n_huffhines
What's it gonna cost?
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 87,341
- Likes
- 52,519
So they questioned and released him. That’s legal. They are not your local or state agency.Based on what I read about an interview with some DHS officials, they pretty much admitted to doing exactly this. They said somebody shined a laser pointer at the feds, so they went to the area it came from, found a random guy to question with no evidence it was him, forcibly put him in a van, and drove off to interrogate him against his will. All kind of problems with this, even if pointing a laser pointer at a cop is a crime, they had no probable cause to detain this guy. Forcing him into a van and hauling him off for interrogation without probable cause is crapping on "liberty freedom" (whatever that is).
So they questioned and released him. That’s legal
I've not followed too closely, just seems if the buildings weren't burned down in the last month or so, it probably wasn't such a target, anyway. But it has a lot of attention now.
I'm cynical enough to believe that Trump's motives aren't so pure here, as stirring things back up works to serve his "Law and Order" campaign. Honestly, whose interests would it serve to set a federal building on fire? Could be some person(s) driven by any agenda, including expanding Fed's paramilitary presence around the nation. So easy to take cover with the protestors and scapegoat the innocent.
If the mob is setting fires to federal buildings and barricading the exits, then it should be clear what their intent is and what this serves. It's not some covert paramilitary exercise to elevate Trumps "law and order" campaign. You're giving him to much credit.
In Portland, what you see is what you get. One group prefers anarchy and mob rule, by any means neccessary. The other side, to end this situation as peacefully as possible, call it a day and go home to their families at the end.
Two different standoffs. One, as the article says, was an unoccupied remote refuge. Not nearly as many people involved. They weren’t destroying anything or being violent. They sat around a campfire. Going in with teargas and guns wasn’t needed.
Two different standoffs. One, as the article says, was an unoccupied remote refuge. Not nearly as many people involved. They weren’t destroying anything or being violent. They sat around a campfire. Going in with teargas and guns wasn’t needed.
It’s a very different standoff from what’s happening in Portland.
That said I’m not trying to justify what’s happening in Portland. Just that the article appears to be comparing apples to lemons.
Yeah, I get the history. Nameless people doing bad things.
And if you believe both the police and the Feds are not operating in the crowd, then I'm sure you'd be wrong. What happens from there, who knows.
But again, the Feds presence has had the opposite affect of the stated intent. Yet, It will continue to escalate with their continued presence.
So dismissive towards the mob, while laying a considerable portion of responsibility at the feet of the feds that arrived 40 to 50 days after all this began. Really?
The obvious is in front if us all, yet some on the left continue to just blame the feds for this mess. Is it for political reasons only? Take into account that Portland PD and local politicians have basically given the olé to the mob and free reign to do as they please.
Feds wouldn't even be there if those in positions of authority would stop playing political games with people's livelihood and other citizens of Portland that didn't sign up nor approve of this BS.
If you understood the thesis of her tweets then you would know why it's relevant to all places every time protests are met with too much force. Also, this thread isn't only about Portland.