Feds in Portland Brutalize Navy Vet.

[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.

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

You mean LEO aprehending a person suspected of committing or assisting in the act of a federal felony?

 

[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.

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 to protect them? The answer, as far back as it takes to keep them safe.

So your argument that rioters, and presumed rioters were no 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.

them thar goonies are not trained to do what they were assigned to do.

a DHS' internal memo even stated that.

 

[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?

You mean LEO aprehending a person suspected of committing or assisting in the act of a federal felony?

lol... fail. they didn't ID themselves, they didn't give probable cause for detaining, they didn't give him his miranda rights & then asked if he wanted to waive them.

because they weren't trained & fucked up bigley. shooting someone in the head from across the street is also a bozo no no.

 

[Wapasha]

He was simply standing there peacefully protesting. It must not have been much of a "riot".

In the video, there are already pepper bombs and riot police in the act of suppressing a violent protest, or riot. If the riot police are telling the crowd to disperse, and a dumb ass like this supposed "vet," doesn't move. He's interfering with the riot police's verbal commands, and said Navy 'tard will be moved by force.

If your local bar has a drunken brawl, and the bouncers say everyone clear out the bar is closed, and you refuse to leave, you will be physically ejected.

 

[Wapasha]

YOU ARE THE BLOCKHEAD. The video clearly shows he was doing none of that. Also worth noting that he was not arrested so clearly he was not doing anything illegal. If I were the Democrats, I would use this in a campaign ad so Americans know what Trump means when he talks about law and order.

If there is a lawless riot going on, and you either assist in it, or you belligerently take part by resisting the police efforts to end the riot, then you deserve to be moved by force. Go ahead and run the ad

Show the video with the voiceover: Democrats take part in riots and resist law enforcements efforts to bring order to our burning cities?

Cut to sleepy O'Biden: Vote for Joe O'Biden, the candidate for lawlessness and defunding of our police.

Fade out with the graphic: Vote Democrat! Vote for antifa!

 

[pknopp]

He was simply standing there peacefully protesting. It must not have been much of a "riot".

In the video, there are already pepper bombs and riot police in the act of suppressing a violent protest, or riot. If the riot police are telling the crowd to disperse, and a dumb ass like this supposed "vet," doesn't move. He's interfering with the riot police's verbal commands, and said Navy 'tard will be moved by force.

If your local bar has a drunken brawl, and the bouncers say everyone clear out the bar is closed, and you refuse to leave, you will be physically ejected.

The goons left and things are peaceful.

 

[Wapasha]

He was simply standing there peacefully protesting. It must not have been much of a "riot".

In the video, there are already pepper bombs and riot police in the act of suppressing a violent protest, or riot. If the riot police are telling the crowd to disperse, and a dumb ass like this supposed "vet," doesn't move. He's interfering with the riot police's verbal commands, and said Navy 'tard will be moved by force.

If your local bar has a drunken brawl, and the bouncers say everyone clear out the bar is closed, and you refuse to leave, you will be physically ejected.

The goons left and things are peaceful.

Because the mayor worked out a deal with antifa. It's not like antifa was not attacking the courthouse before the feds arrived. So don't make it sound like the violence was the fault of the feds being there, because that's silly.

 

[pknopp]

He was simply standing there peacefully protesting. It must not have been much of a "riot".

In the video, there are already pepper bombs and riot police in the act of suppressing a violent protest, or riot. If the riot police are telling the crowd to disperse, and a dumb ass like this supposed "vet," doesn't move. He's interfering with the riot police's verbal commands, and said Navy 'tard will be moved by force.

If your local bar has a drunken brawl, and the bouncers say everyone clear out the bar is closed, and you refuse to leave, you will be physically ejected.

The goons left and things are peaceful.

Because the mayor worked out a deal with antifa. It's not like antifa was not attacking the courthouse before the feds arrived. So don't make it sound like the violence was the fault of the feds being there, because that's silly.

It was. If the anti-Facists and the mayor can get along that is also a good thing.

 

[Wapasha]

It was. If the anti-Facists and the mayor can get along that is also a good thing.

So why did it take over two months of violence and harm to law enforcement? Good thing??? My ass.

 

[BlueGin]

And who made him go to the riots....NOT PROTESTS.............he should have stayed home and he will be just fine........

Shore Patrol would smack you down while in the Navy...........OH WELL.............Portland escalated this........this is what they wanted......

Damn right! Who gave this vet the idea that the could exercise his constitutional right of free speech Trump's America?

LOL

Free speech in Portland.................the moron walked into a damned WAR ZONE...........He was probably a BM...........chipped paint in the Navy.........probably unbalanced his noggin..............

BLM rioters caused this............he went in there and approached RIOT CONTROL OFFICERS........He's a big as dummy and got his hand smacked............They were not coming there to play around.......

OH WELL.

They were "riot control officers"? So, I guess they were wearing badges? Or did they tell him, "Badges? Badges? we don't need no stinkin" badges!"

Might makes right.............BLM and Antifa has been doing their BS a long time..........Karma comes for them and they go crying..................WHO CARES.....

They can flush their heads in a toilet at this point and I'd be .......COOL.

So, I'm sure you were fine with what the feds did with Ruby Ridge and Waco, right?

Stop virtue signalling........In regards to Antifa and BLM BURNING THIS COUNTRY TO THE GROUND.,

The police are the only ones protecting their sorry asses...........

I don't care about Terrorist.......the DNC is openly supporting terrorism against our country now.

Oh **** your virtue signaling bullcrap, seems to be the newest rightwing buzzword.

The country is not burning to the ground.

The demonstrations were winding down.

The state did not ask for fed intervention

Is hyperbole your n normal mode of communication?


But hey - thanks for a brilliant display of hypocrisy

PuT YOUR THUGS ON A LEASH............No one cares about them anymore.......not from our side.........

**** BLM and ANTIFA.....they are a bunch of terrorist..........i hope they break their dang heads in portland.........NO SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL......

Did you care that the mother was killed because of this crap for saying All lives matter......Did you care about the old white women in New York who was trying to protect her store beaten with a dang 2 x 4.

BLM and Antifa deserve NO RESPECT WHATSOEVER......they are a TERRORIST ORG as far as I'm concerned now.

Did that happen in Portland?

Does BLM advocate murder?

Are they responsible for every violent incident that black people commit?

If so...well...Trump supporters have a lot to answer for....

Listen to the Hypocrite.......we have nothing to answer for...........we aren't burning the country down and STEALING BIG SCREEN TVS over Floyd..................

They are.............Your side is throwing GAS ON A FIRE.........and blaming others when it burns.............You are BS.........YES YOU.

Federal authorities were there solely to silence lawful protests.

This was a failed, unwarranted, and heavy-handed attempt by Trump to intimidate political opposition.

They were there to protect federal property.

 

[Vandalshandle]

He was simply standing there peacefully protesting. It must not have been much of a "riot".

In the video, there are already pepper bombs and riot police in the act of suppressing a violent protest, or riot. If the riot police are telling the crowd to disperse, and a dumb ass like this supposed "vet," doesn't move. He's interfering with the riot police's verbal commands, and said Navy 'tard will be moved by force.

If your local bar has a drunken brawl, and the bouncers say everyone clear out the bar is closed, and you refuse to leave, you will be physically ejected.

The goons left and things are peaceful.

I think that they are on their way to Albuquerque. They haven't had a decent riot in years, so they need a little federal help.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Trump ad supposedly picturing rioting to be expected under Biden, but a really a picture of an old Ukrainian pro-democracy riot.

 

[pknopp]

It was. If the anti-Facists and the mayor can get along that is also a good thing.

So why did it take over two months of violence and harm to law enforcement? Good thing??? My ass.

Unfortunately violence is the only thing some in power will understand. They aren't going to give up an inch of power without it.

 

[Wapasha]

It was. If the anti-Facists and the mayor can get along that is also a good thing.

So why did it take over two months of violence and harm to law enforcement? Good thing??? My ass.

Unfortunately violence is the only thing some in power will understand. They aren't going to give up an inch of power without it.

We elected Trump without resorting to violence. Meanwhile the same violent left who espouse your same language, were running around in mobs beating Trump supporters during the election campaign, and burning their cities down once he was elected.

But sure in extreme circumstances, violence is all that tyrants and oppressors understand. In our nation today, the violent oppressors are on the left. I'd prefer not to go to war with them, because some of them, if given the chance will come to their senses and #walkaway

 

[pknopp]

It was. If the anti-Facists and the mayor can get along that is also a good thing.

So why did it take over two months of violence and harm to law enforcement? Good thing??? My ass.

Unfortunately violence is the only thing some in power will understand. They aren't going to give up an inch of power without it.

We elected Trump without resorting to violence. Meanwhile the same violent left who espouse your same language, were running around in mobs beating Trump supporters during the election campaign, and burning their cities down once he was elected.

But sure in extreme circumstances, violence is all that tyrants and oppressors understand. In our nation today, the violent oppressors are on the left. I'd prefer not to go to war with them, because some of them, if given the chance will come to their senses and #walkaway

The protests happened under Obama also.