Unconstitutional actions by fededal police in Portland? - Page 4

Arcade22 · 18th July 2020, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This is what I don't understand. So Trump has ordered federal troops to take the law into their own hands without the consent of the police?

They are using the ruse it is to protect federal buildings and property.

Someone needs to limit the territory they are allowed to act in or something. The idea the federal government moving into cities in an aggressive act like this should scare the **** out of everyone.

I'm pretty sure that Federal law enforcement don't need permission from local police to operate anywhere nor can state governors bar their presence. Federal agencies are not regulated by state law.

BobTheCoward · 18th July 2020, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

One is too many.

Arrest and detention without probable cause is a direct violation of US Citizens' 4th amendment rights except under some very limited exceptions... none of which exist here.

You don't have enough evidence to conclude they did not satisfy probable cause.

Matthew Best · 18th July 2020, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

Some states have very broad stand-your-ground laws. It would be interesting for someone to lethally shoot one of these guys then use a stand-your-ground law as a defense. The right-wingers would be in a real bind regarding who to support. So would the NRA.

The odds of a person shooting one of these guys and then being arrested and ending up in court are surely remote. Anyone trying it would probably be shot and killed themselves almost immediately. There would be no trial, and no use of a "stand-your-ground" law would ensue.

Giordano · 18th July 2020, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

I'm pretty sure that Federal law enforcement don't need permission from local police to operate anywhere nor can state governors bar their presence. Federal agencies are not regulated by state law.

The USA is not a strict hierarchy. The Constitution gives to States the authority and powers not expressly given to the federal government. There are restrictions in terms of jurisdiction. For example IIRC the federal government cannot charge an individual for many crimes that a state can. Even a murder committed within a state typically cannot be persecuted under federal law unless it meets a variety of additional criteria (I believe such as kidnapping, murder of a federal agent, etc.).

Stacyhs · 18th July 2020, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I'm not even sure "under arrest" is a definite legal term. But it's generally associated with being read your rights and handcuffed. That was happening as far as I understand.

Someone apparently researched this to find a legal way to allow Trump to do what he wanted.

Knowing Bob is not a knee-jerk defender of police powers ... if his reading tells him this is constitutional I'm afraid he's correct. Trump got his goon squad and is pretty proud of it.

Here's what I found on the difference between being detained and being arrested. It seems there is a fine line between the two.

Quote:

In general, police officers are free to strike up a conversation with anyone they like. If a reasonable person would feel free to leave the situation at any time, it is neither a detention not an arrest. However, if a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, then the situation is either a detention or an arrest. Here is how to tell which it is.

Detention

A detention is a “brief and cursory” holding and questioning. This occurs when you are pulled over for a traffic violation or questioned about suspicious behavior. To legally detain you, the officer must have “reasonable suspicion” that you are or were involved in a crime. Detentions must last no longer than necessary and must be conducted with the least intrusive, reasonably available means.

Arrest

You can only be legally arrested if the officer has either a warrant or “probable cause.” Probable cause is a stricter standard than reasonable suspicion, and it means that the officer must have reason to believe it is likely that are you committing or have committed a crime.

If you are detained by a police officer for a prolonged period of time, the detention could turn into a de facto arrest. Likewise, if the officer finds evidence during the detention that triggers the probable cause threshold, the detention could become an official arrest. An arrest typically involves more severe restraints on your movement, such as handcuffing and placing you in the back of the police car, along with a verbal advisement that you are under arrest. However, if a reasonable person would consider the officer’s behavior to be consistent with an arrest, then the courts generally agree that an arrest has occurred.

https://www.nonstopjustice.com/blog/...the-difference

Stacyhs · 18th July 2020, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Giordano

The USA is not a strict hierarchy. The Constitution gives to States the authority and powers not expressly given to the federal government. There are restrictions in terms of jurisdiction. For example IIRC the federal government cannot charge an individual for many crimes that a state can. Even a murder committed within a state typically cannot be persecuted under federal law unless it meets a variety of additional criteria (I believe such as kidnapping, murder of a federal agent, etc.).

I think hate crimes are also included in that list of criteria.

Jack by the hedge · 18th July 2020, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Here's what I found on the difference between being detained and being arrested. It seems there is a fine line between the two.

https://www.nonstopjustice.com/blog/...the-difference

There may be doubt in cases where an officer seems to be preventing a person from going about their business, but seizing them and driving them away in an van does not seem to leave much doubt.

Stacyhs · 18th July 2020, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

There may be doubt in cases where an officer seems to be preventing a person from going about their business, but seizing them and driving them away in an van does not seem to leave much doubt.

I am not contesting that in the slightest. Being handcuffed, put in a police/law enforcement vehicle and/or taken to the police station is definitely an arrest.

Skeptic Ginger · 18th July 2020, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

No you didn't. You read "she reappeared just fine" which simply means she actually reappeared and was ok, with "The situation is fine because she reappeared". Those are two completely different things, but somehow you managed to misread it. Twice.

Which is why I asked: OMG, is that what you meant? Or were you just saying they didn't actually disappear?

I think we're done here.

Belz... · 18th July 2020, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Which is why I asked: OMG, is that what you meant? Or were you just saying they didn't actually disappear?

I think we're done here.

I was asking a question based on previous such events. No one has answered it so far. So you didn't understand it. Do you now? Do you have an answer?

CapelDodger · 18th July 2020, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Someone apparently researched this to find a legal way to allow Trump to do what he wanted.

Someone seems determined to make Black Lives Matter into Trump's Reichstag Fire. I doubt Trump has ever heard of it, but there are those with his ear who most definitely have.

Fast Eddie B · 18th July 2020, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Which is why I asked: OMG, is that what you meant? Or were you just saying they didn't actually disappear?

I think we're done here.

I can think of nothing more terrifying than seeing a son or daughter whisked off in an unmarked vehicle after being “detained” by officers without insignias. Who would you even call?

This is something that you might expect in Argentina. Not here.

Aridas · 18th July 2020, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

They preempted the hell out of that state law

Reading through that... not exactly.

With that said, the potentially relevant bits there are -

First -

Quote:

including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.

That's very vague and thus could potentially be spun to allow the rather significantly extended range of operations as they go after potential graffiti creators.

Second -

Quote:

has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony

Similarly, this allows leeway.

Now, combining the two in practice, if "reasonable grounds" equates to "person walking on a sidewalk several blocks away while wearing black clothes," presumably given the understanding that the Black Bloc, aka the largely anarchist subset of Antifa, tends to wear black, without any actual indication that 1) the graffiti was done by someone similar to them in the first place and 2) that the person in question had any direct indications that they might have been or would be involved with the graffiti, that's going to be rather difficult to defend as valid in court - hence some context for the apparent release without charges in the example cited in the OPB article.

Going further, even with this, that federal officers are allowed to arrest without a warrant under certain situations is not actually in conflict with the cited state laws and the parts that they were stated to have been violating. The state law cited deals with procedure, first and foremost. Nothing in what you cited, for example, conflicts with the (reasonable) requirement that the reason for the arrest be made known. As for whether it's an arrest...

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

There may be doubt in cases where an officer seems to be preventing a person from going about their business, but seizing them and driving them away in an van does not seem to leave much doubt.

Jack by the hedge says it just fine there.

rockinkt · 18th July 2020, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I can think of nothing more terrifying than seeing a son or daughter whisked off in an unmarked vehicle after being “detained” by officers without insignias. Who would you even call?

This is something that you might expect in Argentina. Not here.

I guess you have never heard of the FBI. They drive unmarked cars and do not have insignias on their clothing.
For that matter - neither do state cops or city cops or county cops or town cops who are working plainclothes. I won't even get into undercover officers.
Your pearls must be all worn out after all that clutching...

Fast Eddie B · 18th July 2020, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

I guess you have never heard of the FBI. They drive unmarked cars and do not have insignias on their clothing.
For that matter - neither do state cops or city cops or county cops or town cops who are working plainclothes. I won't even get into undercover officers.
Your pearls must be all worn out after all that clutching...

I don’t know how common it is, but as a deputy sheriff I was often dispatched to provide “uniform presence”. That was so a marked car would identify that a raid by SWAT or whoever was “official”.

I have heard of the FBI. They often wear jackets that coincidentally say FBI in large letters. They also tend to produce ID to confirm who they represent, and their names. Always? I can’t say, but pretty sure that’s SOP across many departments.

Trebuchet · 18th July 2020, 04:12 PM

I'm sure all true libertarians are mortally offended by this expansion of the power of the Federal Government.
Aren't they?

Aridas · 18th July 2020, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

I was asking a question based on previous such events. No one has answered it so far. So you didn't understand it. Do you now? Do you have an answer?

To actually answer a bit, then... Honestly, I'm doubtful that any of us are likely to have an answer yet. That they're going after people in the streets for seemingly no reasonable cause is one thing. The singular case of Portland release without charge in the July 16th OPB article is not enough to meaningfully base much in the way of conclusions about whether anyone has been "disappeared" or not, especially given that if someone was "disappeared" in this way, it very possibly would be difficult to track or verify in a short period of time. Going further, though, the federal agencies that seem likely to have been brought in have problematic histories when it comes to wrongful arrests and detainments that do not even remotely get resolved in a timely manner, if I recall correctly.

Skeptic Ginger · 18th July 2020, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

I guess you have never heard of the FBI. They drive unmarked cars and do not have insignias on their clothing.
For that matter - neither do state cops or city cops or county cops or town cops who are working plainclothes. I won't even get into undercover officers.
Your pearls must be all worn out after all that clutching...

Plainclothes and undercover cops don't usually constitute an armed force in camo with unmarked vans.

When the FBI raids a location they have FBI clearly marked on their jackets or shirts. There's a big difference.

BobTheCoward · 18th July 2020, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Going further, even with this, that federal officers are allowed to arrest without a warrant under certain situations is not actually in conflict with the cited state laws and the parts that they were stated to have been violating. The state law cited deals with procedure, first and foremost. Nothing in what you cited, for example, conflicts with the (reasonable) requirement that the reason for the arrest be made known. As for whether it's an arrest....

Again, states cannot tell federal officials how to do their job enforcing federal law. It is basic preemption. The feds don't even have to bother spelling it out here.

Belz... · 18th July 2020, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

To actually answer a bit, then... Honestly, I'm doubtful that any of us are likely to have an answer yet. That they're going after people in the streets for seemingly no reasonable cause is one thing. The singular case of Portland release without charge in the July 16th OPB article is not enough to meaningfully base much in the way of conclusions about whether anyone has been "disappeared" or not, especially given that if someone was "disappeared" in this way, it very possibly would be difficult to track or verify in a short period of time. Going further, though, the federal agencies that seem likely to have been brought in have problematic histories when it comes to wrongful arrests and detainments that do not even remotely get resolved in a timely manner, if I recall correctly.

On the other hand, people taken in this manner could report on social media once released.

uke2se · 18th July 2020, 04:29 PM

Could Congress do anything about this?

Let's say for example, Democratic leaders make it public that they will seek indictments against anyone participating in these unconstitutional acts if the Democrats win the coming election - from leadership down to foot-soldiers. Could that have a dampening effect or would it only serve to further the "us-vs-them" narrative in these peoples' heads?

Belz... · 18th July 2020, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by uke2se

Could Congress do anything about this?

Let's say for example, Democratic leaders make it public that they will seek indictments against anyone participating in these unconstitutional acts if the Democrats win the coming election - from leadership down to foot-soldiers. Could that have a dampening effect or would it only serve to further the "us-vs-them" narrative in these peoples' heads?

Indictments from whom? The DOJ? Or DAs?

CapelDodger · 18th July 2020, 04:51 PM

What you've all missed (typically) is that Portland is a dry-run of the comprehensive round-up Q has been telling the more informed of us about for years. None so blind, as they say ...

CapelDodger · 18th July 2020, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

On the other hand, people taken in this manner could report on social media once released.

Of course in the original (Catch 22) "disappeared" referred to a terminal process, one which became all too horribly real in the torture and death-squad regimes so favoured by Kissinger. It has naturally tended towards hyperbolisation in rhetorical use, but it's worth noting that the initial experience of a death-squad action in, say, El Salvador (unidentified men arbitrarily plucking people off the street into unmarked vehicles) is indistinguishable from what's been seen in Portland.

kookbreaker · 18th July 2020, 06:04 PM

So I guess we only have “libertarians of convenience” after all. Oddly disappointing.

BobTheCoward · 18th July 2020, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

So I guess we only have “libertarians of convenience” after all. Oddly disappointing.

I think on this issue im galaxy brain libertarian

Of course what is happening in Portland is Constitutional. That is why the constitution is bad and not a libertarian document.

CapelDodger · 18th July 2020, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

So I guess we only have “libertarians of convenience” after all. Oddly disappointing.

Bob's the real deal.

TahiniBinShawarma · 18th July 2020, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I can think of nothing more terrifying than seeing a son or daughter whisked off in an unmarked vehicle after being “detained” by officers without insignias. Who would you even call?

This is something that you might expect in Argentina. Not here.

Only the whole "unidentified" isn't true.

TahiniBinShawarma · 18th July 2020, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

Only the whole "unidentified" isn't true.

Also

TahiniBinShawarma · 18th July 2020, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

Also

Also, from the referenced order, second one for when the state complains about losing money.

Minoosh · 18th July 2020, 08:34 PM

The Border Patrol is guarding statues. So good to know they have nothing more important to do.

TahiniBinShawarma · 18th July 2020, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

The Border Patrol is guarding statues. So good to know they have nothing more important to do.

You mean they aren't "unidentified?"

BobTheCoward · 18th July 2020, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

You mean they aren't "unidentified?"

They are unidentified. Your focus on the group standing in front of things is a strawman. That is a minor concern at this point.

TahiniBinShawarma · 18th July 2020, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

They are unidentified. Your focus on the group standing in front of things is a strawman. That is a minor concern at this point.

The actual pictures show they are identified. Sorry if that upsets you, but it's reality.

smartcooky · 18th July 2020, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

Only the whole "unidentified" isn't true.

Rubbish! Unidentified means they do not have name badges or badge numbers.

The US is slowly but surely becoming a Police State. With Trump being so enamoured with dictators and the authoritarian leaders of other Police States, this should not come as a surprise to anyone.

Compare where you are with civil rights, treatment of minorities and Trump's defiance of the Law now, with where you were in, say 2016. I warned back in 2018 that Americans were being softened up for this sort of thing. I would not at all be surprised if Trump tried declaring a national state of emergency to delay the November election.

BobTheCoward · 18th July 2020, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

The actual pictures show they are identified. Sorry if that upsets you, but it's reality.

If they use an unmarked car, grab someone, do not allow.a person to view them, and do not tell the person they are arranging, they are unidentified. It doesn't matter of they install LEDs on the uniform.

It is why a person might say, "unidentified suspect" even if the suspect may have been wearing a nametag that no one saw. the presence of a nametag does not make them "identified."

TahiniBinShawarma · 18th July 2020, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Rubbish! Unidentified means they do not have name badges or badge numbers...............hysterics snipped

Already answered

TahiniBinShawarma · 18th July 2020, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

If they use an unmarked car, grab someone, do not allow.a person to view them, and do not tell the person they are arranging, they are unidentified. It doesn't matter of they install LEDs on the uniform.

It is why a person might say, "unidentified suspect" even if the suspect may have been wearing a nametag that no one saw. the presence of a nametag does not make them "identified."

By your definition every LEO is unidentified simply by using an unmarked car. Also, you ignore the statement of what actually happened.

Minoosh · 18th July 2020, 09:12 PM

The individual agents were unidentified, as far as I know. I don't know if their branch of service was clear in all cases.

Looks like everyone just piled on the tactical gear, going for that bad-ass Trump-goon-squad vibe.

ETA: And no masks in sight for the photo opp ...

SezMe · 18th July 2020, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

These secret police death squad tactics are disgusting to the extreme, but totally unsurprising given what the portland mayor and police were doing

What were the Portland mayor and police doing that justified this action?

18th July 2020, 01:27 PM	#121
Arcade22 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 6,781	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger This is what I don't understand. So Trump has ordered federal troops to take the law into their own hands without the consent of the police? They are using the ruse it is to protect federal buildings and property. Someone needs to limit the territory they are allowed to act in or something. The idea the federal government moving into cities in an aggressive act like this should scare the **** out of everyone. I'm pretty sure that Federal law enforcement don't need permission from local police to operate anywhere nor can state governors bar their presence. Federal agencies are not regulated by state law.
	__________________ We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann

18th July 2020, 03:05 PM	#130
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,434	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Which is why I asked: OMG, is that what you meant? Or were you just saying they didn't actually disappear? I think we're done here. I was asking a question based on previous such events. No one has answered it so far. So you didn't understand it. Do you now? Do you have an answer?
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

18th July 2020, 03:26 PM	#131
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 25,052	Originally Posted by Minoosh Someone apparently researched this to find a legal way to allow Trump to do what he wanted. Someone seems determined to make Black Lives Matter into Trump's Reichstag Fire. I doubt Trump has ever heard of it, but there are those with his ear who most definitely have.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

18th July 2020, 03:56 PM	#133
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,453	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward They preempted the hell out of that state law Reading through that... not exactly. With that said, the potentially relevant bits there are - First - Quote: including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property. That's very vague and thus could potentially be spun to allow the rather significantly extended range of operations as they go after potential graffiti creators. Second - Quote: has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony Similarly, this allows leeway. Now, combining the two in practice, if "reasonable grounds" equates to "person walking on a sidewalk several blocks away while wearing black clothes," presumably given the understanding that the Black Bloc, aka the largely anarchist subset of Antifa, tends to wear black, without any actual indication that 1) the graffiti was done by someone similar to them in the first place and 2) that the person in question had any direct indications that they might have been or would be involved with the graffiti, that's going to be rather difficult to defend as valid in court - hence some context for the apparent release without charges in the example cited in the OPB article. Going further, even with this, that federal officers are allowed to arrest without a warrant under certain situations is not actually in conflict with the cited state laws and the parts that they were stated to have been violating. The state law cited deals with procedure, first and foremost. Nothing in what you cited, for example, conflicts with the (reasonable) requirement that the reason for the arrest be made known. As for whether it's an arrest... Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge There may be doubt in cases where an officer seems to be preventing a person from going about their business, but seizing them and driving them away in an van does not seem to leave much doubt. Jack by the hedge says it just fine there.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

18th July 2020, 04:01 PM	#134
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,097	Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B I can think of nothing more terrifying than seeing a son or daughter whisked off in an unmarked vehicle after being “detained” by officers without insignias. Who would you even call? This is something that you might expect in Argentina. Not here. I guess you have never heard of the FBI. They drive unmarked cars and do not have insignias on their clothing. For that matter - neither do state cops or city cops or county cops or town cops who are working plainclothes. I won't even get into undercover officers. Your pearls must be all worn out after all that clutching...
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,097	__________________ "Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." *Steve Earle* "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." *Townes Van Zandt*

18th July 2020, 01:27 PM	#122
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,239	Originally Posted by smartcooky One is too many. Arrest and detention without probable cause is a direct violation of US Citizens' 4th amendment rights except under some very limited exceptions... none of which exist here. You don't have enough evidence to conclude they did not satisfy probable cause.

18th July 2020, 02:11 PM	#123
Matthew Best Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 8,211	Originally Posted by SezMe Some states have very broad stand-your-ground laws. It would be interesting for someone to lethally shoot one of these guys then use a stand-your-ground law as a defense. The right-wingers would be in a real bind regarding who to support. So would the NRA. The odds of a person shooting one of these guys and then being arrested and ending up in court are surely remote. Anyone trying it would probably be shot and killed themselves almost immediately. There would be no trial, and no use of a "stand-your-ground" law would ensue.

18th July 2020, 02:26 PM	#124
Giordano Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 17,646	Originally Posted by Arcade22 I'm pretty sure that Federal law enforcement don't need permission from local police to operate anywhere nor can state governors bar their presence. Federal agencies are not regulated by state law. The USA is not a strict hierarchy. The Constitution gives to States the authority and powers not expressly given to the federal government. There are restrictions in terms of jurisdiction. For example IIRC the federal government cannot charge an individual for many crimes that a state can. Even a murder committed within a state typically cannot be persecuted under federal law unless it meets a variety of additional criteria (I believe such as kidnapping, murder of a federal agent, etc.).

18th July 2020, 02:41 PM	#125
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,012	Originally Posted by Minoosh I'm not even sure "under arrest" is a definite legal term. But it's generally associated with being read your rights and handcuffed. That was happening as far as I understand. Someone apparently researched this to find a legal way to allow Trump to do what he wanted. Knowing Bob is not a knee-jerk defender of police powers ... if his reading tells him this is constitutional I'm afraid he's correct. Trump got his goon squad and is pretty proud of it. Here's what I found on the difference between being detained and being arrested. It seems there is a fine line between the two. Quote: In general, police officers are free to strike up a conversation with anyone they like. If a reasonable person would feel free to leave the situation at any time, it is neither a detention not an arrest. However, if a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, then the situation is either a detention or an arrest. Here is how to tell which it is. Detention A detention is a “brief and cursory” holding and questioning. This occurs when you are pulled over for a traffic violation or questioned about suspicious behavior. To legally detain you, the officer must have “reasonable suspicion” that you are or were involved in a crime. Detentions must last no longer than necessary and must be conducted with the least intrusive, reasonably available means. Arrest You can only be legally arrested if the officer has either a warrant or “probable cause.” Probable cause is a stricter standard than reasonable suspicion, and it means that the officer must have reason to believe it is likely that are you committing or have committed a crime. If you are detained by a police officer for a prolonged period of time, the detention could turn into a de facto arrest. Likewise, if the officer finds evidence during the detention that triggers the probable cause threshold, the detention could become an official arrest. An arrest typically involves more severe restraints on your movement, such as handcuffing and placing you in the back of the police car, along with a verbal advisement that you are under arrest. However, if a reasonable person would consider the officer’s behavior to be consistent with an arrest, then the courts generally agree that an arrest has occurred. https://www.nonstopjustice.com/blog/...the-difference

18th July 2020, 02:43 PM	#126
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,012	Originally Posted by Giordano The USA is not a strict hierarchy. The Constitution gives to States the authority and powers not expressly given to the federal government. There are restrictions in terms of jurisdiction. For example IIRC the federal government cannot charge an individual for many crimes that a state can. Even a murder committed within a state typically cannot be persecuted under federal law unless it meets a variety of additional criteria (I believe such as kidnapping, murder of a federal agent, etc.). I think hate crimes are also included in that list of criteria.

18th July 2020, 02:49 PM	#127
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,881	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Here's what I found on the difference between being detained and being arrested. It seems there is a fine line between the two. https://www.nonstopjustice.com/blog/...the-difference There may be doubt in cases where an officer seems to be preventing a person from going about their business, but seizing them and driving them away in an van does not seem to leave much doubt.

18th July 2020, 02:55 PM	#128
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,012	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge There may be doubt in cases where an officer seems to be preventing a person from going about their business, but seizing them and driving them away in an van does not seem to leave much doubt. I am not contesting that in the slightest. Being handcuffed, put in a police/law enforcement vehicle and/or taken to the police station is definitely an arrest.

18th July 2020, 02:58 PM	#129
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,982	Originally Posted by Belz... No you didn't. You read "she reappeared just fine" which simply means she actually reappeared and was ok, with "The situation is fine because she reappeared". Those are two completely different things, but somehow you managed to misread it. Twice. Which is why I asked: OMG, is that what you meant? Or were you just saying they didn't actually disappear? I think we're done here.

18th July 2020, 03:49 PM	#132
Fast Eddie B Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 6,742	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Which is why I asked: OMG, is that what you meant? Or were you just saying they didn't actually disappear? I think we're done here. I can think of nothing more terrifying than seeing a son or daughter whisked off in an unmarked vehicle after being “detained” by officers without insignias. Who would you even call? This is something that you might expect in Argentina. Not here.

18th July 2020, 04:09 PM	#135
Fast Eddie B Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 6,742	Originally Posted by rockinkt I guess you have never heard of the FBI. They drive unmarked cars and do not have insignias on their clothing. For that matter - neither do state cops or city cops or county cops or town cops who are working plainclothes. I won't even get into undercover officers. Your pearls must be all worn out after all that clutching... I don’t know how common it is, but as a deputy sheriff I was often dispatched to provide “uniform presence”. That was so a marked car would identify that a raid by SWAT or whoever was “official”. I have heard of the FBI. They often wear jackets that coincidentally say FBI in large letters. They also tend to produce ID to confirm who they represent, and their names. Always? I can’t say, but pretty sure that’s SOP across many departments.

18th July 2020, 04:12 PM	#136
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 31,059	I'm sure all true libertarians are mortally offended by this expansion of the power of the Federal Government. Aren't they?
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

18th July 2020, 04:13 PM	#137
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,453	Originally Posted by Belz... I was asking a question based on previous such events. No one has answered it so far. So you didn't understand it. Do you now? Do you have an answer? To actually answer a bit, then... Honestly, I'm doubtful that any of us are likely to have an answer yet. That they're going after people in the streets for seemingly no reasonable cause is one thing. The singular case of Portland release without charge in the July 16th OPB article is not enough to meaningfully base much in the way of conclusions about whether anyone has been "disappeared" or not, especially given that if someone was "disappeared" in this way, it very possibly would be difficult to track or verify in a short period of time. Going further, though, the federal agencies that seem likely to have been brought in have problematic histories when it comes to wrongful arrests and detainments that do not even remotely get resolved in a timely manner, if I recall correctly.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; 18th July 2020 at 04:15 PM.

18th July 2020, 04:15 PM	#138
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,982	Originally Posted by rockinkt I guess you have never heard of the FBI. They drive unmarked cars and do not have insignias on their clothing. For that matter - neither do state cops or city cops or county cops or town cops who are working plainclothes. I won't even get into undercover officers. Your pearls must be all worn out after all that clutching... Plainclothes and undercover cops don't usually constitute an armed force in camo with unmarked vans. When the FBI raids a location they have FBI clearly marked on their jackets or shirts. There's a big difference.

18th July 2020, 04:20 PM	#139
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,239	Originally Posted by Aridas Going further, even with this, that federal officers are allowed to arrest without a warrant under certain situations is not actually in conflict with the cited state laws and the parts that they were stated to have been violating. The state law cited deals with procedure, first and foremost. Nothing in what you cited, for example, conflicts with the (reasonable) requirement that the reason for the arrest be made known. As for whether it's an arrest.... Again, states cannot tell federal officials how to do their job enforcing federal law. It is basic preemption. The feds don't even have to bother spelling it out here.

18th July 2020, 04:27 PM	#140
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,434	Originally Posted by Aridas To actually answer a bit, then... Honestly, I'm doubtful that any of us are likely to have an answer yet. That they're going after people in the streets for seemingly no reasonable cause is one thing. The singular case of Portland release without charge in the July 16th OPB article is not enough to meaningfully base much in the way of conclusions about whether anyone has been "disappeared" or not, especially given that if someone was "disappeared" in this way, it very possibly would be difficult to track or verify in a short period of time. Going further, though, the federal agencies that seem likely to have been brought in have problematic histories when it comes to wrongful arrests and detainments that do not even remotely get resolved in a timely manner, if I recall correctly. On the other hand, people taken in this manner could report on social media once released.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

18th July 2020, 04:29 PM	#141
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,181	Could Congress do anything about this? Let's say for example, Democratic leaders make it public that they will seek indictments against anyone participating in these unconstitutional acts if the Democrats win the coming election - from leadership down to foot-soldiers. Could that have a dampening effect or would it only serve to further the "us-vs-them" narrative in these peoples' heads?
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

18th July 2020, 04:39 PM	#142
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,434	Originally Posted by uke2se Could Congress do anything about this? Let's say for example, Democratic leaders make it public that they will seek indictments against anyone participating in these unconstitutional acts if the Democrats win the coming election - from leadership down to foot-soldiers. Could that have a dampening effect or would it only serve to further the "us-vs-them" narrative in these peoples' heads? Indictments from whom? The DOJ? Or DAs?
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

18th July 2020, 04:51 PM	#143
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 25,052	What you've all missed (typically) is that Portland is a dry-run of the comprehensive round-up Q has been telling the more informed of us about for years. None so blind, as they say ...
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

18th July 2020, 05:13 PM	#144
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 25,052	Originally Posted by Belz... On the other hand, people taken in this manner could report on social media once released. Of course in the original (Catch 22) "disappeared" referred to a terminal process, one which became all too horribly real in the torture and death-squad regimes so favoured by Kissinger. It has naturally tended towards hyperbolisation in rhetorical use, but it's worth noting that the initial experience of a death-squad action in, say, El Salvador (unidentified men arbitrarily plucking people off the street into unmarked vehicles) is indistinguishable from what's been seen in Portland.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

18th July 2020, 06:04 PM	#145
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,176	So I guess we only have “libertarians of convenience” after all. Oddly disappointing.
	__________________ www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun! Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.

18th July 2020, 06:14 PM	#146
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,239	Originally Posted by kookbreaker So I guess we only have “libertarians of convenience” after all. Oddly disappointing. I think on this issue im galaxy brain libertarian Of course what is happening in Portland is Constitutional. That is why the constitution is bad and not a libertarian document.

18th July 2020, 06:29 PM	#147
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 25,052	Originally Posted by kookbreaker So I guess we only have “libertarians of convenience” after all. Oddly disappointing. Bob's the real deal.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

18th July 2020, 08:34 PM	#151
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,239	The Border Patrol is guarding statues. So good to know they have nothing more important to do.

18th July 2020, 08:42 PM	#152
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by Minoosh The Border Patrol is guarding statues. So good to know they have nothing more important to do. You mean they aren't "unidentified?"
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756

18th July 2020, 08:48 PM	#153
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,239	Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma You mean they aren't "unidentified?" They are unidentified. Your focus on the group standing in front of things is a strawman. That is a minor concern at this point.

18th July 2020, 08:51 PM	#154
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward They are unidentified. Your focus on the group standing in front of things is a strawman. That is a minor concern at this point. The actual pictures show they are identified. Sorry if that upsets you, but it's reality.
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756

18th July 2020, 09:00 PM	#155
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,805	Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma Only the whole "unidentified" isn't true. Rubbish! Unidentified means they do not have name badges or badge numbers. The US is slowly but surely becoming a Police State. With Trump being so enamoured with dictators and the authoritarian leaders of other Police States, this should not come as a surprise to anyone. Compare where you are with civil rights, treatment of minorities and Trump's defiance of the Law now, with where you were in, say 2016. I warned back in 2018 that Americans were being softened up for this sort of thing. I would not at all be surprised if Trump tried declaring a national state of emergency to delay the November election.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

18th July 2020, 09:00 PM	#156
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,239	Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma The actual pictures show they are identified. Sorry if that upsets you, but it's reality. If they use an unmarked car, grab someone, do not allow.a person to view them, and do not tell the person they are arranging, they are unidentified. It doesn't matter of they install LEDs on the uniform. It is why a person might say, "unidentified suspect" even if the suspect may have been wearing a nametag that no one saw. the presence of a nametag does not make them "identified."

18th July 2020, 09:08 PM	#158
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward If they use an unmarked car, grab someone, do not allow.a person to view them, and do not tell the person they are arranging, they are unidentified. It doesn't matter of they install LEDs on the uniform. It is why a person might say, "unidentified suspect" even if the suspect may have been wearing a nametag that no one saw. the presence of a nametag does not make them "identified." By your definition every LEO is unidentified simply by using an unmarked car. Also, you ignore the statement of what actually happened.
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756

18th July 2020, 09:12 PM	#159
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,239	The individual agents were unidentified, as far as I know. I don't know if their branch of service was clear in all cases. Looks like everyone just piled on the tactical gear, going for that bad-ass Trump-goon-squad vibe. ETA: And no masks in sight for the photo opp ...
	Last edited by Minoosh; 18th July 2020 at 09:17 PM.