|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 26, 2020 1:38:46 GMT -5
"According to the unmarked people who are disappearing random protesters, they're actually identifying themselves after they've kidnapped people!" Carlo, are you really this stupid? Your average police officer is required to identify themselves whenever asked (on the spot), and has business cards for such purpose, and always be wearing ID of some kind, i.e. a badge, but federal agents aren't? C'mon. You're just as bad as despic. Oh, and once again, for something "you don't support", you sure are defending it. Again. For like the tenth time. It's almost like you actually DO support it and only trot that line out when it would look bad to come right out and say you support it. How about according to a Judge that just ruled on the injunction sought by the state? He stated that in the videos provided to him as evidence by the state showed that the police had their uniforms clearly marked.
As for Federal officers not needing badges or identification, they don't, no. There is no Federal Statute on it, and the state laws don't supersede it while they are enforcing Federal Law, but they will need to do it while enforcing state laws. Want a source? How about a left-leaning lawyer? www.youtube.com/watch?v=uglv-fV1CqI Start about the 13:15 mark.
Now, that's just what is legal. Ethically I think they should, and it's just a good idea overall. I'll definitely back you if that's your argument. Saying it's the legally required is wrong though. Just laying down the facts.
You're partly correct. Federal law does not, but Oregon law DOES require federal LEO to ID themselves via badge or similar ID if they're enforcing state laws... which is what they claim they're doing because they most certainly are NOT enforcing any federal laws. Check about 15:00 in the Legal Eagle video you linked. Also, there are literally zero reasons for them to not be displaying an ID badge or be wearing ID of some kind if soldiers serving overseas are, and not having identification or being required to ID themselves leads to a lack of accountability... which is one of the issues being protested. If you're gonna link a video, at least watch all the way through it. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 26, 2020 8:55:02 GMT -5
How about according to a Judge that just ruled on the injunction sought by the state? He stated that in the videos provided to him as evidence by the state showed that the police had their uniforms clearly marked.
As for Federal officers not needing badges or identification, they don't, no. There is no Federal Statute on it, and the state laws don't supersede it while they are enforcing Federal Law, but they will need to do it while enforcing state laws. Want a source? How about a left-leaning lawyer? www.youtube.com/watch?v=uglv-fV1CqI Start about the 13:15 mark.
Now, that's just what is legal. Ethically I think they should, and it's just a good idea overall. I'll definitely back you if that's your argument. Saying it's the legally required is wrong though. Just laying down the facts.
You're partly correct. Federal law does not, but Oregon law DOES require federal LEO to ID themselves via badge or similar ID if they're enforcing state laws... which is what they claim they're doing because they most certainly are NOT enforcing any federal laws. Check about 15:00 in the Legal Eagle video you linked. Also, there are literally zero reasons for them to not be displaying an ID badge or be wearing ID of some kind if soldiers serving overseas are, and not having identification or being required to ID themselves leads to a lack of accountability... which is one of the issues being protested. If you're gonna link a video, at least watch all the way through it.
As I stated in my post, no ID needed (but it should) for enforcing Federal laws, but it IS needed when enforcing state laws. Now, they could be "investigating" a federal crime with a flimsy excuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 26, 2020 12:06:01 GMT -5
You're partly correct. Federal law does not, but Oregon law DOES require federal LEO to ID themselves via badge or similar ID if they're enforcing state laws... which is what they claim they're doing because they most certainly are NOT enforcing any federal laws. Check about 15:00 in the Legal Eagle video you linked. Also, there are literally zero reasons for them to not be displaying an ID badge or be wearing ID of some kind if soldiers serving overseas are, and not having identification or being required to ID themselves leads to a lack of accountability... which is one of the issues being protested. If you're gonna link a video, at least watch all the way through it.
As I stated in my post, no ID needed (but it should) for enforcing Federal laws, but it IS needed when enforcing state laws. Now, they could be "investigating" a federal crime with a flimsy excuse.
That's the thing, they're VERY blatantly NOT investigating federal crimes, and that's a very flimsy excuse you're offering. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 26, 2020 15:40:45 GMT -5
I haven't seen an official yay or nay on what some of these people were being picked up for. I know a couple were detailed for assault on a federal officer (like the guy waiting with a hammer) and some for actions harming a federal courthouse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 26, 2020 16:43:20 GMT -5
I haven't seen an official yay or nay on what some of these people were being picked up for. I know a couple were detailed for assault on a federal officer (like the guy waiting with a hammer) and some for actions harming a federal courthouse. I assume you've also purposefully not seen any of the videos then. Or bothered to inform yourself of literally anything. If you had, you'd quickly notice most protestors are being picked up far away from any sort of federal land/property, and are entirely peaceful. It was even in that video you linked by Legal Eagle but you didn't bother to actually watch it fully. Here's an example: As you can CLEARLY see, no ID of any kind is presented, shown, or response given (which Legal Eagle has established, is in violation of Oregon's laws, which federal agents must follow), nor were they near any federal property, just like most of the protestors they're disappearing. Now, if you're waiting for federal agents to admit their wrongdoing and blatantly illegal actions, I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska I'd love to sell you. And a bridge to Hawaii. And a way for you to make millions while working from home! |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 27, 2020 4:20:06 GMT -5
I haven't seen an official yay or nay on what some of these people were being picked up for. I know a couple were detailed for assault on a federal officer (like the guy waiting with a hammer) and some for actions harming a federal courthouse. I assume you've also purposefully not seen any of the videos then. Or bothered to inform yourself of literally anything. If you had, you'd quickly notice most protestors are being picked up far away from any sort of federal land/property, and are entirely peaceful. It was even in that video you linked by Legal Eagle but you didn't bother to actually watch it fully. Here's an example: As you can CLEARLY see, no ID of any kind is presented, shown, or response given (which Legal Eagle has established, is in violation of Oregon's laws, which federal agents must follow), nor were they near any federal property, just like most of the protestors they're disappearing. Now, if you're waiting for federal agents to admit their wrongdoing and blatantly illegal actions, I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska I'd love to sell you. And a bridge to Hawaii. And a way for you to make millions while working from home! Well, I did say SOME of those people, not ANY of those people. Reading comprehension is your friend Wolfy. Plus a Federal Judge seems to disagree with you, considering that specific video was used in the injunction hearing. If I have to decide if either you or he knows best, I think I'm going to go with him. I did watch LegalEagle's video in it's entirety, but it looks like you didn't, or are entirely obtuse. Federal jurisdiction applies when enforcing, or investigating. They don't need to be at the physical location at the time of detainment. |
|
|
|
Post by adurot on Jul 27, 2020 10:47:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 27, 2020 11:15:26 GMT -5
Pawyall for me, any way around?
|
|
|
|
Post by adurot on Jul 27, 2020 11:24:57 GMT -5
Hm. No idea. They do the X free stories a month thing, just haven’t hit my limit. Long story short, the Feds sprayed down medical supplies with tear gas, which is a war crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 27, 2020 15:03:08 GMT -5
I assume you've also purposefully not seen any of the videos then. Or bothered to inform yourself of literally anything. If you had, you'd quickly notice most protestors are being picked up far away from any sort of federal land/property, and are entirely peaceful. It was even in that video you linked by Legal Eagle but you didn't bother to actually watch it fully. Here's an example: As you can CLEARLY see, no ID of any kind is presented, shown, or response given (which Legal Eagle has established, is in violation of Oregon's laws, which federal agents must follow), nor were they near any federal property, just like most of the protestors they're disappearing. Now, if you're waiting for federal agents to admit their wrongdoing and blatantly illegal actions, I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska I'd love to sell you. And a bridge to Hawaii. And a way for you to make millions while working from home! Well, I did say SOME of those people, not ANY of those people. Reading comprehension is your friend Wolfy. Plus a Federal Judge seems to disagree with you, considering that specific video was used in the injunction hearing. If I have to decide if either you or he knows best, I think I'm going to go with him. I did watch LegalEagle's video in it's entirety, but it looks like you didn't, or are entirely obtuse. Federal jurisdiction applies when enforcing, or investigating. They don't need to be at the physical location at the time of detainment. It's amazing how you misquote or misremember your own source. Federal Agents DO NOT have jurisdiction unless it's on federal property/land or authorized by the states, which they most certainly are not on, and were not given authorization. Legal Eagle even specifically talks about this. But hey, I know you only watched until you got a quote you wanted, or we wouldn't be having this discussion where I try to get it through your thick skull that the agents are both operating illegally AND are still required to wear ID according to Oregon state law. Oh, and that judge you're so weirdly proud of? He didn't rule against Oregon, he rejected the case for a temporary restraining order because it wasn't "an interest that is specific to the state itself," but that of the protestors, which implies it has to go up to a higher court or be brought to them by a different group altogether for a temporary restraining order. It was not, as you seem to think because you only read headlines and never bother to actually grasp any of the nuance, the judge dismissing the entire situation as you seem to think it is. But it's ok. I expect this lack of insight or knowledge from a trumptard like you. Anything you can do to defend or excuse trump's future Gestapo's actions as "legal", you will. Wouldn't want to admit you were w-w-w-wrong and trump is actively advancing fascism in the US. Pawyall for me, any way around? Have you tried deleting cookies from newsweek? I know that works for WAPO/NYT |
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 27, 2020 19:37:19 GMT -5
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 27, 2020 22:02:24 GMT -5
Well, I did say SOME of those people, not ANY of those people. Reading comprehension is your friend Wolfy. Plus a Federal Judge seems to disagree with you, considering that specific video was used in the injunction hearing. If I have to decide if either you or he knows best, I think I'm going to go with him. I did watch LegalEagle's video in it's entirety, but it looks like you didn't, or are entirely obtuse. Federal jurisdiction applies when enforcing, or investigating. They don't need to be at the physical location at the time of detainment. It's amazing how you misquote or misremember your own source. Federal Agents DO NOT have jurisdiction unless it's on federal property/land or authorized by the states, which they most certainly are not on, and were not given authorization. Legal Eagle even specifically talks about this. But hey, I know you only watched until you got a quote you wanted, or we wouldn't be having this discussion where I try to get it through your thick skull that the agents are both operating illegally AND are still required to wear ID according to Oregon state law. Oh, and that judge you're so weirdly proud of? He didn't rule against Oregon, he rejected the case for a temporary restraining order because it wasn't "an interest that is specific to the state itself," but that of the protestors, which implies it has to go up to a higher court or be brought to them by a different group altogether for a temporary restraining order. It was not, as you seem to think because you only read headlines and never bother to actually grasp any of the nuance, the judge dismissing the entire situation as you seem to think it is. I guess you missed the 6:00 to 8:00 marks in the video where he states that they have jurisdiction on Federal land OR TO INVESTIGATE CRIMES AGAINST THOSE PROPERTIES. Their investigative duties don't end at the border of Federal Land. It's why the Secret Service can investigate counterfeiting anywhere in the US. In addition they also have jurisdiction when crimes happen to on-duty federal officers off Federal land. Now, is that what they are doing? Maybe, maybe not. I am skeptical of them as well, but most of what we have at the moment is one side of the story. A senior official with Customs stated that one of the men being detained in the videos was suspected of assaulting a federal officer and property, so that does fall into their jurisdiction.
It looks like you failed to read more than the headlines. While it is true that the judge ruled that the state lacked standing in the case he ALSO ruled that they failed to provide sufficient evidence to support allegations that the officers were illegally snatching people off city streets. To quote the judge himself “the State has presented just one example of an arrest without probable cause and one example of an unreasonable seizure. That is the sum total of the evidence before me that underpins the legal injuries the State asserts in its brief. In both instances of a federal seizure it is either admitted or clearly visible that the agents’ uniforms say ‘Police.‘”
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 27, 2020 23:47:07 GMT -5
It's amazing how you misquote or misremember your own source. Federal Agents DO NOT have jurisdiction unless it's on federal property/land or authorized by the states, which they most certainly are not on, and were not given authorization. Legal Eagle even specifically talks about this. But hey, I know you only watched until you got a quote you wanted, or we wouldn't be having this discussion where I try to get it through your thick skull that the agents are both operating illegally AND are still required to wear ID according to Oregon state law. Oh, and that judge you're so weirdly proud of? He didn't rule against Oregon, he rejected the case for a temporary restraining order because it wasn't "an interest that is specific to the state itself," but that of the protestors, which implies it has to go up to a higher court or be brought to them by a different group altogether for a temporary restraining order. It was not, as you seem to think because you only read headlines and never bother to actually grasp any of the nuance, the judge dismissing the entire situation as you seem to think it is. I guess you missed the 6:00 to 8:00 marks in the video where he states that they have jurisdiction on Federal land OR TO INVESTIGATE CRIMES AGAINST THOSE PROPERTIES. Their investigative duties don't end at the border of Federal Land. It's why the Secret Service can investigate counterfeiting anywhere in the US. In addition they also have jurisdiction when crimes happen to on-duty federal officers off Federal land. Now, is that what they are doing? Maybe, maybe not. I am skeptical of them as well, but most of what we have at the moment is one side of the story. A senior official with Customs stated that one of the men being detained in the videos was suspected of assaulting a federal officer and property, so that does fall into their jurisdiction.
It looks like you failed to read more than the headlines. While it is true that the judge ruled that the state lacked standing in the case he ALSO ruled that they failed to provide sufficient evidence to support allegations that the officers were illegally snatching people off city streets. To quote the judge himself “the State has presented just one example of an arrest without probable cause and one example of an unreasonable seizure. That is the sum total of the evidence before me that underpins the legal injuries the State asserts in its brief. In both instances of a federal seizure it is either admitted or clearly visible that the agents’ uniforms say ‘Police.‘”
I guessed you missed the parts where Legal Eagle explains why "they're investigating crimes against federal property or on federal lands" is a flimsy excuse. Not only is the CBP not responsible for protecting federal property, but it's also not in their normal jurisdiction, so they cannot legally arrest anyone unless they witness them committing a felony level crime... which they didn't because there wasn't any ( 6:10 through about 7:00 is where he is talking about this). That means they cannot arrest someone for say, jaywalking or shoplifting, or vandalizing something unless it's a felony. They can investigate offenses against federal property, but that doesn't include making arrests. Furthermore, at about 11:40 he talks about how it doesn't appear federal property is being vandalized or destroyed, and how CBP appears to just be wandering the streets to abduct people. Oh, and before you start babbling about how they're federal officers who don't need to follow state laws: 15:05And all of that, of course, requires probable cause which they do not, and they know they do not have because they've asked those they've abducted to waive their rights, and then only upon refusal to do so, they read them their Miranda Rights 11:55. And for federal officials making a legal arrest there: 15:55. State's Rights, baby. Used for more than propagating and entrenching racism by the GOP for once. Also, the judge ruled in no such way. He said they failed to provide sufficient evidence to grant the restraining order, nothing more. Their exact words were: "Whether these seizures are reasonable or unreasonable is a close legal question that I will not answer here. What I will do is assume without deciding that this seizure was constitutionally unreasonable, while stressing that this is not a legal ruling for purposes of future litigation in this case. Taken together, for purposes of this opinion, the State has presented just one example of an arrest without probable cause and one example of an unreasonable seizure." So, after dismissing all their evidence, he concludes they only have one piece of valid evidence, without actually ruling the evidence is invalid. Maybe try actually reading his ruling next time instead of just buying into whatever shit you're getting your information from. Here is the full text, I doubt you'll read it. Furthermore, if all the agents have is "police" on them, that's not enough ID according to Oregon law, which they have to follow in this case they must also verbally ID themselves and present an official ID card. Oh, and the fact you're just buying into the CBP's claims that they have "proof" of these people committing crimes they're abducting is hilarious and reveals you're a fucking idiot. You're so willing to buy into their excuses the moment they pop up, you're gonna ignore the past several weeks of police brutality and lack of accountability. The "evidence" they have is a crock o' shit, based solely on their response and lies to the protests. tl;dr you suck at reading, watching, and absorbing information and just all-around despicable On top of that, you're taking things out of context either on purpose or because you're too stupid to properly inform yourself beyond what fox news tells you. I also assume you're gonna quietly disappear like you always do. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 28, 2020 11:54:55 GMT -5
Your right that CBP does not NORMALLY have jurisdiction to protect Federal property, unless directed to by DHS, which happened. The arrest does NOT have to be for a felony, just a Federal crime. Non-felonies they can arrest for, the officer just has to witness it. That being said, most Federal crimes they would arrest someone for are felonies. You apparently missed where he quoted 40 US code 1315. This states that DHS officials may make an arrest for any offense against the United States for any felony cognizable under the laws of the US, if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person to be arrested has committed a felony. So to sum it up, there are two ways a DHS officer can make an arrest 1. Any Federal Crime the agent witnesses (whether felony or misdemeanor) 2. Any Federal felony the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person did or is doing.
As for the 11:40 mark in the video you bring up, you might want to rewatch, as that isn't quite what he stated. He says "Are federal officers simply protecting courthouses from Vandalism? It definitely doesn't look that way." That doesn't say they aren't being vandalized, just the officers are doing more than protecting courthouses from being vandalized. As the previously mentioned 40 US code 1315 states, it does give them power to arrest those they believe committed a federal crime. When they arrested Mark Petabone they stated they did believe he had committed such a crime and it would have been under their FEDERAL jurisdiction, thus not needing to Identify themselves, and Oregon law doesn't apply. Now, I will agree that they SHOULD have to, and I would totally support any law change that would require them to do so. As for if there was any evidence against Petabone, I have no idea. Maybe, maybe not and I am skeptical of the arrest. Unless you have some secret source in DHS feeding you information you don't know either, and stating that they don't as if it was a fact is little more than verbal diarrhea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 28, 2020 12:31:49 GMT -5
Your right that CBP does not NORMALLY have jurisdiction to protect Federal property, unless directed to by DHS, which happened. The arrest does NOT have to be for a felony, just a Federal crime. Non-felonies they can arrest for, the officer just has to witness it. That being said, most Federal crimes they would arrest someone for are felonies. You apparently missed where he quoted 40 US code 1315. This states that DHS officials may make an arrest for any offense against the United States for any felony cognizable under the laws of the US, if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person to be arrested has committed a felony. So to sum it up, there are two ways a DHS officer can make an arrest 1. Any Federal Crime the agent witnesses (whether felony or misdemeanor) 2. Any Federal felony the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person did or is doing.
As for the 11:40 mark in the video you bring up, you might want to rewatch, as that isn't quite what he stated. He says "Are federal officers simply protecting courthouses from Vandalism? It definitely doesn't look that way." That doesn't say they aren't being vandalized, just the officers are doing more than protecting courthouses from being vandalized. As the previously mentioned 40 US code 1315 states, it does give them power to arrest those they believe committed a federal crime. When they arrested Mark Petabone they stated they did believe he had committed such a crime and it would have been under their FEDERAL jurisdiction, thus not needing to Identify themselves, and Oregon law doesn't apply. Now, I will agree that they SHOULD have to, and I would totally support any law change that would require them to do so. As for if there was any evidence against Petabone, I have no idea. Maybe, maybe not and I am skeptical of the arrest. Unless you have some secret source in DHS feeding you information you don't know either, and stating that they don't as if it was a fact is little more than verbal diarrhea.
"just the officers are doing more than protecting courthouses from being vandalized." Which is illegal... C'mon how hard is this? Your defense of this ENTIRE situation is "they're protecting federal property" then immediately go on to say "they're doing more than that!" "Unless you have some secret source in DHS feeding you information you don't know either, and stating that they don't as if it was a fact is little more than verbal diarrhea." If you still trust the flimsiest of excuses from LEO after the last several weeks of watching them beat, shoot, and kill people, you're truly down the path to supporting fascism. You're actively defending them because they "believe" they were stopping a crime or "investigating" one with no substantive proof on their part. The LEO weren't even wearing bodycams! Here's a thought to help you along the path to critical thinking, if one side makes a claim (i.e. "He committed a crime!") you should ALWAYS be skeptical of it if they will not prove it, and assume it's false until they prove it. Automatically giving both sides equal weight or validity is incredibly stupid of you. You know, we went over this several times already actually about the "burden of proof" and you didn't understand it then either. I'll also assume from your lack of engagement on the judge issue you concede it because you took everything out of context and/or straight up lied about it. |
|
