That's an exceptionally stupid standard to set.

Unlawful arrests are still unlawful. Arrests even without charges can be used as a tool to silence free speech. The police have a long history of using unlawful tactics just like these to silence free speech. We already have testimony of people who were arrested saying they were not charged and were grabbed from the crowd at random.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 23 2020 12:15pm

The people that are being arrested are being arrested for a reason. Throwing projectiles at riot police, throwing bricks and or tearing down federal buildings is a crime. If a cop or a camera sees you do that shit and you get arrested that's lawful.

Try being informed by more than just a few edited youtube videos because you sound dumb if you think some random person walking down the street is being snatched up and taken to some underground torture chamber.

>but destroying federal property, beating up random people, setting fire to residential buildings, and blocking emergency responders from a burning complex with children in it are rights detailed in the Bill of Rights!!!

"i swear man i wasnt doing anything nor was anyone around me and next thing i know im in a van blindfolded for 4 hours"

lol, heh.

It's really baffling how they can just selectively ignore preceding events. Like a building could be on fire with all windows smashed by a bunch of punks yet they cry oppression when the punks are being arrested.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jul 23 2020 12:27pm

Considering the testimony I'm referencing didn't have them brought before a judge and was later released it doesn't sound like they were seen being involved in vandalism.

Using "there was some vandalism" to arrest protesters you haven't seen commit a crime is an explicit violation of the 1st amendment.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 23 2020 12:32pm

Go stand out there peacefully, exercise your 1st, and see what happens to you.

this is called detainment, a process by which you're not under arrest but also not allowed to leave as you're in question. it comes down to probable cause versus reasonable suspicion, and the precedent isn't exactly 1:1 with an ongoing turbulent protest.

whether this type of detainment is legal or illegal and a violation of the FOURTH amendment will likely be a case for the SCOTUS, i tend to agree it's illegal per the constitution but im fairly understanding given the reality of these situations. its a crazy situation to try and pick firebomb or rock throwing violent people out from simple protesters.

There's more than that. If it's a violation under state law there's lesser restrictions, but those laws have rules about who can enforce them and if they're allowed to show up to enforce them. The federal troops being referenced are there to "protect federal property" so unless they get specific permission from OR or a federal order they aren't necessarily empowered to make the arrests or detain at all if they didn't witness a crime.

It's a big can of worms, but these are likely illegal, and more-so are likely being used to suppress free speech rather than have a good faith execution of the law.

All of this is also ignoring the accountability issue since the officers aren't specifically identifiable.

The chain of commands for these troopers, and the way they are selected, this is what should be checked.