5 ms·

Portland also promised that they’d stop using teargas, 24 hours before the police tear gassed several square blocks. I am dubious of Portland’s ability to actua

Portland also promised that they’d stop using teargas, 24 hours before the police tear gassed several square blocks. I am dubious of Portland’s ability to actually enforce such a ban, given that their police department doesn’t seem responsive to political control.

dragontamer 6y ago
Layers upon layers. The Sheriff holds more power than most people realize. You can change the laws, but if you don't change the sheriff, then you get the same old police tactics. Let's put it this way: if the Sheriff breaks the law, who will arrest them? --------- This is in contrast to a Commissioner, like in NYC. If the commissioner breaks the law, the Mayor can fire them. Then the next commissioner can arrest them.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Let's put it this way: if the Sheriff breaks the law, who will arrest them? State or federal law enforcement officers, or, even city police. Depending on the specific structure of the department, possibly his own deputies. Sheriffs are not, in theory or practice, immune to arrest, e.g.: https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/embattled-rio-arriba-county-sheriff-s-career-dotted-with-legal-issues/article_658eb13a-caaf-11ea-bcb3-c7da1b3f0f44.html https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/embattled-...
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    Lets bring it back to the practice that was initially discussed. * Portland city passes a law, where its now illegal for police to use tear gas (https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/09/10/911531561/portland-ore-mayor-bans-police-use-of-tear-gas-at-protests https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racia...) * The use of tear gas remains legal in the State, and Federal governments. (This appears to be a local law and/or ordinance). * Local Sheriff decides the law is stupid, uses tear gas anyway. The Sheriff hasn't broken any state, or federal law. Only the local law. Literally no one can arrest him in this situation.
    - indymike 6y ago
      Sheriffs do have a lot of power, and are not immune from prosecution by federal or state authorities. Some states do have provisions for the arrest of the Sheriff. Here's an example from Indiana: "A warrant for the arrest of the county sheriff shall be served by the coroner or any other person to whom it may be legally directed. The coroner, who shall commit the sheriff to the county jail, has custody of the jail and its prisoners during the imprisonment of the sheriff."
      - ghaff 6y ago
        >Sheriffs do have a lot of power Really depends on the locality. In Massachusetts, counties (and sheriffs are a county position) are mostly vestigial judicial and law enforcement districts and the state even eliminated about half of its counties in the late 1990s. On the other hand, when I lived in Louisiana, parish government (their equivalent of counties) was powerful so a sheriff was an important position.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Literally no one can arrest him in this situation Assuming the law is criminal, and applicable, city police probably can arrest him. It seems quite probable, though, that the city does not have the authority to regulate county or state law enforcement tactics, so the law is simply invalid as applicable to him, which isn't a “we have a sheriff as opposed to some other structure of county law enforcement” problem, but “we are trying to regulate the actions of higher levels of government” problem. EDIT: Actually, looking at your story, it doesn't look like there is any law at all—the Mayor of Portland made a policy change directed at his subordinates, which include the city police but not the Multnomah County Sheriff's Dpeartment. So no one can arrest anyone because there is no criminal law, except insofar a side of force inconsistent with city executive policy is covered by some criminal law applicable to Portland Police.
      - dragontamer 6y ago
        > EDIT: Actually, looking at your story, it doesn't look like there is any law at all—the Mayor of Portland made a policy change directed at his subordinates, Good eye. I didn't notice that. In any case, the use of tear gas at demonstrations seems solidly like a "police tactic" to me. If your area has elected police leaders, then its important to choose a sheriff that you believe in. > so the law is simply invalid as applicable to him, which isn't a “we have a sheriff as opposed to some other structure of county law enforcement” problem, but “we are trying to regulate the actions of higher levels of government” problem. As far as I'm concerned, this is a "most people don't seem to understand how their own government works". The Sheriff's check on power is the election. The locality elects the Sheriff, which is why its usually so difficult to remove the Sheriff (because the Sheriff represents the will of the people). Sheriffs are relatively hard to remove by the very design of the office. It makes their elections very important.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Come on. Does every discussion about Portland really have to be dragged into an argument about protest tactics?
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  This is only an argument about “protest tactics” if you make it. I’m interested less in “teargas, good or bad” and more interested in “can the political apparatus of Portland actually change the behavior of the Portland police?”. In the context of Portland banning the police from using specific technologies, this question is absolutely relevant.
- sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
  It's a discussion specifically about banning police use of facial recognition tools, how are police abuses of civil rights not relevant?
  - briffle 6y ago
    That is one part, yes, but the bigger item is it's banned city wide. Not just police and government, but businesses, schools, etc.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      You can't subpoena for data that doesn't exist. If facial recognition is implemented in businesses and schools, the associated databases will be used by police and government.
Pfhreak 6y ago
Seattle also banned chemical weapons, but unfortunately the mayor sued to allow their use. Because Seattle's police dept was under a consent decree, any changes to tactics and weapons needed to be approved by the judge who is monitoring the dept. The judge felt the Seattle police might actually get significantly more violent if they couldn't use chemical weapons and indiscriminate projectiles on non violent protestors.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Setting aside the actual subject at hand, I actually think this is a much better process. Like or dislike the result, it actually flowed through the proper political and judicial channels in order to achieve a result. This seems much safer than (what seems to me) a total disconnect between the political and police apparatus in some cities, where the cops just ignore what they’re told to do.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Oh, for sure. As much as I'd love to see them totally ban the use, it seems like every step was fairly reasonable. City Council enacts a law, Mayor (who cannot veto it because the council will override it) works with the police to push back, judge examines it and says that the court will have to evaluate the legality of the law in light of the consent decree on the police department.
- antifa-sux 6y ago
  Seattle is dealing with a low grade left wing insurgency[0], just like Portland, which is intentionally starting fights with police, night after night, destroying private property, and occasionally killing someone, like Aaron Jay Danielson, or the two children killed by Antifa-BLM "security" in CHAZ/CHOP. So the judge is right, but it has to do with the ongoing violent insurgency, not law abiding Americans peacefully exercising their rights. The only nonviolent protestors I've seen getting gassed are the ones giving direct cover to a Black Bloc. [0] A report by Rutgers explaining the extent of the insurgency and its tactics and ideology https://ncri.io/reports/network-enabled-anarchy/ https://ncri.io/reports/network-enabled-anarchy/
- 6y ago

dragontamer 6y ago

Layers upon layers. The Sheriff holds more power than most people realize. You can change the laws, but if you don't change the sheriff, then you get the same old police tactics. Let's put it this way: if the Sheriff breaks the law, who will arrest them? --------- This is in contrast to a Commissioner, like in NYC. If the commissioner breaks the law, the Mayor can fire them. Then the next commissioner can arrest them.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Let's put it this way: if the Sheriff breaks the law, who will arrest them? State or federal law enforcement officers, or, even city police. Depending on the specific structure of the department, possibly his own deputies. Sheriffs are not, in theory or practice, immune to arrest, e.g.: https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/embattled-rio-arriba-county-sheriff-s-career-dotted-with-legal-issues/article_658eb13a-caaf-11ea-bcb3-c7da1b3f0f44.html https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/embattled-...
- dragontamer 6y ago
  Lets bring it back to the practice that was initially discussed. * Portland city passes a law, where its now illegal for police to use tear gas (https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/09/10/911531561/portland-ore-mayor-bans-police-use-of-tear-gas-at-protests https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racia...) * The use of tear gas remains legal in the State, and Federal governments. (This appears to be a local law and/or ordinance). * Local Sheriff decides the law is stupid, uses tear gas anyway. The Sheriff hasn't broken any state, or federal law. Only the local law. Literally no one can arrest him in this situation.
  - indymike 6y ago
    Sheriffs do have a lot of power, and are not immune from prosecution by federal or state authorities. Some states do have provisions for the arrest of the Sheriff. Here's an example from Indiana: "A warrant for the arrest of the county sheriff shall be served by the coroner or any other person to whom it may be legally directed. The coroner, who shall commit the sheriff to the county jail, has custody of the jail and its prisoners during the imprisonment of the sheriff."
    - ghaff 6y ago
      >Sheriffs do have a lot of power Really depends on the locality. In Massachusetts, counties (and sheriffs are a county position) are mostly vestigial judicial and law enforcement districts and the state even eliminated about half of its counties in the late 1990s. On the other hand, when I lived in Louisiana, parish government (their equivalent of counties) was powerful so a sheriff was an important position.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Literally no one can arrest him in this situation Assuming the law is criminal, and applicable, city police probably can arrest him. It seems quite probable, though, that the city does not have the authority to regulate county or state law enforcement tactics, so the law is simply invalid as applicable to him, which isn't a “we have a sheriff as opposed to some other structure of county law enforcement” problem, but “we are trying to regulate the actions of higher levels of government” problem. EDIT: Actually, looking at your story, it doesn't look like there is any law at all—the Mayor of Portland made a policy change directed at his subordinates, which include the city police but not the Multnomah County Sheriff's Dpeartment. So no one can arrest anyone because there is no criminal law, except insofar a side of force inconsistent with city executive policy is covered by some criminal law applicable to Portland Police.
    - dragontamer 6y ago
      > EDIT: Actually, looking at your story, it doesn't look like there is any law at all—the Mayor of Portland made a policy change directed at his subordinates, Good eye. I didn't notice that. In any case, the use of tear gas at demonstrations seems solidly like a "police tactic" to me. If your area has elected police leaders, then its important to choose a sheriff that you believe in. > so the law is simply invalid as applicable to him, which isn't a “we have a sheriff as opposed to some other structure of county law enforcement” problem, but “we are trying to regulate the actions of higher levels of government” problem. As far as I'm concerned, this is a "most people don't seem to understand how their own government works". The Sheriff's check on power is the election. The locality elects the Sheriff, which is why its usually so difficult to remove the Sheriff (because the Sheriff represents the will of the people). Sheriffs are relatively hard to remove by the very design of the office. It makes their elections very important.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Come on. Does every discussion about Portland really have to be dragged into an argument about protest tactics?

ashtonkem 6y ago
This is only an argument about “protest tactics” if you make it. I’m interested less in “teargas, good or bad” and more interested in “can the political apparatus of Portland actually change the behavior of the Portland police?”. In the context of Portland banning the police from using specific technologies, this question is absolutely relevant.
sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
It's a discussion specifically about banning police use of facial recognition tools, how are police abuses of civil rights not relevant?
- briffle 6y ago
  That is one part, yes, but the bigger item is it's banned city wide. Not just police and government, but businesses, schools, etc.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    You can't subpoena for data that doesn't exist. If facial recognition is implemented in businesses and schools, the associated databases will be used by police and government.

Pfhreak 6y ago

Seattle also banned chemical weapons, but unfortunately the mayor sued to allow their use. Because Seattle's police dept was under a consent decree, any changes to tactics and weapons needed to be approved by the judge who is monitoring the dept. The judge felt the Seattle police might actually get significantly more violent if they couldn't use chemical weapons and indiscriminate projectiles on non violent protestors.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Setting aside the actual subject at hand, I actually think this is a much better process. Like or dislike the result, it actually flowed through the proper political and judicial channels in order to achieve a result. This seems much safer than (what seems to me) a total disconnect between the political and police apparatus in some cities, where the cops just ignore what they’re told to do.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Oh, for sure. As much as I'd love to see them totally ban the use, it seems like every step was fairly reasonable. City Council enacts a law, Mayor (who cannot veto it because the council will override it) works with the police to push back, judge examines it and says that the court will have to evaluate the legality of the law in light of the consent decree on the police department.
antifa-sux 6y ago
Seattle is dealing with a low grade left wing insurgency[0], just like Portland, which is intentionally starting fights with police, night after night, destroying private property, and occasionally killing someone, like Aaron Jay Danielson, or the two children killed by Antifa-BLM "security" in CHAZ/CHOP. So the judge is right, but it has to do with the ongoing violent insurgency, not law abiding Americans peacefully exercising their rights. The only nonviolent protestors I've seen getting gassed are the ones giving direct cover to a Black Bloc. [0] A report by Rutgers explaining the extent of the insurgency and its tactics and ideology https://ncri.io/reports/network-enabled-anarchy/ https://ncri.io/reports/network-enabled-anarchy/
6y ago