Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Stormtroopers in Portland? I Don’t Think So!
There’s been a lot of controversy surrounding the alleged “blackbagging” of protesters at the Portland Federal Building demonstrations. I’m only aware of one instance of this having happened from a story in The Nation. There may be others. In that story, the detainee describes being detained, put in an unmarked vehicle, blindfolded with his own beanie, and hustled away to what turned out to be the Federal Building. He was Mirandized, his belongings were searched, and he was asked to answer some questions. When he refused to cooperate, the LEOs released him without charges having found nothing incriminating in his belongings (weapons, spray paint, etc.)
I’m not convinced that anything illegal took place here. The Nation is an extremely left-wing source with an agenda. They have an interest in driving a political narrative about totalitarianism and Trump having invoked the NDAA etc. when nothing of the sort is likely to have happened. I got curious about just what police are allowed to do in terms of arresting/detaining/questioning a suspect. Do they need a warrant etc? It seems the rules are determined by the Supreme Court case Terry v Ohio. Here’s an interpretation of the rules from this link.
“In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution permits a law enforcement officer to stop, detain, and frisk persons who are suspected of criminal activity without first obtaining their consent, even though the officer may lack a warrant to conduct a search or Probable Cause to make an arrest. Now known as a Terry stop, this type of police encounter is constitutionally permissible only when an officer can articulate a particularized, objective, and reasonable basis for believing that criminal activity may be afoot or that a given suspect may be armed and dangerous.”
So if there’s a riot going on at the Federal Building, and a large number of the rioters are dressed in black so as to make themselves difficult to differentiate (Antifa tactic), and law enforcement officers (LEOs) encounter someone a few blocks away after the rioters have been disbursed, who is dressed in the manner described, I’d say that constitutes probable cause to detain, question, and conduct a personal search (stop and frisk). Can they remove that person to another location to conduct the questioning and the search? I’m not sure, but it doesn’t sound unreasonable, especially in the circumstances where there are other rioters in the vicinity and it can be reasonably assumed that there will be interference encountered from the suspect’s accomplices if the search and questioning were to be conducted on the spot. That leaves the question of the unmarked vehicle and the unknown identity of the detaining force. I doubt the vehicle identification can be cited as a violation of protocol. Police use unmarked cars all the time. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that LEO’s should be required to identify themselves. At the end of the day though, we only have the word of the detainee(s) that the cops failed to identify themselves, and for all we know, that may simply be a courtesy which could have been extended, but not a requirement.
This is a political battle now as much as a law enforcement battle. If the left can spin up a narrative of Donald Trump as the authoritarian, that might just be enough to thwart legitimate law enforcement objectives of quelling 50 days of nighttime riots in Portland. Libertarians on my Facebook page are up in arms over police overreach and the looming security state. It’s not the first time that these well-meaning people (aka useful idiots) have failed to grasp the reality of the situation.
Published in General
Which is why we don’t want that solution.
I would say if that were the case, irregardless of how I vote, that they would be violating voting and federal and state laws, to protect the voter from harassment or intimidation and removed.
I believe they faced a revolution, called The Revolutionary War?
Why do you care?
You don’t agree with his Trump lovin’ ways, Gary.
I cannot believe you have any respect for him at all, as you ignore my posts quoting him when it is about Trump. See, he is appalled at what the DOJ did, but you, Gary, you love what the DOJ did because, Trump.
I was thinking more along the lines of: if they could have seen what was going to be read into the Constitution as being rights, how would they have written it? Would they have enumerated and defined things a bit more instead of assuming certain terms would always be understood they way they were understood then? Would they have left some phrases out and added others? Those kinds of questions.
Time for President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and start responding to the attempted murder of federal agents with deadly force. In Portland, Antifa is attempting to burn federal agents alive as they occupy the federal courthouse building.
A friend of mine called today, a fellow Marine that goes way back with me and apologized for some snippy comments he made on facebook. We agreed we are still good friends, but he insisted that the “federal goons” that are going into these cities are a threat to our nation. I’m at a loss for words.
So why do you think he hasn’t so far? That’s something I’ve wondered ever since the possibility was mentioned several weeks ago.
When your opposition is defeating themselves, never interrupt. It’s just rude.
And the Dem narrative is that it is federal presence that is provoking the escalations and the relentlessness. Day 55.
The funniest thing I heard this week was on day 52 of the rioting in his city, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler announced that he had it completely under control until the federal presence riled things up again. I think he’s joined Biden as a Mad Cow Disease victim. Prions uber alles.
He will be roundly condemned for doing so by the MSM and even some squishy Republicans and “conservatives”. I just think it’s one thing to try and destroy a building but trying to deliberately burn people to death in that building seems to me to cross a line…even as the anarchists still throw concrete blocks and bricks, launch fireworks, and try to permanently blind officers with lasers.
Aren’t Marines ‘federal goons’ by definition?
Protesters are good because they selflessly go out and protest. The pigs in the mayor-mandated dunking booth are bad because they get in the way of our beautiful youth when they are speaking their truth. And Quick! Cameras! Some of our brave masked protesters are getting hurt!
His point is that the federal agents are acting lawlessly, thus they are goons. Marines act lawfully, so far in his view, and are not in the goon category.
He might helpfully cite the laws they are breaking then.
I’ve learned that the gas lighting is so effective that logic no longer works.