Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

[Delphic Oracle]

State security services, secret police, unidentified government agents.

None of these sound good.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

So the police could have left at any time without the sky falling... but didn't do so before today?

Is anyone following those faceless stormtroopers who abducted peaceful protesters in unmarked vans, to see where they're off to next? No? All right, then.

Why say fire-bombing faction? Were there terrorists there?

When things are being destroyed and lives and property are threatened, the police do not 'leave'.
That is not the job.
Did you know that the police and the Feds in Portland are a more 'diverse' group than the mob of protesters? So odd to see more % of blacks on the targeted side.

This is a such a strange time when one of the most progressive and liberal cities in the entire world (and a very very white one at that), is letting a mob run them over for months.

There are motivations why this happened that I wont list now but maybe I'll make another post about it. hint: it doesnt have much to do with any black lives.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

When things are being destroyed and lives and property are threatened, the police do not 'leave'.
That is not the job.
Did you know that the police and the Feds in Portland are a more 'diverse' group than the mob of protesters? So odd to see more % of blacks on the targeted side.

This is a such a strange time when one of the most progressive and liberal cities in the entire world (and a very very white one at that), is letting a mob run them over for months.

There are motivations why this happened that I wont list now but maybe I'll make another post about it. hint: it doesnt have much to do with any black lives.

When the 'mob' is specifically there to protest the federal [fill in an acceptable word], then yeah, they should leave.

It's not like Portland doesn't have their own police.

This was a political stunt by Trump who was having a slow headline day.

[Safe-Keeper]

Yeah, I don't see what the faceless federal shadow troopers could do that local police couldn't.

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

When things are being destroyed and lives and property are threatened, the police do not 'leave'.
That is not the job.

Heaven's sake. I was referring to the federal troops. I thought that would be obvious, but apparently not .

Quote:

Did you know that the police and the Feds in Portland are a more 'diverse' group than the mob of protesters? So odd to see more % of blacks on the targeted side.

How on earth is that relevant to anything we were talking about?

Quote:

There are motivations why this happened that I wont list now but maybe I'll make another post about it. hint: it doesnt have much to do with any black lives.

Please, do tell. It's a secret Marxist plan to bring communism to Portland, and only faceless stormtroopers in unmarked vans can stop them, right?

[No Other]

Is there a recognized spokesperson for the protestors?

Are there formal (presented) demands?

Is there a path to conciliation?

Can any solution be attained without engaging the Legislators, Judicial Branch and/or the Executive Branch?

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by No Other

Is there a recognized spokesperson for the protestors?

Are there formal (presented) demands?

Is there a path to conciliation?

Can any solution be attained without engaging the Legislators, Judicial Branch and/or the Executive Branch?

There's a lot of caution around claiming to have any capability to change the behavior in the streets based on fulfilling specific objectives. Leaders of civil rights entities were once subjected to a chaotic array of charges, real and imagined, but nowadays the stakes are a wee bit higher. One has to tread the line by offering "analysis" of the situation *wink-wink, nudge-nudge*.

So we have to hope some mixture of social media and traditional media somehow propel a few knowledgeable and relatable people into the public consciousness on such issues.

Such calm, measured perspectives may be at a disadvantage in this climate.

Can the solutions of systemic racism within institutions of government (and particularly those tasked with justice) be addressed without engaging the government?

Theoretically, I suppose.

Most of them are really bad.

But engaging the government doesn't do much when it isnt responsive.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

State security services, secret police, unidentified government agents.

None of these sound good.

That rather depends on your perspective. Offer that package to, say, Trump and he'd snap it up.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Can the solutions of systemic racism within institutions of government (and particularly those tasked with justice) be addressed without engaging the government?

Theoretically, I suppose.

Most of them are really bad.

But engaging the government doesn't do much when it isnt responsive.

What is inherent in these institutions that make it 'systemically racist'? it must be part of the system regardless of the people in it.
What are the specific laws or rules that make it so?

If officers are in areas with a lot of black on black crime and they view black suspects with more scrutiny, is that not more an indication of the statistics embedded in their own minds? Is that really racist or just bias based on previous experiences? This is not unique to non-black cops. It is literally every cop. They use experience to assess the danger. Cops in my area would be able to spot mexican gang members rather easily. I can't, but they can.

This is true of various cops in all corners of the world with populations that have higher crimes rates, and skin color is not a factor. There are many different indicators they may look for.

How do you change the human mind to ignore what it has seen in the past and have them be totally visually blind to every situation? I'm just not sure we are built that way.

That isnt systemic. That is human nature, regardless of color.
Maybe our cops of the future need to be robots.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by No Other

Is there a recognized spokesperson for the protestors?

Are there formal (presented) demands?

The objectives of the Black Lives Matter campaign are hardly mysterious. It wasn't created in response to the George Floyd murder it was simply re-energised by it. The object is to change the current situation, in which young black men are by any measure disproportionately killed by police officers, to one in which this is no longer the case.

Quote:

Is there a path to conciliation?

If a credible path towards changing the situation is proposed and initiated the protests will stop.

Quote:

Can any solution be attained without engaging the Legislators, Judicial Branch and/or the Executive Branch?

No. We're talking about a major change. In theory this was sorted out in 1865, then more so in 1965, and here we are still.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

What is inherent in these institutions that make it 'systemically racist'? it must be part of the system regardless of the people in it.
What are the specific laws or rules that make it so?

There's more to the system than the laws and the rules. There's also the class of people who enforce and make judgements on the laws and rules. (Let's not mention the lawyers, since that way madness lies.) That class changes in two ways : one involves fountains of blood and is fast, the other is very slow. There were fountains of blood for Confederate soldiers but not so much for Confederate judges, who lost at worst property (for which they were compensated, but let's not get into that). Hence Jim Crow and penal (black) labour to replace slaves.

Which was theoretically sorted out in the 1960's by increased federal enforcement, and a good thing too - Trump may salivate over the Selma beatings but you just can't get away with that any more, even though those police were Democrats! The real racists! So unfair ...

Quote:

If officers are in areas with a lot of black on black crime and they view black suspects with more scrutiny, is that not more an indication of the statistics embedded in their own minds?

Academia has been over the copious statistics like a bad suit for decades, allowing and adjusting for everything imaginable to get a meaningful measure, and always they find a glaring disparity - young black men are regarded as peculiarly dangerous by police forces in the US as a whole.

Two contributory factors are the facts that, in the Jim Crow states, oppressing black men was the purpose of the police until the 1960's, and that police culture has changed slowly and reluctantly, and that the influx of Southern blacks into northern cities only got up steam a century ago, and that's not much time for an established police culture to change significantly. Two of many.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

What is inherent in these institutions that make it 'systemically racist'? it must be part of the system regardless of the people in it.

What are the specific laws or rules that make it so?



If officers are in areas with a lot of black on black crime and they view black suspects with more scrutiny, is that not more an indication of the statistics embedded in their own minds? Is that really racist or just bias based on previous experiences? This is not unique to non-black cops. It is literally every cop. They use experience to assess the danger. Cops in my area would be able to spot mexican gang members rather easily. I can't, but they can.



This is true of various cops in all corners of the world with populations that have higher crimes rates, and skin color is not a factor. There are many different indicators they may look for.



How do you change the human mind to ignore what it has seen in the past and have them be totally visually blind to every situation? I'm just not sure we are built that way.



That isnt systemic. That is human nature, regardless of color.

Maybe our cops of the future need to be robots.

Do you expect those on the receiving end of undeserved abuse will resign themselves to this hopelessness?

Another aspect of "human nature" (memetics can and do change, even a casual glance across the last 100 years speaks to that) is we aren't so good at the whole wandering off to find a rock to suffer and die under, ever so quietly of course, so as to not inconvenience anyone.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Another aspect of "human nature" (memetics can and do change, even a casual glance across the last 100 years speaks to that) is we aren't so good at the whole wandering off to find a rock to suffer and die under, ever so quietly of course, so as to not inconvenience anyone.

I think the recent BLM demonstrations show that the situation has become unacceptable in a much wider sense than the black population. The Trumptrash third of the population holds out, of course, but their demographic fate was sealed before covid-19 came in to hurry it along.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

There's a lot of caution around claiming to have any capability to change the behavior in the streets based on fulfilling specific objectives. Leaders of civil rights entities were once subjected to a chaotic array of charges, real and imagined, but nowadays the stakes are a wee bit higher. One has to tread the line by offering "analysis" of the situation *wink-wink, nudge-nudge*.

So we have to hope some mixture of social media and traditional media somehow propel a few knowledgeable and relatable people into the public consciousness on such issues.

Such calm, measured perspectives may be at a disadvantage in this climate.

Can the solutions of systemic racism within institutions of government (and particularly those tasked with justice) be addressed without engaging the government?

Theoretically, I suppose.

Most of them are really bad.

But engaging the government doesn't do much when it isnt responsive.

The lack of response from all levels of our government is shameful.

I do not see Social Media as being calm, in fact, I see it as a Transmitter of targeted emotional outbursts. Same would go for YouTube.

If we have to rely on those social media outlets to do the bidding all of us will lose. Social Media is nothing but a biased (I am giving the benefit of doubt instead of saying prejudiced) monologue and not a dialogue. I got off Social Media in 2012 and have never looked back yet my wife is on it and she relays to me postings that are outrageous which only reaffirms my decision. If we all did our own research and not rely on someone else's opinion, at least that decision (however bad it may be) is made with forethought generated and processed by ones self.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

The objectives of the Black Lives Matter campaign are hardly mysterious. It wasn't created in response to the George Floyd murder it was simply re-energised by it. The object is to change the current situation, in which young black men are by any measure disproportionately killed by police officers, to one in which this is no longer the case.



If a credible path towards changing the situation is proposed and initiated the protests will stop.



No. We're talking about a major change. In theory this was sorted out in 1865, then more so in 1965, and here we are still.

I appreciate your response.

Without a focused spokesperson, I do not see how anything can move along. It was mentioned in a previous post (Delphic Oracle) how civil rights leaders were prosecuted, persecuted and harassed by being a focal point... and that is true. Where are today's Civil Rights Leaders? I certainly hope it is not Don Lemon, Rush Limbaugh, that guy on the Daily Show, or Alex Jones who will be the Spokesperson... or somebody who has 5 million followers just because he/she starred in a movie. There is no pivot point in this "movement", it is only an amalgamation of individual outbursts. If this is organized then there would a Leader, it is currently nothing but a disruption without a cause.

Most people do not peel back the onion, their attention span is that of a gnat, their vision is tunneled yet not focused, plus their ability to listen and assimilate is hindered by their inability to distinguish right from wrong. Recognizing and managing cognitive dissonance has taken a hit in this millennium and I do not see it making a return for quite some time... if at all. This is where the Social Media dominates because there is no standardization or enforcement of rules regarding misinformation, the only thing that dominates these platforms are opinions. Facts is another casualty of these protests and this Covid-19 fiasco.

So where does this whole mess go from here? Are we just going to make fun of the President's tweets and gaffs? Are we just going to bring more investigative committees forward to look into possible abuses of the Oval Office? There is no end-game; this entire situation of protesting and this Covid-19 debacle have no quantifiable milestones or benchmarks. These are rudderless events with no discernible outcome.We don't know what it will take to end the protesting and we do not know what statistical point we need to achieve in order to say Covid-19 does not deserve our attention anymore. But we do surround ourselves with like minded people and get fed a steady stream of the same dribble without contrasting it against opposing opinions.

Please accept my apology for the rant, it was not aimed at you... heck, you responded in a civil manner and I went down a different fork in the road.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by No Other

I appreciate your response.



Without a focused spokesperson, I do not see how anything can move along. It was mentioned in a previous post (Delphic Oracle) how civil rights leaders were prosecuted, persecuted and harassed by being a focal point... and that is true. Where are today's Civil Rights Leaders? I certainly hope it is not Don Lemon, Rush Limbaugh, that guy on the Daily Show, or Alex Jones who will be the Spokesperson... or somebody who has 5 million followers just because he/she starred in a movie. There is no pivot point in this "movement", it is only an amalgamation of individual outbursts. If this is organized then there would a Leader, it is currently nothing but a disruption without a cause.



Most people do not peel back the onion, their attention span is that of a gnat, their vision is tunneled yet not focused, plus their ability to listen and assimilate is hindered by their inability to distinguish right from wrong. Recognizing and managing cognitive dissonance has taken a hit in this millennium and I do not see it making a return for quite some time... if at all. This is where the Social Media dominates because there is no standardization or enforcement of rules regarding misinformation, the only thing that dominates these platforms are opinions. Facts is another casualty of these protests and this Covid-19 fiasco.



So where does this whole mess go from here? Are we just going to make fun of the President's tweets and gaffs? Are we just going to bring more investigative committees forward to look into possible abuses of the Oval Office? There is no end-game; this entire situation of protesting and this Covid-19 debacle have no quantifiable milestones or benchmarks. These are rudderless events with no discernible outcome.We don't know what it will take to end the protesting and we do not know what statistical point we need to achieve in order to say Covid-19 does not deserve our attention anymore. But we do surround ourselves with like minded people and get fed a steady stream of the same dribble without contrasting it against opposing opinions.



Please accept my apology for the rant, it was not aimed at you... heck, you responded in a civil manner and I went down a different fork in the road.

This is how civil upheaval works.

History likes to package these things in neat boxes with nice labels, but in most cases those identified as leaders in the aftermath were desperately chasing to keep up with events and those who fancied themselves leaders early on end up as footnotes.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

This is how civil upheaval works.

History likes to package these things in neat boxes with nice labels, but in most cases those identified as leaders in the aftermath were desperately chasing to keep up with events and those who fancied themselves leaders early on end up as footnotes.

Spot on, my American History professor used to label these Leaders as "Accidental Leaders".

I see this as a never ending spiral...

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Yeah, I don't see what the faceless federal shadow troopers could do that local police couldn't.

It's more a case of what the local police wouldn't do. They are hypothetically capable of doing the job, but they (or their superiors, it gets hazy) chose not to do the job.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Maybe our cops of the future need to be robots.

I think I read that book.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It's more a case of what the local police wouldn't do. They are hypothetically capable of doing the job, but they (or their superiors, it gets hazy) chose not to do the job.

What job was it they did?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by No Other

Without a focused spokesperson, I do not see how anything can move along.

BLM is not the sort of thing which has leaders or spokespeople. What is actually needed for progress is a political party (which will have to be the Democrats) must present a credible program for drastically improving the situation, principally, I think, by addressing the apparent impunity of officers in so many police authorities. It will have to be followed through, of course, and if it's not, that's when protest comes in again.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

This is how civil upheaval works.

History likes to package these things in neat boxes with nice labels ...

It really doesn't. Popular history tends to do that, but historians eschew simplicity and revel in nuance.

Quote:

... but in most cases those identified as leaders in the aftermath were desperately chasing to keep up with events ...

They are identified as leaders after the events because they were either drawn into leadership by said events or made better use of them than others in furthering their ambitions. That's why they're identified as leaders in popular history rather than ...

Quote:

and those who fancied themselves leaders early on end up as footnotes.

... being forgotten (except by historians).


Cromwell. Napoleon. Lenin. Martin Luther King. All identified as leaders after the events. It defies generalisations.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

When the 'mob' is specifically there to protest the federal [fill in an acceptable word], then yeah, they should leave.

It's not like Portland doesn't have their own police.

This was a political stunt by Trump who was having a slow headline day.

It's actually what he said he would do during the campaign.

Blah blah blah ancient African-American proverb, you know the deal.

[CapelDodger]

It appears that Trump has declared victory in Portland and is drawing down the Republican Guard without them actually sweeping the streets of agitators as previously advertised. That has to be a bit demoralising for the Republican Guard itself, but saisfying for Trump and the likes of Emily's Cat.

So Portland becomes a yawn.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

The objectives of the Black Lives Matter campaign are hardly mysterious. It wasn't created in response to the George Floyd murder it was simply re-energised by it. The object is to change the current situation, in which young black men are by any measure disproportionately killed by police officers, to one in which this is no longer the case.

Really, it it was created in response to the aquittal of murderer George Zimmerman. We know that any random cop can suddenly just show up in a rage and beat, choke, shoot us black people (men *and* women - the latter are often forgotten) for no reason and get away with it. We do *not* expect this from random black dudes freaking out because of a burglary the year before.

Quote:

If a credible path towards changing the situation is proposed and initiated the protests will stop.

No. We're talking about a major change. In theory this was sorted out in 1865, then more so in 1965, and here we are still.

Yep. Cops need much better training, and to lose their military surplus - they can't use their toys responsibly, so they lose them. Bring back counselors and mental health professionals, and leave the cops out of those situations.

...Among many other reforms.

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

It appears that Trump has declared victory in Portland and is drawing down the Republican Guard without them actually sweeping the streets of agitators as previously advertised. That has to be a bit demoralising for the Republican Guard itself, but saisfying for Trump and the likes of Emily's Cat.

So Portland becomes a yawn.

This is the most tragic and depressing part of the Trump presidency for me: that we live in a post-fact world where you-know-who can just rewrite events at will.

Thus you have trumpkins convinced the Mueller investigation was a failure and that it lasted unnaturally long, and that Portland is now quiet because he sent in the Trumpwaffe stormtroopers.

Not to mention that the failures they can't rationalise are handwaved by pretending Biden/Obama/Clinton did, or would have done, just as badly.

This is why I'm such a big proponent for Twitter, Facebook, and other social media sites offering people more balanced news feeds, rather than just giving them more of what they already like, essentially turning every user's feed into their own personal echo chamber. We've got enough of those already.

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It's more a case of what the local police wouldn't do. They are hypothetically capable of doing the job, but they (or their superiors, it gets hazy) chose not to do the job.

So to you it's a black-and-white binary choice between regular policemen and faceless, unaccountable, heavily armed thugs shoving peaceful protesters into black vans? How enlightening.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

When things are being destroyed and lives and property are threatened, the police do not 'leave'.

They absolutely do leave. And then run to the media to talk about "all these looters". Ferguson got to the point where BLM and other protesters physically ejected looters and then stood outside them to protect them. The protesters themselves? Tear gas, guns, flashbangs, to preserve their white supremacist ripoff scheme.

And it's the same in far too many cities. Two black kids talking on a street corner? Thrown into a wall, screaming slurs and threats, beatings. Rape victims? Laughed at and called a whore. Robbed at gunpoint? No response. Shooting? Better keep your mouth shut, because the cops will offer you no protection.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

It really doesn't. Popular history tends to do that, but historians eschew simplicity and revel in nuance.



They are identified as leaders after the events because they were either drawn into leadership by said events or made better use of them than others in furthering their ambitions. That's why they're identified as leaders in popular history rather than ...

... being forgotten (except by historians).


Cromwell. Napoleon. Lenin. Martin Luther King. All identified as leaders after the events. It defies generalisations.

Okay, but the civil upheaval we're currently experiencing hasn't risen to anywhere near the level that propelled any of those figures to their current stature. So looking for the leader now is futile.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

It appears that Trump has declared victory in Portland and is drawing down the Republican Guard without them actually sweeping the streets of agitators as previously advertised. That has to be a bit demoralising for the Republican Guard itself, but saisfying for Trump and the likes of Emily's Cat.

So Portland becomes a yawn.

WTH is that supposed to mean?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

So to you it's a black-and-white binary choice between regular policemen and faceless, unaccountable, heavily armed thugs shoving peaceful protesters into black vans? How enlightening.

Arguments from "so" are almost always wrong. This is one of those times. Also enlightening

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Arguments from "so" are almost always wrong. This is one of those times.

It was a rhetorical question. If the answer is no, your post makes very little sense.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

It was a rhetorical question. If the answer is no, your post makes very little sense.

You're right, it wasn't actually a question seeking an answer. It was an assumption of a point of view attributed to me, without supporting evidence, complete with an implied insult tossed in at the end.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Aurora (Denver) has been having its own fair share of racist-police events, last month was the guy carrying groceries home pinned down and injected with ketamine, dying in custody. Now a woman and her kids were handcuffed and laid out on the concrete, because the plate on her SUV matched that of a motorcycle in another state listed as stolen. It's good that they weren't killed, but that's a horrifyingly low bar to clear.

Those of us not black can't sigh in relief that it's only black people. Police get used to being able to get away with brutal actions because it's only black people, and they don't stop doing them when it's not.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Aurora (Denver) has been having its own fair share of racist-police events, last month was the guy carrying groceries home pinned down and injected with ketamine, dying in custody. Now a woman and her kids were handcuffed and laid out on the concrete, because the plate on her SUV matched that of a motorcycle in another state listed as stolen. It's good that they weren't killed, but that's a horrifyingly low bar to clear.

At least in the latter one I know the PD is trying to make right. Of course, when there's video of you handcuffing a shrieking child because you mistook an SUV for a motorcycle.

Quote:

Those of us not black can't sigh in relief that it's only black people. Police get used to being able to get away with brutal actions because it's only black people, and they don't stop doing them when it's not.

As I always say, the people most likely to be killed by police are actually Native Americans.

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

You're right, it wasn't actually a question seeking an answer. It was an assumption of a point of view attributed to me, without supporting evidence, complete with an implied insult tossed in at the end.

The question IIRC was what these Trumpen SS were supposed to be able to do that regular police couldn't, as in, why do they need to be faceless, unaccountable, and 'kidnap' people in unmarked vans, like in some East European police state?

The obvious answer to that is nothing, if they really did feel Portland needed reinforcements they should have sent regular servicemen who followed rules and the Constitution, and were clearly identifiable and accountable.

"Butbut Portland police did nothing" is indeed a pretty telling answer.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

The question IIRC was what these Trumpen SS were supposed to be able to do that regular police couldn't, as in, why do they need to be faceless, unaccountable, and 'kidnap' people in unmarked vans, like in some East European police state?

The obvious answer to that is nothing, if they really did feel Portland needed reinforcements they should have sent regular servicemen who followed rules and the Constitution, and were clearly identifiable and accountable.

"Butbut Portland police did nothing" is indeed a pretty telling answer.

The reason the federal troops were there was because the police in Portland were not protecting federal property. The police in Portland are capable of protecting that property, but they were not doing so. A genuine answer to your question is that there is nothing that the feds were supposed to do that regular police couldn't - the regular police could, but weren't.

As far as sending in "regular servicemen" I'm going to assume you're referring to active duty military personnel? Well, they can't - that would be unconstitutional. I think that they're allowed to do so when martial law is declared, but I'm not entirely sure. National guard can be deployed... but they're generally supposed to be used to defend and to respond as assistance in emergency situation. So it's really down to the handful of agencies that are allowed to operate in that capacity on US soil. Which is who was there.

I don't think there's anything "telling" about my response here. You're assuming far more than is present in what I've said.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The reason the federal troops were there was because the police in Portland were not protecting federal property. The police in Portland are capable of protecting that property, but they were not doing so. A genuine answer to your question is that there is nothing that the feds were supposed to do that regular police couldn't - the regular police could, but weren't.

As far as sending in "regular servicemen" I'm going to assume you're referring to active duty military personnel? Well, they can't - that would be unconstitutional. I think that they're allowed to do so when martial law is declared, but I'm not entirely sure. National guard can be deployed... but they're generally supposed to be used to defend and to respond as assistance in emergency situation. So it's really down to the handful of agencies that are allowed to operate in that capacity on US soil. Which is who was there.

I don't think there's anything "telling" about my response here. You're assuming far more than is present in what I've said.

The Portland police wasn't acting as aggressively because of several court injunctions prohibiting wanton use of violence after several weeks of unrestrained police brutality. There was enough evidence of the PPB needlessly gassing and injuring the crowds and targeting journalists for unlawful arrests and attacks that the courts ordered them to stop.

Luckily for all involved, the feds showed up and had no such restrictions

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The reason the federal troops were there was because the police in Portland were not protecting federal property. The police in Portland are capable of protecting that property, but they were not doing so. A genuine answer to your question is that there is nothing that the feds were supposed to do that regular police couldn't - the regular police could, but weren't.

The idiot sending his goon squad there at all is why he's the most racist president since Woodrow Wilson.

There are already Federal Police that are allowed to work with local or state that are empowered to protect federal property. Standard service rifle, baton, tazer, and other such equipment, their own vehicles to take people down to whatever local place can hold them. And yes, ID and shield. If some buffoon runs up looking to attack them or property, they can use appropriate force. some guy setting fire to trash in the middle of the street does *not* mean it's time to assemble the Avengers. It doesn't mean you need an MRAP with a dude with a high powered rifle to threaten the crowd with.

You need a fire extinguisher (even in Portland, the protestors were putting out fires themselves), and *maybe* to arrest that one guy. In short, stop acting like you're in Fallujah fighting the Taliban - you aren't, and even if you *were*, the army knows better than to blast the girl with the flower on the news crew directly in the face with an explosive. Calm the hell down, if you leave the hot-dog seller and, the guy playing the drum, you'll probably get a hot dog, some water...and possibly a minor headache.

(And, as a hint, if some car comes speeding through shooting all of a sudden, it's probably a white supremacist, not BLM or the mythical ANTIFA. You know, the guys with the *actual* centuries-long history of murder? The guys that openly talk about how they want to show up at events and kill cops? More likely than BLM, with no known murders or attempted murders tied to it, or ANTIFA which, yet again, just means they fight against fascists?)

This goes for most interactions. If that cop that shot Levar Jones, or Philando Castile, had just been calm, everyone would likely be perfectly fine now. Yes, there are a *few* guys who may go all Quickdraw out of nowhere. But the cop is the professional, and the one that initiates the encounter. They don't need to lose their minds in fear if he does something they don't expect, or move too fast. Or move too slow.

[Mumbles]

Anyway, why do these police think that rioting, looting, vandalizing, etc. is right?

Like I said, every time, these are all cop riots, and that's exactly why people are protesting. If the cops would just calm down and stop turning violent at random, Beating people, firing explosives wildly, etc., folks wouldn't be marching in the first place. But they insist, so folks have gone from "reform" to "defund".