FBI uncovers armed militia plot to abduct Michigan Gov. Whitmer

[Dashinka 24,438]

Just now, CanAm1980 said:

What is the last time a antifascist group in the US consipred to overthrow a government by kidnapping a public official? 

 

 

What day is it in Portland?  And didn’t they take over a portion of Seattle?

[laylalex 7,284]

I missed a kidnapping attempt in Portland. Oh, except when those protesters were pulled off the street by federal agents in unmarked vans and then not told what they were being arrested for.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

59 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I missed a kidnapping attempt in Portland. Oh, except when those protesters were pulled off the street by federal agents in unmarked vans and then not told what they were being arrested for.

There is no one in America stupid enough to actually believe those events were kidnappings.

 

Prove me wrong...

[laylalex 7,284]

54 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

There is no one in America stupid enough to actually believe those events were kidnappings.

 

Prove me wrong...

Well, I think that several attorneys/constitutional law experts have expressed an opinion that it fits or is close to the description. 

Quote

 

“Apprehending a person by force and holding him or her in captivity without legal authority is the definition of kidnapping,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law expert and the dean at Berkeley Law. “That is exactly what was done to some who were apprehended in Portland.”

Former federal prosecutor Ken White, an outspoken legal commentator on Twitter who goes by @popehat, said calling the detentions kidnapping is a mostly rhetorical question rather than a legal one because it’s unlikely the agents responsible would ever be charged. But he didn’t dispute that some elements of the crime of kidnapping match what happened to Pettibone and the other protester.

“The arrest could certainly be unlawful and in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which has consequences in any criminal case against the arrestee and potential civil consequences if the arrestee sues,” he said. “However, kidnapping is a different matter — that’s a criminal allegation against the cop.”

He continued: “The crime of kidnapping usually has an element of wrongful intent — so you’d have to prove not just that the arrest was unlawful, but that the cop knew and intended it to be unlawful, which is difficult.”

George Washington University Law’s Jonathan Turley said it was “reckless” for Casey to call the incidents kidnapping when the seizures were most likely false arrests, which can occur when an officer believes, even wrongly, that he had legal authority to detain someone.

 

Full disclosure: my dad knows Chemerinsky and I have met him a couple of times back when he taught at USC.  

https://www.statesman.com/news/20200805/fact-check-are-federal-agents-in-portland-kidnapping-and-holding-citizens-without-charges

Edited October 10, 2020 by laylalex

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

6 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Well, I think that several attorneys/constitutional law experts have expressed an opinion that it fits or is close to the description. 

The state tried to fight the Feds in court using that video of supposed "unmarked police kidnapping people and taking them to black sites". When this got put in the court of law in order to get a injunction against the Feds the city/state got shut down hard. 

BTW they had badge numbers but no names because there were many people on the left doxxing these officers, and then showing up to their house. 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Cyberfx1024

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

27 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

The state tried to fight the Feds in court using that video of supposed "unmarked police kidnapping people and taking them to black sites". When this got put in the court of law in order to get a injunction against the Feds the city/state got shut down hard. 

BTW they had badge numbers but no names because there were many people on the left doxxing these officers, and then showing up to their house. 

Guess that's the difference between selectively looking for opinions by "experts" and actually trying your luck in a court. Just because it didn't look the greatest, in a volatile situation, doesn't mean it was "kidnapping".. which is an idiotic term to describe what happened, but befitting the whole "defund the police" insanity which thrives on that kind of hyperbole.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

Well, I think that several attorneys/constitutional law experts have expressed an opinion that it fits or is close to the description. 

Full disclosure: my dad knows Chemerinsky and I have met him a couple of times back when he taught at USC.  

https://www.statesman.com/news/20200805/fact-check-are-federal-agents-in-portland-kidnapping-and-holding-citizens-without-charges

I can only laugh at this half-hearted attempt at demonizing the feds.  But good try by the author.  Ever heard of the 72 hour rule?  

 

Quote

A few days later, Homeland Security agents from Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement — who didn’t have proper training in riot control or mass demonstrations — arrived in Portland to support officers of the Federal Protective Service, the division responsible for protecting federal buildings such as the city’s Mark O. Hatfield courthouse, which had been vandalized.

Riiiigggghhhtttt... CBP has no experience dealing with mass numbers of people trying to break the law.  Evidently, the author has never seen a border crossing before.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[laylalex 7,284]

1 hour ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

The state tried to fight the Feds in court using that video of supposed "unmarked police kidnapping people and taking them to black sites". When this got put in the court of law in order to get a injunction against the Feds the city/state got shut down hard. 

BTW they had badge numbers but no names because there were many people on the left doxxing these officers, and then showing up to their house. 

The state didn't get an injunction, but that doesn't really go to whether or not what happened to these two people (the ones in that Statesman piece) was kidnapping. The court's ruling was based on the state not having standing to sue on behalf of protesters as well as the court not thinking there wasn't enough evidence of misconduct to support an injunction. An injunction prohibits conduct going forward -- it doesn't rule backwards, so denying the injunction doesn't mean that what happened to those people wasn't kidnapping. It just means that the people who should have been asking for the court to rule should have been the protesters -- the ones who in the future could be subject to being pulled off the streets -- and there should have been more evidence. That's what I get out of reading this good article in Reason on this: https://reason.com/2020/07/25/oregon-doesnt-get-injunction-against-certain-federal-enforcement-procedures/ Eugene Volokh is waaaaay to the right of me but he always makes sound constitutional sense to me.

 

That Statesman article also makes clear that one of those stops was found unconstitutional, and for the other one the Trump administration said they had no probable cause. So we're still left with the question -- did what happen to these guys amount to kidnapping? 

 

 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

19 minutes ago, laylalex said:

The state didn't get an injunction, but that doesn't really go to whether or not what happened to these two people (the ones in that Statesman piece) was kidnapping. The court's ruling was based on the state not having standing to sue on behalf of protesters as well as the court not thinking there wasn't enough evidence of misconduct to support an injunction. An injunction prohibits conduct going forward -- it doesn't rule backwards, so denying the injunction doesn't mean that what happened to those people wasn't kidnapping. It just means that the people who should have been asking for the court to rule should have been the protesters -- the ones who in the future could be subject to being pulled off the streets -- and there should have been more evidence. That's what I get out of reading this good article in Reason on this: https://reason.com/2020/07/25/oregon-doesnt-get-injunction-against-certain-federal-enforcement-procedures/ Eugene Volokh is waaaaay to the right of me but he always makes sound constitutional sense to me.

 

That Statesman article also makes clear that one of those stops was found unconstitutional, and for the other one the Trump administration said they had no probable cause. So we're still left with the question -- did what happen to these guys amount to kidnapping? 

 

 

Exactly what I said above is that the injunction that the state/city wanted in regards to the Feds supposedly rounding people up didn't have enough evidence to move forward and it got shut down. Because the main of the evidence submitted by the state was that video of the guy getting picked up.

After this the State and Feds came to a agreement and the Feds pulled out then the State moved in. That agreement quickly fell apart because when the state was arresting people the local DA was dropping all charges of these people, sometimes dropping the charges on people that had been previously arrested on the very same charge they got arrested for that time. So the state police got fed up and pulled out altogether. Now the state and the local police have all been deputized as federal agents. So the people being arrested on riot and arson with their charges being dropped locally are now being picked up and charged with Federal crimes now. 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Cyberfx1024

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

24 minutes ago, laylalex said:

That Statesman article also makes clear that one of those stops was found unconstitutional, and for the other one the Trump administration said they had no probable cause. So we're still left with the question -- did what happen to these guys amount to kidnapping? 

Who cares honestly.... They are all rioters and causing harm and mayhem whereever they go. They have now branched out to some of the suburbs around Portland now and are walking down the streets tearing flags off of people's houses in order to burn them. 


I don't think it amounted to kidnapping at all. Did what happen to Patriot Pray guy amount to 1st degree murder or what?

Edited October 10, 2020 by Cyberfx1024

[laylalex 7,284]

I think we SHOULD care, because if it was kidnapping, it is not right. If they were unconstitutional arrests, or there wasn't probable cause, we should care, because it isn't right. Just because we don't like a victim of a crime doesn't mean that the crime isn't a crime. Even if we think a person is just awful, they still have civil liberties and constitutional rights that we need to uphold. We condemn crimes perpetrated against the worst of us because those crimes can also happen to the best of us, and everyone in between. We don't get to pick and choose who is deserving of protection. The law is there to protect us all.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

53 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I think we SHOULD care, because if it was kidnapping, it is not right. If they were unconstitutional arrests, or there wasn't probable cause, we should care, because it isn't right. Just because we don't like a victim of a crime doesn't mean that the crime isn't a crime. Even if we think a person is just awful, they still have civil liberties and constitutional rights that we need to uphold. We condemn crimes perpetrated against the worst of us because those crimes can also happen to the best of us, and everyone in between. We don't get to pick and choose who is deserving of protection. The law is there to protect us all.

The Feds were fine, advised to redirect misplaced outrage over those being arrested trying to lay siege to and burn down a federal courthouse along with support from the local mayor+DA, with the Federal government stepping up to protect buildings (with people in them) in the city the city government won't. The law was there to protect people who work in these federal buildings, so if them being in unmarked vehicles arresting people makes some squeamish, oh well. 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

5 hours ago, Dashinka said:

What day is it in Portland?  And didn’t they take over a portion of Seattle?

What happened in Seattle or Portland did not involve conspiracy to kidnap a public official. If I am wrong, show me where it did.  It seems that any chance to distract from the fact that right wing terrorists even exist is causing some to take leave of common sense.

[Dashinka 24,438]

4 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

What happened in Seattle or Portland did not involve conspiracy to kidnap a public official. If I am wrong, show me where it did.  It seems that any chance to distract from the fact that right wing terrorists even exist is causing some to take leave of common sense.

Didn’t the Portland Antifa/terrorist groups show up at the mayors residence?  Didn’t the protestors/rioters in Portland and Seattle use lasers and incendiary devices to attack police (you know public officials)?  I fail to see the difference in these groups from an extreme standpoint.  They may be ideologically separate, but they have many of the same goals and both deserve the proper punishment.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

13 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

What is the last time a antifascist group in the US consipred to overthrow a government by kidnapping a public official? 

 

 

Wasnt that just this week ?