What part of “it is NEVER appropriate to gas or disappear people, and outside of self-defense, shoot people” that you fail to understand?
I don’t fail to understand your words. I completely disagree with your premise and position.
In my opinion,
- Do federal law enforcement agents have to identify themselves? Not necessarily, it depends on what they are doing. An off-duty LEO is under no obligation to identify themself. A plainsclothes agent is under no obligation to identify themself. However, until they identify themselves as law enforcement agents, they have no special privileges or immunities above that of a private citizen. Of relevance, an officer who has not disclosed that they are an officer is not privileged to make an arrest, except for a citizens arrest. This is because you have no way of possibly knowing whether you are being kidnapped or arrested.
- Do federal law enforcement agents have to carry something that identifies them as federal agents or law enforcement officers? Again, not necessarily. Definitely not for off-duty officers. Since we aren't talking about plainsclothes operations, it is imperative that the agents wear clear identification at least showing that they are law enforcement officers. People need to know whether they are being arrested by law enforcement or abducted by terrorists. Furthermore, people need to know what authority the officers represent. There are things federal agents cannot do, and there are things state agents cannot do, and it is imperative that the citizenry know which sovereign entity they are dealing with.
- The "Miranda warning" is not required by federal law. An officer may interrogate you without informing you of your right against self-incrimination and your right to an attorney. If you have not been informed of your rights, your testimony may not be used as evidence against you in a criminal trial. Repeat: federal law enforcement officials may lawfully interrogate you without informing you of your right against self-incrimination or your right to have an attorney present; but by doing so, any information gleaned becomes inadmissible in a criminal case against you.
- How long can people be held without being charged? The Supreme Court has ruled that arraignment must take place in a reasonable amount of time, which should be within 48 hours absent extraordinary circumstances. If the delay is 8 hours but the accused proves that includes an unreasonable delay of 6 hours while federal agents collected additional evidence, even the 8 hours can be unconstitutional. After 48 hours the burden shifts to the government to justify the delay. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991). Nevertheless federal law enforcement officers are not free to simply arrest and release anybody they please; false arrest is still a common-law tort, and federal law enforcement officers lose their qualified immunity if they violate a person's constitutional right to be free from siezures of their persons without probable cause.
~Max
What I said was an accurate assessment of the hypocritical and destructive protests. What is happening in Portland is nonsensical and those protesting are far more fascist than those they are calling fascist. It would be comical if it weren’t so serious.
‘Your honor, in the case of my client, The Federal Police Forces, I offer the Rubber/Glue defense. Which clearly states that whatever my clients are accused of, bounces off them and sticks to the accusers, The Hypocritical Protesters. If it please the court, this is a well established defense strategy that we all learned in Kindergarten Playground Law School. It clearly vindicates my clients and absolves me of any obligation of having to understand the meaning of the term, fascism, or how it may be correctly applied in this context. Furthermore, I establish my right to refuse to make cogent arguments or respond in meaningful and contextual manner to any part of the ongoing conversation. If it please the court.’
My imaginary position, you mean.
None of it. What makes you think I do?
Talk about Irony …
The emotional responses aren’t from the ones who think the police should be there …
Maybe they simply lack human empathy or approve of the junta style tactics being employed against non-violent protesters.
Or maybe their empathy is for the undue destruction caused from, within, the peaceful protests.
Yes , the people controlling the rioting need to work on targeting the rioters and not the peaceful protesters but if they cannot establish who is who and they order you to disperse, you should disperse.
I mean you can ignore the order if you wish but that comes at a risk.
Look, they’re only putting the black bags on people’s heads so that when they shoot them, with ‘’‘non-lethal’’’ weapons…in the head, the blood doesn’t get all over their cars and require an expensive cleaning!
The police are trying to save you money, try to be a little grateful!
CMC
I think each of the protestors should wear a label or armband that says “PRESS.” To match the labels on the camo suits that say “POLICE.”
Ah, so your interjection is “No u r!” to the least substantive part of my post. Thanks for your contribution to “great debate” 
I do not accept this premise. And you shouldn’t accept it either.
I may not know who set the trash bags on fire in the street. That does not mean I get to violently punish everyone in the vicinity as proxies for those who did. Which is what we are largely seeing and what is being widely reported.
The “substantive” part of your post was that the police should do nothing, meanwhile I had also see it said that people throwing things at them should garner no response.
I think to myself, are people really this stupid to think that defying a legally given order from the police is going to result in something POSITIVE? Much less an actual attack
No, I think putting myself in their shoes, if I could not determine who was who (not some made up ho hum I can’t determine) then I would order the entire thing dispersed, and if/when that order was ignored, then other steps are needed. What those steps would need be would be a direct result from the actions of the people disobeying the order.
Not every legally given order is ethical.
No. The substantive part of my post was that:
I did not say that “police should do nothing”. I explicitly said “there isn’t an easy answer.” Don’t attribute positions to me that you’ve made up, and that I haven’t taken.
I can see that having orders obeyed is a very important thing to you. Do you believe that all orders, as long as they are legal, are therefore equally appropriate? Once given, is enforcement of compliance justified under any/all circumstance?
The mayor of Portland was among those tear gassed last night at the protests. I’m sure he was looting something, or at least planning on it.
Then would you like to revisit the statement of 95% of the people having more of a right than the 5% who are causing the ruckus?