Don't misunderstand me: I detest authoritarian governments as much as anyone
But linking the "feds" to concentration camps comes across as disingenuous
Also, my understanding is that the people questioned weren't simply "political opponents"; they were violent looters
In a press conference they explained the people in question were part of a mob of people that attacked federal officers. The officers did not want to try and wade through a whole mob so they waited and followed until they could approach them without a ton of people around. Two uniformed federal officers then approached them announced who they were and proceeded to arrest them. The van was called in to move them but because of an approaching mob they wanted to get everyone out as quickly as possible to keep everyone safe. This is where the unmarked van rapidly pulled up and quickly drove off. For the record unmarked vehicles are used by every law enforcement agency and have been used for decades.
Both are true. A lot of people are making a huge deal of it- like how lots of people have been screaming masks are a symbol of totalitarianism. We can apply the slippery slope argument to either issue and many more. But- while it’s a tad early to be comparing this to concentration camps (why not do the same for unmarked cop cars?) but it also is something to not just let pass easily, to make clear the public demands transparency and adequate cause when tactics like this are used.
While the feds state some good reasons for not nabbing them then and there- their solution wasn’t much better. To grab these people in a mob would have been dangerous to everyone and could have ignited a riot or brawl. But in the current climate and with how they did it... they didn’t do any favors. I mean, there are practical reasons for no knock warrants and racial profiling too in police work, but our system doesn’t put the ends ahead of the means. They did right not wading into the mob, they messed up the rest of their handling.
Cause doesn't get much more adequate than "Every marked vehicle ends up a firebombed husk", or "Officers are already being bludgeoned or mobbed while carrying out their lawful duties".
You can't let criminals walk just because it looks bad, or soon you end up like those shithole cities that, as a matter of policy, don't respond to vehicle or property crimes.
I know this is a little off wall but New York City once did something in a similar nature. Under a previous mayor they went full bar on all crimes. If it was a crime they punished the perpetrators no matter how small the crime. By doing so they had a drop in all crime throughout the city. This is the exact opposite of what certain elected officials are doing now. They claim that they don't want people to be unjustly punished for little things thus ruining their chances in life. However it flies in the face of human psychology. By our nature we push at our boundaries. Letting people get away with little crimes just emboldens them to do more or worse crimes.
These are the same people that want to ban firearms but bend over backwards to avoid mandatory sentencing for illegal possession or possession while committing a violent or drug related crime.
If you stabbed someone with an ice pick or attempted to barricade people inside a structure or vehicle and then light it on fire, you should be thankful they're just throwing you in a van.
Yes. Be thankful you live in a country where claw enforcement isn’t handled by judge dredd, where even caught in the act you have presumption of innocence until you’ve been arrested and convicted, and that your conviction and sentencing aren’t supposed to be doled out by law enforcement agents.
There is a lot of exaggeration here. Should we be concerned and aware, yes. Should we monitor and discuss this situation and the tactics and legality? Yes. But the VERY good and CRITICAL point she raises- is the same issue with no knock warrants and unmarked police cars. Many jurisdictions do NOT criminalize failure to comply or running from an unmarked police car. Why? Well- like she says- police wear uniforms for the same reason soldiers do. So you can tell who is or isn’t a civilian. It’s critical to law and safety citizens comply with peace officers lawful orders and know when to find them, and when to stay away where they are working if the civilian isn’t involved. If you do not have police who are easily identified- how do you know if the person bagging up your lap top as evidence is a cop and not some random person? The woman on a lonely desolate road at 1am- is it a cop pulling her over or a rapist who bought lights on eBay? And so on.
Breonna Taylor has come up a lot lately- but she isn’t the first, and many in similar situations have been other races too. So it’s not just a “race” issue- when people bust in to your house- the reaction of many people- especially armed people- is to defend themselves. When those people don’t announce they are police and are going to enter, or when the group that enters are not easily identifiable as police- how do you know who is breaking in and armed? You don’t, and when it’s a split second decision, defend or die- survivors most commonly default to defend.
So we certainly have several issue wrapped up in this discussion. Firstly- the fact that for the public’s safety and the officers safety- the need to identify police and what circumstances police may obscure their identity- if a group of guys saw a woman being dragged into a regular old van and jumped in for example... maybe not in this case but if this was SOP.... what happens? Who gets shot or hurt? Can you or should you be able to press charges or make arrests? If you didn’t know you pinched a cop performing an arrest as opposed to a kidnapper breaking the law- can or should you be liable for assuaging an officer or even criminal assault?
We have screwed our perception from basing how we fight crime on the interests and safety of the majority of overall law abiding and non dangerous criminals- to building policy and systems based on the minority of the population- violent criminals. That is dystopian. That’s very Soviet communist block- sacrificing some percent of innocents and uninvolved in exchange to better stop crime, vs compromising the effectiveness and speed of dealing with crime to better protect the innocent and uninvolved.
@famousone- it doesn’t? Last I checked- one could very easily buy bold reflective vests and such that say basically whatever they want. Ever see real false valor, or watch one of those videos? Here’s a guy- some 25 year old- he is in ERDL, OG107 and some jungle boots. He’s got a ranger tab half way down his right sleeve. He pulls up in a Hyundai Elantra and starts barking orders. He’s got rank- a Colonel by his get up. You hop to for the Col? I hope not. Of the 67 things I just said that should indicate to you that this man is full of shit. BUT! His shirt says army! It says he is a colonel- and a Ranger! But I guess... there is more to identifying a uniformed person than what their clothes say? I don’t know about you, but I’m not letting 4 dudes in FBI T-shirt’s who pile out of a 1977 Buick on 20’s with subs blasting- they don’t get in my house even if they hand me a paper that says “warrant.” That picture wouldn’t jive with what I’d expect from actual FBI agents no?
@famousone- yes. I am very aware of what a black bloc is. Do you know what a home or place of work is? You see- once a person has committed a crime, we have to look at the situation and say: “do we bust them now, or later?” In the case of these guys- later was the right choice. If you start arresting members of a violent mob- you’re likely to ignite a mass riot. So you let them go but knowing who they are- or having sufficient evidence to identify suspects for arrest, you plot out how and where to arrest them. You may decide their home or office e is too dangerous. The key here is to use an old trick called “investigation” and pair it with something called “basic aptitude that should be required for police work.” Using those two things- we can figure out where the suspect will be, that is the safest place to make an arrest.
The downside to using marked vehicles, is that they may see oh coming. The main risk here if you are somewhere like their work- is that they will flee. But if you recall- the crime committed was not so urgent as to require immediate arrest. So- if they run, you get them later. We intuitively think of this as somehow not seeing justice done... but being on the run generally sucks. When caught, they get a trial and if guilty- the sentence is the same, usually worse since they ran. So instead of getting g caught on day 4 and doing 2 years- maybe you live like a bum in constant paranoia for a year, then do 5 years. If you’re a danger- a repeat offender- you’ll offend again and get caught.
The thrill of the hunt gets us G’d up. Sometimes we forget the purpose or logic of what we are doing. Likewise we an be blinded by some idea of principal over the entire point of the exercise. This is why many jurisdictions banned high speed chases save for imminent and critical threat- you ant outrun Motorola. Most of the time- you catch them down the line. But I wasn’t there. I can’t really say- all I can say is this, when you’re on the ground and things go to shit- like a political shitstorm, caused by operational decisions- the ones making the decision are to blame. “Fair”? Maybe not. That’s life. It was a bad call in hindsight, and could have been avoided by foresight. I don’t work for that agency, so it isn’t my job to figure out how to not cock it up for them. They cocked it up. It would be wise to change policy so that no one cocks it up again.
So easy to identify people in all black wearing masks and deliberately darting amongst identical and complicit mobs. Clearly you need to read up on the objective of forming a black bloc.
That's why the police need to pick them up as soon as possible, and also why most are being caught and released. To identify and track who the firestarters and provocateurs are.
Dude- I am aware of what a black bloc is. We covered this. What I don’t get is how you questioned my “leap of logic” on stating that we need to fight crime in a manner designed around non criminals- and then rebutted me by saying: “ these guys made it hard to be police, so doing this is justified and acceptable as a counter..” but.... that’s exactly the logic I was speaking of. So either it isn’t a leap- because that is how you think- or it is a leap, and your own logic is then self admittedly built on leaps. Which shall it be, am I right, or are we both wrong? I will leave the determination to you and abide it from those choices.
There is no tracking them if they wait.
They are not fugitives when nobody knows who they are.
You are not an innocent bystander when you cover and aid criminals.
When doing the right thing looks bad, it is the duty of law enforcement, soldiers, and medical professionals to get ugly. And if it's any comfort to them, we the common people know that the media only lies when their mouths are moving.
“There is no tracking them if they wait” I must disagree. They waited until after the incident to arrest these people right? Wasn’t that the entire justification of the unmarked vans? They seemed to find them alright.
“You are not an innocent bystander when you cover and aid criminals” that didn’t really work too well for us in Vietnam or the Middle East no? But if the feds want to spend the time to try and use RICO or some other conspiracy laws to build a case to arrest a group of people dressed in black so they can get them all on misdemeanor obstruction- or find a DA willing to try and charge several hundred people as accessories....
“When doing the right thing looks bad it is the job of....” Nooooo. Super no. Emphatic no. Unless you forgot this is a democracy and not a “father knows best” dictatorship? Employees of the government are employees of the people. The law is not an instrument to enforce right. The law is an instrument to enforce the collective will of the people- “right” in law is defined as what the majority of people believe to be right. It is the job of police to enforce the law of the land and serve the public trust. That is their job. They are instruments of law. They have some discretion in how they go about that.
Now- if I work for you and you tell me to bake cakes you sell- and I bake delicious cakes that all look like shit- absolutely unappetizing, disgusting-I probably won’t have a job long. Because yes- you left it up to me to make the cakes. I made a cake, but if that cake is disgusting looking and it upsets the people we serve- it probably won’t go well. If we follow the letter of the health code in baking- but people find our practices disgusting anyway- we can point out that “hey- we are following the law...” but... if the perception is that our cakes aren’t clean- most people aren’t going to bite.
Law enforcement is a public entity, very visible, and relies upon the community for its function. Just the same that soldiers in a far off land should not say “well- fuck the locals and what they think. We have a job here...” well... yes. But- doing that job can be helped or hindered by the attitudes of the public towards you doing that job.
Mass protests, riots, serious political talk about defunding police, dissolving police unions, taking away tools used to fight crime like “no knock warrants.” This is the climate this happened in. Because a lot of people, they question wether police are “doing the right thing” or if they are doing the “right thing the wrong way” or they just think what they are doing looks bad. Welcome to democracy- they are beholden to the perceptions of society, and a steep price may be paid when the public does not think you look too good.
Police work shouldn’t be political. Police should serve the law, objectively, faithfully in the public trust, and that should be the end of it. But police work is political. Most things are- politics even cloud science. A successful and effective person or organization knows how to do their job while navigating this maze of politics and perception, is mindful of it. So it doesn’t ultimately matter if what they did was right or wrong- it matters what people THINK of it.
We are not a democracy. Averting mob rule is a very large part of why we exist as a nation. And though it is impossible to track the individuals once they disappear, and infeasible to arrest the entire mob, it is very possible to follow the suspect for a short distance and pick them up when the risk of being trampled can be mitigated by speed of action.
Now, seeing as how you're coming from a false premise claiming mob rule and you can't keep your own argument straight, half of which only validates my points, I really can't say much else at this point. I suppose I can affirm that we are a republic, point out that you're defending violent anarchists (they are literally bearing the flag), and tell you that your military examples don't work to support your argument.
Hmmmm... I believe we might have a language barrier here. The United States is a democracy. It is not ONLY a democracy- but it is a democracy. When people say “America isn’t a democracy, it’s a republic!” It sure sounds smart. But a stroll to the dictionary quickly torpedos that. We are not a DIRECT democracy. That’s why we are a democratic republic- if one is familiar with the federalist papers- the matter is clearly discussed. You can also see it in the structure and early rules of our republic- the founders needed a system that could cover huge and different territories but also deal with the fact that most people weren’t capable of participating in informed politics.
You can go look up what republic means, and yes. America fits that description. You can go look up what democracy is. Yes. We fit that description too! America is a democratic nation. We exercise democracy. Democracy is at the heart of our system. By DIRECT democracy- but democracy. The word is even used in official documents as well as speeches and letters from founder to founder and from presidents and administrations to the present day, in describing our nation.
The argument “America is not a democracy” is a false dichotomy. Binary thinking- as we have discussed in the last often compromises our ability to discuss things because to you- things only have one of two states. But- being a republic doesn’t mutually exclude democracy- in fact by its nature it tends to include it- saying we can’t be a democracy because we are a republic is like saying a car can’t be red because it is already a car. But if we want to be VERY linguistically precise- we are a democratic republic- or a republic which is democratic in its operation. Whichever suits.
I'm saying that we don't subscribe to mob rule, tyranny of the majority, or letting criminals have their way to the detriment of lawful citizens just because there's so many of them.
Actually, the "call political opponents terrorists who will end our country" stage is where it starts. The "next election won't be accepted, if we loose" stage. The "no facts, but insults" stage. Autocracies come this way, look into Russia, Belarus and my favourite example, Turkey.
It’s pedantic. We run our nation through democratic process. We are a democratic nation. Democracy and constitutional republic are not mutually exclusive. We democratically elect representatives and through democracy elect local leaders and enact or repeal local laws.
The definition of a republic is a state in which the power is held by the people through elected representatives.
-
The definition of a democracy is that if a state in which is governed by the whole population or by eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
-
All republics are a democracy. Not all democracies are republics.
Saying a republic of any kind isn’t a democracy is the same as saying a square isn’t a rectangle
But linking the "feds" to concentration camps comes across as disingenuous
Also, my understanding is that the people questioned weren't simply "political opponents"; they were violent looters
You can't let criminals walk just because it looks bad, or soon you end up like those shithole cities that, as a matter of policy, don't respond to vehicle or property crimes.
They are not fugitives when nobody knows who they are.
You are not an innocent bystander when you cover and aid criminals.
When doing the right thing looks bad, it is the duty of law enforcement, soldiers, and medical professionals to get ugly. And if it's any comfort to them, we the common people know that the media only lies when their mouths are moving.
“You are not an innocent bystander when you cover and aid criminals” that didn’t really work too well for us in Vietnam or the Middle East no? But if the feds want to spend the time to try and use RICO or some other conspiracy laws to build a case to arrest a group of people dressed in black so they can get them all on misdemeanor obstruction- or find a DA willing to try and charge several hundred people as accessories....
Now, seeing as how you're coming from a false premise claiming mob rule and you can't keep your own argument straight, half of which only validates my points, I really can't say much else at this point. I suppose I can affirm that we are a republic, point out that you're defending violent anarchists (they are literally bearing the flag), and tell you that your military examples don't work to support your argument.
stop it, we talked about that. ;)
He can't even agree tothe fact that the USA are a democracy. Leave him, he's lost.
-
The definition of a democracy is that if a state in which is governed by the whole population or by eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
-
All republics are a democracy. Not all democracies are republics.
Saying a republic of any kind isn’t a democracy is the same as saying a square isn’t a rectangle