3 ms·

Since when is officers arresting people tyranny? That sounds like a "sovereign citizen" kind of position.

Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
It's tyranny when the people being arrested have not committed any crimes. Half the country has forgotten that peacefully protests aren't just legal, but protected by the first amendment. I know the knee-jerk reaction to this statement is that rioting isn't peaceful protest, and you'd be absolutely right. But the media (especially on the right) has blown the number and severity of riots completely out of proportion, because riots are sensational. They're exciting and get a lot of eyeballs watching their broadcasts and reading their articles. They've successfully convinced half the country that the riots significantly outnumber the peaceful protests. This focus has made it impossible for any change to occur, because they defend the unjust actions of the police. You can point to this massive list of over 200 videos showing police brutality during the protests [0], and they will respond with "BUT THE RIOTS!", as if that excuses any of it. [0] https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1266751520055459847 https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1266751520055459847
- aerostable_slug 6y ago
  >It's tyranny when the people being arrested have not committed any crimes. Why would you assume they haven't committed a crime? The camouflaged cops are clearly targeting individuals, not kettling up whole groups of peaceful protesters. Also, police brutality doesn't excuse serious crimes. We can do something about both at the same time. I don't presume guilt (this is America, after all), but I rather suspect the Federales have some reason to arrest some but not others, and that reason might be things like arson, assault, or other serious crimes. I'm not arguing that the media have pumped some things up to get ratings, but it's undeniable there have been criminal acts in and around legitimate protesters, perpetrated by bad actors, and it's not unreasonable to think perhaps the Feds have some evidence of wrongdoing by virtue of the targeted nature of the arrests.
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    > Why would you assume they haven't committed a crime? > I don't presume guilt (this is America, after all) These two lines are explicitly at odds. You said you don't presume guilt, but you presumed the people the cops are picking up have committed a crime. You have presumed guilt.
    - yeetawayhn 6y ago
      No, you just misunderstand what the presumption of innocence means. It means that people are assumed to be innocent and that it is the duty of the prosecution to show their guilt. It doesn't mean that you can't arrest people suspected of a crime. That's how arrests work, FYI.
  - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    > Why would you assume they haven't committed a crime? Because "Innocent until proven guilty" is supposed to be a ideal in the USA. Also, the people being kidnapped are often being released with no charges. Source: https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unmarked-vehicles-portland-protesters/ https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unm... > I don't presume guilt (this is America, after all), but I rather suspect the Federales have some reason to arrest some but not others, and that reason might be things like arson, assault, or other serious crimes. The first 4 words of this statement don't work with the rest of the sentence. You claim to not presume guilt, then essentially claim that they must be guilty or else why would they be arrested? Despite how much unwarranted police brutality is going on, you're continuing to defend the authorities. You are part of the problem.
    - yeetawayhn 6y ago
      "Innocent until proven guilty" does not prevent a suspect from being arrested. Being released with no charges is not a statement of innocence or guilt, but of whether the prosecutor believes there is enough evidence to go through with prosecution.
      - 6y ago

It's tyranny when the people being arrested have not committed any crimes. Half the country has forgotten that peacefully protests aren't just legal, but protected by the first amendment. I know the knee-jerk reaction to this statement is that rioting isn't peaceful protest, and you'd be absolutely right. But the media (especially on the right) has blown the number and severity of riots completely out of proportion, because riots are sensational. They're exciting and get a lot of eyeballs watching their broadcasts and reading their articles. They've successfully convinced half the country that the riots significantly outnumber the peaceful protests. This focus has made it impossible for any change to occur, because they defend the unjust actions of the police. You can point to this massive list of over 200 videos showing police brutality during the protests [0], and they will respond with "BUT THE RIOTS!", as if that excuses any of it. [0] https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1266751520055459847 https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1266751520055459847

aerostable_slug 6y ago
>It's tyranny when the people being arrested have not committed any crimes. Why would you assume they haven't committed a crime? The camouflaged cops are clearly targeting individuals, not kettling up whole groups of peaceful protesters. Also, police brutality doesn't excuse serious crimes. We can do something about both at the same time. I don't presume guilt (this is America, after all), but I rather suspect the Federales have some reason to arrest some but not others, and that reason might be things like arson, assault, or other serious crimes. I'm not arguing that the media have pumped some things up to get ratings, but it's undeniable there have been criminal acts in and around legitimate protesters, perpetrated by bad actors, and it's not unreasonable to think perhaps the Feds have some evidence of wrongdoing by virtue of the targeted nature of the arrests.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  > Why would you assume they haven't committed a crime? > I don't presume guilt (this is America, after all) These two lines are explicitly at odds. You said you don't presume guilt, but you presumed the people the cops are picking up have committed a crime. You have presumed guilt.
  - yeetawayhn 6y ago
    No, you just misunderstand what the presumption of innocence means. It means that people are assumed to be innocent and that it is the duty of the prosecution to show their guilt. It doesn't mean that you can't arrest people suspected of a crime. That's how arrests work, FYI.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  > Why would you assume they haven't committed a crime? Because "Innocent until proven guilty" is supposed to be a ideal in the USA. Also, the people being kidnapped are often being released with no charges. Source: https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unmarked-vehicles-portland-protesters/ https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unm... > I don't presume guilt (this is America, after all), but I rather suspect the Federales have some reason to arrest some but not others, and that reason might be things like arson, assault, or other serious crimes. The first 4 words of this statement don't work with the rest of the sentence. You claim to not presume guilt, then essentially claim that they must be guilty or else why would they be arrested? Despite how much unwarranted police brutality is going on, you're continuing to defend the authorities. You are part of the problem.
  - yeetawayhn 6y ago
    "Innocent until proven guilty" does not prevent a suspect from being arrested. Being released with no charges is not a statement of innocence or guilt, but of whether the prosecutor believes there is enough evidence to go through with prosecution.
    - 6y ago