Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1197433)

They are not secret - they have shoulder patches and police on them. We can have a well reasoned discussion on: whether or not we should send in federal law enforcement dressed in Army kit, protecting Federal property (that local elected officials are not), whether or not to HAVE police forces dressed up in combat kit, allowing protesting but not allowing riots / vandalism / destruction, and the wilful abdication of local elected officials that would not let local law enforcement handle it.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1197441)

He was standing on the street, he was not threatening anyone and he was assaulted by the goons in uniform without cause.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1197443)

They are not the police nor do they have a badge or unique identification. Worse their presence has made tensions explode, oh and it's illegal.

Local PD was only told not to use tear gas on peaceful protests and this was by a judge not the mayor or governor.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1197444)

this is incredibly stupid....there was a riot going on..if you decide to approach police to have a "discussion" during a riot and they tell you to beat it and you don't ...you are an idiot and probably should get a beating

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1197450)

“Anyone, including federal law enforcement, who unlawfully assaults and kidnaps people will face criminal charges from my office.” - Philadelphia D.A. Larry Krasner

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1197452)

And Tom Ridge..."Had I been governor even now, I would welcome the opportunity to work with any federal agency to reduce crime or lawlessness in any of the cities. But ... it would be a cold day in hell before I would consent to a unilateral, uninvited intervention into one of my cities."

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1197465)

It sounds like Ridge would not allow rioters to destroy property and injure or kill people including the police. Like he would stop the rioting and looting and maiming, with force if necessary, rather than let it continue for several weeks. And like he would also direct his police force to protect federal property as well.

It sounds like Ridge would not need a federal intervention. On the other hand. If he was not able to prevent the destruction of federal property, his consent would not be needed for federal agents to do so.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1197475)

Total spin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1197475)

Total spin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1197477)

Oh, so you think Ridge would allow rioters to destroy property and injure people. And that he would not stop the rioting, and would let it continue for several weeks. And that he would not direct his police force to protect federal property. And that the Federal government would require his consent in order to send federal agents to protect federal property.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1197479)

I think he put a lot of thoughts into his remarks which speak for themselves.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1197481)

All the video I’ve seen shows federal “agents” escalating the conflict.

A selected video clip does not show overall escalation or de-escalation. It shows a slice of something the video maker wants to show. The "conflict" has been going on for a long time. A video of the whole thing showing everything that has happened, everything, from all angles, from the beginning, including all the words spoken and shouted, by everybody on all sides, might give a better perspective on whether the "conflict" was escalated.

And I would think that actually doing something (making arrests, etc.) about the damage and "conflict" being perpetrated on federal property and on federal personnel, instead of just letting it happen without repercussion, would look like "escalation." Most likely, a necessary and proper escalation.

Of course if your agenda is to increase conflict by interfering with and assaulting citizens legally exercising their constitutional rights then they are doing a wonderful job.

Citizens don't have a constitutional right to destroy federal property or to assault federal personnel or to interfere with federal law enforcement bringing those who illegally destroy federal property to justice.

Who’s big fear is that they will take your guns away because you might do something?

People like the couple in St. Louis who are being prosecuted and who's guns were taken away because they bore their legally owned arms on their own property, when they perceived that they were being threatened by a mob.

Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf tells Fox that they're "proactive arrest[ing] people" in Portland.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1197447)

Interesting view on the rule of law and the application of it.

What other things are the police allowed to beat people for and where in the Criminal Code is it specified?

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1197490)

I could care less what happens to those causing and participating in the mayhem...I care about the law abiding citizens, business and property owners that are having their lives disrupted and upended by these lunatics... there is no reasoning with the mob, these are not law abiding citizens these are criminal running wild in the streets, if they are going to continue to instigate, provoke and destroy they've earned whatever beatings they get....in your video of the guy getting whacked....he shouldn't be there....he is an idiot....when idiots do stupid things...I can't get to worked up when things go bad for them...if you want the guy that whacked him disciplined for being too aggressive with the baton...Ok fine...but in that situation...I can't get too upset when they are taking incoming of Molotov cocktails(clearly visible in the video) and who knows what else...the video claims that these are "protesters marching against police brutality and racism"....not they aren't...they are criminals causing destruction....and I'm a little tired of their act...you can continue to defend the criminals and their lawlessness and act as though they have "rights" as they trample the rights of others

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1197490)

I ...you can continue to defend the criminals and their lawlessness and act as though they have "rights" as they trample the rights of others

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1197495)

no one is defending their lawlessness l

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1197497)

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

defending, enabling, encouraging and cheering

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1197502)

Let’s see
The Hammonds who committed arson on federal property and then their supporters did an armed occupation of federal property for more than a month.
Pardoned by Tweety
But that’s ok
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1197495)

Yes doing just that makes this country not china not russia and a host of other nations.
, no one is defending their lawlessness , were against law enforcement and this administration justifying law enforcement ,,action of , snatching people off the street wisking them to unknown locations and yet pressing no charges

They are not just randomly "snatching" people off the street. Because local law enforcement will not prevent the criminals from destroying federal property, the federal agents are constantly on the alert and observing who is doing the destruction. So they have probable cause to question someone they have observed doing criminal behavior against the federal facilities and personnel.

When a perpetrator does something and then sneaks back into the crowd, they have been observed, and the federal agents go to question them. When they are menaced by the crowd, they remove the perp to a safe place and question him there. This was all explained in the video I posted above in post #75. You probably chose to not watch it and remain ignorant.

But your acceptance of these action goes to the root cause of BLM and the out cry against police brutality, you enable police to step outside the law to exact retribution ...rather than demanding they operate with in the law

They are operating within the law. Watch the video.

You clear have ingnored Trumps rhetoric on the topic ,,, or the absent of their presence in years past in some of these same areas or Trumps pattern of trying to please his base.like sending Troops to stop those horrible Mexicans caravan prior to the mid term elections,,

The federal agents were already in Portland, haave been there for years. They are the ones who requested help from other federal agencies because of the peculiar situation in Porland. Watch the video or just remain ignorant.

Also the right after every mass shooting the right continue to defend the criminals and their lawlessness and act as though they have "rights" as they trample the rights of others.... and complain about gun control and those who's rights were taken aka killed get T&P.

I don't recall the "right" defending mass shooters.

ALSO. Were are all these tough guy sheriffs who go on Fox proclaiming they wont do this or wont do that because it unconstitutional. It wont help them in a reelection iam guessing?

???? Are you having a wdmso moment here?

Look at what happen to liz Cheney attacked for not be loyal enough to the dear leader. Wake up your supporting a character not a POTUS who thinks he has absolute power.. and his base thinks so as well

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1197519)

He has the "absolute" power enumerated in Article 2 of the Constitution. If that offends you, start a campaign to amend the Constitution. Or just vote in enough Progressives until they have the absolute power to do as they wish and to appoint SCOTUS justices who will "interpret" the Constitution in a way that won't offend you.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1197527)

That's the issue with guys like you .. you never take the time to consider even if you believe he has absolute power ,,if he. Should. Of course unless the behavior is conducted by a someone with a D next to their name... your answer is always hell no .. no matter the action