition to Constitutional violations, the Department prosecutes law enforcement officers for related instances of obstruction of justice. This includes attempting to prevent a victim or witnesses from reporting the misconduct, lying to federal, state, or local officials during the course of an investigation into the potential misconduct, writing a false report to conceal misconduct, or fabricating evidence.

The principles of federal prosecution, set forth in the United States Attorneys' Manual ("USAM"), require federal prosecutors to meet two standards in order to seek an indictment.

First, the government must be convinced that the potential defendant committed a federal crime. Second, the government must also conclude that the government would be likely to prevail at trial, where the government must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See USAM § 9-27.220.[1]
Law Enforcement Misconduct

Probable Cause
Definition
Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause
Probable Cause

Fourth Amendment
Overview
I. INTERESTS PROTECTED
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Fourth Amendment

ummm nancy pelosi is a non sequitur - so yer deflection doesn't hold water.

anyhoo - the lawsuits have just been filed, so what happens next is yet to be determined.

it's not a closed matter by any means. nice try though.

 

[playtime]

The intimidation factor of running around in unmarked vans, with unmarked uniforms, and unidentifiable Federal Agents, seems to be backfiring. As anyone with a brain could have figured out it would.

As I mentioned before the Conservative Website Hot Air, founded by Michelle Malkin who was attacked at a Blue Lives Matter event this weekend, has another story on the Federal Agents in Camouflage that are running amok in Portland.

Video: Federal cops whale on Navy vet protesting in Portland

Accountability.

hotair.com

There is video at the link, and it is disturbing. A retired naval officer was beaten by the Feds for asking why they were violating their oath.

For a long time now, people have been warning about the dangers of militarized police, and instead of heeding those warnings, the Feds seem to be embracing them in an effort to intimidate the protestors. Instead, more are showing up, outraged at the uniforms absent identification, and the bullying tactics of the agents who are obviously instructed to do so by their superiors.

You can't file a complaint against Agent Jones. If you have no idea it was Jones who bashed your skull in. You can't file a lawsuit complaining that Agent number 9596 cracked your skull if there is no way to know who did it. In Fiction, James Bond and the rest of the 00 Agents had a License to Kill. In reality, it looks like the Federal Agents have that license, and the enemy is anyone who doesn't bow down.

Those of you cheering this brutality, ask yourself this. If Biden wins, are you ready for that machine to be turned on you? Think about it.

LOL what's 'magical' abou tbeing a vet? Lots of famous nutjobs and traitors were 'vets'. Remember Lee Harvey Oswald? Sicko deviant ****** Manning? The Walker family spy ring?

So kneeling really wasn't a big deal after all?

What are you babbling about? Something confuse you about the mere category of being a vet not preventing someone wfrom indulging criminal inclinations? Why do you think the military has an MCJ, to catch soldiers not tying their shoes correctly or something?

Nothing criminal was done. You know that.

Of course it was. The federal officers were trying to clear the area and he refused to move. Obstructing a federal law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties is a felony.

he was outside the perimeter they were defending. i have no problems with the feds protecting & defending federal property.

the vet was on a city street, posing no danger.

He was just feet from the riot police in the middle of a riot, don't give me that crap that he was outside the perimeter. How dumbed down do you have to make yourself to parrot that garbage??

he was not on federal property. THAT makes the differance & the goons had no idea how to handle it. they weren't trained, & became a mob themselves.

 

[playtime]

Federal Officers Deployed in Portland Didn’t Have Proper Training, D.H.S. Memo Said
Rather than tamping down persistent protests in Portland, Ore., a militarized presence from federal officers seems to have re-energized them.

By Sergio Olmos, Mike Baker and Zolan Kanno-Youngs

• Published July 18, 2020Updated July 21, 2020
  

PORTLAND, Ore. — The federal agents facing a growing backlash for their militarized approach to weeks of unrest in Portland were not specifically trained in riot control or mass demonstrations, an internal Department of Homeland Security memo warned this week.
The message, dated Thursday, was prepared by the agency for Chad F. Wolf, the acting secretary of homeland security, as he arrived in Portland to view the scene in person, according to a copy of the memo obtained by The New York Times. It listed federal buildings in the city and issues officers faced in protecting them.
DOCUMENTS
Read the Homeland Security memo deploying agents to Portland here and here.

The memo, seemingly anticipating future encounters with protesters in other cities as the department follows President Trump’s guidance to crack down on unrest, warns: “Moving forward, if this type of response is going to be the norm, specialized training and standardized equipment should be deployed to responding agencies.”
The tactical agents deployed by homeland security include officials from a group known as BORTAC, the Border Patrol’s equivalent of a SWAT team, a highly trained group that normally is tasked with investigating drug smuggling organizations, as opposed to protesters in cities.
Federal Officers Deployed in Portland Didn’t Have Proper Training, D.H.S. Memo Said

the goonies didn't know wtf they were doing.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not true, plainclothes police do not have to identify themselves until they apply their police powers, that is until the take someone into custody.

Actually that requirement starts when an officer exercises "control" over someone.
They must identify themselves before they can detain a witness or suspect for questioning

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You've Been Arrested or Detained

In general, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave an encounter with the police, then there’s been either a detention or an

www.nolo.com

Absolutely, so they drive up in their unmarked car, wearing civilian clothes grab the person and tell him they want him for questioning. That's exactly what the federal agents did.

Show me a video of people in civilian clothes doing this.

Show you a video of plainclothes detective picking up a suspect? What planet do you live on?

They have a badge dumbass!

They have badges but they are concealed until the detectives apply their police powers, dumbass. They same is true for some of the federal law enforcement officers operating in the failed city of Portland.

the little green goons are not identifying themselves; nor are 'detectives'. they were finally outed by ' acting ' DHS flying monkey, chad wolf as being CBP & FBP.

They are federal law enforcement officers working within the framework of federal and they function in the same way local SWAT teams do. Just as plainclothes detectives drive around in unmarked cars and don't reveal their police identities until applying taking someone into custody, so do these federal law enforcement officers, and just as SWAT teams dress in military style gear and sometimes facemasks to hide their identities, so do these federal officers. If you don't object to the local police doing these things, then your objection to federal law enforcement officers doing them can only be attributed to your political bias.

bullshit. they didn't give probable cause when they put their hands on him, & started taking him away.

that is not standard protocol no matter who you are.

you can't 'resist' arrest nor be charged with assaulting a police officer if they don't say who they are & why they are taking you, & especially if you are not read your rights AT THE TIME THEY TAKE YOU.

pettibone should have resisted because any lawyer would have been able to get him off if they tried to charge him without following protocol.

why did they wait to readhim his rights until after he was taken into custody, frisked, & his backpack searched?

& why was he then asked if he wanted to waive them?

when he said no - they simply let him go.

now, spin all that into a web of reason - if you can.

Were your brain functioning properly you would realize you have no idea what was said at the time these people were arrested. However, in general police are not required to present probable cause to someone who is arrested but only to a court, when necessary. The federal standard for making an arrest, however, is different from the standard used by state and local police. State and local police must be able to show a court probable cause for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid, whereas federal law enforcement officers must only be able to show a court reasonable suspicion for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid. The slightly different standards were established by federal and state courts, not by the law enforcement officers.

While Crazy Nancy seeks to incite more violence in our cities and more divisions among Americans along racial lines with these ridiculous rants, it is noteworthy noone is taking federal officers to court over her bizarre claims that the arrests are "kidnappings" or that the arrests are in any way illegal or improper.

The federal government does not have the right to enforce any laws in the streets of Portland. They have to prove a federal crime was committed. They have no jurisdiction.

The federal government does not have the authority to enforce state laws but it has the authority to enforce federal laws anywhere in Portland or anywhere else in the US. City and state governments have no authority to limit where federal law enforcement officers may operate or how they operate.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not true, plainclothes police do not have to identify themselves until they apply their police powers, that is until the take someone into custody.

Actually that requirement starts when an officer exercises "control" over someone.
They must identify themselves before they can detain a witness or suspect for questioning

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You've Been Arrested or Detained

In general, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave an encounter with the police, then there’s been either a detention or an

www.nolo.com

Absolutely, so they drive up in their unmarked car, wearing civilian clothes grab the person and tell him they want him for questioning. That's exactly what the federal agents did.

Show me a video of people in civilian clothes doing this.

Show you a video of plainclothes detective picking up a suspect? What planet do you live on?

They have a badge dumbass!

They have badges but they are concealed until the detectives apply their police powers, dumbass. They same is true for some of the federal law enforcement officers operating in the failed city of Portland.

the little green goons are not identifying themselves; nor are 'detectives'. they were finally outed by ' acting ' DHS flying monkey, chad wolf as being CBP & FBP.

They are federal law enforcement officers working within the framework of federal and they function in the same way local SWAT teams do. Just as plainclothes detectives drive around in unmarked cars and don't reveal their police identities until applying taking someone into custody, so do these federal law enforcement officers, and just as SWAT teams dress in military style gear and sometimes facemasks to hide their identities, so do these federal officers. If you don't object to the local police doing these things, then your objection to federal law enforcement officers doing them can only be attributed to your political bias.

bullshit. they didn't give probable cause when they put their hands on him, & started taking him away.

that is not standard protocol no matter who you are.

you can't 'resist' arrest nor be charged with assaulting a police officer if they don't say who they are & why they are taking you, & especially if you are not read your rights AT THE TIME THEY TAKE YOU.

pettibone should have resisted because any lawyer would have been able to get him off if they tried to charge him without following protocol.

why did they wait to readhim his rights until after he was taken into custody, frisked, & his backpack searched?

& why was he then asked if he wanted to waive them?

when he said no - they simply let him go.

now, spin all that into a web of reason - if you can.

Were your brain functioning properly you would realize you have no idea what was said at the time these people were arrested. However, in general police are not required to present probable cause to someone who is arrested but only to a court, when necessary. The federal standard for making an arrest, however, is different from the standard used by state and local police. State and local police must be able to show a court probable cause for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid, whereas federal law enforcement officers must only be able to show a court reasonable suspicion for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid. The slightly different standards were established by federal and state courts, not by the law enforcement officers.

While Crazy Nancy seeks to incite more violence in our cities and more divisions among Americans along racial lines with these ridiculous rants, it is noteworthy noone is taking federal officers to court over her bizarre claims that the arrests are "kidnappings" or that the arrests are in any way illegal or improper.

^ more bullshit. the feds are obligated to follow the constituion - just like any other law enforcement officer. the video showing pettibone, shows that NO WORDS WERE SPOKEN to pettibone when he was taken. & i'll go by what he said - since he was let go without being charged with anything. had he waived his rights ( why would he even be asked to waive them?) then chances are, he would have been charged with somethig he did not do & they knew he didn't do.



The Department of Justice ("The Department") vigorously investigates and, where the evidence permits, prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. The Department's investigations most often involve alleged uses of excessive force, but also include sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. These cases typically involve police officers, jailers, correctional officers, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, and other federal, state, or local law enforcement officials. The Department's authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, so long as he/she is acting, or claiming to act, in his/her official capacity.

In addition to Constitutional violations, the Department prosecutes law enforcement officers for related instances of obstruction of justice. This includes attempting to prevent a victim or witnesses from reporting the misconduct, lying to federal, state, or local officials during the course of an investigation into the potential misconduct, writing a false report to conceal misconduct, or fabricating evidence.

The principles of federal prosecution, set forth in the United States Attorneys' Manual ("USAM"), require federal prosecutors to meet two standards in order to seek an indictment.

First, the government must be convinced that the potential defendant committed a federal crime. Second, the government must also conclude that the government would be likely to prevail at trial, where the government must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See USAM § 9-27.220.[1]
Law Enforcement Misconduct

Probable Cause
Definition
Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause
Probable Cause

Fourth Amendment
Overview
I. INTERESTS PROTECTED
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Fourth Amendment

ummm nancy pelosi is a non sequitur - so yer deflection doesn't hold water.

anyhoo - the lawsuits have just been filed, so what happens next is yet to be determined.

it's not a closed matter by any means. nice try though.

And for all that cutting and pasting, no violations of the Constitution have been shown. The fact that no one has filed a complaint in court about these arrests by federal officers.

 

[pknopp]

Not true, plainclothes police do not have to identify themselves until they apply their police powers, that is until the take someone into custody.

Actually that requirement starts when an officer exercises "control" over someone.
They must identify themselves before they can detain a witness or suspect for questioning

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You've Been Arrested or Detained

In general, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave an encounter with the police, then there’s been either a detention or an

www.nolo.com

Absolutely, so they drive up in their unmarked car, wearing civilian clothes grab the person and tell him they want him for questioning. That's exactly what the federal agents did.

Show me a video of people in civilian clothes doing this.

Show you a video of plainclothes detective picking up a suspect? What planet do you live on?

They have a badge dumbass!

They have badges but they are concealed until the detectives apply their police powers, dumbass. They same is true for some of the federal law enforcement officers operating in the failed city of Portland.

the little green goons are not identifying themselves; nor are 'detectives'. they were finally outed by ' acting ' DHS flying monkey, chad wolf as being CBP & FBP.

They are federal law enforcement officers working within the framework of federal and they function in the same way local SWAT teams do. Just as plainclothes detectives drive around in unmarked cars and don't reveal their police identities until applying taking someone into custody, so do these federal law enforcement officers, and just as SWAT teams dress in military style gear and sometimes facemasks to hide their identities, so do these federal officers. If you don't object to the local police doing these things, then your objection to federal law enforcement officers doing them can only be attributed to your political bias.

bullshit. they didn't give probable cause when they put their hands on him, & started taking him away.

that is not standard protocol no matter who you are.

you can't 'resist' arrest nor be charged with assaulting a police officer if they don't say who they are & why they are taking you, & especially if you are not read your rights AT THE TIME THEY TAKE YOU.

pettibone should have resisted because any lawyer would have been able to get him off if they tried to charge him without following protocol.

why did they wait to readhim his rights until after he was taken into custody, frisked, & his backpack searched?

& why was he then asked if he wanted to waive them?

when he said no - they simply let him go.

now, spin all that into a web of reason - if you can.

Were your brain functioning properly you would realize you have no idea what was said at the time these people were arrested. However, in general police are not required to present probable cause to someone who is arrested but only to a court, when necessary. The federal standard for making an arrest, however, is different from the standard used by state and local police. State and local police must be able to show a court probable cause for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid, whereas federal law enforcement officers must only be able to show a court reasonable suspicion for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid. The slightly different standards were established by federal and state courts, not by the law enforcement officers.

While Crazy Nancy seeks to incite more violence in our cities and more divisions among Americans along racial lines with these ridiculous rants, it is noteworthy noone is taking federal officers to court over her bizarre claims that the arrests are "kidnappings" or that the arrests are in any way illegal or improper.

^ more bullshit. the feds are obligated to follow the constituion - just like any other law enforcement officer. the video showing pettibone, shows that NO WORDS WERE SPOKEN to pettibone when he was taken. & i'll go by what he said - since he was let go without being charged with anything. had he waived his rights ( why would he even be asked to waive them?) then chances are, he would have been charged with somethig he did not do & they knew he didn't do.



The Department of Justice ("The Department") vigorously investigates and, where the evidence permits, prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. The Department's investigations most often involve alleged uses of excessive force, but also include sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. These cases typically involve police officers, jailers, correctional officers, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, and other federal, state, or local law enforcement officials. The Department's authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, so long as he/she is acting, or claiming to act, in his/her official capacity.

In addition to Constitutional violations, the Department prosecutes law enforcement officers for related instances of obstruction of justice. This includes attempting to prevent a victim or witnesses from reporting the misconduct, lying to federal, state, or local officials during the course of an investigation into the potential misconduct, writing a false report to conceal misconduct, or fabricating evidence.

The principles of federal prosecution, set forth in the United States Attorneys' Manual ("USAM"), require federal prosecutors to meet two standards in order to seek an indictment.

First, the government must be convinced that the potential defendant committed a federal crime. Second, the government must also conclude that the government would be likely to prevail at trial, where the government must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See USAM § 9-27.220.[1]
Law Enforcement Misconduct

Probable Cause
Definition
Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause
Probable Cause

Fourth Amendment
Overview
I. INTERESTS PROTECTED
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Fourth Amendment

ummm nancy pelosi is a non sequitur - so yer deflection doesn't hold water.

anyhoo - the lawsuits have just been filed, so what happens next is yet to be determined.

it's not a closed matter by any means. nice try though.

And for all that cutting and pasting, no violations of the Constitution have been shown. The fact that no one has filed a complaint in court about these arrests by federal officers.

The federal government is facing another lawsuit over its law enforcement activities in Portland.

The Western States Center, the First Unitarian Church of Portland, two state representatives and an ACLU legal observer are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which alleges the federal government has violated protesters' 10th Amendment rights. It was filed Tuesday in federal court.

New civil rights lawsuit filed against federal law enforcement for actions in Portland

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not true, plainclothes police do not have to identify themselves until they apply their police powers, that is until the take someone into custody.

Actually that requirement starts when an officer exercises "control" over someone.
They must identify themselves before they can detain a witness or suspect for questioning

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You've Been Arrested or Detained

In general, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave an encounter with the police, then there’s been either a detention or an

www.nolo.com

Absolutely, so they drive up in their unmarked car, wearing civilian clothes grab the person and tell him they want him for questioning. That's exactly what the federal agents did.

Show me a video of people in civilian clothes doing this.

Show you a video of plainclothes detective picking up a suspect? What planet do you live on?

They have a badge dumbass!

They have badges but they are concealed until the detectives apply their police powers, dumbass. They same is true for some of the federal law enforcement officers operating in the failed city of Portland.

the little green goons are not identifying themselves; nor are 'detectives'. they were finally outed by ' acting ' DHS flying monkey, chad wolf as being CBP & FBP.

They are federal law enforcement officers working within the framework of federal and they function in the same way local SWAT teams do. Just as plainclothes detectives drive around in unmarked cars and don't reveal their police identities until applying taking someone into custody, so do these federal law enforcement officers, and just as SWAT teams dress in military style gear and sometimes facemasks to hide their identities, so do these federal officers. If you don't object to the local police doing these things, then your objection to federal law enforcement officers doing them can only be attributed to your political bias.

bullshit. they didn't give probable cause when they put their hands on him, & started taking him away.

that is not standard protocol no matter who you are.

you can't 'resist' arrest nor be charged with assaulting a police officer if they don't say who they are & why they are taking you, & especially if you are not read your rights AT THE TIME THEY TAKE YOU.

pettibone should have resisted because any lawyer would have been able to get him off if they tried to charge him without following protocol.

why did they wait to readhim his rights until after he was taken into custody, frisked, & his backpack searched?

& why was he then asked if he wanted to waive them?

when he said no - they simply let him go.

now, spin all that into a web of reason - if you can.

Were your brain functioning properly you would realize you have no idea what was said at the time these people were arrested. However, in general police are not required to present probable cause to someone who is arrested but only to a court, when necessary. The federal standard for making an arrest, however, is different from the standard used by state and local police. State and local police must be able to show a court probable cause for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid, whereas federal law enforcement officers must only be able to show a court reasonable suspicion for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid. The slightly different standards were established by federal and state courts, not by the law enforcement officers.

While Crazy Nancy seeks to incite more violence in our cities and more divisions among Americans along racial lines with these ridiculous rants, it is noteworthy noone is taking federal officers to court over her bizarre claims that the arrests are "kidnappings" or that the arrests are in any way illegal or improper.

^ more bullshit. the feds are obligated to follow the constituion - just like any other law enforcement officer. the video showing pettibone, shows that NO WORDS WERE SPOKEN to pettibone when he was taken. & i'll go by what he said - since he was let go without being charged with anything. had he waived his rights ( why would he even be asked to waive them?) then chances are, he would have been charged with somethig he did not do & they knew he didn't do.



The Department of Justice ("The Department") vigorously investigates and, where the evidence permits, prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. The Department's investigations most often involve alleged uses of excessive force, but also include sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. These cases typically involve police officers, jailers, correctional officers, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, and other federal, state, or local law enforcement officials. The Department's authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, so long as he/she is acting, or claiming to act, in his/her official capacity.

In addition to Constitutional violations, the Department prosecutes law enforcement officers for related instances of obstruction of justice. This includes attempting to prevent a victim or witnesses from reporting the misconduct, lying to federal, state, or local officials during the course of an investigation into the potential misconduct, writing a false report to conceal misconduct, or fabricating evidence.

The principles of federal prosecution, set forth in the United States Attorneys' Manual ("USAM"), require federal prosecutors to meet two standards in order to seek an indictment.

First, the government must be convinced that the potential defendant committed a federal crime. Second, the government must also conclude that the government would be likely to prevail at trial, where the government must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See USAM § 9-27.220.[1]
Law Enforcement Misconduct

Probable Cause
Definition
Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause
Probable Cause

Fourth Amendment
Overview
I. INTERESTS PROTECTED
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Fourth Amendment

ummm nancy pelosi is a non sequitur - so yer deflection doesn't hold water.

anyhoo - the lawsuits have just been filed, so what happens next is yet to be determined.

it's not a closed matter by any means. nice try though.

And for all that cutting and pasting, no violations of the Constitution have been shown. The fact that no one has filed a complaint in court about these arrests by federal officers.

The federal government is facing another lawsuit over its law enforcement activities in Portland.

The Western States Center, the First Unitarian Church of Portland, two state representatives and an ACLU legal observer are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which alleges the federal government has violated protesters' 10th Amendment rights. It was filed Tuesday in federal court.

New civil rights lawsuit filed against federal law enforcement for actions in Portland

I'm sure that's heartwarming to you, but it does not say anything about the arrests bu federal law enforcement officers is illegal.

 

[pknopp]

Not true, plainclothes police do not have to identify themselves until they apply their police powers, that is until the take someone into custody.

Actually that requirement starts when an officer exercises "control" over someone.
They must identify themselves before they can detain a witness or suspect for questioning

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You've Been Arrested or Detained

In general, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave an encounter with the police, then there’s been either a detention or an

www.nolo.com

Absolutely, so they drive up in their unmarked car, wearing civilian clothes grab the person and tell him they want him for questioning. That's exactly what the federal agents did.

Show me a video of people in civilian clothes doing this.

Show you a video of plainclothes detective picking up a suspect? What planet do you live on?

They have a badge dumbass!

They have badges but they are concealed until the detectives apply their police powers, dumbass. They same is true for some of the federal law enforcement officers operating in the failed city of Portland.

the little green goons are not identifying themselves; nor are 'detectives'. they were finally outed by ' acting ' DHS flying monkey, chad wolf as being CBP & FBP.

They are federal law enforcement officers working within the framework of federal and they function in the same way local SWAT teams do. Just as plainclothes detectives drive around in unmarked cars and don't reveal their police identities until applying taking someone into custody, so do these federal law enforcement officers, and just as SWAT teams dress in military style gear and sometimes facemasks to hide their identities, so do these federal officers. If you don't object to the local police doing these things, then your objection to federal law enforcement officers doing them can only be attributed to your political bias.

bullshit. they didn't give probable cause when they put their hands on him, & started taking him away.

that is not standard protocol no matter who you are.

you can't 'resist' arrest nor be charged with assaulting a police officer if they don't say who they are & why they are taking you, & especially if you are not read your rights AT THE TIME THEY TAKE YOU.

pettibone should have resisted because any lawyer would have been able to get him off if they tried to charge him without following protocol.

why did they wait to readhim his rights until after he was taken into custody, frisked, & his backpack searched?

& why was he then asked if he wanted to waive them?

when he said no - they simply let him go.

now, spin all that into a web of reason - if you can.

Were your brain functioning properly you would realize you have no idea what was said at the time these people were arrested. However, in general police are not required to present probable cause to someone who is arrested but only to a court, when necessary. The federal standard for making an arrest, however, is different from the standard used by state and local police. State and local police must be able to show a court probable cause for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid, whereas federal law enforcement officers must only be able to show a court reasonable suspicion for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid. The slightly different standards were established by federal and state courts, not by the law enforcement officers.

While Crazy Nancy seeks to incite more violence in our cities and more divisions among Americans along racial lines with these ridiculous rants, it is noteworthy noone is taking federal officers to court over her bizarre claims that the arrests are "kidnappings" or that the arrests are in any way illegal or improper.

^ more bullshit. the feds are obligated to follow the constituion - just like any other law enforcement officer. the video showing pettibone, shows that NO WORDS WERE SPOKEN to pettibone when he was taken. & i'll go by what he said - since he was let go without being charged with anything. had he waived his rights ( why would he even be asked to waive them?) then chances are, he would have been charged with somethig he did not do & they knew he didn't do.



The Department of Justice ("The Department") vigorously investigates and, where the evidence permits, prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. The Department's investigations most often involve alleged uses of excessive force, but also include sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. These cases typically involve police officers, jailers, correctional officers, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, and other federal, state, or local law enforcement officials. The Department's authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, so long as he/she is acting, or claiming to act, in his/her official capacity.

In addition to Constitutional violations, the Department prosecutes law enforcement officers for related instances of obstruction of justice. This includes attempting to prevent a victim or witnesses from reporting the misconduct, lying to federal, state, or local officials during the course of an investigation into the potential misconduct, writing a false report to conceal misconduct, or fabricating evidence.

The principles of federal prosecution, set forth in the United States Attorneys' Manual ("USAM"), require federal prosecutors to meet two standards in order to seek an indictment.

First, the government must be convinced that the potential defendant committed a federal crime. Second, the government must also conclude that the government would be likely to prevail at trial, where the government must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See USAM § 9-27.220.[1]
Law Enforcement Misconduct

Probable Cause
Definition
Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause
Probable Cause

Fourth Amendment
Overview
I. INTERESTS PROTECTED
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Fourth Amendment

ummm nancy pelosi is a non sequitur - so yer deflection doesn't hold water.

anyhoo - the lawsuits have just been filed, so what happens next is yet to be determined.

it's not a closed matter by any means. nice try though.

And for all that cutting and pasting, no violations of the Constitution have been shown. The fact that no one has filed a complaint in court about these arrests by federal officers.

The federal government is facing another lawsuit over its law enforcement activities in Portland.

The Western States Center, the First Unitarian Church of Portland, two state representatives and an ACLU legal observer are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which alleges the federal government has violated protesters' 10th Amendment rights. It was filed Tuesday in federal court.

New civil rights lawsuit filed against federal law enforcement for actions in Portland

I'm sure that's heartwarming to you, but it does not say anything about the arrests bu federal law enforcement officers is illegal.

That will be up to the courts.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not true, plainclothes police do not have to identify themselves until they apply their police powers, that is until the take someone into custody.

Actually that requirement starts when an officer exercises "control" over someone.
They must identify themselves before they can detain a witness or suspect for questioning

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You've Been Arrested or Detained

In general, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave an encounter with the police, then there’s been either a detention or an

www.nolo.com

Absolutely, so they drive up in their unmarked car, wearing civilian clothes grab the person and tell him they want him for questioning. That's exactly what the federal agents did.

Show me a video of people in civilian clothes doing this.

Show you a video of plainclothes detective picking up a suspect? What planet do you live on?

They have a badge dumbass!

They have badges but they are concealed until the detectives apply their police powers, dumbass. They same is true for some of the federal law enforcement officers operating in the failed city of Portland.

the little green goons are not identifying themselves; nor are 'detectives'. they were finally outed by ' acting ' DHS flying monkey, chad wolf as being CBP & FBP.

They are federal law enforcement officers working within the framework of federal and they function in the same way local SWAT teams do. Just as plainclothes detectives drive around in unmarked cars and don't reveal their police identities until applying taking someone into custody, so do these federal law enforcement officers, and just as SWAT teams dress in military style gear and sometimes facemasks to hide their identities, so do these federal officers. If you don't object to the local police doing these things, then your objection to federal law enforcement officers doing them can only be attributed to your political bias.

bullshit. they didn't give probable cause when they put their hands on him, & started taking him away.

that is not standard protocol no matter who you are.

you can't 'resist' arrest nor be charged with assaulting a police officer if they don't say who they are & why they are taking you, & especially if you are not read your rights AT THE TIME THEY TAKE YOU.

pettibone should have resisted because any lawyer would have been able to get him off if they tried to charge him without following protocol.

why did they wait to readhim his rights until after he was taken into custody, frisked, & his backpack searched?

& why was he then asked if he wanted to waive them?

when he said no - they simply let him go.

now, spin all that into a web of reason - if you can.

Were your brain functioning properly you would realize you have no idea what was said at the time these people were arrested. However, in general police are not required to present probable cause to someone who is arrested but only to a court, when necessary. The federal standard for making an arrest, however, is different from the standard used by state and local police. State and local police must be able to show a court probable cause for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid, whereas federal law enforcement officers must only be able to show a court reasonable suspicion for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid. The slightly different standards were established by federal and state courts, not by the law enforcement officers.

While Crazy Nancy seeks to incite more violence in our cities and more divisions among Americans along racial lines with these ridiculous rants, it is noteworthy noone is taking federal officers to court over her bizarre claims that the arrests are "kidnappings" or that the arrests are in any way illegal or improper.

^ more bullshit. the feds are obligated to follow the constituion - just like any other law enforcement officer. the video showing pettibone, shows that NO WORDS WERE SPOKEN to pettibone when he was taken. & i'll go by what he said - since he was let go without being charged with anything. had he waived his rights ( why would he even be asked to waive them?) then chances are, he would have been charged with somethig he did not do & they knew he didn't do.



The Department of Justice ("The Department") vigorously investigates and, where the evidence permits, prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. The Department's investigations most often involve alleged uses of excessive force, but also include sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. These cases typically involve police officers, jailers, correctional officers, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, and other federal, state, or local law enforcement officials. The Department's authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, so long as he/she is acting, or claiming to act, in his/her official capacity.

In addition to Constitutional violations, the Department prosecutes law enforcement officers for related instances of obstruction of justice. This includes attempting to prevent a victim or witnesses from reporting the misconduct, lying to federal, state, or local officials during the course of an investigation into the potential misconduct, writing a false report to conceal misconduct, or fabricating evidence.

The principles of federal prosecution, set forth in the United States Attorneys' Manual ("USAM"), require federal prosecutors to meet two standards in order to seek an indictment.

First, the government must be convinced that the potential defendant committed a federal crime. Second, the government must also conclude that the government would be likely to prevail at trial, where the government must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See USAM § 9-27.220.[1]
Law Enforcement Misconduct

Probable Cause
Definition
Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause
Probable Cause

Fourth Amendment
Overview
I. INTERESTS PROTECTED
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Fourth Amendment

ummm nancy pelosi is a non sequitur - so yer deflection doesn't hold water.

anyhoo - the lawsuits have just been filed, so what happens next is yet to be determined.

it's not a closed matter by any means. nice try though.

And for all that cutting and pasting, no violations of the Constitution have been shown. The fact that no one has filed a complaint in court about these arrests by federal officers.

The federal government is facing another lawsuit over its law enforcement activities in Portland.

The Western States Center, the First Unitarian Church of Portland, two state representatives and an ACLU legal observer are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which alleges the federal government has violated protesters' 10th Amendment rights. It was filed Tuesday in federal court.

New civil rights lawsuit filed against federal law enforcement for actions in Portland

I'm sure that's heartwarming to you, but it does not say anything about the arrests bu federal law enforcement officers is illegal.

That will be up to the courts.

lol No, it's not. The tenth amendment has nothing to do with the legality of the arrests or the civil rights of any of the violent Democrats rampaging through the streets.

 

[playtime]

Not true, plainclothes police do not have to identify themselves until they apply their police powers, that is until the take someone into custody.

Actually that requirement starts when an officer exercises "control" over someone.
They must identify themselves before they can detain a witness or suspect for questioning

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You've Been Arrested or Detained

In general, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave an encounter with the police, then there’s been either a detention or an

www.nolo.com

Absolutely, so they drive up in their unmarked car, wearing civilian clothes grab the person and tell him they want him for questioning. That's exactly what the federal agents did.

Show me a video of people in civilian clothes doing this.

Show you a video of plainclothes detective picking up a suspect? What planet do you live on?

They have a badge dumbass!

They have badges but they are concealed until the detectives apply their police powers, dumbass. They same is true for some of the federal law enforcement officers operating in the failed city of Portland.

the little green goons are not identifying themselves; nor are 'detectives'. they were finally outed by ' acting ' DHS flying monkey, chad wolf as being CBP & FBP.

They are federal law enforcement officers working within the framework of federal and they function in the same way local SWAT teams do. Just as plainclothes detectives drive around in unmarked cars and don't reveal their police identities until applying taking someone into custody, so do these federal law enforcement officers, and just as SWAT teams dress in military style gear and sometimes facemasks to hide their identities, so do these federal officers. If you don't object to the local police doing these things, then your objection to federal law enforcement officers doing them can only be attributed to your political bias.

bullshit. they didn't give probable cause when they put their hands on him, & started taking him away.

that is not standard protocol no matter who you are.

you can't 'resist' arrest nor be charged with assaulting a police officer if they don't say who they are & why they are taking you, & especially if you are not read your rights AT THE TIME THEY TAKE YOU.

pettibone should have resisted because any lawyer would have been able to get him off if they tried to charge him without following protocol.

why did they wait to readhim his rights until after he was taken into custody, frisked, & his backpack searched?

& why was he then asked if he wanted to waive them?

when he said no - they simply let him go.

now, spin all that into a web of reason - if you can.

Were your brain functioning properly you would realize you have no idea what was said at the time these people were arrested. However, in general police are not required to present probable cause to someone who is arrested but only to a court, when necessary. The federal standard for making an arrest, however, is different from the standard used by state and local police. State and local police must be able to show a court probable cause for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid, whereas federal law enforcement officers must only be able to show a court reasonable suspicion for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid. The slightly different standards were established by federal and state courts, not by the law enforcement officers.

While Crazy Nancy seeks to incite more violence in our cities and more divisions among Americans along racial lines with these ridiculous rants, it is noteworthy noone is taking federal officers to court over her bizarre claims that the arrests are "kidnappings" or that the arrests are in any way illegal or improper.

^ more bullshit. the feds are obligated to follow the constituion - just like any other law enforcement officer. the video showing pettibone, shows that NO WORDS WERE SPOKEN to pettibone when he was taken. & i'll go by what he said - since he was let go without being charged with anything. had he waived his rights ( why would he even be asked to waive them?) then chances are, he would have been charged with somethig he did not do & they knew he didn't do.



The Department of Justice ("The Department") vigorously investigates and, where the evidence permits, prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. The Department's investigations most often involve alleged uses of excessive force, but also include sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. These cases typically involve police officers, jailers, correctional officers, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, and other federal, state, or local law enforcement officials. The Department's authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, so long as he/she is acting, or claiming to act, in his/her official capacity.

In addition to Constitutional violations, the Department prosecutes law enforcement officers for related instances of obstruction of justice. This includes attempting to prevent a victim or witnesses from reporting the misconduct, lying to federal, state, or local officials during the course of an investigation into the potential misconduct, writing a false report to conceal misconduct, or fabricating evidence.

The principles of federal prosecution, set forth in the United States Attorneys' Manual ("USAM"), require federal prosecutors to meet two standards in order to seek an indictment.

First, the government must be convinced that the potential defendant committed a federal crime. Second, the government must also conclude that the government would be likely to prevail at trial, where the government must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See USAM § 9-27.220.[1]
Law Enforcement Misconduct

Probable Cause
Definition
Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause
Probable Cause

Fourth Amendment
Overview
I. INTERESTS PROTECTED
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Fourth Amendment

ummm nancy pelosi is a non sequitur - so yer deflection doesn't hold water.

anyhoo - the lawsuits have just been filed, so what happens next is yet to be determined.

it's not a closed matter by any means. nice try though.

And for all that cutting and pasting, no violations of the Constitution have been shown. The fact that no one has filed a complaint in court about these arrests by federal officers.

lol - there are lawsuits already filed.

 

[playtime]

Not true, plainclothes police do not have to identify themselves until they apply their police powers, that is until the take someone into custody.

Actually that requirement starts when an officer exercises "control" over someone.
They must identify themselves before they can detain a witness or suspect for questioning

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You've Been Arrested or Detained

In general, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave an encounter with the police, then there’s been either a detention or an

www.nolo.com

Absolutely, so they drive up in their unmarked car, wearing civilian clothes grab the person and tell him they want him for questioning. That's exactly what the federal agents did.

Show me a video of people in civilian clothes doing this.

Show you a video of plainclothes detective picking up a suspect? What planet do you live on?

They have a badge dumbass!

They have badges but they are concealed until the detectives apply their police powers, dumbass. They same is true for some of the federal law enforcement officers operating in the failed city of Portland.

the little green goons are not identifying themselves; nor are 'detectives'. they were finally outed by ' acting ' DHS flying monkey, chad wolf as being CBP & FBP.

They are federal law enforcement officers working within the framework of federal and they function in the same way local SWAT teams do. Just as plainclothes detectives drive around in unmarked cars and don't reveal their police identities until applying taking someone into custody, so do these federal law enforcement officers, and just as SWAT teams dress in military style gear and sometimes facemasks to hide their identities, so do these federal officers. If you don't object to the local police doing these things, then your objection to federal law enforcement officers doing them can only be attributed to your political bias.

bullshit. they didn't give probable cause when they put their hands on him, & started taking him away.

that is not standard protocol no matter who you are.

you can't 'resist' arrest nor be charged with assaulting a police officer if they don't say who they are & why they are taking you, & especially if you are not read your rights AT THE TIME THEY TAKE YOU.

pettibone should have resisted because any lawyer would have been able to get him off if they tried to charge him without following protocol.

why did they wait to readhim his rights until after he was taken into custody, frisked, & his backpack searched?

& why was he then asked if he wanted to waive them?

when he said no - they simply let him go.

now, spin all that into a web of reason - if you can.

Were your brain functioning properly you would realize you have no idea what was said at the time these people were arrested. However, in general police are not required to present probable cause to someone who is arrested but only to a court, when necessary. The federal standard for making an arrest, however, is different from the standard used by state and local police. State and local police must be able to show a court probable cause for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid, whereas federal law enforcement officers must only be able to show a court reasonable suspicion for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid. The slightly different standards were established by federal and state courts, not by the law enforcement officers.

While Crazy Nancy seeks to incite more violence in our cities and more divisions among Americans along racial lines with these ridiculous rants, it is noteworthy noone is taking federal officers to court over her bizarre claims that the arrests are "kidnappings" or that the arrests are in any way illegal or improper.

^ more bullshit. the feds are obligated to follow the constituion - just like any other law enforcement officer. the video showing pettibone, shows that NO WORDS WERE SPOKEN to pettibone when he was taken. & i'll go by what he said - since he was let go without being charged with anything. had he waived his rights ( why would he even be asked to waive them?) then chances are, he would have been charged with somethig he did not do & they knew he didn't do.



The Department of Justice ("The Department") vigorously investigates and, where the evidence permits, prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. The Department's investigations most often involve alleged uses of excessive force, but also include sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. These cases typically involve police officers, jailers, correctional officers, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, and other federal, state, or local law enforcement officials. The Department's authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, so long as he/she is acting, or claiming to act, in his/her official capacity.

In addition to Constitutional violations, the Department prosecutes law enforcement officers for related instances of obstruction of justice. This includes attempting to prevent a victim or witnesses from reporting the misconduct, lying to federal, state, or local officials during the course of an investigation into the potential misconduct, writing a false report to conceal misconduct, or fabricating evidence.

The principles of federal prosecution, set forth in the United States Attorneys' Manual ("USAM"), require federal prosecutors to meet two standards in order to seek an indictment.

First, the government must be convinced that the potential defendant committed a federal crime. Second, the government must also conclude that the government would be likely to prevail at trial, where the government must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See USAM § 9-27.220.[1]
Law Enforcement Misconduct

Probable Cause
Definition
Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause
Probable Cause

Fourth Amendment
Overview
I. INTERESTS PROTECTED
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Fourth Amendment

ummm nancy pelosi is a non sequitur - so yer deflection doesn't hold water.

anyhoo - the lawsuits have just been filed, so what happens next is yet to be determined.

it's not a closed matter by any means. nice try though.

And for all that cutting and pasting, no violations of the Constitution have been shown. The fact that no one has filed a complaint in court about these arrests by federal officers.

The federal government is facing another lawsuit over its law enforcement activities in Portland.

The Western States Center, the First Unitarian Church of Portland, two state representatives and an ACLU legal observer are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which alleges the federal government has violated protesters' 10th Amendment rights. It was filed Tuesday in federal court.

New civil rights lawsuit filed against federal law enforcement for actions in Portland

I'm sure that's heartwarming to you, but it does not say anything about the arrests bu federal law enforcement officers is illegal.

That will be up to the courts.

lol No, it's not. The tenth amendment has nothing to do with the legality of the arrests or the civil rights of any of the violent Democrats rampaging through the streets.

pettibone & the vet & the dude across the street holding the boombox that was shot in the head were not being violent nor the majority of the protesters there.

 

[Wapasha]

he was not on federal property. THAT makes the differance & the goons had no idea how to handle it. they weren't trained, & became a mob themselves.

You know, it's clear that whatever it takes for people like you to support domestic terrorists, criminals, and the riot mob, that's what you'll say and do.

 

[playtime]

he was not on federal property. THAT makes the differance & the goons had no idea how to handle it. they weren't trained, & became a mob themselves.

You know, it's clear that whatever it takes for people like you to support domestic terrorists, criminals, and the riot mob, that's what you'll say and do.

lol .... liar.

i have no problems with feds defending fed property & the persons inside.

 

[Wapasha]

Not true, plainclothes police do not have to identify themselves until they apply their police powers, that is until the take someone into custody.

Actually that requirement starts when an officer exercises "control" over someone.
They must identify themselves before they can detain a witness or suspect for questioning

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You've Been Arrested or Detained

In general, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave an encounter with the police, then there’s been either a detention or an

www.nolo.com

Absolutely, so they drive up in their unmarked car, wearing civilian clothes grab the person and tell him they want him for questioning. That's exactly what the federal agents did.

Show me a video of people in civilian clothes doing this.

Show you a video of plainclothes detective picking up a suspect? What planet do you live on?

They have a badge dumbass!

They have badges but they are concealed until the detectives apply their police powers, dumbass. They same is true for some of the federal law enforcement officers operating in the failed city of Portland.

the little green goons are not identifying themselves; nor are 'detectives'. they were finally outed by ' acting ' DHS flying monkey, chad wolf as being CBP & FBP.

They are federal law enforcement officers working within the framework of federal and they function in the same way local SWAT teams do. Just as plainclothes detectives drive around in unmarked cars and don't reveal their police identities until applying taking someone into custody, so do these federal law enforcement officers, and just as SWAT teams dress in military style gear and sometimes facemasks to hide their identities, so do these federal officers. If you don't object to the local police doing these things, then your objection to federal law enforcement officers doing them can only be attributed to your political bias.

bullshit. they didn't give probable cause when they put their hands on him, & started taking him away.

that is not standard protocol no matter who you are.

you can't 'resist' arrest nor be charged with assaulting a police officer if they don't say who they are & why they are taking you, & especially if you are not read your rights AT THE TIME THEY TAKE YOU.

pettibone should have resisted because any lawyer would have been able to get him off if they tried to charge him without following protocol.

why did they wait to readhim his rights until after he was taken into custody, frisked, & his backpack searched?

& why was he then asked if he wanted to waive them?

when he said no - they simply let him go.

now, spin all that into a web of reason - if you can.

Were your brain functioning properly you would realize you have no idea what was said at the time these people were arrested. However, in general police are not required to present probable cause to someone who is arrested but only to a court, when necessary. The federal standard for making an arrest, however, is different from the standard used by state and local police. State and local police must be able to show a court probable cause for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid, whereas federal law enforcement officers must only be able to show a court reasonable suspicion for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid. The slightly different standards were established by federal and state courts, not by the law enforcement officers.

While Crazy Nancy seeks to incite more violence in our cities and more divisions among Americans along racial lines with these ridiculous rants, it is noteworthy noone is taking federal officers to court over her bizarre claims that the arrests are "kidnappings" or that the arrests are in any way illegal or improper.

^ more bullshit. the feds are obligated to follow the constituion - just like any other law enforcement officer. the video showing pettibone, shows that NO WORDS WERE SPOKEN to pettibone when he was taken. & i'll go by what he said - since he was let go without being charged with anything. had he waived his rights ( why would he even be asked to waive them?) then chances are, he would have been charged with somethig he did not do & they knew he didn't do.



The Department of Justice ("The Department") vigorously investigates and, where the evidence permits, prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. The Department's investigations most often involve alleged uses of excessive force, but also include sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. These cases typically involve police officers, jailers, correctional officers, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, and other federal, state, or local law enforcement officials. The Department's authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, so long as he/she is acting, or claiming to act, in his/her official capacity.

In addition to Constitutional violations, the Department prosecutes law enforcement officers for related instances of obstruction of justice. This includes attempting to prevent a victim or witnesses from reporting the misconduct, lying to federal, state, or local officials during the course of an investigation into the potential misconduct, writing a false report to conceal misconduct, or fabricating evidence.

The principles of federal prosecution, set forth in the United States Attorneys' Manual ("USAM"), require federal prosecutors to meet two standards in order to seek an indictment.

First, the government must be convinced that the potential defendant committed a federal crime. Second, the government must also conclude that the government would be likely to prevail at trial, where the government must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See USAM § 9-27.220.[1]
Law Enforcement Misconduct

Probable Cause
Definition
Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause
Probable Cause

Fourth Amendment
Overview
I. INTERESTS PROTECTED
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Fourth Amendment

ummm nancy pelosi is a non sequitur - so yer deflection doesn't hold water.

anyhoo - the lawsuits have just been filed, so what happens next is yet to be determined.

it's not a closed matter by any means. nice try though.

And for all that cutting and pasting, no violations of the Constitution have been shown. The fact that no one has filed a complaint in court about these arrests by federal officers.

The federal government is facing another lawsuit over its law enforcement activities in Portland.

The Western States Center, the First Unitarian Church of Portland, two state representatives and an ACLU legal observer are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which alleges the federal government has violated protesters' 10th Amendment rights. It was filed Tuesday in federal court.

New civil rights lawsuit filed against federal law enforcement for actions in Portland

I'm sure that's heartwarming to you, but it does not say anything about the arrests bu federal law enforcement officers is illegal.

That will be up to the courts.

lol No, it's not. The tenth amendment has nothing to do with the legality of the arrests or the civil rights of any of the violent Democrats rampaging through the streets.

pettibone & the vet & the dude across the street holding the boombox that was shot in the head were not being violent nor the majority of the protesters there.

If the riot police close doen the protest because it's become lawless, and they are asking the rioters, and everyone else to disperse, and you do not disperse, you are going to come up against force. A lot of morons don't get it, and they end up getting hurt.

 

[playtime]

Not true, plainclothes police do not have to identify themselves until they apply their police powers, that is until the take someone into custody.

Actually that requirement starts when an officer exercises "control" over someone.
They must identify themselves before they can detain a witness or suspect for questioning

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You've Been Arrested or Detained

In general, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave an encounter with the police, then there’s been either a detention or an

www.nolo.com

Absolutely, so they drive up in their unmarked car, wearing civilian clothes grab the person and tell him they want him for questioning. That's exactly what the federal agents did.

Show me a video of people in civilian clothes doing this.

Show you a video of plainclothes detective picking up a suspect? What planet do you live on?

They have a badge dumbass!

They have badges but they are concealed until the detectives apply their police powers, dumbass. They same is true for some of the federal law enforcement officers operating in the failed city of Portland.

the little green goons are not identifying themselves; nor are 'detectives'. they were finally outed by ' acting ' DHS flying monkey, chad wolf as being CBP & FBP.

They are federal law enforcement officers working within the framework of federal and they function in the same way local SWAT teams do. Just as plainclothes detectives drive around in unmarked cars and don't reveal their police identities until applying taking someone into custody, so do these federal law enforcement officers, and just as SWAT teams dress in military style gear and sometimes facemasks to hide their identities, so do these federal officers. If you don't object to the local police doing these things, then your objection to federal law enforcement officers doing them can only be attributed to your political bias.

bullshit. they didn't give probable cause when they put their hands on him, & started taking him away.

that is not standard protocol no matter who you are.

you can't 'resist' arrest nor be charged with assaulting a police officer if they don't say who they are & why they are taking you, & especially if you are not read your rights AT THE TIME THEY TAKE YOU.

pettibone should have resisted because any lawyer would have been able to get him off if they tried to charge him without following protocol.

why did they wait to readhim his rights until after he was taken into custody, frisked, & his backpack searched?

& why was he then asked if he wanted to waive them?

when he said no - they simply let him go.

now, spin all that into a web of reason - if you can.

Were your brain functioning properly you would realize you have no idea what was said at the time these people were arrested. However, in general police are not required to present probable cause to someone who is arrested but only to a court, when necessary. The federal standard for making an arrest, however, is different from the standard used by state and local police. State and local police must be able to show a court probable cause for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid, whereas federal law enforcement officers must only be able to show a court reasonable suspicion for making the arrest for the arrest to be valid. The slightly different standards were established by federal and state courts, not by the law enforcement officers.

While Crazy Nancy seeks to incite more violence in our cities and more divisions among Americans along racial lines with these ridiculous rants, it is noteworthy noone is taking federal officers to court over her bizarre claims that the arrests are "kidnappings" or that the arrests are in any way illegal or improper.

^ more bullshit. the feds are obligated to follow the constituion - just like any other law enforcement officer. the video showing pettibone, shows that NO WORDS WERE SPOKEN to pettibone when he was taken. & i'll go by what he said - since he was let go without being charged with anything. had he waived his rights ( why would he even be asked to waive them?) then chances are, he would have been charged with somethig he did not do & they knew he didn't do.



The Department of Justice ("The Department") vigorously investigates and, where the evidence permits, prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. The Department's investigations most often involve alleged uses of excessive force, but also include sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. These cases typically involve police officers, jailers, correctional officers, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, and other federal, state, or local law enforcement officials. The Department's authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, so long as he/she is acting, or claiming to act, in his/her official capacity.

In addition to Constitutional violations, the Department prosecutes law enforcement officers for related instances of obstruction of justice. This includes attempting to prevent a victim or witnesses from reporting the misconduct, lying to federal, state, or local officials during the course of an investigation into the potential misconduct, writing a false report to conceal misconduct, or fabricating evidence.

The principles of federal prosecution, set forth in the United States Attorneys' Manual ("USAM"), require federal prosecutors to meet two standards in order to seek an indictment.

First, the government must be convinced that the potential defendant committed a federal crime. Second, the government must also conclude that the government would be likely to prevail at trial, where the government must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See USAM § 9-27.220.[1]
Law Enforcement Misconduct

Probable Cause
Definition
Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause
Probable Cause

Fourth Amendment
Overview
I. INTERESTS PROTECTED
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Fourth Amendment

ummm nancy pelosi is a non sequitur - so yer deflection doesn't hold water.

anyhoo - the lawsuits have just been filed, so what happens next is yet to be determined.

it's not a closed matter by any means. nice try though.

And for all that cutting and pasting, no violations of the Constitution have been shown. The fact that no one has filed a complaint in court about these arrests by federal officers.

The federal government is facing another lawsuit over its law enforcement activities in Portland.

The Western States Center, the First Unitarian Church of Portland, two state representatives and an ACLU legal observer are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which alleges the federal government has violated protesters' 10th Amendment rights. It was filed Tuesday in federal court.

New civil rights lawsuit filed against federal law enforcement for actions in Portland

I'm sure that's heartwarming to you, but it does not say anything about the arrests bu federal law enforcement officers is illegal.

That will be up to the courts.

lol No, it's not. The tenth amendment has nothing to do with the legality of the arrests or the civil rights of any of the violent Democrats rampaging through the streets.

pettibone & the vet & the dude across the street holding the boombox that was shot in the head were not being violent nor the majority of the protesters there.

If the riot police close doen the protest because it's become lawless, and they are asking the rioters, and everyone else to disperse, and you do not disperse, you are going to come up against force. A lot of morons don't get it, and they end up getting hurt.

so what's yer spin on the goonies going after & kidnapping a dude blocks away from any fed building & chaos... perhaps even going home?

 

[Wapasha]

he was not on federal property. THAT makes the differance & the goons had no idea how to handle it. they weren't trained, & became a mob themselves.

You know, it's clear that whatever it takes for people like you to support domestic terrorists, criminals, and the riot mob, that's what you'll say and do.

lol .... liar.

i have no problems with feds defending fed property & the persons inside.

and yet... it sure sounds like you sided with the criminals and terrorists anyway.

Or is it that you have not thought on this issue very much?

Let's say you are federal riot police, trying to protect a federal court house, oft time with federal employees working inside. If rioters on any given night, for the past 60 days in-a-row, have been throwing rocks and projectiles, lobbing Molotov cocktails and or launching industrial grade firework mortars at the LEO and/or court house. How far back should the LEO be moving the rioters back from the court house, and federal employees, so as to protect them? The answer, as far back as it takes to keep them safe.

So your argument that rioters, and presumed rioters were not physically standing on federal property falls flat. LEO has to move the exclusion line back far enough to end the threat of whatever the rioters are launching at police or property.