The events in Portland & the plan to take it nationwide

[Madisonianas]

The protests need to end. Call in the National Guard! They are attacking the federal court in Portland with IEDs!

[The Black Forrest]

The protests need to end. Call in the National Guard! They are attacking the federal court in Portland with IEDs!

*yawn*

[The Black Forrest]

He is partially correct. The Geneva Conventions of 1925 outlaws the used of poisonous agents in war.

In 1997 they added riot control gas in warfare.

It is untrue that the entire objection to tear gas is that it violates the Geneva Conventions.

Well? It does for war. Police using it is a different matter.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The protests need to end. Call in the National Guard! They are attacking the federal court in Portland with IEDs!

"National Guard, reporting. I hear you have some Icy Energy Drinks that need defusing?"

[Ifreann]

It is untrue that the entire objection to tear gas is that it violates the Geneva Conventions.

Well? It does for war. Police using it is a different matter.

Yes, I am aware.

[Salus Maior]

It is untrue that the entire objection to tear gas is that it violates the Geneva Conventions.

Well? It does for war. Police using it is a different matter.

It's better than the bayonets and live ammunition that they used to put down riots.

Hundreds died during the civilian riots of the Civil War.

[New Rogernomics]

It is untrue that the entire objection to tear gas is that it violates the Geneva Conventions.

Well? It does for war. Police using it is a different matter.

I'd say the problem with the narratives flying around right now is that what is legally permissible is down to the laws in place. Legally, as is supported by numerous national laws and supreme court decisions, federal property cannot be taxed by state, and is effectively under the direct authority of the federal government, with state government having no jurisdiction at all over federal property.

So if Democrats want to stop the Trump administration having the authority to deploy federal officers, officials, or employees, to federal property they will have to amend the constitution and repeal numerous existing laws to allow states to override federal jurisdiction. Though, anyone with recollection of history would realize how important it was for the federal government to be able to use federal authority over that of the states, especially during the civil rights movement.

Practically applied, if a single protester damages or seeks to damage federal property they can be arrested by federal agents or employees as starting a riot, and that can be used to justify arresting the crowd in or outside the property or nearby people who may be suspected of having involvement in an attempt to damage federal property. Being arrested is different from being charged though, and as far as the law is concerned you are allowed to hold and arrest US citizens, as long as you release them in a reasonable amount of time if you aren't charging them.

So the best idea for Democrats...go out and vote in November, as if you want the federal government to not oppose damage to federal property i.e. statues, buildings, territory, then that order would have to come from the federal government itself AKA so Democrats would have to hold the Presidency.

[Katganistan]

Change does take time, but should it?

The rate of change looks as though existing cops are not being improved or reformed, only that new cops are being inducted into a better culture while bad old cops are gradually retiring.

If that's so, the process could be greatly speeded up by inducting a lot of new cops (perhaps with promise of higher wages in future), booting out senior cops on the least suspicion of having been corrupt or covering up brutal conduct of the cops under them, and replacing them with the next down in rank. It would be generational change, but more swiftly than just waiting for retirements.

Mind you, I am biased by distrust of anyone in authority. Commanders who covered up brutality are worse than the junior cops who committed it ... like that.

It absolutely should take time. We must discern good ideas and practices from bad ones, before comit to an idea whole sale - lest our solution cause more issues than the problem.

So how many years should people wait? Last I heard the Civil Rights Movement started in the 1960s, yet people of color are still discriminated against and are brutalized by law enforcement more often than caucasians.

It's like every time there is a mass shooting and some politician says "Now is not the time to bring up gun control".

So when?

[Trollgaard]

Kate Brown, the governor of Oregon, has just announced a Phased withdrawal of federal troops.

Heard an interview with an exec in homeland security....they aren't going anywhere. The feds are within their rights. Oregon politicians are basically pulling publicity stunts.

[Kowani]

Kate Brown, the governor of Oregon, has just announced a Phased withdrawal of federal troops.

Heard an interview with an exec in homeland security....they aren't going anywhere. The feds are within their rights. Oregon politicians are basically pulling publicity stunts.

“After discussions with the Vice President and administration officials this week, the federal government has agreed to my demand and will withdraw these officers from Portland.”
Now, if you want to assert she’s lying, that’s totally fine, but then you’ll need proof. Or failing that, a very good reason.

[Trollgaard]

Heard an interview with an exec in homeland security....they aren't going anywhere. The feds are within their rights. Oregon politicians are basically pulling publicity stunts.

“After discussions with the Vice President and administration officials this week, the federal government has agreed to my demand and will withdraw these officers from Portland.”
Now, if you want to assert she’s lying, that’s totally fine, but then you’ll need proof. Or failing that, a very good reason.

Strange. That is literally opposite of what I heard on the radio tonight.

[Kowani]

“After discussions with the Vice President and administration officials this week, the federal government has agreed to my demand and will withdraw these officers from Portland.”
Now, if you want to assert she’s lying, that’s totally fine, but then you’ll need proof. Or failing that, a very good reason.

Strange. That is literally opposite of what I heard on the radio tonight.

Oh, that’s interesting.
Talking out of both sides of her mouth, perhaps?

[Purpelia]

So how many years should people wait? Last I heard the Civil Rights Movement started in the 1960s, yet people of color are still discriminated against and are brutalized by law enforcement more often than caucasians.

It's like every time there is a mass shooting and some politician says "Now is not the time to bring up gun control".

So when?

I am not familiar with american politics enough to say but it is is my understanding that the protesting stopped in the 60's and only picked up now with a big pause in the middle. That is NOT the definition of something that's been going.

[The Alma Mater]

So people should just be patient until they stop getting killed ?

Yeah, no. That is an utterly disgusting point of view.

What's disgusting is killing innocents and leaving communities in destitution because you dodnt get your way fast enough.

Well, that kinda depends on what "getting your way" and "fast enough" are, does it not ?

Not getting your burger within ten seconds after asking for it ? Yeah, violence bad.
Being systematically opressed and discriminated against for over 400 years and being told you should be more patient while the other party keeps shooting your kin... well, no. Heck, those ten second from the previous example are too long then.

[Ifreann]

Feds are trying to ban people they arrest in Portland from any protest, demonstration, rally, or assembly, as a condition of their release from jail.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Feds are trying to ban people they arrest in Portland from any protest, demonstration, rally, or assembly, as a condition of their release from jail.

That would be straightforward as a condition of bail, I think. Did these people have their hearing before a judge though?

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Feds are trying to ban people they arrest in Portland from any protest, demonstration, rally, or assembly, as a condition of their release from jail.

Good

[Militarist Caxico]

Feds are trying to ban people they arrest in Portland from any protest, demonstration, rally, or assembly, as a condition of their release from jail.

Good

How’s that good? Peaceful assembly is guaranteed by the first amendment, and cops shouldn’t be trying to take that away.

[Shazbotdom]

Feds are trying to ban people they arrest in Portland from any protest, demonstration, rally, or assembly, as a condition of their release from jail.

I smell a SCOTUS Case...

[Vassenor]

Feds are trying to ban people they arrest in Portland from any protest, demonstration, rally, or assembly, as a condition of their release from jail.

Good

First Amendment says fuck off.

[Ifreann]

Feds are trying to ban people they arrest in Portland from any protest, demonstration, rally, or assembly, as a condition of their release from jail.

I smell a SCOTUS Case...

Does seem a bit on the illegal side.

[Shazbotdom]

I smell a SCOTUS Case...

Does seem a bit on the illegal side.

Imagine the reasoning that the Federal Government would use to justify this. And the possible abuses, later on, to try and silence political opponents.

[Nuroblav]

Feds are trying to ban people they arrest in Portland from any protest, demonstration, rally, or assembly, as a condition of their release from jail.

In all seriousness though, this is gonna tough for them to justify without looking like suppressors, which seems to be the case anyway.

The protests need to end. Call in the National Guard! They are attacking the federal court in Portland with IEDs!

lol

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Does seem a bit on the illegal side.

Imagine the reasoning that the Federal Government would use to justify this. And the possible abuses, later on, to try and silence political opponents.

Assembly is specifically protected, that seems the most direct way to strike down the ban.

Restricting a political opponent from speaking in public by banning them from assemblies, however, wouldn't do much at all to limit their free speech. There are so many other channels for speech now.

[Shazbotdom]

Imagine the reasoning that the Federal Government would use to justify this. And the possible abuses, later on, to try and silence political opponents.

Assembly is specifically protected, that seems the most direct way to strike down the ban.

Restricting a political opponent from speaking in public by banning them from assemblies, however, wouldn't do much at all to limit their free speech. There are so many other channels for speech now.

True, but I was thinking in the terms of protests and peaceful assembly, sometimes a political opponent can use a peaceful protest as a medium to spread their ideology. Wouldn't banning them from a peaceful protest be in violation of the 1st? I honestly think that it would be.