4 ms·

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 mon

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.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- md_ 6y ago
  Certainly anyone violently attacking law enforcement is not a peaceful protestor. But protestors are not a monolithic entity: the vast majority are clearly peaceful. In a free democracy that values the right to peaceful protest, law enforcement and political leaders have to ask the best way to preserve that essential right for all citizens while keeping the peace. The question I would rhetorically ask—because the answer is fairly obvious—is whether sending poorly trained agents armed with lethal weapons and, apparently, improper instruction on probable cause to "keep the peace" achieves that end. It's easy—and correct—to condemn acts of violence by protestors. But in a free democracy, we should hold the armed representatives of the people's government to a higher standard than we do a mass of protestors, among whom there are, no doubt, some provocateurs and law breakers. This isn't an either/or proposition. One need not defend brick-throwers or arsonists in order to condemn arrest-without-probable-cause or the use of "less lethal" munitions against bystanders. That false dichotomy is what authoritarian regimes use to try to justify the wildly inappropriate—and, in the US, illegal—use of force to put down political opposition.
  - makomk 6y ago
    The feds have allegedly been arresting people "just" for dressing entirely in black - or at least, that's the narrative the press has been pushing to convince people that this is some kind of totalitarian military occupation. The thing is, the entire point of the Black Bloc tactic of dressing everyone like this is to make it as hard as possible to identify which specific "protestors" tried to burn down the federal courthouse, and which attacked law enforcement officers, and so on - in short, to turn protestors into a monolithic entity where crimes cannnot easily be attributed to any specific individual within the entity.
    - md_ 6y ago
      First, I'm aware of cases where protest organizers have asked protestors to wear black out of solidarity with BLM, so I'm not convinced by the argument that this is the entire point of wearing black. But even if we take that as a given, it seems to me that everyone wearing the same color clothing—and thus it being harder for the officers to distinguish protestors from each other—works against the probable cause argument, and not in its favor. I'm far from an expert on this, but my understanding is that in some (most?) applications of probable cause, individualized suspicion is a requirement; if officers are unable to distinguish protestors from each other, it seems like that would make it harder for them to meet the necessary standard to justify an arrest. The argument that innocent protestors didn't make it easy for the police to distinguish them from criminals in their midst does not seem like it modifies the probable cause requirement; officers can't go around arresting (or, worse, using violence against) peaceful protestors simply because the officers are unable to easily identify the minority who are lawbreakers in their midst.
darkerside 6y ago
Wouldn't the typical response be too mobilize the National Guard to protect national property and resources? Why is the CBP the ones getting involved here? Police work should be left to police (preferably local), and protection can be supplemented by the appropriate military branch if necessary. DHS and its branches were never meant to police local citizenry. It does seem like overreach.
sebwi 6y ago
Well, let me give you my view from the sidelines. It seems there are three main issues that are worthy to discuss. 1. FEDs intervening in Portland - legitimate + legal or not? Honestly, don't know. It seems a bit shady to me with regard to extending actions beyond federal buildings for which there is a mandate but I leave that decision to people who actually know about it. 2. FEDs without identification - necessary precaution or authoritarian overreach? Police accountability is key for peaceful coexistence in a democratic society. There are options between "no identification" and "full transparency". If you want it as a government, you can do it. 3. FEDs approach to the protests - necessary use of force or escalating violence? It seems like an overreach to me. From what I've known to be the standard, there are protocols officers are obliged to follow, established practices on how to deal with protests and most importantly, the deployed forces are trained and equipped properly as well - of course I'm assimng the best of all situations here. It's gross neglient deploying officers that lack experience with these kind of situations and assume everything will be just getting fine. Not excusing anything or anyone but protests are particularly stressful for the police as well and even under the best circumstances the use of force does not always meet the standards. That said, I agree with you that the NYT video does not cover the whole story if the story is sending federal forces to Portland. If the story is the lack of transparency and the way federal forces deal with the protests then it's fine. Public officials have to be held to a higher standard than violent and/or rioting civilians - in particular, if violent protesters are not the majority of the people participating what seems to be the case here.
Balgair 6y ago
I dunno man, the act at ~24 seconds in seem to be pretty clear. Clubbing a person from behind is totally unacceptable for a law enforcement officer. I think that was Tuesday? The video is littered with such acts. I mean, they teargassed the mayor on purpose. If the Feds really wanted to calm things down they'd leave. Sure, things were bad two months ago, but this is only escalating things now. It's much worse now, and only getting more out of control. But then, we all know that's the point.
- mercer 6y ago
  For me that's the deciding factor to favor 'the protestors' even when that includes those who just want to loot or burn stuff. The police should be held to a much higher standard, considering the power they have. And it's not like, globally speaking, they haven't developed sophisticated methods of containing violence or rooting out the 'evil-doers'. The danger of police being unaccountable (unmarked vans, etc.) as well as unreasonable violent using 'less-lethal' weaponry, well, that's vastly more dangerous to a functioning state than a huge group of disparate protestors that include some violent extremists that, from what I can tell, for the most part haven't actually murdered or severely injured civilians. The police have. Of course, all that is assuming that the police generally does a wonderful job maintaining the peace. Considering that the whole reason for these protests and riots is police brutality, and rightly so, I find it difficult to be on the side of whatever the police are claiming to be doing. I've seen The Wire. I've seen LA Confidential. I've read articles. I've also personally experienced US police in action when I spent a few months in Texas, and it was upsetting. While I'm sure there's plenty to say about Dutch police, for example, if I am lost, or I need help, they're the 'helpers' that I approach. In Texas, I felt almost as scared of approaching the police as I did approaching the machine-gun wielding police I encountered in Sao Paulo. That just feels wrong. So however bad or exaggerated the particulars might be, it really does seem like the US police system is due for some serious overhauls. The police should be the guys representing peace and enforcing it, all the issues one might have with it aside. If it can't even do that and instead make a significant part of the population (much of it minority/black) fear their lives, that should be reason enough to demand change. No matter whether you're 'right' or 'left'.

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.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
md_ 6y ago
Certainly anyone violently attacking law enforcement is not a peaceful protestor. But protestors are not a monolithic entity: the vast majority are clearly peaceful. In a free democracy that values the right to peaceful protest, law enforcement and political leaders have to ask the best way to preserve that essential right for all citizens while keeping the peace. The question I would rhetorically ask—because the answer is fairly obvious—is whether sending poorly trained agents armed with lethal weapons and, apparently, improper instruction on probable cause to "keep the peace" achieves that end. It's easy—and correct—to condemn acts of violence by protestors. But in a free democracy, we should hold the armed representatives of the people's government to a higher standard than we do a mass of protestors, among whom there are, no doubt, some provocateurs and law breakers. This isn't an either/or proposition. One need not defend brick-throwers or arsonists in order to condemn arrest-without-probable-cause or the use of "less lethal" munitions against bystanders. That false dichotomy is what authoritarian regimes use to try to justify the wildly inappropriate—and, in the US, illegal—use of force to put down political opposition.
- makomk 6y ago
  The feds have allegedly been arresting people "just" for dressing entirely in black - or at least, that's the narrative the press has been pushing to convince people that this is some kind of totalitarian military occupation. The thing is, the entire point of the Black Bloc tactic of dressing everyone like this is to make it as hard as possible to identify which specific "protestors" tried to burn down the federal courthouse, and which attacked law enforcement officers, and so on - in short, to turn protestors into a monolithic entity where crimes cannnot easily be attributed to any specific individual within the entity.
  - md_ 6y ago
    First, I'm aware of cases where protest organizers have asked protestors to wear black out of solidarity with BLM, so I'm not convinced by the argument that this is the entire point of wearing black. But even if we take that as a given, it seems to me that everyone wearing the same color clothing—and thus it being harder for the officers to distinguish protestors from each other—works against the probable cause argument, and not in its favor. I'm far from an expert on this, but my understanding is that in some (most?) applications of probable cause, individualized suspicion is a requirement; if officers are unable to distinguish protestors from each other, it seems like that would make it harder for them to meet the necessary standard to justify an arrest. The argument that innocent protestors didn't make it easy for the police to distinguish them from criminals in their midst does not seem like it modifies the probable cause requirement; officers can't go around arresting (or, worse, using violence against) peaceful protestors simply because the officers are unable to easily identify the minority who are lawbreakers in their midst.

darkerside 6y ago

Wouldn't the typical response be too mobilize the National Guard to protect national property and resources? Why is the CBP the ones getting involved here? Police work should be left to police (preferably local), and protection can be supplemented by the appropriate military branch if necessary. DHS and its branches were never meant to police local citizenry. It does seem like overreach.

sebwi 6y ago

Well, let me give you my view from the sidelines. It seems there are three main issues that are worthy to discuss. 1. FEDs intervening in Portland - legitimate + legal or not? Honestly, don't know. It seems a bit shady to me with regard to extending actions beyond federal buildings for which there is a mandate but I leave that decision to people who actually know about it. 2. FEDs without identification - necessary precaution or authoritarian overreach? Police accountability is key for peaceful coexistence in a democratic society. There are options between "no identification" and "full transparency". If you want it as a government, you can do it. 3. FEDs approach to the protests - necessary use of force or escalating violence? It seems like an overreach to me. From what I've known to be the standard, there are protocols officers are obliged to follow, established practices on how to deal with protests and most importantly, the deployed forces are trained and equipped properly as well - of course I'm assimng the best of all situations here. It's gross neglient deploying officers that lack experience with these kind of situations and assume everything will be just getting fine. Not excusing anything or anyone but protests are particularly stressful for the police as well and even under the best circumstances the use of force does not always meet the standards. That said, I agree with you that the NYT video does not cover the whole story if the story is sending federal forces to Portland. If the story is the lack of transparency and the way federal forces deal with the protests then it's fine. Public officials have to be held to a higher standard than violent and/or rioting civilians - in particular, if violent protesters are not the majority of the people participating what seems to be the case here.

Balgair 6y ago

I dunno man, the act at ~24 seconds in seem to be pretty clear. Clubbing a person from behind is totally unacceptable for a law enforcement officer. I think that was Tuesday? The video is littered with such acts. I mean, they teargassed the mayor on purpose. If the Feds really wanted to calm things down they'd leave. Sure, things were bad two months ago, but this is only escalating things now. It's much worse now, and only getting more out of control. But then, we all know that's the point.

mercer 6y ago
For me that's the deciding factor to favor 'the protestors' even when that includes those who just want to loot or burn stuff. The police should be held to a much higher standard, considering the power they have. And it's not like, globally speaking, they haven't developed sophisticated methods of containing violence or rooting out the 'evil-doers'. The danger of police being unaccountable (unmarked vans, etc.) as well as unreasonable violent using 'less-lethal' weaponry, well, that's vastly more dangerous to a functioning state than a huge group of disparate protestors that include some violent extremists that, from what I can tell, for the most part haven't actually murdered or severely injured civilians. The police have. Of course, all that is assuming that the police generally does a wonderful job maintaining the peace. Considering that the whole reason for these protests and riots is police brutality, and rightly so, I find it difficult to be on the side of whatever the police are claiming to be doing. I've seen The Wire. I've seen LA Confidential. I've read articles. I've also personally experienced US police in action when I spent a few months in Texas, and it was upsetting. While I'm sure there's plenty to say about Dutch police, for example, if I am lost, or I need help, they're the 'helpers' that I approach. In Texas, I felt almost as scared of approaching the police as I did approaching the machine-gun wielding police I encountered in Sao Paulo. That just feels wrong. So however bad or exaggerated the particulars might be, it really does seem like the US police system is due for some serious overhauls. The police should be the guys representing peace and enforcing it, all the issues one might have with it aside. If it can't even do that and instead make a significant part of the population (much of it minority/black) fear their lives, that should be reason enough to demand change. No matter whether you're 'right' or 'left'.