4 ms·

> Is America really such a police state now that you are just supposed to submit to anyone in a uniform? And does this not seem ripe for abuse to everyone else?

> Is America really such a police state now that you are just supposed to submit to anyone in a uniform? And does this not seem ripe for abuse to everyone else? The snarky answer is: if people with guns come up to you and tell you to come with them, you should probably comply, especially if they aren't cops. But really you raise a good point, one that the ACLU's lawsuit explicitly brings up. I recall a case (I think in Myrtle Beach) where some police officers broke conducted a no-knock warrant to arrest someone, but they did so in plain clothes and did not announce that they were officers and that the person was under arrest. The person, fearing for his safety, came out of his bedroom with a gun and the officers shot him multiple times. He later sued. I remember the opinion from the judges was absolutely scathing. They held that the officers would be personally liable for damages (i.e. the would have to pay this guy out of their own pockets, not just the city). I recall listening to oral arguments and at one point the defense rhetorically said something to the effect of "he had a gun, were the officers supposed to just stand there and get shot?" And the judges essentially responded "yes". Now part of that conclusion rested on the fact that he has a right to defend his home, and there's some specific case law there ( I believe Heller calls out defending your home specifically). But I wouldn't be surprised if it was perfectly legal to refuse to go with someone who does not identify themselves, and even to respond with force if they assault you. But it's probably not the wisest thing to do. Best thing to do would probably be to record them and take legal action. I think the craziest thing about this is that the people getting arrested by these weird federal agents are all being released within hours without charges, because these arrests violate all normal procedures. Actually I kind of wish they would try to prosecute these protesters. Because you have the right to face your accuser, and during discovery all of the information about who these people are and who ordered them to do what would come to light.

regularfry 6y ago
If I were a malicious government I might start off by grabbing people off the street then releasing them, to get people used to the idea that "it's not so bad" and "don't struggle, they'll let you go without charge". After that narrative has had time to sink in (days? weeks?), I'd redirect the people I'd grabbed somewhere they weren't going to be released from instead. Not all at once, mind, because if most, or at least some, or maybe one or two are still getting released like before, there'll be confusion about what's actually going on and violent resistance won't crystalise. Especially if it's random, and there's no way to tell if someone's lost and hasn't turned up after release, or if they've been vanished.
- mindslight 6y ago
  IMO the catch and release is because they're fishing for the ones they can make the strongest legal case for federal jurisdiction. Out of staters, social media posts, cell location history, some other connection with the courthouse, etc. Once they get some favorable precedents, they'll ramp it up.
  - no-s 6y ago
    >>IMO the catch and release is because they're fishing for the ones they can make the strongest legal case for federal jurisdiction. or maybe its just a subterfuge. maybe the catch and release was to disguise interaction with confidential informants or undercover agents...
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  Quite literally Nazi tactics.
cmurf 6y ago
The purpose isn't to prosecute protesters, it's variably to intimidate and rile them up. It isn't to hold protesters accountable for their actions, it's a setup for a win-win scenario: (a) stop protesting and start complying means the secret police win; (b) fighting back with force means the secret police win. The only way they lose is with scrutiny, so avoiding scrutiny is their top priority. Hence the secrecy. Any U.S. attorney charged with the task of defending police in any of these cases will be ordered to obfuscate, delay, and confuse the issues.
formerly_proven 6y ago
There was a similar case about a decade ago in Germany, where a member of a biker gang heard someone manipulate his house door at four in the morning, and shot through the door. Previously rival bikers tried to break in at a similar time. He hit and killed a police officer, who was part of a SWAT team preparing to raid his home. He was acquitted. The court found he believed he was under threat and acted in self-defense, which is legally equivalent to acting in self-defense in response to a real threat (in Germany), if you couldn't have reasonably known better. Interesting case.

regularfry 6y ago

If I were a malicious government I might start off by grabbing people off the street then releasing them, to get people used to the idea that "it's not so bad" and "don't struggle, they'll let you go without charge". After that narrative has had time to sink in (days? weeks?), I'd redirect the people I'd grabbed somewhere they weren't going to be released from instead. Not all at once, mind, because if most, or at least some, or maybe one or two are still getting released like before, there'll be confusion about what's actually going on and violent resistance won't crystalise. Especially if it's random, and there's no way to tell if someone's lost and hasn't turned up after release, or if they've been vanished.

mindslight 6y ago
IMO the catch and release is because they're fishing for the ones they can make the strongest legal case for federal jurisdiction. Out of staters, social media posts, cell location history, some other connection with the courthouse, etc. Once they get some favorable precedents, they'll ramp it up.
- no-s 6y ago
  >>IMO the catch and release is because they're fishing for the ones they can make the strongest legal case for federal jurisdiction. or maybe its just a subterfuge. maybe the catch and release was to disguise interaction with confidential informants or undercover agents...
formerly_proven 6y ago
Quite literally Nazi tactics.

cmurf 6y ago

The purpose isn't to prosecute protesters, it's variably to intimidate and rile them up. It isn't to hold protesters accountable for their actions, it's a setup for a win-win scenario: (a) stop protesting and start complying means the secret police win; (b) fighting back with force means the secret police win. The only way they lose is with scrutiny, so avoiding scrutiny is their top priority. Hence the secrecy. Any U.S. attorney charged with the task of defending police in any of these cases will be ordered to obfuscate, delay, and confuse the issues.

formerly_proven 6y ago

There was a similar case about a decade ago in Germany, where a member of a biker gang heard someone manipulate his house door at four in the morning, and shot through the door. Previously rival bikers tried to break in at a similar time. He hit and killed a police officer, who was part of a SWAT team preparing to raid his home. He was acquitted. The court found he believed he was under threat and acted in self-defense, which is legally equivalent to acting in self-defense in response to a real threat (in Germany), if you couldn't have reasonably known better. Interesting case.