> 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 kid

> 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.