Videos Show How Federal Officers Escalated Violence in Portland
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Specifically, the courthouse attacks absolutely and without a doubt preceded Federal response. These were not peaceful protests that the Federal action prodded into violence.
Consider the timeline.
May 29: A vigil in North Portland is followed later in the evening by a march downtown. A small group breaks into the Justice Center and sets a fire. Several businesses, including the Apple Store, are looted. Police declare a riot and arrest 13 people.
May 30: Mayor Ted Wheeler declares a state of emergency and announces a citywide 8 p.m. curfew. A large protest at the Justice Center turns ugly, more businesses are looted, and more illegal fires are set. The protest ends after police tear gas the crowd. Fifty-one people are arrested.
............
July 4th: Federal police response begins in Portland.
May 31st: Looting and fire at Justice Center, adjacent to federal courthouse: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=25081...
June 27th: Some feds arrive in response: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/07/evidence-shows-portl...
Portland Police has been catching and releasing these rioters for over 50+ days because the DA refuses to prosecute. The mayor is the police commissioner of Portland and he recently came out to stand with the people attacking federal law enforcement. The city council is even more radical than the mayor. The local government and state government have done nothing to suppress the riots and arguably are aiding and abetting the actions of a violent and vocal minority of citizens.
The omission of the recent history of the violent actions of many of the "protestors" in Portland is shocking to see. Only conservative news organizations are making any mention of what is going on. Outlets like CNN, ABC, NYTimes, WPost, etc. have been silent until the recent actions taken by federal law enforcement. When they have talked about now, the coverage has been anything but even handed and has veered into gaslighting and willful blindness. Anyone who tries to speak out about this on Twitter is attacked en masse. Unless you go looking for a different opinion, you likely have no idea what is really going on.
In a free democracy that values the right to peaceful protest, law enforcement and political leaders have to ask the best way to preserve that essential right for all citizens while keeping the peace. The question I would rhetorically ask—because the answer is fairly obvious—is whether sending poorly trained agents armed with lethal weapons and, apparently, improper instruction on probable cause to "keep the peace" achieves that end.
It's easy—and correct—to condemn acts of violence by protestors. But in a free democracy, we should hold the armed representatives of the people's government to a higher standard than we do a mass of protestors, among whom there are, no doubt, some provocateurs and law breakers.
This isn't an either/or proposition. One need not defend brick-throwers or arsonists in order to condemn arrest-without-probable-cause or the use of "less lethal" munitions against bystanders. That false dichotomy is what authoritarian regimes use to try to justify the wildly inappropriate—and, in the US, illegal—use of force to put down political opposition.
But even if we take that as a given, it seems to me that everyone wearing the same color clothing—and thus it being harder for the officers to distinguish protestors from each other—works against the probable cause argument, and not in its favor. I'm far from an expert on this, but my understanding is that in some (most?) applications of probable cause, individualized suspicion is a requirement; if officers are unable to distinguish protestors from each other, it seems like that would make it harder for them to meet the necessary standard to justify an arrest.
The argument that innocent protestors didn't make it easy for the police to distinguish them from criminals in their midst does not seem like it modifies the probable cause requirement; officers can't go around arresting (or, worse, using violence against) peaceful protestors simply because the officers are unable to easily identify the minority who are lawbreakers in their midst.
1. FEDs intervening in Portland - legitimate + legal or not? Honestly, don't know. It seems a bit shady to me with regard to extending actions beyond federal buildings for which there is a mandate but I leave that decision to people who actually know about it.
2. FEDs without identification - necessary precaution or authoritarian overreach? Police accountability is key for peaceful coexistence in a democratic society. There are options between "no identification" and "full transparency". If you want it as a government, you can do it.
3. FEDs approach to the protests - necessary use of force or escalating violence? It seems like an overreach to me. From what I've known to be the standard, there are protocols officers are obliged to follow, established practices on how to deal with protests and most importantly, the deployed forces are trained and equipped properly as well - of course I'm assimng the best of all situations here. It's gross neglient deploying officers that lack experience with these kind of situations and assume everything will be just getting fine. Not excusing anything or anyone but protests are particularly stressful for the police as well and even under the best circumstances the use of force does not always meet the standards.
That said, I agree with you that the NYT video does not cover the whole story if the story is sending federal forces to Portland. If the story is the lack of transparency and the way federal forces deal with the protests then it's fine. Public officials have to be held to a higher standard than violent and/or rioting civilians - in particular, if violent protesters are not the majority of the people participating what seems to be the case here.
The video is littered with such acts. I mean, they teargassed the mayor on purpose.
If the Feds really wanted to calm things down they'd leave. Sure, things were bad two months ago, but this is only escalating things now. It's much worse now, and only getting more out of control.
But then, we all know that's the point.
The police should be held to a much higher standard, considering the power they have. And it's not like, globally speaking, they haven't developed sophisticated methods of containing violence or rooting out the 'evil-doers'.
The danger of police being unaccountable (unmarked vans, etc.) as well as unreasonable violent using 'less-lethal' weaponry, well, that's vastly more dangerous to a functioning state than a huge group of disparate protestors that include some violent extremists that, from what I can tell, for the most part haven't actually murdered or severely injured civilians. The police have.
Of course, all that is assuming that the police generally does a wonderful job maintaining the peace. Considering that the whole reason for these protests and riots is police brutality, and rightly so, I find it difficult to be on the side of whatever the police are claiming to be doing.
I've seen The Wire. I've seen LA Confidential. I've read articles. I've also personally experienced US police in action when I spent a few months in Texas, and it was upsetting.
While I'm sure there's plenty to say about Dutch police, for example, if I am lost, or I need help, they're the 'helpers' that I approach. In Texas, I felt almost as scared of approaching the police as I did approaching the machine-gun wielding police I encountered in Sao Paulo. That just feels wrong.
So however bad or exaggerated the particulars might be, it really does seem like the US police system is due for some serious overhauls. The police should be the guys representing peace and enforcing it, all the issues one might have with it aside. If it can't even do that and instead make a significant part of the population (much of it minority/black) fear their lives, that should be reason enough to demand change. No matter whether you're 'right' or 'left'.
From my perspective, the US is run by right-wing nutjobs, for many of whom the 'quacks like a duck' applies in regards to racism. Their primary opponents are marginally better, but still at best center-right from my European perspective.
It's mind-bogglingly weird to me that universal health care is relatively well-supported, but in the democratic upper echelons a no-go. It's mind-boggling that the very best democratic candidate is not only someone who clearly seems to be suffering from old-age ailments, but someone who historically has been basically a republican democrat.
News generally reports within the spectrum provided to it, I believe. I'm becoming more and more convinced that news just mostly regurgitates and chews on whatever the politicians and lobbyists provide them with. They /react/, more than anything.
But if the range of discussion, whether defined by politicians or the media, is all much further right than what would be considered reasonable in most of Europe, what does it even mean to be 'reasonable' and hold a 'center' position?
Again, I liked your comment and am absolutely not trying to be antagonistic, but to me it's just really confusing to hear reasonable people here and reasonable people there consider the 'reasonable' thing to be wildly different. I'd have to conclude that either Europe or the US has gone mad, but they can't both be 'reasonable' and 'center'.
Obviously what you get after it is more chaos and vandalism. But, is it fair to blame protesters for it?
The argument isn't that there is no chaos happening right now, or that there was zero vandalism before this. The argument is that it was mostly peaceful before. And question is what turned that into this chaos?
This requires root cause analysis. There are some big criticism against riot control tactics in general. Lots of experts are discussing it.
You build wide streets and invest less in public transport. What you get is traffic. Now, is it fair to blame drivers for it?
I'm also not sure what the proposed solution is here. Should we have police that do nothing or simply no police at all? I don't see how that is workable in any situation, I don't want to strawman your position though so please explain what response police should have to destruction of private and public property or assaults upon their person.
> You build wide streets and invest less in public transport. What you get is traffic. Now, is it fair to blame drivers for it?
I think this is a bad analogy, traffic is to streets as protests are to freedom of assembly not to police presence. I don't agree with the implied argument that riot police cause riots. For one, truly authoritarian countries have much more brutal riot control tactics and generally have fewer riots. Iran is probably a good example. My guess would be unemployment would have a stronger correlation to number of riots.
If law enforcement refuses to identify themselves and also, you need to obey the orders of law enforcement but don't need to obey the orders of persons who dress up as law enforcement.. What happens next? For all they know, it could be some random "team" claiming to be a part of the executive branch.
If you resist arrest from someone claiming to be law enforcement but actually isn't, then there's no problem.
If you resist arrest from someone who says they are law enforcement but refuses to prove it, would you still be charged with resisting arrest?
It seems like a catch-22 for the citizen.
You can see this in the following picture but the article still has the title: "Unidentified Federal Agents Are Detaining Protesters in Portland"
https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/103/7d8/36268f7317b3d89f028b...
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/unidentified-federal...
Why is no one asking in good faith why federal law enforcement might feel like they need to take these kinds of actions? Police have been being doxxed for weeks now. "Protestors" show up at the houses of local officials across the country and graffiti, vandalize, and threaten officials. In the case of Mayor Durkin of Seattle, she is a former prosecutor who will always live under the threat of being attacked and killed and these people doxxed her anyways.
Why does no one discuss how the local DA refuses to prosecute and forces the release of people who unilaterally attack police? Be fair and recognize that there are many people who are attempting to gaslight through social media.
A group of people in camo come running up. It doesn’t say POLICE or DHS or SWAT or anything in giant letters on their front, back, or helmet. What are people supposed to do? Ask? They refuse to identify themselves.
Are you going to let yourself be restrained and taken away by people you don’t know?
Impersonation of a law enforcement officer is a huge crime. Because citizens need to know. I would fight tooth n nail any added on “resisting arrest” or “assault of an officer” in these circumstances.
Look at the Breonna Taylor incident. Police executed a no knock warrant close it midnight. Ms. Taylor’s, not knowing what was happening, boyfriend opened fire. Police returned fire. She got killed. The boyfriend is charge with crimes against the police. Worse is the fact the cops were at the wrong house.
This invalidates any good point you're trying to make. Law enforcement is so much more powerful than random black block protestors.
Who gives a shit that they 'feel' like they 'need' to take these kinds of actions.
Taking these kinds of actions is /incredibly/ dangerous to a functional democracy, and unless we're talking about a bunch of black block people actively killing people and blowing up buildings, or whatever, it's /way/ more dangerous.
That said, what is and isn't a crime, and the punishment doled out for crimes (like resisting arrest when you are unsure they are police) is worth criticism. I don't think these protestors necessarily deserve felonies. But I haven't really seen people criticizing this; they seem more shocked that officers can enforce law with arrests and riot control.
If the officer’s can’t handle extra attention caused by blatantly identifying themselves as officers, they should pick a new profession. Because what they are doing now is just escalating an already bad situation.
And this is why no knock warrants are a scourge to society. Someone smashes your door down while you’re asleep, you respond with extreme prejudice. And don’t say “well you shouldn’t have been doing something bad” because I’ll point out Breonna Taylor where the cops no knocked the wrong door, so of course the boyfriend assumed someone was breaking in.
Patches that ID their department and have personally identifiable information.
The main difference is they are using multicam instead of black for the color. And the location of the id informatikn is on a shoulder instead of their breast (given plate carriers)
Sure they are using rentals/unmarked cars but they arent disappearing these people or denying them attorneys or violating habeas corpus
Heres an example
http://www.efreenews.com/storage/posts/July2020/0b57937515a7...
But I disagree that the actions of federal officers can be conflated with "tyranny", "atrocities", "overreach", "abduction", and "waging war" as has been done in this thread. It's called policing: criticize it as such.
As a complete outsider, what I see from actions from the unidentifiable armed police could somehow match what the CIA and their “contractors” did during the 2000-2010 decade.
I’m just thinking out loud here, I may clearly be off. But that’s something that always terrifies me when reading about US laws passed after 9/11, the potential for abuse against citizens is completely crazy.
I would be open to debating whether those methods of arrest should be used: I lean toward yes, and don't see them as anything similar to brownshirts or secret police, as these federal police merely arrest on probably cause, rather than affect punishment on false pretenses.
I would also be open to arguments about whether the federal police should conduct operations outside the grounds of their property, which I have heard others say has happened. I lean toward yes.
These are all signs of an authoritarian power grab.
In addition to that, you make a number of arguments with absolutely no evidence to back them up. You claim that the arrests are public record and completely on the level. There is no evidence of that. You claim that they arrest on valid probable cause. There is no evidence of that.
When people in military uniforms with no markings roll up in unmarked rental vans and refuse to identify themselves before taking away random protestors, that is a deliberate scare tactic and fear campaign.
As protestors, you do not know whether you are being taken by federal officers or by a far-right militia. You do not know where you will be taken or when (or if) you will be released again.
This is completely deliberate, and designed to instill a fear of protesting government injustice. There is a very good point to be made that this is a gross violation of the first amendment.
He's been doing a great job streaming for about 50 days.
From what I gather - listening to Brett Weinstein explaining things who again got it from a former DHS officer - those federal agents have observers on top of buildings who direct street level agents towards potential targets who engage(d) in actions deemed illegal. Those street level agents arrest individuals who are taken to some federal property where they are held for a few hours after which they are released, usually without being indicted. In a few cases people have been read their rights which would indicate they are to be subjected to interrogation. While having federal officers prowling the streets in unmarked vans gives off bad vibes of south-American 'disappearances' this has - at least thus far - not been documented. What is also clear is that the fact that local authorities allowed the situation to escalate to this level is inexcusable and is what eventually gave rise to these federal actions.
> Those street level agents arrest individuals who are taken to some federal property where they are held for a few hours after which they are released, usually without being indicted. In a few cases people have been read their rights which would indicate they are to be subjected to interrogation.
The NYT footage clearly depicts uniformed individuals without identification detaining protesters. When asked who they are, they do not respond. The bit about cars has been documented elsewhere, but is immaterial to the problem of identification and accountability: you can't expect people to react well when they don't even know who is arresting them, or why. I'm also personally alarmed that people are "sometimes" being informed of their rights, but we can save that for another discussion.
> What is also clear is that the fact that local authorities allowed the situation to escalate to this level is inexcusable and is what eventually gave rise to these federal actions.
The "local authorities" include the mayor of Portland and the governor of Oregon. Regardless of how one feels about the protests or their legitimacy, any proponent of state's rights should be very alarmed by the situation. They are elected officials representing their constituents, and in their own state their rights and desires should be respected.
I don't want to get into arguments about how trustworthy NYT is, but many of the things covered in the footage above have been confirmed and documented by many other news sources. Regardless of which one you trust, I think we can all agree that the situation could be handled much better than it has been and that regardless of what the federal response is, we need accountability at all levels of law enforcement.
May 31st: Looting and fire at Justice Center, adjacent to federal courthouse: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=25081...
June 27th: Some feds arrive in response: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/07/evidence-shows-portl...
https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/126713404017754521...
> Letting a demonstration be judged by its most violent participants but not judging a police force by its most violent cops is the language of the oppressor.
Calling them a "few feds' as if they were inconsequential is again disingenious. The problem is not their number but that they are not in uniform, they have no insignia and they kidnap people off the streets. https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unm... The big problem here, of course, is if white supremacists show up in "tacticool" gear and truly kidnap you to murder you then it'd be prudent to resist. But if these goons are actually feds then it'd be prudent not to resist. But you can't tell. Even just four feds behaving like this would be enough to create this unbearable situation. But beyond such practical concerns, this is the tactics of an authoritarian regime. This is why my so many of my friends in Portland joined the protests, this is absolutely not tenable.
I was born behind the Iron Curtain. Our phone was bugged. We knew. I know a ... little ... about authoritarian regimes and secret police.
See my comment in the sibling thread. The protests have been composed of both violent and peaceful members. While peaceful protestors far outnumber violent ones, violence does occur most of the nights between those two dates. Calling the protests peaceful is a lie and saying the federal police started the violence was a lie- it was well established there before they arrived.
> Letting a demonstration be judged by its most violent participants but not judging a police force by its most violent cops is the language of the oppressor.
I fail to see why this is relevant. I think the demonstrations are fine. I think the riots are not. I think the federal police can defend their federal courthouse from vandalism and breakins.
> Calling them a "few feds' as if they were inconsequential is again disingenious.
My mistake, I am willing to amend to "many". I used "some" as I do not actually know their number.
> The problem is not their number but that they are not in uniform, they have no insignia and they kidnap people off the streets.
Kidnapping is an exaggeration. It is an arrest. While I agree the uniforms are problematic, it doesn't make the act illegal.
> The big problem here, of course, is if white supremacists show up in "tacticool" gear and truly kidnap you to murder you then it'd be prudent to resist.
It's prudent to resist in any case where someone tries to arrest you without cause. That said, you may incorrectly judge whether or not they have cause, so simply listening to their orders since they are police is a better option. When you can't identify them as police, as you said, that is a problem. That said, the odds that you will encounter a situation where you are have unknowingly committed a crime and cannot identify the person arresting you as an officer are highly improbable. It's worth criticizing the officer's uniforms and approach, but going from that criticism to "tactics of an authoritarian regime" is a unfounded jump.
> This is why my so many of my friends in Portland joined the protests, this is absolutely not tenable.
Simple way for your friends to avoid arrest by the feds: don't go hang outside their courthouse while people throw shit at it.
> I was born behind the Iron Curtain. Our phone was bugged. We knew. I know a ... little ... about authoritarian regimes and secret police.
These aren't KGB breaking into your home at 3am for whispering some slight dissent to your third cousin- these are federal police arresting people for standing on the fed's doorstep and breaking shit. There is an obvious difference and I will be side-by-side with you when they actually start abducting people.
That said, where did you live and what did you experience? Why do you think the feds, who I see as arresting people for obvious acts of vandalism, are similar to a secret police, who punish people for spurious crimes without a public trial?
https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewMCrespo/status/128573800100...
[edit] read more of the twitter thread. It is speculative. If the speculation is proven then I agree the federal police were wrong in this instance.
Both the Philadelphia DA and a Manhattan DA candidate called it kidnapping.
https://lawandcrime.com/george-floyd-death/philadelphia-da-p...
https://twitter.com/elizaorlins/status/1285387834413715458
> don't go hang outside their courthouse while people throw shit at it.
Last night feds teargassed the crowd when they tossed a few beach balls over the fence.
June 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th all had violence from some protestors or unlawful assemblies declared by Portland police, according to this timeline which cites from primary sources: https://www.kgw.com/mobile/article/news/local/protests/prote...
June 14th also had an unlawful assembly declared, due to "incediary devices" being thrown. https://katu.com/news/local/portland-police-declare-downtown...
June 17-18 have reports of damage https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=25089...
June 20th had more of the same https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=25090...
The people making the arrests are wearing identifying marking as well as their badge number. Look at the man's shoulder where he is wearing a Border Patrol insignia with his badge number above it. You can see this in the original footage of the car based arrest.
https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/103/7d8/36268f7317b3d89f028b...
> The "local authorities" include the mayor of Portland and the governor of Oregon. Regardless of how one feels about the protests or their legitimacy, any proponent of state's rights should be very alarmed by the situation. They are elected officials representing their constituents, and in their own state their rights and desires should be respected.
I think of states as laboratories of our democratic republic where localities are allowed to craft approaches and responses that best fit their needs. This is a good thing.
It is incorrect though to defend states rights when the local government has allowed federal property to be attacked night after night without attempting to quell it. Federal police was not dispatched until the federal courthouse in Portland was breached by "protestors". If the state and local government refuse to defend federal property, what do you suggest that the federal government should do? And what does that say about those governments?
This is exactly what happened, and it is very sad to watch. The downfall of an institution. What is also sad to see is such a comment getting downvoted, on HN of all places. You‘d expect people to have read a history book or two, but apparently not. None of this woke stuff holds up to any intellectual standards, and is terribly damaging for everyone involved. Why the supposed „coastal elite“ falls for it I don’t know.
WaPo broke incredible, historic stories in its day. Today it's settling a $250M lawsuit against a teenager that they _aggressively_ defamed... for the crime of wearing a MAGA hat and an awkward smile. CNN already paid this kid and his family $25M...
These publications are rags today and I'm glad to have had the foresight to cancel my subscriptions when RussiaGate made it undeniably clear what direction they were moving.
Maybe the citizens of Portland should ask themselves why there are still riots every night and why their useless mayor is not putting a stop to it. What is his goal with this. Does he think there will be some peaceful revolution that will turn Portland into some sort of glorious marxist paradise where there is honey and unicorns for everyone. They will come for him next.
Five demands, not one less:
Full withdrawal of the extradition bill from the legislative process
Retraction of the characterisation of the 12 June 2019 protests as "riots"
Release and exoneration of arrested protesters
Establishment of an independent commission of inquiry into police behaviour
Universal suffrage for the Legislative Council and the chief executive elections
Pretty reasonable. Very relatable for anyone I'd say.
May 31st: Looting and fire at Justice Center, adjacent to federal courthouse: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=25081...
June 27th: Some feds arrive in response: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/07/evidence-shows-portl...
already happened https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1286201620120797185?s=2...
https://imgur.com/gallery/zJ6dNxf
That's the entirety of the protests in Portland.
Sending in unidentifiable federal officers in unmarked rental vans to snatch away protesters is gross and outrageous government overreach.
How will you know whether you're being taken by federal officers or a far-right militia? That is a deliberate tactic, to have people live in fear of an unknown fate at the hands of unknown assailants.
Talking about gross government overreach without honestly discussing the actions of the "protestors" is intellectually dishonest.
Soft times we live in when less than lethal riot control methods are considered on par with militarily executed genocides.
It's important to unpack this issue and disconnect the loaded politics from the reality on the ground. E.g. if exactly the same events were taking place but the crowd in question was far-right neonazies, would that change your opinion of what's going on? If so, then you need to unpack it and remove the political bias from your analysis.
I think any rational person can agree that a mob trying to burn down a courthouse is not okay in a civilised society, regardless of what mob wants to do it.
For starters, considering they are federal agents, they have likely been ordered away from their families to take care of a, let's say chaotic situation. They probably think, they have to take care of a mess others caused. They are not their citizens, but people they have few things in common. Finally, they are not received well. The demonstrators and they are different people.
You can see it in other countries too. Riot police from other regions are often a recipe for complications.
But legal, moral responsibility aside, I would just imagine it is a sucky job to go fight your own citizens. I wouldn’t be surprised if that ends up a breaking point: uniformed forces refusing to continue being part of this battle.
But maybe I’m wrong, hence my question.
In our state-funded news, the headline about US agents in Portland ran with the subhead "like a private militia". (our reporters may have become biased when US police fired upon them, too.)
There must surely be huge amounts of this already: wouldn't be nearly as much protest if it wasn't already well documented that cops and uniformed forces will blast their enemies with pepper spray and any weapon they're permitted to use. Humans simply don't fire pepper spray or projectile weapons at simple bystanders unless they're total psychopaths: what you see there is not so much a culture of total psychopaths, rather a group that believes the modern day equivalent of 'even the kids and old ladies are VC'.
And in so doing, they make it become true, which is why military handbooks on this subject instruct you to back off and yield whatever's being targeted. The dangers of mobilizing popular opinion against the military invaders is far greater than losing whatever is threatened.
In other words, if the protesters are trying to destroy the police station at Cable Street, there might be a reason why sending in feds to crush the rebellion by force will not work. It may simply underscore the problem in the minds of otherwise apolitical onlookers, and the pool of people available to join the opposition may be greater than you think, IF there's a reason to judge you negatively for siding with Cable Street and supporting their activities.
And it's possible that you don't know what Cable Street means, if you don't live there. But if you're uniformed forces from elsewhere, maybe the whole point is that you don't live there, and you're being selected to go in specifically because you don't live there and can be trusted to categorize your enemies as monsters simply because they are battling something you're told is good and righteous.
You can of course tell law enforcement officers short-term that they are fighting terrorists, criminals and maybe even the devil himself, but I suspect long-term it is much harder.
I hope they got weekend/holiday pay.