DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus ‘It was like being preyed upon’: Portland protesters say federal officers in unmarked vans are detaining them

Calling the "Jackboots" is pretty funny.

Look, behind closed doors even the Democrats authorized Trump to do this, else they would gave filed lawsuits already(which to my knowledge they have not) the Democrats are playing politics to the cameras while working with DHS and law enforcement on options to bring this under control.

Congress already passed a police reform bill, Trump already authorized an executive order addressing police brutality issues. What more do you want? This isn't about police brutality anymore, its an attempt to overthrow the US government.

You will fail. Folks are poking a bear in the face with a stick and its only a matter of time before they get eaten.

These so called "Jackboots" are a warning, the last attempt before the Feds get more "hands on" if you understand what im saying. The US government regardless of who is in office won't allow this destruction to go on much longer befkre they deliver a crushing response to it, one that will send a very powerful message.

Folks just need to go home, we all are against police brutality, but they are wading into waters over there head that they won't be able to swim back to shore if they don't stop soon.

Hopefully they get the message.

Where were they when the white militants stormed the statehouses? Your story falls apart... Jackbooted thugs.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20...Portland-Oregon

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...ent/5468521002/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020...ment-protesters

U.S. Homeland Security confirms three units sent paramilitary officers to Portland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection arm confirmed on Tuesday it has deployed officers from three paramilitary-style units to join a federal crackdown on protests against police violence in Portland, Oregon.

“We have agents and officers from our special operations groups deployed,” a CBP official said in an email. The official did not respond to questions about the number of officers deployed.

Multiple videos posted online showed camouflage-clad officers without clear identification badges using force and unmarked vehicles to transport arrested protesters, tactics that civil-rights advocates said could violate protesters’ right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

President Donald Trump, who has been sliding in opinion polls as he seeks re-election, has vowed to also send federal agents to cities including New York, Philadelphia and Chicago, which critics said would amount to a use of federal power for political ends.

CBP, which patrols land borders and operates checkpoints for people arriving at U.S. airports and other transportation hubs, has three specially trained units that have deployed officers to Portland, the official told Reuters.

According to the CBP’s website, one of these units, the Border Patrol Tactical Unit, “provides an immediate response capability to emergent and high-risk incidents requiring specialized skills and tactics.”

CBP said it also sent agents from its Border Patrol Search, Trauma and Rescue and Special Response teams to Portland.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, criticized the Trump administration’s deployment of such forces.

“Donald Trump has no justification for deploying paramilitary troops to the streets of Portland or any other American city,” Wyden said. “These occupying forces are creating conflict, attacking peaceful protesters and making my hometown more dangerous. For Portland to find peace, Trump needs to pull unwanted federal agents out of our city immediately.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-globa...d-idUSKCN24M2RL

Shameful.

trump’s law......trump’s order...... Killing Americans by the thousands daily.

Andy Ngo is most certainly biased in his reporting of Antifa. Here is one of the many reasons why...this happened in July of last year:

We need to pay attention to the attack on Andy Ngo

Nothing quite exemplifies "tolerance" like the video of masked young people hurling objects and screeching profanities at a young, conservative journalist.

The viral images are sickening. Andy Ngo, a photojournalist and editor at the online magazine Quillette, who has made a cottage industry of exposing instances of manufactured hate crimes, was viciously assaulted while covering an Antifa rally held as a counter-protest to a rally of right-wing groups, including the Proud Boys, in Portland, Oregon. "Antifa" derives from "anti-fascist," and is associated with aggressive, hard-left activism. The video shows masked protesters circling Ngo, punching and hitting him and dousing him with a "milkshake," then following him as he flees. One hurls something at his back.
Too often, we are seeing these days an abrogation of civil decency, a proliferation of anarchy and lawlessness. Regular, and potentially lethal, violence by masked-protester assailants is too often excused and condoned by Twitter-warriors. This must not be our new normal.
Simply bearing a name that says you're opposed to evil, like anti-fascist, should not inure us to your unprovoked violence and unconstitutional attempts to block others' free speech rights. Everyone, right and left, must condemn and literally unmask this behavior -- not glorify it for political ends.
As CNN's Jake Tapper observed on Twitter: "Antifa regularly attacks journalists; it's reprehensible."
Ngo also made several posts to Twitter following the assault, during which, he said, his camera equipment was stolen. Ngo posted photographs of his bruised and battered face taken, he wrote, from the emergency room. His lawyer claims Ngo suffered a "brain bleed" from the assault. Jim Ryan, a reporter for The Oregonian chronicled the competing rallies by protestors from the left and right, as well as the attack on Ngo.
According to Ryan, police said that some of the masked goons may have laced their favorite milkshake projectile with "a substance similar to quick-drying cement." And so, a conservative journalist received his -- in the view of these radical left protesters -- "just desserts."
It is no secret that in the post-Ferguson era of policing, many in law enforcement are worried about being accused of "provoking" protestors -- even those who break the law in plain view of uniformed police. Former FBI director James Comey described this phenomenon as the Ferguson effect or viral video effect.

We exist in a structured, civil society, where lawful protests are considered one of the foundations of our nation. But some organizers ignore current laws from the get-go by failing to comply with a requirement to obtain a permit (the Portland Mercury reported that antifa protesters did not have one). The right to gather and protest is not an absolute. Under the constitution, the Supreme Court has found, we all have the right to peaceably assemble, provided a permit is secured in advance, and all local laws are followed that mandate when and where the protest may take place.
Too often, protestors of all stripes ignore these laws -- choosing to mobilize via online appeals without involving government officials in their plans. Or they defy the terms of their permit when a protest gets out of hand.
What's more, for many of the current crop of young protesters, like some of those in Portland, attacking an unarmed journalist whose views they abhor is somehow noble and carries with it the breathtaking exhilaration of anonymity -- courtesy of a face scarf or mask. Much simpler, when so adorned, to get away with saying and doing things that might arguably draw charges of incitement to riot.
And though some states have over the years criminalized the wearing of masks used to evade or escape discovery of one's identity when gathered in groups or committing a crime, some have curiously chosen not to.

Anti-masking laws are nothing new. An 1845 New York State law was a response to a dispute between land-owners and tenant-farmers who worked their land. New York City later grappled with this law during the 2011 Occupy Wall Street clash with protestors -- some masked -- who took over a public park. At least five Occupy protesters were cited for violating the law then, according to Joe Coscarelli, writing in New York magazine.
There is no question: masks afford anonymity. And so, since political protests might turn into confrontations with police or counter-protestors, why should we not strictly forbid their usage in these instances? Certain restrictions should not be considered unconstitutional impingements on free speech.
One resonant example I think we can all get behind? In 1990, The Georgia Supreme Court reinstated a 1951 state ban on the KKK's hood-wearing during the Jim Crow era. To be sure, antifa is not a movement on the malignant order of the KKK, but we need to recognize that the principle is the same: when particular groups are predisposed to violence, we have an obligation to strip them of their anonymity. And for those who claim their mask must be viewed as constitutionally-protected free speech, recall the late journalist and social commentator, Nat Hentoff, who aptly described this affliction as "free speech for me, but not for thee."
So, if we demand our alt-right and neo-Nazis gather sans face-covering, then that edict should apply to counter-protestors like antifa as well. To consider anything less would be unconstitutional.
Also keep in mind that masked anonymity shields provocateurs and protects them from identification and subsequent prosecution for criminal acts -- like the assault on Andy Ngo. Unmasking these miscreants better positions society to hold them to account. Or in the immortal words of early 20th century Supreme Court Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis -- "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants."

Let us cease viewing this issue as too complicated. It really is not. While some minimize assaults like the one on Ngo because the assembly may have been "mostly peaceful," this risks tacitly condoning the behavior of those in the group who are prone to violent acts. Making excuses for violence because the offenders are adherents to your particular political views makes you a partisan apologist and a hypocrite.
Of course, many conservatives act as "Trump apologists," covering for the President when he says or does something worthy of criticism, and they tolerate the intolerable in the pursuit of more conservative Supreme Court appointments.
But equally infuriating is the progressive left's pretending that elements of the antifa brigade are not violent anarchists. Supporters of antifa will argue that protestors wear their masks—their "black bloc attire"-- as an act of solidarity and to avoid being doxed. Violent protesters should remain unmasked. There is simply no reason not to enforce current state anti-masking laws. And maybe it is time to discuss the enactment of a federal law to be evenly applied across our great nation.
If one's purpose is to peaceably counter-protest or rally for a just cause, what would be the concern with showing your face?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/opinions/antifa-andy-ngo-gagliano/index.html

j/c:

It's amazing that some folks are still blaming the government and continue to support the criminal element.

So the people who mock 2A supporters because any guns they have would never be enough to stand up to the government are currently standing up to the government with *checks notes* plywood shields wrapped in pool noodles and duct tape.

Didn't hitlers brown shirts also hide their names?

DC, I consider you to be one of most fair posters on the board when it comes to political/social matters. Thus, I have a question for you: How does the Democratic party regard BLM and Antifa? Do they support them? Do they disagree w/their tactics and messages? Or, do they just ignore their presence?

I have never voted for a Republican candidate in my life, but this is out of hand.

who said 2A supporters couldnt stand up to the government?

anybody on this board?

White people showing up at the statehouse with rifles is apparently the same or worse than suburban white kids defacing billions of dollars worth of property, setting fire to courthouses and police stations.....because mah partisanship

So let me get this straight... News story after news story about "unidentified storm troopers" and the whole time they were literally covered in identification?

Seems about right.

Yeah, sounds like the criticism is misplaced. They tried to hide their identity, and did so very poorly.

Look at all these lies from Andy Ngo.....what an alt right fascist.

If you have watched any video of them picking up randoms from the street - you will clearly see there is nothing obvious other than a 'police' stitched on the front of their coveralls. They do not look like ANY officer or agent I have ever seen before. If someone came up to you in a parking lot dressed like that, with googles and face covered, and tried to take you away without answering your questions asking for identification or why ... I guarantee *most* would cack your pants because you'd have no idea if they were legit or not ... I'd say everyone would, but we'll get some smart alec who will deny.

Would you feel safe if these guys were approaching you?

i have a whole lot to say about that picture, but its gonna come off so wrong, both sides will hate me.

This is where you are wrong.

They were NOT militants. They were CITIZENS. None of those armed protestors broke a single law, nor damaged a single piece of property, hell they even cleaned up their trash before they left leaving the place in the same exact condition it was before they arrived. no looting, no rioting, no assaulting people, no fighting with the police.

This is just another example of how ignorant the left and the Democrats are towards lawful gun owners, and their outright boorish behavior and positions on the 2nd amendment.

Take Ohio for example:



You hear that OCD? In Ohio and in the US Constitution the right to carry a gun and Open carry PREDATES the US Constitution and the Ohio Constitution, its a fundamental right of Natural Law that all "Free Men and Women" are born with such rights including minorities whom the Democrats and their gun control laws are aimed at taking away. See Joe Biden's crazy gun control plan, its designed to put such insane costs that very few minorites will be able to afford even a simple semi-auto rifle.

Furthermore, the "Unorganized Militia" (whom you refer to as militiants) are defined PROTECTED by the US Code Title 10 Chapter 246:



Those so called "militants" are 100% lawful and recognized in the Us Code. the "unorganized militia" are "We the People who lawfully own fire arms"

Again, Why does your side hate lawful firearms owners so much? why do you have this boorish position on the 2nd Amendment. Do you not know that Gun control started by the Democrats was set up to deprive minorities of their gun rights?

Look at Joe Bidens gun control plan, 500 dollars per magazine, and 500 dollars per rifle you own if he has his way will have to be paid every year to the government on top of license fees. the cost of owning as licensed semi-auto will be well over 2 grand a year in fees, who do you think that is going to hurt the most? poor minorities thats who. All of this is DESIGNED to ensure blacks and minorities will be deprived of their 2nd amendment rights by making it impossible for them to afford a gun. You folks still don't get it that the Democrats, especially Joe Biden, hates black people and people of color, yet you blindly support him despite the fact all his policies are aimed towards making minorities poorer, weaker, unable to own guns for protection in neighborhoods rife with crime, and dependent on government to survive.

Getting back to your "Jackboot Thugs" comment. How long do you think the government is going to allow these people to riot, injure law enforcement, destroy property, hurt first respondents, etc...how long do you think they will put up with this? No government in the history of this planet will allow this stuff to go on forever, at some point, they are going to put a stop to it.

Just because they are upset with social justice doesn't give them the right to do what they done.

there is a BIG difference between lawful miltia gathering and protesting outside a statehouse with lawful carry of firearms with no violence, no looting, no fighting, no assaults, no fights with police, and no property damage vs what we have seen transpire out of sects of BLM and Antifia...not even in the same ballpark.

Well, to be blunt, if there were people burning cars and storming stores in that parking lot - I would get the hell out of there before any "stormtrooper" thought I was involved. It would seem like common sense to avoid such an area if you didn't want to encounter law enforcement.

What also comes into question, off the top of my head, why would anyone in a riot situation where police are being attacked post "POLICE" on themselves unless they were actually police?

Seems to me people are pissed because a name tag doesn't say "Officer Joe Smith" so that they can jump on Twitter, post the officer's address and be a "hero". Unfortunately, the media ran with a false narrative (big surprise) so that Trump could be blamed for sending in "unidentified thugs".

Copied and pasted from a friend’s Facebook page...
Copy and pasted.
For those who don't live here (Portland, Or) and are curious:
1. Most of Portland is pretty much business as usual (pandemic aside). The protests have been taking place around law enforcement buildings in different areas of town, not everywhere.
2. The places where there have been protests are still places where people live (including downtown) and there have been reports of people being unable to escape tear gas in their own homes.
3. The situation is very real and very dangerous for protesters, press and legal observers. MANY reports of physical violence by law enforcement (including shootings with impact munitions), arrests of journalists, and tear gas that goes on for blocks. Nearly every night, for 50 nights.
4. The Federal presence is alarming but until recently, everything I've said here was being done by our own local police and county sheriff's departments, and they haven't stopped since the Feds arrived.
5. Federal presence has not deterred protesters. If anything protests are growing again and are now being attended by a wider variety of people, not just the seasoned protest community (who at this point are a well-tuned mutual aid machine capable of offering food, medical attention and legal support to any protester who needs it).
6. Most everyone I know in Portland supports the protests and opposes violent law enforcement tactics. For every protester you see in our streets, there are many more supporting from home.
7. If you want to see what's happening on the ground, here are the Twitter accounts of a few of the local journalists who have been out there every night posting video: @tuckwoodstock, @mrolmos, @therealcoryelia, @alex_zee, @donovanfarley, @45thabsurdist

Anything I say would be speculation since I'm not a democrat and even if I was, I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for the whole party because I've seen a wide variety of opinions from fairly prominent democrats.

I think almost all democrats support the ideals of BLM (as do many republicans).. of fairness, equity, safety, opportunity.. and I think most democrats are willing to turn a blind eye to the violence done in BLMs name as just part of the cost of doing business. I also don't think it's an unfair assessment at all to separate BLM the movement from BLM the organization... I honestly doubt if most of the people who support BLM the movement even know what BLM the organization is all about...

IMHO, the violence has turned very personal and enough of it is on video that BLM is losing a lot of support and goodwill over it. You won't see these video's on the MSM mind you, but they are all over the internet. The most recent one I saw was a white kid getting tackled to the street by another white kid, then violently kicked in the head as he lay prone in the street, by a different white kid, while a young black lady in the background shouts several times "Black Lives Matter you f@ggot"... Democrats either ignore these incidents or they pass them off as shameful, but rare and isolated... you know, like the right did when the white supremacist in Charlottesville killed a woman with his car.

It's much easier for the left to downplay these incidences and pretend they are isolated and rare because the left media just doesn't report them. Several weeks ago Jessica Doty Whitaker was a 24 year old mom in Indiana who was shot and killed, multiple witnesses say it was because she said All Lives Matter in a verbal exchange with BLM supporters (which in fairness, the altercation started because allegedly somebody in Whitaker's group used the N-word, both sides had a gun, but they settled their differences, one person said they even fist-bumped and parted ways), but as they walked away one of the BLM supporters shot her. Go to CNN and search her name and you get: "Your search for jessica doty whitaker did not match any documents." Not even once did CNN feel the need to opine on a woman shot in cold blood presumably for racial reasons.....

Now by comparison, Heather Heyer was the 32 year old woman who was killed in Charlottesville at a racial protest rally, by a car driven by a white supremacist... go to CNN and search her name and you get "Displaying results 1-10 out of 246 for heather heyer"... It's pretty easy to give the impression that one side is uniquely violent when you only report on the violence from one side...

I know I kind of strayed away from your original question.. sorry about that.

As for Antifa, that's a much more complicated opinion.. I'll have to come back to that one when I have a little more time.

Again

I want to make it clear, I AGREE that police brutality must be addressed. Its been a problem for a long time, something needs to be done about it. Every person needs to be treated failry by the police no matter what your skin color is.

However, like Martin Luther King Jr...violence isn't the way forward to fix the issues, and these protests, even if they do have peaceful intent, which I believe the majority are intended to be are being used by radical elements to commit acts of violence. They need to step back from the protests so we can remove the radical elements cover. They are using peaceful protestors as a cover to commit acts of violence.

We need a community leader to step up and start making a dialogue and talking with the Federal Government on what needs to be done to fix the issue. Right now it seems the protests are a rudderless ship with no real leader and no real plan.

If you want to try to sound like a legal expert, you should at least apply what you quote correctly. The right to own/carry was for the purpose of defense.

"The general assembly also finds and declares that it is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves or others."

I don't see anything in there that the right to own/carry is for the purpose of brandishing the weapon in an intimidating fashion in an high-traffic area. The 2A rights you quoted seem oddly specific to someone that would own and use guns in a responsible manner.

"Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, "

There's also this little diddy. I could be wrong, but carrying (much less brandishing) a firearm in a federal building is against the law. Cards on the table, I say this because I know of someone that was arrested because their pistol was in their car (parked in the parking lot) when they were doing their thing at an Ohio courthouse... so I'm not sure if the law that applied in that scenario is applicable here.

The white militants that stormed statehouses were thugs. These are not upstanding people! They are thugs. Just like the jackboots on the ground in Portland are thugs. Open carry law is being twisted into the legal intimidation of state officials via showing up armed at their doors... thugery.

See, I've been telling you that you would make a great Republican!

I agree, Trump should pull all federal law enforcement out of Portland and every city that wants them out, let chaos, violence, and property destruction ensue, stop giving these hapless mayors somebody to shift the focus of blame to. However many innocent people and children have to die in the process can be on the mayors head, where they belong.

In case you missed it, the numbers of protestors have increased since Trump sent in federal forces and tension is worse, not better.

Federal presence in Portland gives protests momentum

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/07/20/portland-police-federal-agents-used-gas-against-protesters/

So people have to die? lmao

When the white militants get rushed by unmarked feds at their next statehouse swarming, I want to hear you sing the same song.

By protestors, you mean criminal anarchists? Ok, good.

Of course they escalated. That's what happens when somebody stands up to a violent mob that has run unobstructed through a city for a couple months... you show some resistance and they resist back.

They don't have to but they will, they already are...

My song hasn't changed.

Of course not. Had you of read the article it was talking to a seventy year old grandma. Unless of course you've decided to lump a 70 year old granny in with the "criminal anarchists" crowd.



Has the violence escalated or is it the number of protestors that's escalated? I know you realize there's a difference between the two but rather than be rational about it I guess you've decided to stick with the talking points of the far right.

A group is judged by it's worst members, that becomes what the whole group is about.

If 1000 conservatives get together and one of them displays a confederate flag, then all 1000 are deemed to be racist/white supremacists... I didn't make that rule, but that's how it works. Granny should associate with better people.


There is a difference but from what I understand, both have increased.

So by that standard do you feel all Republicans should be lumped in with the KKK and neo Nazi's? And yes, when you march and are yelling "Jews will not replace me" you are who you are. Let's not play some charade claiming that was "one Nazi flag".

Ohio is an "Open Carry" State.

Your definition of Brandishing is a legal grey area.

Brandishing is "The act of showing and or pulling and pointing a gun or the muzzle of a gun at someone with ill intent"

For example, if a person got into an altercation, that wasn't life threatening, with someone, and they drew their pistol on them and their life wasn't in danger, THAT would be brandishing for sure 100%.

Another example is, a person tells another person they are going to hurt them then show them a gun, that would also be brandishing 100%

Of course only morons and idiots do this kinda stuff though, and they end up in trouble.

https://www.sorokalegal.com/blog/2016/03/open-carry-in-ohio-5-things-to-know/

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/perils-open-carry

In Ohio You can't Open Carry (nor carry with a CCW) in any of the Forbidden zones defined in the ORC 2923.126 Nor can you carry openly or concealed in any private business or property that has a sign posted as signs carry the force of law. (Hence why the person you knew got in trouble for having a gun on court house property)

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.126

However, if your walking down the public sidewalk with a sidearm in plain view, are you brandishing? I don't think that's a charge that would stick and it would be very hard to get a conviction. You would have to prove ill intent, hard to do that if they are not pointing or showing a gun to someone during some sort of altercation, etc.

I agree with you that the "Re-Open Ohio Protests" were in very poor taste. I didn't see them as a "responsible" show of 2A rights. I saw them as a situation that could have gotten out of hand and dangerous. I saw them as reckless to be frank.

For what those protestors were doing to be illegal they would have had to verbally or physically convey their intent to harm or menace someone and then would have had to show or point such weapon at people. This is not what happened though.

Trust me, Yost would have charged these people if he could.

Dave Yost wrote the handbook on Ohio Concealed Carry Laws and Responsibilities

https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/File...nual-(PDF).aspx

I have a lot of respect for Yost. If they were doing anything illegal he would have charged them I assure you.

I personally think it was stupid protesting in front of a state house with guns, but in this case sadly, as it is in many cases, being stupid usually doesn't end up being illegal until something negligent or belligerent happens. Thankfully nothing did.

No, but it's a bigger number than I used to believe that leans in that direction.


My example was generic, it was not in reference to any specific event. So let's not pretend that the left doesn't find videos and isolated examples from the right to send out to sway mass perception.

I guess the question at this point is, are you going to be one of those people? Because either your responses above was satire or you have become one of those people.

How were they threatening anyone?

Did they verbally express hostility and threaten them with violence?

Did they actually go to these peoples houses and actually step foot on their private property and threaten them?

I am just trying to understand your position. If these people were criminals they would not be able to pass the FBI & ATF NICS system, nor would they be able to pass the Ohio LEADS & BCI check systems.

If you are saying the "Re-Open Ohio Protests" were reckless, irresponsible and made up of morons, I whole heartily agree with you!

Someone being labeled a "white militant" or a "thug" is saying they done something illegal. I am just asking what you think was illegal about it?

Being a moron and an idiot usually isn't illegal until something bad happens as a result of it.

We should all be greatful that nothing bad did happen over those idiots and their protest.

PM, plz

I'm glad walking around with assault rifles isn't a weapon of intimidation. Yeah, nobody would feel threatened by people in camo carrying those style of weapons around in the state house.

I was thinking about this after the mayor of Portland and some other officials made their comments.

I think the national government sent forces in to protect federal property. But, I wish they would leave and then pull out of Portland completely. Then, stop providing any sort of federal monies to that city and perhaps the entire state if they share the same views. Leave them on their own.

--No military presence.
--No military protection.
--No financial aid of any kind from the Federal government.