9 ms·

Videos Show How Federal Officers Escalated Violence in Portland

85 points by syspec 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rich_sasha 6y ago
Is there any indication as to what the federal agents think about it? They can’t be happy to be ordered to wage war against their own citizens.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- iron0013 6y ago
  Well, they have an ethical duty not to follow those orders. Since Nuremberg, at least, “just following orders” has not been considered an acceptable defense for having committed atrocities.
  - loopz 6y ago
    They will be fired and cancelled though. https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/05borderlands.html https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/05borderlands.html
  - bendbro 6y ago
    > atrocities Soft times we live in when less than lethal riot control methods are considered on par with militarily executed genocides.
  - missosoup 6y ago
    I'm not sure it's valid to equate Nazi genocide with riot crowd control. It's important to unpack this issue and disconnect the loaded politics from the reality on the ground. E.g. if exactly the same events were taking place but the crowd in question was far-right neonazies, would that change your opinion of what's going on? If so, then you need to unpack it and remove the political bias from your analysis. I think any rational person can agree that a mob trying to burn down a courthouse is not okay in a civilised society, regardless of what mob wants to do it.
- yokaze 6y ago
  Not to justify their actions, but from their perspective, things probably looks a bit different. For starters, considering they are federal agents, they have likely been ordered away from their families to take care of a, let's say chaotic situation. They probably think, they have to take care of a mess others caused. They are not their citizens, but people they have few things in common. Finally, they are not received well. The demonstrators and they are different people. You can see it in other countries too. Riot police from other regions are often a recipe for complications.
  - rich_sasha 6y ago
    Yes, I see that it may well be at least unclear for them. But legal, moral responsibility aside, I would just imagine it is a sucky job to go fight your own citizens. I wouldn’t be surprised if that ends up a breaking point: uniformed forces refusing to continue being part of this battle. But maybe I’m wrong, hence my question.
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      On the bright side, the JCS saw that refusing to begin is even better than refusing to continue (note the handwritten addition): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23412986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23412986 In our state-funded news, the headline about US agents in Portland ran with the subhead "like a private militia". (our reporters may have become biased when US police fired upon them, too.)
    - Applejinx 6y ago
      It would be nice, but from what I see in reactions to all this, I think not. I think the forces you speak of will either come to believe, or be persuaded, that they are entirely doing battle against enemy terrorists who don't 'count' as humans. It won't matter if they're moms or little children: they will uniformly be categorized as monsters and treated as such. There must surely be huge amounts of this already: wouldn't be nearly as much protest if it wasn't already well documented that cops and uniformed forces will blast their enemies with pepper spray and any weapon they're permitted to use. Humans simply don't fire pepper spray or projectile weapons at simple bystanders unless they're total psychopaths: what you see there is not so much a culture of total psychopaths, rather a group that believes the modern day equivalent of 'even the kids and old ladies are VC'. And in so doing, they make it become true, which is why military handbooks on this subject instruct you to back off and yield whatever's being targeted. The dangers of mobilizing popular opinion against the military invaders is far greater than losing whatever is threatened. In other words, if the protesters are trying to destroy the police station at Cable Street, there might be a reason why sending in feds to crush the rebellion by force will not work. It may simply underscore the problem in the minds of otherwise apolitical onlookers, and the pool of people available to join the opposition may be greater than you think, IF there's a reason to judge you negatively for siding with Cable Street and supporting their activities. And it's possible that you don't know what Cable Street means, if you don't live there. But if you're uniformed forces from elsewhere, maybe the whole point is that you don't live there, and you're being selected to go in specifically because you don't live there and can be trusted to categorize your enemies as monsters simply because they are battling something you're told is good and righteous.
gonzo41 6y ago
You can watch this live right now on periscope. Rob Evans is a journalist who writes for Bellingcat. https://www.pscp.tv/w/1gqGvaMDkanKB https://www.pscp.tv/w/1gqGvaMDkanKB He's been doing a great job streaming for about 50 days.
- bendbro 6y ago
  >gonzo Seems you are staying true to your name :) [edit] Didnt intend as an insult. I didn't realize gonzo meant stupid, I thought it exclusively referred to the type of journalism "gonzo journalism," which I like, and the parent comment seems to be linking to.
notmyfriend 6y ago
The newspeak used here is amazing. Rioters become peaceful protesters. Police officers defending a court house each night against people trying to torch it become invading illegal forces. All that video show is people attacking the building and the police rebuffing the attack and arresting people for it. Maybe the citizens of Portland should ask themselves why there are still riots every night and why their useless mayor is not putting a stop to it. What is his goal with this. Does he think there will be some peaceful revolution that will turn Portland into some sort of glorious marxist paradise where there is honey and unicorns for everyone. They will come for him next.
- ETHisso2017 6y ago
  Now you know how many Chinese people felt about media coverage of the Hong Kong protests.
  - hkt 6y ago
    The difference being that the US is a democracy with the rule of law, and Hong Kong is being denied democracy and the rule of law. Five demands, not one less: Full withdrawal of the extradition bill from the legislative process Retraction of the characterisation of the 12 June 2019 protests as "riots" Release and exoneration of arrested protesters Establishment of an independent commission of inquiry into police behaviour Universal suffrage for the Legislative Council and the chief executive elections Pretty reasonable. Very relatable for anyone I'd say.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  If all these "rioters" are trying to burn the courthouse down, why didn't it burn down before the armed feds showed up and started hitting people with gas? The protests have been ongoing for quite a while, the feds are a comparatively new presence.
  - notmyfriend 6y ago
    Because the local police up until that moment attempted to keep them away. Then the mayor ordered them to stand down in the hope of scoring some cheap political points with his supporters. You make it sound like the feds have been rampaging around town on a pleasure cruise smoking up the city. All of the action is right around the building itself.
Yetanfou 6y ago
The NY Times has devolved into a political pamphlet and as such has - at least in my eyes - lost nearly all credibility. This is a shame, the paper used to represent the best of what journalism had to offer, "all the news that's fit to print" and all. Now they actively engage in revisionism - the '1619 project' - and push forward the narrative of 'white guilt' and other such divisive nonsense. From what I gather - listening to Brett Weinstein explaining things who again got it from a former DHS officer - those federal agents have observers on top of buildings who direct street level agents towards potential targets who engage(d) in actions deemed illegal. Those street level agents arrest individuals who are taken to some federal property where they are held for a few hours after which they are released, usually without being indicted. In a few cases people have been read their rights which would indicate they are to be subjected to interrogation. While having federal officers prowling the streets in unmarked vans gives off bad vibes of south-American 'disappearances' this has - at least thus far - not been documented. What is also clear is that the fact that local authorities allowed the situation to escalate to this level is inexcusable and is what eventually gave rise to these federal actions.
- d4mi3n 6y ago
  There's a lot to unpack here, but I'd like to engage you on a few points in your comment: > Those street level agents arrest individuals who are taken to some federal property where they are held for a few hours after which they are released, usually without being indicted. In a few cases people have been read their rights which would indicate they are to be subjected to interrogation. The NYT footage clearly depicts uniformed individuals without identification detaining protesters. When asked who they are, they do not respond. The bit about cars has been documented elsewhere, but is immaterial to the problem of identification and accountability: you can't expect people to react well when they don't even know who is arresting them, or why. I'm also personally alarmed that people are "sometimes" being informed of their rights, but we can save that for another discussion. > What is also clear is that the fact that local authorities allowed the situation to escalate to this level is inexcusable and is what eventually gave rise to these federal actions. The "local authorities" include the mayor of Portland and the governor of Oregon. Regardless of how one feels about the protests or their legitimacy, any proponent of state's rights should be very alarmed by the situation. They are elected officials representing their constituents, and in their own state their rights and desires should be respected. I don't want to get into arguments about how trustworthy NYT is, but many of the things covered in the footage above have been confirmed and documented by many other news sources. Regardless of which one you trust, I think we can all agree that the situation could be handled much better than it has been and that regardless of what the federal response is, we need accountability at all levels of law enforcement.
082349872349872 6y ago
"... when federal officers arrived on July 4" I hope they got weekend/holiday pay. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lMOL7GaPWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lMOL7GaPWI
nocturnial 6y ago
I'm really confused about this. If law enforcement refuses to identify themselves and also, you need to obey the orders of law enforcement but don't need to obey the orders of persons who dress up as law enforcement.. What happens next? For all they know, it could be some random "team" claiming to be a part of the executive branch. If you resist arrest from someone claiming to be law enforcement but actually isn't, then there's no problem. If you resist arrest from someone who says they are law enforcement but refuses to prove it, would you still be charged with resisting arrest? It seems like a catch-22 for the citizen.
- throwaway-4512 6y ago
  Law enforcement is wearing patches identifying their department as well as identifying badge serial number. You can see it in many of the photos of them making arrests or standing in combat fatigues on their upper arms. You can see this in the following picture but the article still has the title: "Unidentified Federal Agents Are Detaining Protesters in Portland" https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/103/7d8/36268f7317b3d89f028b34d88ac4725d66-portland-troops.rhorizontal.w700.jpg https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/103/7d8/36268f7317b3d89f028b... https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/unidentified-federal-agents-detaining-protesters-in-portland.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/unidentified-federal...
  - c17r 6y ago
    And how do you see that when four of them tackle you to the ground, hit you with nightsticks, and put you in zip tie handcuffs? Are you supposed to lightly resist and yell “show me your shoulders!”
    - throwaway-4512 6y ago
      A better question is, when the video of all these "unidentified" arrests occur, why does no one look at the footage that is ubiquitous on arrests done by federal law enforcement and does any kind of basic research? Isn't it the job of reporters and journalists to do their homework? Why is no one asking in good faith why federal law enforcement might feel like they need to take these kinds of actions? Police have been being doxxed for weeks now. "Protestors" show up at the houses of local officials across the country and graffiti, vandalize, and threaten officials. In the case of Mayor Durkin of Seattle, she is a former prosecutor who will always live under the threat of being attacked and killed and these people doxxed her anyways. Why does no one discuss how the local DA refuses to prosecute and forces the release of people who unilaterally attack police? Be fair and recognize that there are many people who are attempting to gaslight through social media.
ehvatum 6y ago
I watch protest live-streams on one of my monitors every evening as I code and design. It’s not the absolute focus of my attention, but I have done this for months, and there is something very wrong with the impression I receive from this NYT video. Specifically, the courthouse attacks absolutely and without a doubt preceded Federal response. These were not peaceful protests that the Federal action prodded into violence. Consider the timeline. May 29: A vigil in North Portland is followed later in the evening by a march downtown. A small group breaks into the Justice Center and sets a fire. Several businesses, including the Apple Store, are looted. Police declare a riot and arrest 13 people. May 30: Mayor Ted Wheeler declares a state of emergency and announces a citywide 8 p.m. curfew. A large protest at the Justice Center turns ugly, more businesses are looted, and more illegal fires are set. The protest ends after police tear gas the crowd. Fifty-one people are arrested. ............ July 4th: Federal police response begins in Portland.
- bendbro 6y ago
  You are backed by evidence. Why does the news, who is supposed to tell truth, lie? May 31st: Looting and fire at Justice Center, adjacent to federal courthouse: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=250814 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=25081... June 27th: Some feds arrive in response: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/07/evidence-shows-portland-police-working-with-federal-officers-at-protests-contradicting-city-officials.html https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/07/evidence-shows-portl...
- throwaway-4512 6y ago
  The people attacking federal law enforcement are not "peaceful protestors". For the last 50+ days they have thrown rocks, fireworks, used lasers to blind officers, used wrist rockets to fire metal balls into their faces, etc. When the police have retreated behind fences to guard buildings, these "protestors" try to bring down the fences and attack the police the entire time. They attack people they find recording their actions, beating them into submission and/or stealing their equipment and breaking it. They have tried (and in some cases succeeded) in breaking into buildings and setting fires inside. They have tried to light police precincts on fire. Portland Police has been catching and releasing these rioters for over 50+ days because the DA refuses to prosecute. The mayor is the police commissioner of Portland and he recently came out to stand with the people attacking federal law enforcement. The city council is even more radical than the mayor. The local government and state government have done nothing to suppress the riots and arguably are aiding and abetting the actions of a violent and vocal minority of citizens. The omission of the recent history of the violent actions of many of the "protestors" in Portland is shocking to see. Only conservative news organizations are making any mention of what is going on. Outlets like CNN, ABC, NYTimes, WPost, etc. have been silent until the recent actions taken by federal law enforcement. When they have talked about now, the coverage has been anything but even handed and has veered into gaslighting and willful blindness. Anyone who tries to speak out about this on Twitter is attacked en masse. Unless you go looking for a different opinion, you likely have no idea what is really going on.
pharke 6y ago
I urge everyone to search out longer videos for all of these clips being shown. Every "attack" by the federal agents is preceded by some form of provocation by the protestors-cum-rioters that start by refusing repeated warnings to disperse after the protest has been declared an unlawful (not peaceful) assembly, generally after someone starts destroying property or committing arson. The federal agents can be seen tolerating long periods of harassment and in every instance I've seen where they do respond it is when a protestor crosses the line by striking an agent or engaging in destruction of property. The spin on this information is so heavy it's terrifying.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Even if I were to agree that every rioter who destroyed property (or, even less, provoked an agent) "deserved" the exact response they received, which I don't, still I find all the spin with the politically opposite motivation - to legitimize violence by the government against citizens who didn't do anything to "deserve it", to be much more terrifying. For example, I personally know people who think the tear-gassed peaceful protesters outside the church "deserved it". Why? "They're Antifa". Our society is desperately in danger if that's not much more "terrifying" to you than spin whose "terrifying" crime is omitting the property damage a rioter just committed before being violently attacked by federal agents.
  - pharke 6y ago
    I'm sorry if it came off like I was saying "they deserved it", I didn't intend it that way. What I was trying to illuminate is that this is a much more complex situation that is being papered over for unknown reasons. News should not have a political spin in any direction, we need to see clearly everything that happens from start to finish to make our own judgements. I doubt that there is even much political difference between us but we've all been trained to categorize each other when we should be establishing the points on which we agree. I agree that our society is in danger, it is under threat from all sides at the moment. The terror I feel is not that of facing an opposing viewpoint, it is the fear that the centre cannot hold[0] and our grip has loosened so that we cannot catch the end of the rope. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(poem) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(poem)

85 points by syspec 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Is there any indication as to what the federal agents think about it? They can’t be happy to be ordered to wage war against their own citizens.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
iron0013 6y ago
Well, they have an ethical duty not to follow those orders. Since Nuremberg, at least, “just following orders” has not been considered an acceptable defense for having committed atrocities.
- loopz 6y ago
  They will be fired and cancelled though. https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/05borderlands.html https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/05borderlands.html
- bendbro 6y ago
  > atrocities Soft times we live in when less than lethal riot control methods are considered on par with militarily executed genocides.
- missosoup 6y ago
  I'm not sure it's valid to equate Nazi genocide with riot crowd control. It's important to unpack this issue and disconnect the loaded politics from the reality on the ground. E.g. if exactly the same events were taking place but the crowd in question was far-right neonazies, would that change your opinion of what's going on? If so, then you need to unpack it and remove the political bias from your analysis. I think any rational person can agree that a mob trying to burn down a courthouse is not okay in a civilised society, regardless of what mob wants to do it.
yokaze 6y ago
Not to justify their actions, but from their perspective, things probably looks a bit different. For starters, considering they are federal agents, they have likely been ordered away from their families to take care of a, let's say chaotic situation. They probably think, they have to take care of a mess others caused. They are not their citizens, but people they have few things in common. Finally, they are not received well. The demonstrators and they are different people. You can see it in other countries too. Riot police from other regions are often a recipe for complications.
- rich_sasha 6y ago
  Yes, I see that it may well be at least unclear for them. But legal, moral responsibility aside, I would just imagine it is a sucky job to go fight your own citizens. I wouldn’t be surprised if that ends up a breaking point: uniformed forces refusing to continue being part of this battle. But maybe I’m wrong, hence my question.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    On the bright side, the JCS saw that refusing to begin is even better than refusing to continue (note the handwritten addition): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23412986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23412986 In our state-funded news, the headline about US agents in Portland ran with the subhead "like a private militia". (our reporters may have become biased when US police fired upon them, too.)
  - Applejinx 6y ago
    It would be nice, but from what I see in reactions to all this, I think not. I think the forces you speak of will either come to believe, or be persuaded, that they are entirely doing battle against enemy terrorists who don't 'count' as humans. It won't matter if they're moms or little children: they will uniformly be categorized as monsters and treated as such. There must surely be huge amounts of this already: wouldn't be nearly as much protest if it wasn't already well documented that cops and uniformed forces will blast their enemies with pepper spray and any weapon they're permitted to use. Humans simply don't fire pepper spray or projectile weapons at simple bystanders unless they're total psychopaths: what you see there is not so much a culture of total psychopaths, rather a group that believes the modern day equivalent of 'even the kids and old ladies are VC'. And in so doing, they make it become true, which is why military handbooks on this subject instruct you to back off and yield whatever's being targeted. The dangers of mobilizing popular opinion against the military invaders is far greater than losing whatever is threatened. In other words, if the protesters are trying to destroy the police station at Cable Street, there might be a reason why sending in feds to crush the rebellion by force will not work. It may simply underscore the problem in the minds of otherwise apolitical onlookers, and the pool of people available to join the opposition may be greater than you think, IF there's a reason to judge you negatively for siding with Cable Street and supporting their activities. And it's possible that you don't know what Cable Street means, if you don't live there. But if you're uniformed forces from elsewhere, maybe the whole point is that you don't live there, and you're being selected to go in specifically because you don't live there and can be trusted to categorize your enemies as monsters simply because they are battling something you're told is good and righteous.

gonzo41 6y ago

You can watch this live right now on periscope. Rob Evans is a journalist who writes for Bellingcat. https://www.pscp.tv/w/1gqGvaMDkanKB https://www.pscp.tv/w/1gqGvaMDkanKB He's been doing a great job streaming for about 50 days.

bendbro 6y ago
>gonzo Seems you are staying true to your name :) [edit] Didnt intend as an insult. I didn't realize gonzo meant stupid, I thought it exclusively referred to the type of journalism "gonzo journalism," which I like, and the parent comment seems to be linking to.

notmyfriend 6y ago

The newspeak used here is amazing. Rioters become peaceful protesters. Police officers defending a court house each night against people trying to torch it become invading illegal forces. All that video show is people attacking the building and the police rebuffing the attack and arresting people for it. Maybe the citizens of Portland should ask themselves why there are still riots every night and why their useless mayor is not putting a stop to it. What is his goal with this. Does he think there will be some peaceful revolution that will turn Portland into some sort of glorious marxist paradise where there is honey and unicorns for everyone. They will come for him next.

ETHisso2017 6y ago
Now you know how many Chinese people felt about media coverage of the Hong Kong protests.
- hkt 6y ago
  The difference being that the US is a democracy with the rule of law, and Hong Kong is being denied democracy and the rule of law. Five demands, not one less: Full withdrawal of the extradition bill from the legislative process Retraction of the characterisation of the 12 June 2019 protests as "riots" Release and exoneration of arrested protesters Establishment of an independent commission of inquiry into police behaviour Universal suffrage for the Legislative Council and the chief executive elections Pretty reasonable. Very relatable for anyone I'd say.
kevingadd 6y ago
If all these "rioters" are trying to burn the courthouse down, why didn't it burn down before the armed feds showed up and started hitting people with gas? The protests have been ongoing for quite a while, the feds are a comparatively new presence.
- notmyfriend 6y ago
  Because the local police up until that moment attempted to keep them away. Then the mayor ordered them to stand down in the hope of scoring some cheap political points with his supporters. You make it sound like the feds have been rampaging around town on a pleasure cruise smoking up the city. All of the action is right around the building itself.

Yetanfou 6y ago

The NY Times has devolved into a political pamphlet and as such has - at least in my eyes - lost nearly all credibility. This is a shame, the paper used to represent the best of what journalism had to offer, "all the news that's fit to print" and all. Now they actively engage in revisionism - the '1619 project' - and push forward the narrative of 'white guilt' and other such divisive nonsense. From what I gather - listening to Brett Weinstein explaining things who again got it from a former DHS officer - those federal agents have observers on top of buildings who direct street level agents towards potential targets who engage(d) in actions deemed illegal. Those street level agents arrest individuals who are taken to some federal property where they are held for a few hours after which they are released, usually without being indicted. In a few cases people have been read their rights which would indicate they are to be subjected to interrogation. While having federal officers prowling the streets in unmarked vans gives off bad vibes of south-American 'disappearances' this has - at least thus far - not been documented. What is also clear is that the fact that local authorities allowed the situation to escalate to this level is inexcusable and is what eventually gave rise to these federal actions.

d4mi3n 6y ago
There's a lot to unpack here, but I'd like to engage you on a few points in your comment: > Those street level agents arrest individuals who are taken to some federal property where they are held for a few hours after which they are released, usually without being indicted. In a few cases people have been read their rights which would indicate they are to be subjected to interrogation. The NYT footage clearly depicts uniformed individuals without identification detaining protesters. When asked who they are, they do not respond. The bit about cars has been documented elsewhere, but is immaterial to the problem of identification and accountability: you can't expect people to react well when they don't even know who is arresting them, or why. I'm also personally alarmed that people are "sometimes" being informed of their rights, but we can save that for another discussion. > What is also clear is that the fact that local authorities allowed the situation to escalate to this level is inexcusable and is what eventually gave rise to these federal actions. The "local authorities" include the mayor of Portland and the governor of Oregon. Regardless of how one feels about the protests or their legitimacy, any proponent of state's rights should be very alarmed by the situation. They are elected officials representing their constituents, and in their own state their rights and desires should be respected. I don't want to get into arguments about how trustworthy NYT is, but many of the things covered in the footage above have been confirmed and documented by many other news sources. Regardless of which one you trust, I think we can all agree that the situation could be handled much better than it has been and that regardless of what the federal response is, we need accountability at all levels of law enforcement.

082349872349872 6y ago

"... when federal officers arrived on July 4" I hope they got weekend/holiday pay. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lMOL7GaPWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lMOL7GaPWI

nocturnial 6y ago

I'm really confused about this. If law enforcement refuses to identify themselves and also, you need to obey the orders of law enforcement but don't need to obey the orders of persons who dress up as law enforcement.. What happens next? For all they know, it could be some random "team" claiming to be a part of the executive branch. If you resist arrest from someone claiming to be law enforcement but actually isn't, then there's no problem. If you resist arrest from someone who says they are law enforcement but refuses to prove it, would you still be charged with resisting arrest? It seems like a catch-22 for the citizen.

throwaway-4512 6y ago
Law enforcement is wearing patches identifying their department as well as identifying badge serial number. You can see it in many of the photos of them making arrests or standing in combat fatigues on their upper arms. You can see this in the following picture but the article still has the title: "Unidentified Federal Agents Are Detaining Protesters in Portland" https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/103/7d8/36268f7317b3d89f028b34d88ac4725d66-portland-troops.rhorizontal.w700.jpg https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/103/7d8/36268f7317b3d89f028b... https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/unidentified-federal-agents-detaining-protesters-in-portland.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/unidentified-federal...
- c17r 6y ago
  And how do you see that when four of them tackle you to the ground, hit you with nightsticks, and put you in zip tie handcuffs? Are you supposed to lightly resist and yell “show me your shoulders!”
  - throwaway-4512 6y ago
    A better question is, when the video of all these "unidentified" arrests occur, why does no one look at the footage that is ubiquitous on arrests done by federal law enforcement and does any kind of basic research? Isn't it the job of reporters and journalists to do their homework? Why is no one asking in good faith why federal law enforcement might feel like they need to take these kinds of actions? Police have been being doxxed for weeks now. "Protestors" show up at the houses of local officials across the country and graffiti, vandalize, and threaten officials. In the case of Mayor Durkin of Seattle, she is a former prosecutor who will always live under the threat of being attacked and killed and these people doxxed her anyways. Why does no one discuss how the local DA refuses to prosecute and forces the release of people who unilaterally attack police? Be fair and recognize that there are many people who are attempting to gaslight through social media.

ehvatum 6y ago

I watch protest live-streams on one of my monitors every evening as I code and design. It’s not the absolute focus of my attention, but I have done this for months, and there is something very wrong with the impression I receive from this NYT video. Specifically, the courthouse attacks absolutely and without a doubt preceded Federal response. These were not peaceful protests that the Federal action prodded into violence. Consider the timeline. May 29: A vigil in North Portland is followed later in the evening by a march downtown. A small group breaks into the Justice Center and sets a fire. Several businesses, including the Apple Store, are looted. Police declare a riot and arrest 13 people. May 30: Mayor Ted Wheeler declares a state of emergency and announces a citywide 8 p.m. curfew. A large protest at the Justice Center turns ugly, more businesses are looted, and more illegal fires are set. The protest ends after police tear gas the crowd. Fifty-one people are arrested. ............ July 4th: Federal police response begins in Portland.

bendbro 6y ago
You are backed by evidence. Why does the news, who is supposed to tell truth, lie? May 31st: Looting and fire at Justice Center, adjacent to federal courthouse: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=250814 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=25081... June 27th: Some feds arrive in response: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/07/evidence-shows-portland-police-working-with-federal-officers-at-protests-contradicting-city-officials.html https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/07/evidence-shows-portl...
throwaway-4512 6y ago
The people attacking federal law enforcement are not "peaceful protestors". For the last 50+ days they have thrown rocks, fireworks, used lasers to blind officers, used wrist rockets to fire metal balls into their faces, etc. When the police have retreated behind fences to guard buildings, these "protestors" try to bring down the fences and attack the police the entire time. They attack people they find recording their actions, beating them into submission and/or stealing their equipment and breaking it. They have tried (and in some cases succeeded) in breaking into buildings and setting fires inside. They have tried to light police precincts on fire. Portland Police has been catching and releasing these rioters for over 50+ days because the DA refuses to prosecute. The mayor is the police commissioner of Portland and he recently came out to stand with the people attacking federal law enforcement. The city council is even more radical than the mayor. The local government and state government have done nothing to suppress the riots and arguably are aiding and abetting the actions of a violent and vocal minority of citizens. The omission of the recent history of the violent actions of many of the "protestors" in Portland is shocking to see. Only conservative news organizations are making any mention of what is going on. Outlets like CNN, ABC, NYTimes, WPost, etc. have been silent until the recent actions taken by federal law enforcement. When they have talked about now, the coverage has been anything but even handed and has veered into gaslighting and willful blindness. Anyone who tries to speak out about this on Twitter is attacked en masse. Unless you go looking for a different opinion, you likely have no idea what is really going on.

pharke 6y ago

I urge everyone to search out longer videos for all of these clips being shown. Every "attack" by the federal agents is preceded by some form of provocation by the protestors-cum-rioters that start by refusing repeated warnings to disperse after the protest has been declared an unlawful (not peaceful) assembly, generally after someone starts destroying property or committing arson. The federal agents can be seen tolerating long periods of harassment and in every instance I've seen where they do respond it is when a protestor crosses the line by striking an agent or engaging in destruction of property. The spin on this information is so heavy it's terrifying.

happytoexplain 6y ago
Even if I were to agree that every rioter who destroyed property (or, even less, provoked an agent) "deserved" the exact response they received, which I don't, still I find all the spin with the politically opposite motivation - to legitimize violence by the government against citizens who didn't do anything to "deserve it", to be much more terrifying. For example, I personally know people who think the tear-gassed peaceful protesters outside the church "deserved it". Why? "They're Antifa". Our society is desperately in danger if that's not much more "terrifying" to you than spin whose "terrifying" crime is omitting the property damage a rioter just committed before being violently attacked by federal agents.
- pharke 6y ago
  I'm sorry if it came off like I was saying "they deserved it", I didn't intend it that way. What I was trying to illuminate is that this is a much more complex situation that is being papered over for unknown reasons. News should not have a political spin in any direction, we need to see clearly everything that happens from start to finish to make our own judgements. I doubt that there is even much political difference between us but we've all been trained to categorize each other when we should be establishing the points on which we agree. I agree that our society is in danger, it is under threat from all sides at the moment. The terror I feel is not that of facing an opposing viewpoint, it is the fear that the centre cannot hold[0] and our grip has loosened so that we cannot catch the end of the rope. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(poem) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(poem)