Quote (Thor123422 @ Jul 23 2020 01:49pm)

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.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Jul 23 2020 02:49pm)

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.

Quote (thesnipa @ Jul 23 2020 02:55pm)

generally throwing rocks at federal officers is a federal crime, even if they're not identifiable. maybe we get some guidelines out of this, but nothing legally clear until it gets kicked way up the circuit. i dont see this being a very clear judgement and can see lots of opportunity for a split near middle.

im just not sure that a situation where a group of people all in masks wearing black can walk down town, one throws a rock, and now no one can be arrested or detained is a good precedent in the current climate. then again i wouldnt have ordered federal officer there either, so.....

Quote (bogie160 @ Jul 23 2020 03:00pm)

The number of officers who have been injured during the course of these "peaceful protests" says otherwise.

If we want to really analyze whether the federal government is actively trying to suppress speech, we should look to cases where property destruction, vandalism, and looting aren't issues. I'm not aware of any.

Quote (Saucisson6000 @ 23 Jul 2020 20:52)

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

Quote (fender @ Jul 23 2020 12:03pm)

didn't you hear? if you end up arrested by those thugs, you must have done something to deserve it. it's the same argument that the CCP uses. and if not, you will get your justice - because that system worked so flawlessly in the past. all those people clearly deserved their beatings, being pepper-sprayed, and assaulted:

https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1266751520055459847

at least according to the bootlickers and appeasers who shill for trump's brand of authoritarianism... the same excuses and 'logic' that were proven wrong so tragically and powerfully, and lead to those protests in the first place, smh.

Quote (inkanddagger @ Jul 23 2020 11:31am)

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

Quote (thesnipa @ Jul 23 2020 01:55pm)

generally throwing rocks at federal officers is a federal crime, even if they're not identifiable. maybe we get some guidelines out of this, but nothing legally clear until it gets kicked way up the circuit. i dont see this being a very clear judgement and can see lots of opportunity for a split near middle.

im just not sure that a situation where a group of people all in masks wearing black can walk down town, one throws a rock, and now no one can be arrested or detained is a good precedent in the current climate. then again i wouldnt have ordered federal officer there either, so.....