Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Oregon District Attorney responsible for Portland: Just because Trump's brownshirt DHS thugs arrested a bunch of protesters doesn't mean I have to press charges against them   (npr.org) divider line
    More: Hero, Protest, Crime, Criminal justice, Police, Criminal law, Portland, Oregon, Misdemeanor, Demonstration  
•       •       •

2057 clicks; posted to Politics » and Main » on 12 Aug 2020 at 8:35 AM (11 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



196 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-08-12 12:29:38 PM  
I'll ask again:  Has everyone who was "disappeared" into an unmarked van been accounted for?

I assumed that the people being grabbed by pseudo-federal agents were going to be charged by the feds, not the locals.
 
2020-08-12 12:30:07 PM  

Bandito King: dirkhardly: Langdon_777: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.

Even if the offense is federal solely because it took place on federal land federal LEOs can arrest you for that offense pretty much anywhere in the US. And how do you know they weren't executing federal arrest warrants after probable cause was submitted before a duly sworn judge or magistrate?

Because that's not what Trump's sturmtruppers know how to do. We aren't talking about rocket scientists, hell you'd be right at home with them.

Your smokescreen is weak and your bit is tired. You spout ignorant shiat and pretend to be dropping pearls of wisdom. Get farked, liar.


Again show me where anything I've said is wrong or a lie. Are you seriously so stupid that you think all these LEOs and judges and DAs didn't exist and do these jobs before Trump was ever elected? It's funny how so many here react to actual facts. If they look like "pearls of wisdom" to you it's because you're so unacquainted with them
 
2020-08-12 12:30:10 PM  

dirkhardly: So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?


In my 17 years of practice as an attorney, it's meant 24-72 hours after arrest.  24 hours, Monday thru Thursday, arrested on Friday, expect to be before a judge on Monday.
 
2020-08-12 12:31:52 PM  

flondrix: I'll ask again:  Has everyone who was "disappeared" into an unmarked van been accounted for?

I assumed that the people being grabbed by pseudo-federal agents were going to be charged by the feds, not the locals.


They were all accounted for.  They have all been released.  Some were taken before a judge in the building and released on bond.  I can't recall what they were charged with.
 
2020-08-12 12:32:25 PM  

dirkhardly: It's funny how so many here react to actual facts.


That, or they're reacting to your charming personality.
 
2020-08-12 12:33:38 PM  

zbtop: dirkhardly: Bandito King: dirkhardly: And people who are alleging illegal arrests let alone anything legally resembling kidnapping, as far as anyone in the general public knows these federal LEOs could have identified protesters suspected of federal crimes, presented evidence of PC to a federal judge and were issued a perfectly legit arrest warrant. This isn't information generally available to the public (at least not initially) and yet look how many people keep claiming that didn't happen without any knowledge or evidence whatsoever. Probably the same kind of people who have no idea how federal vs state jurisdiction works.

That's adorable, you think police deserve the benefit of the doubt.

I do. And you'll find I'm in the vast majority, especially in the legal system. And that view is literally and exactly how our justice system works. Good luck on changing it

Having served as a foreman on a Jury and rendered a verdict in a criminal case myself (DUI case if that makes any difference) myself, listening to the initiating cop have to explain how he thought the driver ran a Red light when it was in fact a Yield lane, then pulled them over for driving *on* but not *over* the line for 50 feet, and having two other officers give directly contradictory testimony on multiple points during the DA's own questioning, and the DA not get any of those ducks in a row beforehand, you are substantially more trusting of these figures than you should be.


Benefit of the doubt /= believe under all circumstances. Look up "good faith" as a legal doctrine, among other examples. It's literally built into our legal system and legal systems around the world, for (at least some) good reasons
 
2020-08-12 12:37:03 PM  

RyogaM: dirkhardly: So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?

In my 17 years of practice as an attorney, it's meant 24-72 hours after arrest.  24 hours, Monday thru Thursday, arrested on Friday, expect to be before a judge on Monday.


Uh-huh. And could circumstances like a pandemic or rioting possibly change what is considered reasonable counselor? And do you know if any arrestees have in fact appeared in court or whether they have attorneys or have made deals with prosecutors? Do you have access to this information at all? And where are all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits? Plenty of time by now but we'll see
 
2020-08-12 12:41:55 PM  

The Envoy: dirkhardly: It's funny how so many here react to actual facts.

That, or they're reacting to your charming personality.


Their issue with my "personality" seems to be not wanting to be told they are wrong. Me, I blame them for posting wrong shiat without bothering to find out different. Not sure why people would defend posting wrong, dumb shiat and attacking people who correct you. Must be the whole "pathetically insecure" thing
 
2020-08-12 12:43:10 PM  

zbtop: Donovan Labella


He had to go back into the hospital this past week for another surgery.

https://katu.com/news/local/portland-​p​rotester-seriously-injured-by-federal-​officers-undergoes-another-surgery
 
2020-08-12 12:47:17 PM  

RyogaM: flondrix: I'll ask again:  Has everyone who was "disappeared" into an unmarked van been accounted for?

I assumed that the people being grabbed by pseudo-federal agents were going to be charged by the feds, not the locals.

They were all accounted for.  They have all been released.  Some were taken before a judge in the building and released on bond.  I can't recall what they were charged with.


So we can assume for now that those who bonded out were arrested with sufficient PC and didn't have their Constitutional rights violated can't we? Got any evidence of cases where it is otherwise?
 
2020-08-12 12:48:02 PM  

dirkhardly: sdd2000: dirkhardly: Langdon_777: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.

Even if the offense is federal solely because it took place on federal land federal LEOs can arrest you for that offense pretty much anywhere in the US. And how do you know they weren't executing federal arrest warrants after probable cause was submitted before a duly sworn judge or magistrate?

Because if these arrests had been based upon a warrant the requirement under the Federal Criminal Rule 5 require that " (A) A person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer asRule 5(c)provides, unless a statute provides otherwise."

So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?


The DOJ lists it as that day or the next day
"Either the same day or the day after a defendant is arrested and charged, they are brought before a magistrate judge for an initial hearing on the case. "

And what would you think makes it "necessarily" to delay past this as initial arraignment are available via electronic means and federal magistrates were available, in your vast legal experience, counselor?
 
2020-08-12 12:50:17 PM  

zbtop: GrizzlyPouch: The smart thing would be follow through with the charges.  Then you can make a very public spectacle of how ridiculous it was that the people were arrested in the first place and how little evidence there was of wrong doing.

A jury will have no problem acquitting, and everybody can point at laugh at how  Trump's SS nazied the ppl of Portland.

(Unless the evidence doesn't actually show that)

And at what cost to Taxpayers, the court system, the DA's time (and conviction record), all the cops having to be called in as witnesses, and the life disruption to the people being charged? For hundreds of misdemeanor cases?

No, dropping the charges is absolutely the right thing to do.


Ninety-something percent of convictions are due to plea bargains. Trials are the exception, not the rule
 
2020-08-12 12:52:37 PM  

dirkhardly: RyogaM: dirkhardly: So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?

In my 17 years of practice as an attorney, it's meant 24-72 hours after arrest.  24 hours, Monday thru Thursday, arrested on Friday, expect to be before a judge on Monday.

Uh-huh. And could circumstances like a pandemic or rioting possibly change what is considered reasonable counselor?


NO, it's highly unlikely.  In fact, some of the detainees in Portland appeared before a judge in the building and were released with a future court date and on bail.  In the cases you mentioned, the judges could take an initial plea by in court video.


And do you know if any arrestees have in fact appeared in court or whether they have attorneys or have made deals with prosecutors?

Yes, it's reported some have.  I have not heard of any attorney's making deals in Portland.  I do live in Ohio, but am part of the criminal defense community, and the criminal defense group I'm part of on facebook is silent on it.  If deals are being made, the defense bar association would be discussing it.

Do you have access to this information at all?

Some of it, yeah.

And where are all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits? Plenty of time by now but we'll see

Don't know.  Probably still gathering information, I imagine.  Maybe they are still in the negotiation phase.  I was in personal injury for 4 years.  We wouldn't file a lawsuit until it was absolutely clear that the negotiation was going no where or the statute of limitations was almost up.
 
2020-08-12 12:52:54 PM  

RyogaM: dirkhardly: So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?

In my 17 years of practice as an attorney, it's meant 24-72 hours after arrest.  24 hours, Monday thru Thursday, arrested on Friday, expect to be before a judge on Monday.


As someone who was on the finalist list as a federal magistrate I can tell you that the magistrates in a district are on call even during weekends (depending on the number in a given district it can be a once a month "gig" and in the old days you got a beeper and then would call in) to do an initial appearance and will normally not even allow it to go that long. But hey, dirk has years of practice in federal court so I am sure he will correct us (sarcasm).
 
2020-08-12 12:56:31 PM  

dirkhardly: RyogaM: dirkhardly: So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?

In my 17 years of practice as an attorney, it's meant 24-72 hours after arrest.  24 hours, Monday thru Thursday, arrested on Friday, expect to be before a judge on Monday.

Uh-huh. And could circumstances like a pandemic or rioting possibly change what is considered reasonable counselor? And do you know if any arrestees have in fact appeared in court or whether they have attorneys or have made deals with prosecutors? Do you have access to this information at all? And where are all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits? Plenty of time by now but we'll see


You do realize that the criminal docket and all appearances are available via the Pacer system don't you and that reporters can check that? Oh, you didn't learn tat when you got your GED-in-law? Also, I would think a person who was "arraigned" would know that they were arraigned.
 
2020-08-12 12:57:03 PM  

dirkhardly: RyogaM: flondrix: I'll ask again:  Has everyone who was "disappeared" into an unmarked van been accounted for?

I assumed that the people being grabbed by pseudo-federal agents were going to be charged by the feds, not the locals.

They were all accounted for.  They have all been released.  Some were taken before a judge in the building and released on bond.  I can't recall what they were charged with.

So we can assume for now that those who bonded out were arrested with sufficient PC and didn't have their Constitutional rights violated can't we? Got any evidence of cases where it is otherwise?


No you can't.  You can't assume anything based on what happens at a preliminary hearing on the charge.  The criminal defense attorney could have brought it up then, the judge could have overruled him, but he can still bring it up later.  You don't waive any defences by pleading not guilty at the preliminary hearing and getting a future court date and bonding out.
 
2020-08-12 12:57:52 PM  

dirkhardly: zbtop: GrizzlyPouch: The smart thing would be follow through with the charges.  Then you can make a very public spectacle of how ridiculous it was that the people were arrested in the first place and how little evidence there was of wrong doing.

A jury will have no problem acquitting, and everybody can point at laugh at how  Trump's SS nazied the ppl of Portland.

(Unless the evidence doesn't actually show that)

And at what cost to Taxpayers, the court system, the DA's time (and conviction record), all the cops having to be called in as witnesses, and the life disruption to the people being charged? For hundreds of misdemeanor cases?

No, dropping the charges is absolutely the right thing to do.

Ninety-something percent of convictions are due to plea bargains. Trials are the exception, not the rule


GrizzlyPouch was explicitly eferring to taking things through to Trial, and that's what I was responding to.

That said, even plea bargains, it's hard to see where it's worth anyone's time to deal with that many misdeameanor cases all at once.
 
2020-08-12 12:58:36 PM  

sdd2000: dirkhardly: sdd2000: dirkhardly: Langdon_777: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.

Even if the offense is federal solely because it took place on federal land federal LEOs can arrest you for that offense pretty much anywhere in the US. And how do you know they weren't executing federal arrest warrants after probable cause was submitted before a duly sworn judge or magistrate?

Because if these arrests had been based upon a warrant the requirement under the Federal Criminal Rule 5 require that " (A) A person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer asRule 5(c)provides, unless a statute provides otherwise."

So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?

The DOJ lists it as that day or the next day
"Either the same day or the day after a defendant is arrested and charged, they are brought before a magistrate judge for an initial hearing on the case. "

And what would you think makes it "necessarily" to delay past this as initial arraignment are available via electronic means and federal magistrates were available, in your vast legal experience, counselor?


That may be the norm, that doesn't mean that is what is necessary under the Sixth or that those norms are still in effect. I don't know. I have no idea how the Federal Courts there are operating right now. But since some defendants have apparently had their first appearance and bonded out what irregularities or violations of Rights are you even alleging or hinting at? And, most importantly, what evidence do you have?
 
2020-08-12 12:59:48 PM  

dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)


Their only jurisdiction was on/around the federal properties. They didn't identify themselves upon kidnapping citizens, and their reasoning was so suspect that the instant people demanded a lawyer, they were released.

These people had NO jurisdiction where they were operating from. They were there to protect federal property, that's it.
 
2020-08-12 1:02:02 PM  

sdd2000: "arraigned"


Got damn, do you know I forgot the term "arraignment"?  It was on the tip of my brain and I couldn't remember it.  I'm getting old.
 
2020-08-12 1:03:46 PM  

RyogaM: dirkhardly: RyogaM: flondrix: I'll ask again:  Has everyone who was "disappeared" into an unmarked van been accounted for?

I assumed that the people being grabbed by pseudo-federal agents were going to be charged by the feds, not the locals.

They were all accounted for.  They have all been released.  Some were taken before a judge in the building and released on bond.  I can't recall what they were charged with.

So we can assume for now that those who bonded out were arrested with sufficient PC and didn't have their Constitutional rights violated can't we? Got any evidence of cases where it is otherwise?

No you can't.  You can't assume anything based on what happens at a preliminary hearing on the charge.  The criminal defense attorney could have brought it up then, the judge could have overruled him, but he can still bring it up later.  You don't waive any defences by pleading not guilty at the preliminary hearing and getting a future court date and bonding out.


Yes you can presume, "for now" as I stated. If the arrest stands so far then one can presume that it is far more likely that the arrest is not so obviously flawed as to be apparent from the start, I.e. a complete lack of PC. And yet people here and in the media are arguing that these arrests are without legal justification when the available evidence shows the opposite
 
2020-08-12 1:08:07 PM  

dirkhardly: RyogaM: dirkhardly: RyogaM: flondrix: I'll ask again:  Has everyone who was "disappeared" into an unmarked van been accounted for?

I assumed that the people being grabbed by pseudo-federal agents were going to be charged by the feds, not the locals.

They were all accounted for.  They have all been released.  Some were taken before a judge in the building and released on bond.  I can't recall what they were charged with.

So we can assume for now that those who bonded out were arrested with sufficient PC and didn't have their Constitutional rights violated can't we? Got any evidence of cases where it is otherwise?

No you can't.  You can't assume anything based on what happens at a preliminary hearing on the charge.  The criminal defense attorney could have brought it up then, the judge could have overruled him, but he can still bring it up later.  You don't waive any defences by pleading not guilty at the preliminary hearing and getting a future court date and bonding out.

Yes you can presume, "for now" as I stated. If the arrest stands so far then one can presume that it is far more likely that the arrest is not so obviously flawed as to be apparent from the start, I.e. a complete lack of PC. And yet people here and in the media are arguing that these arrests are without legal justification when the available evidence shows the opposite


You can assume anything you want, I guess.  And, as has been previously mentioned, some people were taken into custody, not taken before a judge, and released when they requested an attorney, without being charged.  Those are the cases that present as an arrest without probably cause.
 
2020-08-12 1:08:32 PM  

sdd2000: dirkhardly: RyogaM: dirkhardly: So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?

In my 17 years of practice as an attorney, it's meant 24-72 hours after arrest.  24 hours, Monday thru Thursday, arrested on Friday, expect to be before a judge on Monday.

Uh-huh. And could circumstances like a pandemic or rioting possibly change what is considered reasonable counselor? And do you know if any arrestees have in fact appeared in court or whether they have attorneys or have made deals with prosecutors? Do you have access to this information at all? And where are all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits? Plenty of time by now but we'll see

You do realize that the criminal docket and all appearances are available via the Pacer system don't you and that reporters can check that? Oh, you didn't learn tat when you got your GED-in-law? Also, I would think a person who was "arraigned" would know that they were arraigned.


I am aware. I haven't bothered. And I don't believe hardly anyone ranting about unlawful arrests has either and of course it's their burden to bring evidence to support their claim. It's that whole "evidence" thing I was asking for when I asked if they had that information. And look, the fact that people had their first offense and bonded indicates the system is working pretty much like it always does. And full on JD, but go ahead try and actually prove anything I've said is wrong instead of ad hominem and irrelevant attempted gotchas
 
2020-08-12 1:10:30 PM  

Mikey1969: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

Their only jurisdiction was on/around the federal properties. They didn't identify themselves upon kidnapping citizens, and their reasoning was so suspect that the instant people demanded a lawyer, they were released.

These people had NO jurisdiction where they were operating from. They were there to protect federal property, that's it.


You are 100% wrong. Federal arrest jurisdiction extends to pretty much the entire US. And they are under no obligation legally to identify themselves more than they did
 
2020-08-12 1:15:27 PM  

sdd2000: RyogaM: dirkhardly: So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?

In my 17 years of practice as an attorney, it's meant 24-72 hours after arrest.  24 hours, Monday thru Thursday, arrested on Friday, expect to be before a judge on Monday.

As someone who was on the finalist list as a federal magistrate I can tell you that the magistrates in a district are on call even during weekends (depending on the number in a given district it can be a once a month "gig" and in the old days you got a beeper and then would call in) to do an initial appearance and will normally not even allow it to go that long. But hey, dirk has years of practice in federal court so I am sure he will correct us (sarcasm).


Fantastic. Very proud of you. Maybe the Courts in Oregon operated and still operate that way currently. Maybe not, because I've seen numerous Courts not functioning at all like they normally do, especially when it comes to scheduling. But it's irrelevant, the question is do you have any evidence of any Constitutional rights violations? Because that's the context we're operating in here and no one has presented one iota
 
2020-08-12 1:16:16 PM  
For our resident GED-in-law please read
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)


Where an arrested individual does not receive a probable cause determination within 48 hours, the calculus changes. In such a case, the arrested individual does not bear the burden of proving an unreasonable delay. Rather, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. The fact that, in a particular case, it may take longer than 48 hours to consolidate pretrial proceedings does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. Nor, for that matter, do intervening weekends. A jurisdiction that chooses to offer combined proceedings must do so as soon as is reasonably feasible, but in no event later than 48 hours after arrest.
 
2020-08-12 1:18:15 PM  

dirkhardly: Bandito King: dirkhardly: Langdon_777: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.

Even if the offense is federal solely because it took place on federal land federal LEOs can arrest you for that offense pretty much anywhere in the US. And how do you know they weren't executing federal arrest warrants after probable cause was submitted before a duly sworn judge or magistrate?

Because that's not what Trump's sturmtruppers know how to do. We aren't talking about rocket scientists, hell you'd be right at home with them.

Your smokescreen is weak and your bit is tired. You spout ignorant shiat and pretend to be dropping pearls of wisdom. Get farked, liar.

Again show me where anything I've said is wrong or a lie. Are you seriously so stupid that you think all these LEOs and judges and DAs didn't exist and do these jobs before Trump was ever elected? It's funny how so many here react to actual facts. If they look like "pearls of wisdom" to you it's because you're so unac ...


I think we just do not like you.  And you seem to be siding with the stormtroopers, who we also do not like.
 
2020-08-12 1:19:39 PM  

bluejeansonfire: cameroncrazy1984: RyogaM: Unless the DHS officers gave their full names and governmental identification on the arrest reports, either as the arresting officers or supposed victims, it would be a complete waste of time, anyway.  This was an intimidation tactic, nothing more.

And as such things go it completely failed

Trump's gestapo got beaten into a humiliating retreat by moms and hipsters.

Get f*cked, fascists.


And goddesses, they also got beaten back by goddesses.
Fark user imageView Full Size


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-12 1:19:57 PM  

RyogaM: dirkhardly: RyogaM: dirkhardly: RyogaM: flondrix: I'll ask again:  Has everyone who was "disappeared" into an unmarked van been accounted for?

I assumed that the people being grabbed by pseudo-federal agents were going to be charged by the feds, not the locals.

They were all accounted for.  They have all been released.  Some were taken before a judge in the building and released on bond.  I can't recall what they were charged with.

So we can assume for now that those who bonded out were arrested with sufficient PC and didn't have their Constitutional rights violated can't we? Got any evidence of cases where it is otherwise?

No you can't.  You can't assume anything based on what happens at a preliminary hearing on the charge.  The criminal defense attorney could have brought it up then, the judge could have overruled him, but he can still bring it up later.  You don't waive any defences by pleading not guilty at the preliminary hearing and getting a future court date and bonding out.

Yes you can presume, "for now" as I stated. If the arrest stands so far then one can presume that it is far more likely that the arrest is not so obviously flawed as to be apparent from the start, I.e. a complete lack of PC. And yet people here and in the media are arguing that these arrests are without legal justification when the available evidence shows the opposite

You can assume anything you want, I guess.  And, as has been previously mentioned, some people were taken into custody, not taken before a judge, and released when they requested an attorney, without being charged.  Those are the cases that present as an arrest without probably cause.


Assume based on the overwhelming weight of logic? I think I will. And, as I'm sure you know, just because charges are dropped that in no way means that the arrest was unlawful. It's that whole PC vs Reasonable Doubt thing if the reason why escapes you. And a defense attorney couldn't remember "arraignment"? Seriously?
 
2020-08-12 1:22:02 PM  

RyogaM: RyogaM: So, you supported an organization that threatened to violently attack people if they didn't do as you demand instead of calling the civil authorities tasked with maintaining order.  Who was that NAACP officials name, I'd like to talk to him.

Oh, hey, nevermind, I found it on the NAACP Pennsylvania website, under Pottstown.  I'll ask him myself.


Ask them about their own security force they deployed to the rally (a bunch of bouncers and bail bondsmen in black wearing their badges and armed) that patrolled the crowd.  They were having none of it.
 
2020-08-12 1:27:43 PM  

sdd2000: For our resident GED-in-law please read
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)


Where an arrested individual does not receive a probable cause determination within 48 hours, the calculus changes. In such a case, the arrested individual does not bear the burden of proving an unreasonable delay. Rather, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. The fact that, in a particular case, it may take longer than 48 hours to consolidate pretrial proceedings does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. Nor, for that matter, do intervening weekends. A jurisdiction that chooses to offer combined proceedings must do so as soon as is reasonably feasible, but in no event later than 48 hours after arrest.


Why do you keep attacking my credentials while posting such shiatty arguments? You do know how the "reasonableness" standard works under the law right? Do you think that the current situation might just change what is considered "reasonable" under the circumstances? And again, show me where I stated something incorrectly that you are ostensibly correcting? And, since you still don't seem to get it, I never stated that the feds had an unlimited time to bring arrestees before a judge. This has nothing to do with anything except people are alleging wrongdoing by the feds, including Constitutional violations, and have failed to produce any evidence of it whatsoever
 
2020-08-12 1:29:26 PM  

Langdon_777: dirkhardly: Bandito King: dirkhardly: Langdon_777: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.

Even if the offense is federal solely because it took place on federal land federal LEOs can arrest you for that offense pretty much anywhere in the US. And how do you know they weren't executing federal arrest warrants after probable cause was submitted before a duly sworn judge or magistrate?

Because that's not what Trump's sturmtruppers know how to do. We aren't talking about rocket scientists, hell you'd be right at home with them.

Your smokescreen is weak and your bit is tired. You spout ignorant shiat and pretend to be dropping pearls of wisdom. Get farked, liar.

Again show me where anything I've said is wrong or a lie. Are you seriously so stupid that you think all these LEOs and judges and DAs didn't exist and do these jobs before Trump was ever elected? It's funny how so many here react to actual facts. If they look like "pearls of wisdom" to you it's because you're so unac ...

I think we just do not like you.  And you seem to be siding with the stormtroopers, who we also do not like.


See it's a problem when people view introducing facts as taking a side. And I give zero farks what people who are much stupider than me and talk a lot of shiat from behind a keyboard think
 
2020-08-12 1:33:35 PM  

dirkhardly: See it's a problem when people view introducing facts as taking a side. And I give zero farks what people who are much stupider than me and talk a lot of shiat from behind a keyboard think


And yet you seem to be going out of your way to spend a lot of time on Fark responding, often in detail, to every post you think is stupid and talking shiat.

Strange about that.
 
2020-08-12 1:33:51 PM  

dirkhardly: sdd2000: For our resident GED-in-law please read
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)


Where an arrested individual does not receive a probable cause determination within 48 hours, the calculus changes. In such a case, the arrested individual does not bear the burden of proving an unreasonable delay. Rather, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. The fact that, in a particular case, it may take longer than 48 hours to consolidate pretrial proceedings does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. Nor, for that matter, do intervening weekends. A jurisdiction that chooses to offer combined proceedings must do so as soon as is reasonably feasible, but in no event later than 48 hours after arrest.

Why do you keep attacking my credentials while posting such shiatty arguments? You do know how the "reasonableness" standard works under the law right? Do you think that the current situation might just change what is considered "reasonable" under the circumstances? And again, show me where I stated something incorrectly that you are ostensibly correcting? And, since you still don't seem to get it, I never stated that the feds had an unlimited time to bring arrestees before a judge. This has nothing to do with anything except people are alleging wrongdoing by the feds, including Constitutional violations, and have failed to produce any evidence of it whatsoever


Please read
Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79 (1994)

Which negates your "shiatty argument" there is no basis for claiming a constitutional violation for those who were released as soon as they asked for lawyers without a an "initial appearance" or "arraignment", and in particular Justice Ginsberg's majority opinion which indicated " County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. 44 (1991), the Nevada Supreme Court recognized, made specific the probable-cause promptness requirement of Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975); McLaughlin instructed that a delay exceeding 48 hours presumptively violates the Fourth Amendment." (at page 83)

Oh and what exactly are your credentials, are you claiming a J.D.? An L.L.M.?
 
2020-08-12 1:39:49 PM  

dirkhardly: You are 100% wrong. Federal arrest jurisdiction extends to pretty much the entire US.


For federal crimes. Not for standing on the street.


And they are under no obligation legally to identify themselves more than they did

You mean, by not identifying themselves? Got it.
 
2020-08-12 1:41:48 PM  

sdd2000: dirkhardly: sdd2000: For our resident GED-in-law please read
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)


Where an arrested individual does not receive a probable cause determination within 48 hours, the calculus changes. In such a case, the arrested individual does not bear the burden of proving an unreasonable delay. Rather, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. The fact that, in a particular case, it may take longer than 48 hours to consolidate pretrial proceedings does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. Nor, for that matter, do intervening weekends. A jurisdiction that chooses to offer combined proceedings must do so as soon as is reasonably feasible, but in no event later than 48 hours after arrest.

Why do you keep attacking my credentials while posting such shiatty arguments? You do know how the "reasonableness" standard works under the law right? Do you think that the current situation might just change what is considered "reasonable" under the circumstances? And again, show me where I stated something incorrectly that you are ostensibly correcting? And, since you still don't seem to get it, I never stated that the feds had an unlimited time to bring arrestees before a judge. This has nothing to do with anything except people are alleging wrongdoing by the feds, including Constitutional violations, and have failed to produce any evidence of it whatsoever

Please read
Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79 (1994)

Which negates your "shiatty argument" there is no basis for claiming a constitutional violation for those who were released as soon as they asked for lawyers without a an "initial appearance" or "arraignment", and in particular Justice Ginsberg's majority opinion which indicated " County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. 44 (1991), the Nevada Supreme Court recognized, made specific the probable-cause promptness requirement of Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975); McLaughlin instructed that a delay exceeding 48 hours presumptively violates the Fourth Amendment." (at page 83)

Oh and what exactly are your credentials, are you claiming a J.D.? An L.L.M.?


Uh...false arrest/imprisonment is in fact a violation of Constitutional Rights. And again, would-be Magistrate, why do you keep posting these to rebut a claim I never made?Go ahead, quote my post and why you think this rebuts it
 
2020-08-12 1:43:38 PM  

Mikey1969: dirkhardly: You are 100% wrong. Federal arrest jurisdiction extends to pretty much the entire US.

For federal crimes. Not for standing on the street.


And they are under no obligation legally to identify themselves more than they did

You mean, by not identifying themselves? Got it.


You mean like vandalizing federal property, trespassing on federal property and assault/battery on fed officers? Yeah once they have PC for any of those they can arrest you anywhere in the country. You are factually wrong. Give up
 
2020-08-12 1:44:46 PM  

Mikey1969: dirkhardly: You are 100% wrong. Federal arrest jurisdiction extends to pretty much the entire US.

For federal crimes. Not for standing on the street.


And they are under no obligation legally to identify themselves more than they did

You mean, by not identifying themselves? Got it.


They had police patches on their front and back.  No names though because of doxing.

And that is really what this is about, the police are not giving you the same opportunity that the police were given.  Idiot protesters posting YouTube videos that the feds now have a team of people working through and arresting all the idiots that appear on the videos committing crimes.

Deliciously ironic.
 
2020-08-12 1:49:03 PM  

dirkhardly: Oh and what exactly are your credentials, are you claiming a J.D.? An L.L.M.?

Uh...false arrest/imprisonment is in fact a violation of Constitutional Rights. And again, would-be Magistrate, why do you keep posting these to rebut a claim I never made?Go ahead, quote my post and why you think this rebuts it


And your answer to my question about your credentials is what again? It seems to be missing from your reply counselor.
 
2020-08-12 1:54:03 PM  

dwrash: Mikey1969: dirkhardly: You are 100% wrong. Federal arrest jurisdiction extends to pretty much the entire US.

For federal crimes. Not for standing on the street.


And they are under no obligation legally to identify themselves more than they did

You mean, by not identifying themselves? Got it.

They had police patches on their front and back.  No names though because of doxing.

And that is really what this is about, the police are not giving you the same opportunity that the police were given.  Idiot protesters posting YouTube videos that the feds now have a team of people working through and arresting all the idiots that appear on the videos committing crimes.

Deliciously ironic.


O_o They black-bagged people that were in in the area, literally between the courthouse and justice center (and ultimately had to release at least one without charge as soon as they asked for a lawyer), the Feds aren't going through YouTube videos and arresting people after the fact days/weeks later, especially after being told to stay the fark off our streets, there hasn't been a federal arrest in almost two weeks.
 
2020-08-12 1:54:22 PM  

zbtop: dirkhardly: See it's a problem when people view introducing facts as taking a side. And I give zero farks what people who are much stupider than me and talk a lot of shiat from behind a keyboard think

And yet you seem to be going out of your way to spend a lot of time on Fark responding, often in detail, to every post you think is stupid and talking shiat.

Strange about that.


I'm waiting for something and have the time to take 2 minutes per post or so and it's amusing. Also, I'm generally against making the world a stupider place because it leads to bad shiat. I'm perfectly content to post facts in a neutral manner but the usual crowd of sad man-children have to come out flailing when threatened and insist on endlessly piling on to their initial stupidity
 
2020-08-12 1:56:58 PM  

Truck Fump: WTF dude? Do your damn job! (unless, of course, you're being ordered not to, then tell us who is ordering you)

Guess we have to leave this to the ACLU


What you did there, I see it.

I give you a 7/10 for that one.
 
2020-08-12 1:58:46 PM  

sdd2000: dirkhardly: Oh and what exactly are your credentials, are you claiming a J.D.? An L.L.M.?

Uh...false arrest/imprisonment is in fact a violation of Constitutional Rights. And again, would-be Magistrate, why do you keep posting these to rebut a claim I never made?Go ahead, quote my post and why you think this rebuts it

And your answer to my question about your credentials is what again? It seems to be missing from your reply counselor.


Read upthread genius. Asked and answered. And someone as legally knowledgeable as yourself surely understands that my credentials have nothing to do with whether my legal analysis is right does it? Now are you going to answer my question and quote where I said something incorrect or answer my challenge and bring any evidence that the feds violated protesters' Constitutional Rights?
 
2020-08-12 2:00:30 PM  

dirkhardly: zbtop: dirkhardly: See it's a problem when people view introducing facts as taking a side. And I give zero farks what people who are much stupider than me and talk a lot of shiat from behind a keyboard think

And yet you seem to be going out of your way to spend a lot of time on Fark responding, often in detail, to every post you think is stupid and talking shiat.

Strange about that.

I'm waiting for something and have the time to take 2 minutes per post or so and it's amusing. Also, I'm generally against making the world a stupider place because it leads to bad shiat. I'm perfectly content to post facts in a neutral manner but the usual crowd of sad man-children have to come out flailing when threatened and insist on endlessly piling on to their initial stupidity


You've clearly been waiting a long time then as you've spent several hours in this thread making dozens of replies to multiple different posters. You obviously care at some level to spend enough time on Fark arguing with people you claim to not care about over reading a book, watching something on Youtube, catching up on Sports, playing a videogame, or anything else ostensibly a better use of your time ;)
 
2020-08-12 2:07:39 PM  

zbtop: dirkhardly: zbtop: dirkhardly: See it's a problem when people view introducing facts as taking a side. And I give zero farks what people who are much stupider than me and talk a lot of shiat from behind a keyboard think

And yet you seem to be going out of your way to spend a lot of time on Fark responding, often in detail, to every post you think is stupid and talking shiat.

Strange about that.

I'm waiting for something and have the time to take 2 minutes per post or so and it's amusing. Also, I'm generally against making the world a stupider place because it leads to bad shiat. I'm perfectly content to post facts in a neutral manner but the usual crowd of sad man-children have to come out flailing when threatened and insist on endlessly piling on to their initial stupidity

You've clearly been waiting a long time then as you've spent several hours in this thread making dozens of replies to multiple different posters. You obviously care at some level to spend enough time on Fark arguing with people you claim to not care about over reading a book, watching something on Youtube, catching up on Sports, playing a videogame, or anything else ostensibly a better use of your time ;)


The unfortunate thing is that if you don't quash this sort of thing early then these are the kind of people who will get louder and more forceful until we have either terrible laws and public policies or protests and riots. Maybe there is better uses of my time, but then I think that would be truer by orders of magnitude for all the people on here who aren't even right in the first place
 
2020-08-12 2:15:53 PM  

zbtop: O_o They black-bagged people that were in in the area, literally between the courthouse and justice center (and ultimately had to release at least one without charge as soon as they asked for a lawyer), the Feds aren't going through YouTube videos and arresting people after the fact days/weeks later, especially after being told to stay the fark off our streets, there hasn't been a federal arrest in almost two weeks.


Given that most agitators were/are from out of town I doubt you would hear much about any of them getting arrested back at their homes.
 
2020-08-12 2:17:46 PM  

dwrash: RyogaM: RyogaM: So, you supported an organization that threatened to violently attack people if they didn't do as you demand instead of calling the civil authorities tasked with maintaining order.  Who was that NAACP officials name, I'd like to talk to him.

Oh, hey, nevermind, I found it on the NAACP Pennsylvania website, under Pottstown.  I'll ask him myself.

Ask them about their own security force they deployed to the rally (a bunch of bouncers and bail bondsmen in black wearing their badges and armed) that patrolled the crowd.  They were having none of it.


If he responds to me email, I will.
 
2020-08-12 2:23:49 PM  

dwrash: zbtop: O_o They black-bagged people that were in in the area, literally between the courthouse and justice center (and ultimately had to release at least one without charge as soon as they asked for a lawyer), the Feds aren't going through YouTube videos and arresting people after the fact days/weeks later, especially after being told to stay the fark off our streets, there hasn't been a federal arrest in almost two weeks.

Given that most agitators were/are from out of town I doubt you would hear much about any of them getting arrested back at their homes.


In other words, as you'd have no way of knowing if that's happening or not either, and isn't related to officers arresting people on the streets without ID, you're just making stuff up.
 
2020-08-12 3:03:46 PM  

dirkhardly: Mikey1969: dirkhardly: You are 100% wrong. Federal arrest jurisdiction extends to pretty much the entire US.

For federal crimes. Not for standing on the street.


And they are under no obligation legally to identify themselves more than they did

You mean, by not identifying themselves? Got it.

You mean like vandalizing federal property, trespassing on federal property and assault/battery on fed officers? Yeah once they have PC for any of those they can arrest you anywhere in the country. You are factually wrong. Give up


Not at all. I mean the people they were randomly picking up blocks away from the protests, as has been widely covered.

Nice try, though.
 
2020-08-12 3:44:02 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


OMG you are right! That building is far too not-on-fire and not-in-smoking-ruin! Do better protestors.

/trash and paint, the HORROR!
//were this a just world it would be blood and the bodies of fascists
 
Displayed 50 of 196 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.