sdd2000: RyogaM: dwrash: RyogaM: Sure.  If you convict the people who spraypainted the walls in a court of law with proof beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, you can. That's hundreds of trials, costing the taxpayers hundreds of dollars, which you won't be able to recoup in court costs and fines for grafitti.  That's going to cost more than just hiring someone to just clean it up.  You'd prefer to pay the cost for those hundreds of trials, many of which might find the defendant innocent, than just pony up for a powerwasher?  Not very fiscally conservative of you.

Municipal court costs very little... there is no need for this to go to county, state or federal court.  Pretty much exactly like a driving offense.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  Literally.

Someone needs to explain to the diaper rash the concept and costs of trial de novo from municipal court decisions.

Well there's the whole principle of deterrence so you don't have increases in vandalism and even more clean up costs. Also the vast majority of these would be pled out with no trial let alone a second one. Defense attorneys are expensive, especially if you're going to lose anyways

cannibalparrot: 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.

Would be hilarious if he charged them with kidnapping though.

Which is what it was.

You and the person you replied to just have no idea what's going on here do you? And not understanding the basic facts of the situation you go all the way to a County DA prosecuting federal LEOs for kidnapping? Just amazingly ignorant

cameroncrazy1984: dirkhardly: So a lot of people in this thread are just as ignorant as subby. Shocking.

The important thing is that you feel superior for no reason

Feeling superior for being right about basic facts? On an anonymous message board? Maybe you should work on putting less wrong, stupid shiat out into the world. Or did you want to defend the supposed value of you posting stupid, wrong shiat?

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.

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?

sdd2000: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

Which federal laws did they violate? Please identify them by U.S. Code sections counselor.

Everyone is seeming to make the same conflation, starting with subby. This County DA is talking about people arrested by state/local police on state/local charges. People arrested by federal LEOs on federal charges will have their fates decided by the Federal DA. There is no reason to believe any particular person belongs to both groups but it's certainly not impossible

cameroncrazy1984: 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.

They could have, but didn't.

I'm sure this conclusion was reached with the same rigorous mental processes you've shown so far, i.e. pulled right out of your ass

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

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

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

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

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?

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)

Hyjamon: PanicAttack: Not to mention the Feds repeatedly violated their restraining order by targeting the press with weapons, trying to prevent them from recording events, and in some cases, arresting them without cause.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/f​ederal-agents-shoot-portland-reporter-​hours-after-judge-issues-restraining-o​rder-to-protect-journalists-during-pro​tests/

I could use some clarification on this.

How are the Feds supposed to know who is a journalist, press or media vs. a yelp blogger?

Is it because they have a camera?  microphone?  wearing a shirt that says "press"?  they printed a press badge and put it on a lanyard?

if so, then just have everyone at the protest wear a shirt that says "press"?

This aspect of the Freedom of the Press isn't actually clear and doesn't have a lot of case law or a clear rule. As of now it is not clear if members of the Press have any greater right of access to these situations than the general public, especially given something like a lawful order to disperse. This could very well make its way through the Courts and the modern nature of mass media and public access to the means to publish will certainly have an impact

So a lot of people in this thread are just as ignorant as subby. Shocking.

Mikey1969: 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.

And how would you, or any observer, know that they were arresting people "randomly" genius? Did the feds announce that they were doing so? How could anyone possibly know whether they had previously identified someone as a suspect in a federal crime before the arrest was made? Did you put one moment of critical thought into this before just accepting what you wanted to be true as factual?

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?

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

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?

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

Hyjamon: dirkhardly: This aspect of the Freedom of the Press isn't actually clear and doesn't have a lot of case law or a clear rule. As of now it is not clear if members of the Press have any greater right of access to these situations than the general public, especially given something like a lawful order to disperse. This could very well make its way through the Courts and the modern nature of mass media and public access to the means to publish will certainly have an impact

thanks.  I have seen embeds where the press labelled body armors in battlefields, which may allow them to be captured rather than killed.

I also remember a Vice report about Ukraine/Russia conflict.  it was at a place where the two forces were at a standoff across a bridge or small patch of land.  reporters interview people on one side then cross the zone of conflict to the other and interview them.  it was wild and ballsy of the reporters to rely on that "press" label to safely cross.

Your instinct on the blurring of the lines between the Press and public is spot on and it'll be interesting to see how that comes out. We've come a long way from when your only real option was to find a printing press. And that line has become especially blurred in the last decade or so and the law hasn't really kept up. Then again it hasn't really needed to do so urgently but it's looking like that may change

Langdon_777: Hang on.  So those "feds" that kidnapped people, need the local AG to press the charges?  If the AG will not press those charges, doesn't that make what those "feds" did kidnapping?

No, federal charges would be in the hands of the relevant Federal District Attorney anyways. This has nothing to do with people arrested by federal LEOs and the County DA has no say whatsoever. As pretty par for the course, subby is dumb

zbtop: dirkhardly: Mikey1969: 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.

And how would you, or any observer, know that they were arresting people "randomly" genius? Did the feds announce that they were doing so? How could anyone possibly know whether they had previously identified someone as a suspect in a federal crime before the arrest was made? Did you put one moment of critical thought into this before just accepting what you wanted to be true as factual?

Man you must really be waiting around a lot, you're still here arguing with people you ostensibly don't care about 2 hours later.

I was. Thunderstorm caused delays. Now have another 2 minutes. And you seem to have conflated "don't care what some people think about me" with "don't care if people put stupid, potentially toxic, stuff out into the political/legal world." I care that bullshiat gets called out, I don't care what the people who I call out think of me for doing so. Clearer?

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

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

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

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

sdd2000: dwrash: Langdon_777: Over a day later and I find you even less likeable than yesterday.

What the feds did in Portland was wrong and should never have happened, it was a dangerous overstep of federal power in a state's turf.

The federal building is not state turf, its like an embassy.. it is Federal Property.

And where the "arrests" all made within or on federal property by the unmarked federal officers or on the basis of some federal crime? Were the vans the people were pushed into on federal property? Were the people arrested taken before a federal magistrate within the 48 hours that Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79 (1994) and  County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) preemptively demarcates the timeline under Federal Criminal Rule 5 ?

I don't know. Do you have any evidence they weren't? Do you really think, given the checks in our system, that this could go unnoticed by everyone, especially the Courts, watching? Where has any arrestee or any attorney acting on behalf of a client made such allegations?

The Envoy: dirkhardly: And in the grown-up world I live and operate in, the legal world for instance, you don't spout bullshiat instead of facts or talk shiat without a reckoning.

Is that different to any other profession?  Odd that you seem to think it is.  I build corporate offices mostly.  You think that's any less rigorous than your profession?  It's odd how you haven't actually posted your credentials here.  Here's your opportunity, why should anybody take your yapping seriously?

What is your experience "in the legal world"?  Are you a lawyer?

Yes, yes it is. Much different. You obviously have no idea. For instance, when most people argue it's not in front of a neutral arbiter, the stakes are much lower, and you're not facing a trained professional with no other goal than to challenge everything you argue. Did you really need this explained to you?

The Envoy: As for "stay safe here in the comments", what does that even mean?!  Have you already gone ITG?  That wouldn't work out well for you.

You're the one who brought up the "real world" moron, do I need to connect the dots further. More context?

And you're completely wrong about my credentials. Over fifteen years since law school, married to a law professor. Hang out with a lot of lawyers and legal scholars on a regular basis. More importantly, you keep dodging the whole "prove anything I've said wrong" thing

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