sure, but are you personally willing to get your eyes shot out and then have your neck stood on till you die?
Yes they can’t kill all of us, but they have literal weapons of war, and can certainly kill a lot of us. Probably hundreds in just one scuffle.
The cops are not above shooting regular lethal rounds into crowds of peaceful protestors. This is why it’s important to burn down their precincts. It deprives them of materiel.
I’m hearing reports that some of these unidentified kidnappers are CBP agents. Core competencies and all that, I guess…
Judges and elected politicians also take oaths and have powers and responsibilities ordinary citizen don’t have, but there’s never a suggestion that they are not also citizens as well. Only citizens can vote in state and federal elections, and yet surely police vote?
I get that police refer to the general population as citizens, but the notion that police aren’t also citizens needs to be yanked out by the roots, because that’s a major part of the problem.
laws are condiments in the banquet of power, not the main course
cops can do whatever they want unless somebody more powerful than they are stops them
and that doesn’t happen very often
Wat? I’m sure things are looking pretty dire from Canada, but how do you get from a Star Wars quote to ‘they’ll kill you before they kill you’?
Tina Vitale : They shot him in the eyes.
Danny Rose : Oh my God, he’s blind?
Tina Vitale : He’s dead…
Danny Rose : Of course, the bullets would go right through…
Yeah I’ve been wondering this; if they’re not openly representing a governmental authority that has the right to arrest people, aren’t these illegal kidnappings?
Police 1: Not without my flashbangs!
must object to human rights violations using bigger words
If they don’t identify as officers of the law, are they still acting under “color of law” to deprive someone of their Constitutional rights?
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
These folks are wearing generic “POLICE” patches on their dystopian stormtrooper cosplay gear so I believe “color of law” still applies to them.
Update: at least the state of Oregon isn’t taking this sitting down.
Well it’s not like the Oregon State Police can just drive to D.C. and arrest the Secretary of Homeland Security.
They’d have to find them first. I hear those vans aren’t even marked.
finally a valid use for license plate scanners.
that whole bit about tracking an individual person through her etsy bought shirt and review should forever stand as an example of what police can do when motivated to find someone
For fuck sake stop with the MAGAT jeering points and put the murder-boner back in your pants.
I was there.
The protestors showed up, and there was a lot more than “a few hundred”.
There were speeches by local politicians.
There was music.
There were people giving out food.
They were absolutely 100% nonviolent.
Then the cops showed up. They blah-blahed about the fence that they’d put up to close off the parks and sidewalks. [Edit: Some of the fence got moved by the protestors to block off streets people were walking on. And they took the rest and stacked it neatly in piles so it would be easy to put back the next day. There were also at least a dozen scary black-clad types picking up garbage.] They said don’t interfere with the police moving the fence. The protesters didn’t. Then without warning, without telling people to leave, the started with flashbangs and teargas.
It has been that way every time I’ve been there. The Filth escalate right off the bat. The protestors don’t.
Police at least can “detain” rather than arrest, or arrest someone based on “probable cause” on bullshit charges and then “decline to file charges” after having someone sit in a jail cell for some length of time. In this case, federal agents, even if invited by state authorities to enforce state law rather than just federal law, apparently do have to be arresting someone if they’re detaining them, and they need specific evidence that the person had committed a crime in their presence, among a bunch of other requirements they’re absolutely not adhering to, at all.
They seem to be operating the way they are in part to make it impossible for them to be held accountable - there’s no trail of evidence that leads back to any particular agent, so there’s no way of knowing who’s doing this. It’s not even clear what agencies are involved in specific actions, because they’re obscuring their involvement, too. The Federal Protective Service protects federal buildings, which is theoretically what the feds are only (supposed to be) doing, but it seemed like some reporters were assuming or had evidence US Marshals were involved, as that’s who they contacted about one of the abductions. The Marshals denied they’d arrested the person, which didn’t really clear things up because the person hadn’t been arrested, just illegally detained before being released, so they could have been behind it while still technically correct in their denial. CBP and ICE are also involved, but…?
Well, there’s your problem!
(One of them, anyway. The term flawed conception comes to mind.)
