Court Blocks Federal Officers From Attacking, Arresting Reporters Covering Protests In Portland
from the seems-like-this-should-have-been-obvious dept
A surge of federal agents swept into Portland, Oregon in response to ongoing protests in the city. The city hadn't asked for federal help, but help arrived anyway. And it wasn't much help. The blend of federal agents -- drawn from the CBP, US Marshals Service, and ICE -- rolled onto the streets in unmarked vehicles. Out of these vehicles sprang agents dressed like soldiers, wearing no markings clearly identifying the officers or the agency they represented. Residents were taken off the street to unknown locations for questioning. They were later released and given no paperwork that informed them who had detained them or for what reason.
This federal intervention was immediately greeted by several lawsuits, including one filed by Oregon's Department of Justice. One set of plaintiffs has already secured a temporary restraining order against the federal government. (h/t Mike Scarcella)
Portland journalists sued the DHS -- along with the Portland Police Bureau, US Marshals Service, and the city itself -- over attacks on journalists and neutral observers by law enforcement officers. The federal agencies were added to the lawsuit shortly after they added themselves to mix in early July.
The court has granted the restraining order, finding that the government's actions pose a threat to multiple Constitutional rights. There's a history of violence against journalists by federal agents, detailed here in the court's order [PDF].
On July 15, 2020, Plaintiff Justin Yau, while carrying photojournalist gear and wearing clothing clearly identifying him as press, asserts that he was targeted by a federal agent and had a tear-gas canister shot directly at him. At the time he was fired upon, he was taking pictures with his camera and recording with his cell phone while standing 40 feet away from protesters to make it clear that he was not part of the protests. In addition, late July 19th or early July 20th, Declarant Nathan Howard, a photojournalist who has been published in Willamette Week, Mother Jones, Bloomberg Images, Reuters, and the Associated Press, was covering the Portland protests. He was standing by other journalists, and no protesters, as federal agents went by. The nearest protester was a block away. Mr. Yau held up his press pass and repeatedly identified himself as press. A federal agent stated words to the effect of "okay, okay, stay where you are, don't come closer." Mr. Yau states that another federal agent, who was standing immediately to the left of the agent who gave Mr. Yau the "okay," aimed directly at Mr. Yau and fired at least two pepper balls at him at close range.
Declarant Jungho Kim is a photojournalist whose work has been published in the San Francisco Chronicle and Ca/Matters, among others. He wears a neon yellow vest marked "PRESS" and a white helmet marked "PRESS" in the front and rear. He has covered protests in Hong Kong and California. He has experience with staying out of the way of officers and with distinguishing himself from a protester, such as by never chanting or participating in protest activity. He had never been shot at by authorities until covering the Portland protests on July 19, 2020. During the protest, federal agents pushed protesters away from the area where Mr. Kim was recording. He was around 30 feet away from federal agents, standing still, taking pictures, with no one around him. He asserts that suddenly and without warning, he was shot in the chest just below his heart with a less lethal munition.Because he was wearing a ballistic vest, he was uninjured. He also witnessed, and photographed, federal agents firing munitions into a group of press and legal observers.
Unbelievably, the federal government testified that it was unwilling to cease its violent acts towards journalists.
The Federal Defendants intend to keep dispersing journalists and legal observers. See ECF 67 at 20 (arguing that allowing journalists and legal observers to remain "is not a practicable option"). The actions by the federal agents described by Plaintiffs are part of a pattern of officially sanctioned conduct. The Federal Defendants argue that such conduct is necessary to protect federal property.
The government is begging for a restraining order and the court is more than willing to oblige. As it points out, the government is basically saying it is going to continue to do harm to people exercising their rights.
Plaintiffs, however, are not breaking any laws -- to the contrary, they are engaging in constitutionally protected First Amendment activity. It is one thing to ask citizens to obey the law in the future to avoid future alleged harm. But it is quite another for the Federal Defendants to insist that Plaintiffs must forgo constitutionally protected activity if they wish to avoid government force and interference.
Here's another one of the government's rejected pitches: let us violate their rights and they can sue us later. Not an option, says the court.
The Federal Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have legal remedies available, such as bringing a civil rights action or a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and thus a forward-looking equitable remedy is not appropriate. Backward-looking claims for money damages, however, would not provide the relief Plaintiffs are seeking. Plaintiffs desire access and the ability to exercise their First Amendment rights to observe and report on government misconduct.
Every one of the federal government's arguments fail here. And for very good reason: every argument sucks. The court knocks them down one-by-one.
The Federal Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have an alternative location, because they can watch from a few blocks away. This argument is without merit. Federal agents are using tear gas, which decreases visibility, and the protests are at night. Reporting from a few blocks away is not a viable alternative location.
The Federal Defendants also argue that closure is essential because allowing some people to remain after a dispersal order is not practicable and is unworkable. This argument is belied by the fact that this precise remedy has been working for 21 days with the Portland Police Bureau. Indeed, after issuing the first TRO directed against the City, the Court specifically invited the City to move for amendment or modification if the original TRO was not working, or address any problems at the preliminary injunction phase. Instead, the City stipulated to a preliminary injunction that was nearly identical to the original TRO, with the addition of a clause relating to seized property. The fact that the City never asked for any modification and then stipulated to a preliminary injunction is compelling evidence that exempting journalists and legal observers is workable.
And there it is: federal officers are blocked from arresting or physically harming reporters and observers. Reporters are not bound by orders to disperse. The government is forbidden from seizing any recording equipment unless the person is suspected of a criminal act. And if it does that, there's a long set of rules for how seizures must be documented and what steps must be followed before the government can gain access to the content of seized devices.
This is probably the best part of the entire order -- something that makes it clear federal officers aren't going to get away with playing dumb when they start violating reporters' rights.
Because the Court considers any willful violation of this Order, or any express direction by a supervisor or commander to disregard or violate this Order, to be a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and thus not subject to qualified immunity in any action brought against any individual employee, officer, or agent of the Federal Defendants under Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), notice of this Order must be widely disseminated.
The government may be rethinking its "well, they can just sue for rights violations" argument. Walking into a lawsuit effectively naked is no federal officers' idea of a good time. For the foreseeable future, the federal government will have to play by the rules it set: respecting the rights it supposed to be guaranteeing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, dhs, dispersal, free speech, journalism, journalists, portland, restraining order
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Another judge in dire need of cloning
It's very telling that the 'defenses' the government put forth are so incredibly weak and easy to knock down, in that it shows that there really is no good excuse, defense or justification for their actions as if there were they would have brought them up.
Well, it's either that or they're so used to judges going completely spineless the second a federal lawyer/agent walks into the room that they figured why waste time on coming up with non-existent good excuses when a pathetically weak one will do, but if that's the case looks like it blew up in their face quite nicely.
'No you are not allowed to black-bag and/or assault reporters for doing their job' really isn't a thing that should have needed to be said, and the fact that it is required just shows how utterly desperate and/or disgusting those involved, from those on the streets to those giving them their orders, are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's really telling...
"It's very telling that the 'defenses' the government put forth are so incredibly weak..."
It's very telling you can cite those incredibly weak argument, nor provide a strong counter. We have to accept your assertions on faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's really telling...
Or you could just click on the hyperlinked order and go read it for yourself if you can understand documents without pictures in them. Why does Techdirt or Tim need to provide a strong counter to any arguments the government raised when judge has done a much more thorough job?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, you mean this one?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7002898-MOSMANRULINGAGTROJULY24.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No need to destroy that which is already in pieces
It's almost as though I didn't bother to counter them because the judge already tore them to pieces, something that the terribly difficult task of reading the article would have demonstrated...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's really telling...
"If random strangers on the internet don't spin their wheels to prove what I want them to prove, the opinion of a federal court isn't valid!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's really telling...
...So that's why Baghdad Bob keeps asking us to tell him what the OP clearly spelled out in three different ways already. According to him facts presented in the OP just aren't valid unless we spend the time burning his strawmen, correcting his false assumptions by the boatload, and put a fuckton of his red herrings right back into the drink.
Now I get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps the Governor needs to deploy the National Guard to stand between the protestors and the federal agents, to protect the protestors from the federal government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In similar situations with right vs left protesters being separated by a police force, recent episodes have often devolved into the leftists battling with the police force. I forsee National Guard standing between protesters and federal agents having a similar result: federal property is protected, and the mob battling the National Guard. It would be a serious backfire for the Governor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think the Mayor might disagree with you, as he was gassed by the Feds attacking the protestors he was talking to. He is therefore aware of which side started the violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’mma stop you right there and ask you One Simple Question: If “right vs left” situations — e.g., a White supremacist rally and a multi-ethnic protest of said rally — end with the police force on the side of “right-wingers” far more often than not, what do you think that says about the police?
Could it happen? Yes. Would it happen? I can’t be sure one way or the other. I would like to think that the National Guard would protect people from being assaulted by police in military-grade tactical wear using weaponry that is legitimately banned from use in wartime. And I would like to think the mo—sorry, the peaceful protestors would welcome that protection, just as they’ve welcomed civilian “protection” from mothers and military veterans in recent days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Exactly. Just like the Georgia national guard fought the BLM protesters when they were called in to Atlanta. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAX2koq4mbs)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deploying the national guard
This would not be the first time a state national guard was deployed to enforce conditions not recognized by other law enforcement. In the past it was county and district departments that opined that order was theirs to command.
Granted, the President could deploy a state National Guard as army reserves, making them federal forces, but then they would be forbidden to act on US soil or against US forces. While some might anyway, each soldier is (supposed to be) educated about what they're allowed to do or not do so they can be held responsible for executing illegal orders.
(Yes, this creates a tidy snarl in which the troopers are fucked if they disobey illegal orders and they're fucked if they follow illegal orders. This will lead to an epidemic of fragged officers.)
The thing is, when we have units on the ground, law enforcement, military or otherwise, who are not identified, are not showing any of the requisite insignia, and are not identifying themselves or the agencies they represent, it gets really easy to decide who the wrongful units are.
In international law, soldiers out of uniform are spies, and it is not required to give them any quarter. (This is, incidentally, the basis of how the US decided it was okay to torture POWs, since the US didn't recognize irregulars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not that torturing -- even spies or assassins -- is appropriate conduct for agents of a civilized state.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That might me just a little over-simplistic...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/7/27/1964268/--White-supremacists-arrested- while-trying-to-amplify-protest-violence-Richmond-mayor-says
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"result: federal property is protected"
Ohhhh - is that what they are doing? Protecting federal property you say .......
I guess the old saying a good defense is a good offense is being employed here to justify the kidnapping of pedestrians off the street ... and doing god knows what to them - but so long as federal property is being defended then anythnig goes here - amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I picture a line of guardsmen with leaf blowers facing the federal agents. Interesting picture...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real question here is, "What happens when the Feds ignore the order and keep right on attacking reporters and journalists?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republicans don’t give a fuck about enforcing laws/the Constitution and Democrats don’t have the moral courage to do that job. (Remember: Nancy Pelosi had to be all but forced into impeaching Donald Trump.) So what will happen when the Feds keep going? Absolutely nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And Dems don’t give a fuck about protecting life or property, content with mass shootings, looting of stores and burning buildings. Let’s hope the feds do something about the lawless commies and fascists taking over our cities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I doubt Democrats are truly “content” with mass shootings. As for property: Why give a fuck? It’s property. A window can be replaced; a human life can’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's rather cavalier of you, but typical: the left has no problem spending other people's money.
How about you chip in to the pool to help those black business owners who couldn't afford riot insurance so they can get back to business?
I'm sure you're itching to help those less fortunate than you, unless you're all talk and no compassion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The left...spendingother people's money"
By your own logic the right only concerns itself with property, even at the cost of human life.
This is consistent with the epidemic be damned, restart the economy policy drive we've been seeing from the US federal government. Who cares if we have more dead peons?
Tell me more of this compassion thing you speak of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "The left...spendingother people's money"
"Who cares if we have more dead peons?"
Well, remember - these are the guys who think the one in a thousand to make it is proof positive opportunity exists for everyone. In their minds, everyone can win the lottery. Meaning, by extension, that anyone actually dying to COVID-19 deserved it for not somehow working hard enough at getting lucky.
And, of course, since they blindly believe neither they nor anyone they actually care about is going to die not a single fuck will be given, because who cares about other people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Neither does the right. All-time deficeits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"the left has no problem spending other people's money."
More of a problem than the right has spending other people's money and lives.
But hey, maybe the right should try to be in the right for once and stop hugging that burning cross - you know, so black people don't have to go emulate the founding fathers again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Neither does the right, they're just not as up front about it. The right issues massive tax cuts for the rich funded by debt. So they're spending the money of future tax payers to pay off that debt in order to hand the wealthy a gift now. At least the left is honest about raising taxes to pay for services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"So they're spending the money of future tax payers to pay off that debt in order to hand the wealthy a gift now."
And the really embarrassing thing about Baghdad Bob's and the rest of the alt-right's repetitive nagging about it?
They're usually the ones whose taxes are being paid to people they deeply deplore and envy.
And somehow they all believe that in the US as long as they keep the dream of somehow, sometime making it big it will be guaranteed. Baghdad Bob/Bobmail himself is the prime example, who kept screaming in hysterics for many years about how his mass mail scams and shady tax evasion or card counting books would have made him a rich man if not for those durn lefties, liberals and pirates who...stole his mailing lists...🤨
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blow it up
Lots of money to be made 'rebuilding' Portland, Afghanistan, et.al. ....after the latest permutation of a 'War' settles. 30 hours after the LA Times published news of a stained-glass church window 'Vandal-Ized' in LA, this church got a color brochure IN THE MAIL from Ohio offering to install plastic protectors on our stained-glass windows. The $35 Billion drug-War rehab industry is big tax-dollar-to-profit; In 2001, Afghanistan produced 0.01% of the thousands of pounds of opium it exports today.
P.S. The Port Of Portland hasn't accepted a shipping container since 2016 & Trump's pissed, he was planing on TRUMP-PORTLAND in that federal building. Trump got the 1899 DC post office for the next 60 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blow it up
"Lots of money to be made 'rebuilding' Portland, Afghanistan, et.al"
Broken Windows Fallacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You know what? Arrest the people actually damaging property, then. You don't indiscriminately harm thousands of other people and claim you are maintaining order. In the trade, we call that "bullshit".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Arrest the people actually damaging property, then."
It's pretty obvious that from his viewpoint, a black man standing around peacefully in the street WILL, eventually, break someones window and needs to be incarcerated before they have the opportunity to do so.
And journalists apparently cause great harm to the fragile egos of the alt-right when they show black people marching without being violent and subhuman scum.
You have to consider the source of the opposing argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dems not giving fucks
The Democrats are not the looters. The Democratic Party wants to retain the legal system in place and let it continue murdering civilians and funneling marginalized groups into for-profit prisons. They also want to sustain the surveillance programs that monitor civilians to make sure successful gains by minority capitalists get seized.
This is to say the DNC is totally on board with the fascist police state already in place throughout the United States. The fascists are in control, and the sooner you recognize this, Anonymous Coward the less risk you are at getting marked by them as a bad guy. Portland is the summit on the tip of the iceberg.
The people who want to defund the police (or in extreme cases like myself, abolish the entire justice system) are more left than the Democratic Party and are not represented on the federal level or most state levels. Some counties are looking into long-term plans towards reduction of police powers and responsibilities in favor of more service-oriented alternatives.
The rioters who engaging in violence are the ones who have nothing left to lose, because the system (including the DNC and RNC) took everything they have and are killing them.
Feel free to try to negotiate with those whose families were murdered by a society you endorse and benefit from, Anonymous Coward. But for starters we'll need to stop killing them and incarcerating them into oubliettes. And we've done neither.
Also, Anonymous Coward feel free to try to negotiate with the police unions (who now can murder and seize property with impunity) or the district attorneys who get to decide whose lives to ruin, and who to throw into the hole. They happen to like having all that power, and will not give it up easily. And they can find out where you sleep if ever you become a nuisance.
If the situation is looking entirely fucked and headed towards civil war, that's because it is. The time to wake up and stop it was years ago. Now all we can hope for is damage control.
And that's before we deal with all the rest of the mess, such as healthcare, wealth disparity, the failing global ecosystem, food shortages, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Let’s hope the feds do something about the lawless commies and fascists taking over our cities."
As in; Arresting all the white supremacists pretending to be antifan activists? They're already doing that.
And at least the judge in the OP has already handed a smackdown on the fascists thinking the first amendment is an optional extra so...you're halfway there, I guess?
Also, and this begs clarification, what "commies" are you seeing out there being lawless? Because unless you just rewrote the definition of that to mean "anyone opposing fascism and white supremacy" the communists around are going to be a VERY small number.
Go get book learnt enough to actually recognize a commie, Baghdad Bob. And no, "Anyone who doesn't think black people need a good lynchin'" isn't it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What happens if they continue?
On an individual officer basis, not much. "Plaintiff, can you identify your assailant? Okay then, can you identify the organization your assailant came from?"
You've still got hope for a Bivens action, but you'll still need luck. ... such as landing in Judge Simon's court again.
And to be honest, who are they going to send to enforce the restraining order, the US Marshals Office?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The protest spread, because police violence is what started them, and the Feds are fighting a fire by pumping gasoline onto it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lawsuits without qualified immunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The question is who??
All well and good that qualified immunity is gone but if you have no idea who it is that stomped on your rights or even what agency they work for it is not going to do you any good.
What they need is to take the swat teams off the drug raids and start having them take down the yahoos that Trump sent out.
Or maybe the National Guard. I would like to see the fight that would start between the Governor and Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The question is who??
I think they call that a "civil war." We didn't enjoy the last one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The question is who??
"We didn't enjoy the last one."
...and because the US didn't wipe its ass properly after the last one, it gets the current situation.
All it really takes is for Trump to make two very bad decisions come election time and that war is effectively on.
We actually have to trust Trump to - for the first time in his life - back down rather than double down. I'm not that convinced he can manage to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CCP Approved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, they loooove protests against government wrongdoing and overreach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, China is all out in force applauding the masses rising up against oppressive authority. /s
Just how fucked in the head are you guys in the alt-right when all you have to go on is to imply that Xi Jin Ping would be cheering for a court order preventing thuggish law enforcement to run journalists off the streets?
I guess that's the new republican party, ladies and gents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So now all the violent rioters (née peaceful protesters) just wear "PRESS" shirts and they're free to attack innocent citizens, burn down buildings and vehicles, and murder at will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're full of shit, still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
violent rioters wearing "PRESS" shirts
The violent rioters can't afford press shirts. Law enforcement continues to seize everything they own and are still killing them and throwing them into oubliettes.
They are essentially outlaws and outside the alleged protection of the state. They have no other option but to take up arms against a system that is openly hostile towards them.
(But that means yes, if a rioter does happen to seize press gear and use it to engage in an espionage attack, he is fully justified in doing so given the state has already decided he will be given no quarter.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: violent rioters wearing "PRESS" shirts
Dang Pass The crac pipe
cause you smoking some good shit .
Sorry but Real Journalists in war zones know you keep to the sidelines
and even there, there is no guarantee of safety .
And what the Fuck are you still are protesting for ???????????
BLM 20 mill in the bank .I don't see any of that being
given out to the 30 plus innocent people killed since you FNs started protesting.
less all the business you've burned to the ground ,
Here's an idea go protest by burning your own house down .
Oh whats that your homeless cause mommie and daddy kicked you out ?
well burn down their place cause they made you what you are .
A bunch of whiny little babies who were never told NO and now
only know how to throw temper tantrums
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: violent rioters wearing "PRESS" shirts
Funny this looks a whole lot like a temper tantrum to me, and not so much like a logical argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ask the protestors. They’ll tell you.
Funny, I thought the people throwing temper tantrums were people like those caught on video complaining about not being allowed into a business without a face mask. People peacefully protesting in the streets seem far more mature than those maskholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: violent rioters wearing "PRESS" shirts
"A bunch of whiny little babies who were never told NO and now
only know how to throw temper tantrums"
A lot to unpack here.
1) Your tacit statement that someone protesting police brutality and baseless murder is "whiny" is duly noted.
2) Your tacit statement that the demand for "Police officers being stopped from murdering people" has been met with a NO is also duly noted.
3) Are you suggesting that the protestors aren't being violent enough, because you consider their protests - and the riots - "temper tantrums"?
I swear, if we ever needed confirmation that the "right" has completely lost every semblance of rationality...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick question: How often are you seeing scenes of rioters “attack[ing] innocent citizens” and “burn[ing] down buildings and vehicles” compared with how often you’re seeing scenes of peaceful protests in general — or how often you’re seeing scenes of law enforcement (either the actual police or Trump’s secret police) attacking protestors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All day everyday. I'm sure. but it's probably only due to the special "cocktail" they consume every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, actually, would-be violent rioters who wear "PRESS" shirts would be safe from LEOs obeying this injunction. So long as they don't attack innocent citizens, burn down buildings and vehicles (how do you "burn down" a vehicle, anyway?) and (or?) murder at will.
Funny thing, neither the constitution nor this injunction protect you if perform criminal acts, whatever your distopic alt-right fantasies might suggest to you.
BTW - did you miss all those instances where protesters protected property (and isolated police)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Must of been inbetween the 30 plus innocents you've slaughtered in the name of BLM inc
So I missed it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please cite the proof that those people were murdered by members of either the Black Lives Matter movement in general or the organization that calls itself (but doesn’t speak for everyone who says) Black Lives Matter, and that the murders were perpretated with the specific intent to further the Black Lives Matter movement in some way.
I’ll wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thing is if they really want to compare body counts then any number they can dig out will need to be compared to the police kill-count, as if an entire movement can be labeled bad based upon the actions of those that call themselves members and a dozen or so killed means a group is nothing but fascist murderers then pretty sure by that logic the police are far, far worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm just going to leave this here:
https://theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/us-rightwing-extremists-attacks-deaths-database-left wing-antifa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, hey...
"Victims killed in anti-fascist attacks since 1994 : 0"
"Victims killed in right-wing violence since 1994 : 329"
Damn, it takes a special kind of moron to babble on about how they're losing the game of murder when they're ahead by 329 to 0.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ever see a car on fire? Burning Camper blasting down the freeway? Mobile Home glowing orange & transparent? Two cars burned up 300 feet from here last Saturday night, and that was a complete accident; flames 25 feet tall. I personally snuffed out a small fire in the trunk of a rear-ender on the Hollywood freeway a few years ago and disconnected the guy's battery. None were electric cars.
We all need to get out more:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So now all the violent rioters (née peaceful protesters) just wear "POLICE" shirts and they're free to attack innocent citizens, burn down buildings and vehicles, and murder at will.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"So now all the violent rioters (née peaceful protesters) just wear "PRESS" shirts and they're free to attack innocent citizens, burn down buildings and vehicles, and murder at will."
The same way all the kidnappers, rapists and murderers (née peaceful republicans) just go into the street and are free to attack innocent citizens, burn down buildings and vehicles, and murder at will? They won't even need a "PRESS" shirt either.
Tell me about why you assume that anyone marching in a protest must by necessity be a murderer?
Oh, wait, it's just the black people in that protest who are the problem, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trolling is thick today - popcorn is going to become scarce soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$100,000 Gofundme for Terrorist Garrett Foster ?
The left is coming for you . Don't let the fake news spin it
any other way .
They can Slaughter you , BUT YOU can't defend yourself ,
Need proof ? Go ask the McCloskeys .
Totally within their States right of self defense totally turned upside down
by those you elected .
Allow the Mob to rule bend a knee or we will destroy You .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh fuck off. And get yourself a new roll of tinfoil. Your hat seems to have failed to block all those influential radio signals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I assume they put on their +2 knife hat instead of the tinfoil hat this morning. (although I am pretty sure only crazy people even have +2 knife hats, so maybe it balances out)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ohh truth hurts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry you looted it all, none left only your idiocy is all that remains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And how is that any different from Trump and his decree that federal officers should “dominate” cities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Proves the point
Your the MOB and if someone disagrees you go all fucken crazy
and force all to bend to your your will .
Sorry that's not AMERICA
Like was stated
Whats your agenda besides burning everything down ?
What are You protesting ?
I hear no actual reform ideas from any of you .
except whine whine whine cry cry cry
why don't you all go bye bye bye ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, and Republicans have never done that before~. I mean, it’s not as if the president has ever thrown a temper tantrum because Twitter added a citation to one of his tweets~.
Yeah, America is where a secret police force that basically answers only to the president can legally kidnap American citizens, detain them for God knows how long, and do God knows what to them during that time — all without the president caring what happens because the people being kidnapped are citizens from a part of the country that hates the president.
Ask the protestors.
Ask the protestors.
Then you haven’t listened hard enough — or you have and you think the ideas are all trash because they’re being suggested by people whom you consider to be Repugnant Cultural Others.
Because then you wouldn’t have anything to complain about. 😁
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think your confused with China and their authoritarian practices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m sure you believe the United States isn’t an authoritarian state and a fascist(-wannabe) isn’t sitting in the White House.
But reality doesn’t give a fuck about what you believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, it is very befuddling why Trump thinks it's a good idea to emulate the worst of what China has to offer.
Mind you, it's not surprising. He did try to kiss up to Kim Jong Un after all, the result of which was a giant can of absolute jack, to the point where even Kim declared nothing useful came out of the supposed "peace summit". Even when Trump tries to emulate a soulless sack of dog shit he manages to fuck that up too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So Garrett Foster Didn't rush a car with a AK47 and point his weapon
at the driver ?
So the driver was just supposed to wait to be killed ?
So We are no longer allowed to defend ourselves ?
And Yes he was a terrorist involved in the Protests .
He earlier said no one will stand up to them ,
Sorry seems someone did
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I haven’t read enough about that unfortunate situation to make a call on it either way. But I will say this:
That you would label protesters as “terrorists” when a large majority of them are only practicing their right to free speech by airing their grievances with the government…well, it doesn’t say much that puts you in a good light, fam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Garret Foster
Can't find any clear details on the encounter.
But here's the thing, a trained combatant with an assault rifle isn't going to engage a car by rushing it. He's going to find cover and shoot from there. An AK47 has range on both the car and the handgun.
So until I hear otherwise, I going to presume the facts as you suggest them are incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Garret Foster
No, Garrett Foster didn't do any of that.
And the police have already confirmed this.
I'll repeat my earlier comment:
The "terrorist" was the guy who deliberately drove into a crowd (crossing on the light) and then shot Garrett Foster without provocation.
There's been multiple videos, and the Police have officially confirmed that Foster did not fire a single shot, did not try to, nor did he point his AK-47 (that he was open-carrying) still strapped on his shoulder (his weapon was determined to have not been fired recently, and the safety still engaged).
He did nothing beyond suggesting the driver's behaviour was problematic -- and he appears to have chiefly been occupied with pushing his disabled wife's wheelchair as they participated in peaceful protest...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Garret Foster
"He did nothing beyond suggesting the driver's behaviour was problematic -- and he appears to have chiefly been occupied with pushing his disabled wife's wheelchair as they participated in peaceful protest..."
Pretty sure the stormfront echo chamber Baghdad Bob just emerged from to post his drivel about how Foster "rushed a car" didn't have any interest in the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interest in the truth
What is as terrifying to me is when propaganda machines cease to have interest in plausibility and yet are still believed.
Something something Voltaire absurdities atrocities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interest in the truth
"What is as terrifying to me is when propaganda machines cease to have interest in plausibility and yet are still believed."
Politicians have always lied, but normally they at least try to make the lies believable. This is just the Goebbels tactic of repetitively throwing shit until something sticks.
Witness the case of Foster who was the victim of a supremacist with a gun but the supremacists now paint as the offender because he was a black man with a rifle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Garret Foster
For Baghdad Bob to admit that there was no reason to shoot is to admit that the people he supports are thugs who enjoy violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmmm...
You know, I can't help but wonder if (perhaps) the public discourse might be facilitated, by having 'RCO' become a standard social media abbreviation.
It does seem to sum up one of our problems fairly succinctly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Repugnant Cultural Others
Undesirables isn't too difficult to spell out. Untermenschen reminds us that we've seen this shape before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Repugnant Cultural Others
We have indeed.
I can only hope that at some point the US will realize that the paradox of tolerance means that the one opinion a democratic society can not tolerate is the opinion that democracy abolishes itself.
The proper way to deal with nazis isn't ever going to be "Let me hear your opinion again" but "Your opinion and you yourself are both repugnant. Kindly leave".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[You're] the MOB
So that's the way you process information? If it doesn't jive with your simplistic view point, you label it and dismiss it away?
If that's the case, there's no point in engaging you any further. You have no new information, no new ideas, and yet you won't consider new ideas over.
You're done here, Anonymous Coward. It's time to go somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: [You're] the MOB
And whats your point?
All you have done is burn Portland for 2 months straight .
What in any way shape or form does that have of getting a message across
except " we are a bunch of babies who have no other recourse than to throw temper tantrums every night for no reason except to throw a temper tantrum "
Well except to let BLM inc swindle 20 million for you and have nothing to show for it . Where has that money been spent ? Twerking parties ? Cause none of it
has BEEN SPENT ON ANY BLACK OWNERS BUSINESS THAT YOU HAVE DESTROYED .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re the only one I see throwing a temper tantrum, Mr. Coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: [You're] the MOB
Burn Portland?
My acquaintances in Portland vociferously dispute this characterization.
Some of them work within two blocks of the action.
Dramatic propaganda videos not withstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
getting a message across
Minneapolis was one of the places that burned. And it is considering abolishing the municipal police system. The other incident (this time around) was in Atlanta, Georgia.
I don't think burning is meant to send a message.
And considering your read, Anonymous Coward, I don't think you'd be capable of comprehending one, or caring if one was sent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I thought Trump supporters' rallying cry was that he won the election fair and square. You're saying his administration turned your world upside down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The "terrorist" was the guy who deliberately drove into a crowd (crossing on the light) and then shot Garrett Foster without provocation.
There's been multiple videos, and the police confirm that Foster didn't fire a single shot, nor did he point the weapon (that he was open-carrying) still strapped on his shoulder -- may have something to with his already being occupied pushing his disabled wife in her wheelchair...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why even bother ???
You've drank the kool aide
your mind is mush, facts are what you perceive them to be .
I'm pretty sure if Trump legalized Pot tomorrow you all would
find a way to say it was wrong and you won't stand for it .
Trump derangement syndrome at its finest .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I just realized that in a different time and place I'd probably be accused of Hitler derangement syndrome - Mike Godwin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Trump denial syndrome. Would that be refusing to see the reality of Trump's presidency? It seems to me that that is an alt-right speciality. Refusing to see the damage he is doing to America, long term. Refusing to see what a pathetic coward he is. Refusing to see what a worthless scumbag he is. Refusing to see how he built his empire on deceit and dishonesty, stealing from the honest small businesses that he left penniless after one of his many false bankruptcies (a.k.a. "good business").
It really seems to me that when an Trumpist uses the term, they are trying to project their own mental problems on others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Holy Crap
The highest Stock market
The lowest unemployment
The most ever jobs for Minorities
Actually getting NATO to pay more of their share
Obama " You're jobs are never coming back"
Trump " "50 year unemployment low"
People realizing the 50 year rot in their cities was is actually caused by entrenched Democrats .
Thank goodness 40% of new gun ownership is made up of first time owners .
Remember in November those who said gun control works . Yep those waiting periods really helped while your cities burned .
But yes those in charge of your cities want you to go back to sleep so they can blissfully lead you to slaughter .And will use riots and fear to keep them dear.
Thankfully there are Millions whose motto is "these colors don't run"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow...
Indoctrination at its finest.
You are smart the way Trump is smart and is the man for Smart People.
Tell us how America is Great Again. Could you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...too bad literally none of those things are true. It's what Trump and the cadre at Fox are trying to pound out but actual facts state otherwise.
Including that all thanks to Trump the US today has lost more people to Covid-19 than the US lost in World War 1, and more than twice as many as you lost in vietnam. Deaths which in every other nation where experts were listened to, could have been prevented.
With a 9/11 in death toll every two days you guys are still saying your president has done a "good" job? He sat on his frigging ass denying there was a problem while american citizens got carted away in refrigerated trucks to mass graves.
There's no helping you people. Twenty years down this road the US will be a third world nation and your children will be in the street clamoring - as you taught them no doubt - that the reason you suck is all someone else's fault, because no one could possibly lay the blame at the feet of your Fearless Leaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
TDS: Where a sycophantic zealot listens to every word from Trump (Covfefe included) and believes him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey don't knock the Covfefe. I hear it cures covid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And it does help me wake up in the morning. Hamberders for lunch. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With a lysol chaser. Breakfast o' Champions.
...I honestly found it hard to accept that the Trump death cult was so indoctrinated some benighted morons actually tried to ingest aquarium cleaner and chlorox as advised by the president, but I guess today the US is, as a nation, striving for a collective Darwin award.
I mean...pool parties just to spite pandemic prevention guidelines...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure that the collective Darwin Award would apply, as the disease disproportionately affects those who have already reproduced or have chosen not to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think the Darwin Award page has an "honorable mentions" category for cases like that.
I'm not sure if they have a category for the plague rats in the US so desperately trying to volunteer everybody else for a darwin award.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I've seen the videos, heard/read the witnesses statements, and the conclusions issued by the Portland police (who -- whatever else one might say about them -- are clearly not biased in favour of the protesters).
That's right -- multiple videos, witness reports, and police investigation all point to the same conclusion. Garrett Foster was a peaceful protester, and the victim of an unprovoked homicide.
What actually happened is pretty damn clear for anyone who actually bothers to look into the readily verifiable facts, instead of reflexively parroting the narrative out of some alt-reality echo-chamber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No QI,but good luck suing.
Feds: "Sorry, we have no records of who was working at that time you were not-arrested."
no badge numbers, masks worn, no identifying information.
And hey try to sue the entire DHS, and they'll QI it up - how were they to know it wouldn't be kosher to go out unmarked (like a terrorist) and kidnapping/disappearing people (like a terrorist).
If the Portland Police want to actually do some work, they should be going after these unmarked vans full of fscking kidnappers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Barr has shut you down
Hard to debunk Facts .
But you will go round and round like a dog chasing its tail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Barr
Bill Barr never was big on facts, as he's demonstrating in today's hearing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]