Is everyone unphased by deploying federal special forces on unarmed citizens?

[churchmouse]

The Trump administration has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to move special federal agents (dressed in full military combat gear) into specific states and cities to 'help' with the current protesting and violence issues. The problem is, they do not have to identify themselves when arresting people and can hold anyone without charges. They have also committed whats considered war crimes against American civilians by destroying medical equipment used to assist wounded or hurt protesters.

Here we go.

 

[Route 45]

I'm not happy with police vested with federal powers popping in and out doing the work of local LEO. Really for a lot of reasons but one thing for sure. People voted for exactly this. Didn't they want people expressing themselves this way? Didn't they want retribution from angry mobs at this level? I mean they voted for mayors and city councils to intervene and stop local LEO from doing their job. By Feds restoring order, the express wishes on the voters are being ignored. You might say "but ordinary people actually don't want the chaos". Well then, why aren't the ordinary people exerting pressure on the local (spineless) politicians?

Who voted for this? I'm pretty sure "let people riot without consequence" wasn't a ballot option in any jurisdiction. These elections happened way before any of this ****storm started.

Did Trump voters vote for a bumpstock ban?

 

[jwamplerusa]

The Trump administration has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to move special federal agents (dressed in full military combat gear) into specific states and cities to 'help' with the current protesting and violence issues. The problem is, they do not have to identify themselves when arresting people and can hold anyone without charges. They have also committed whats considered war crimes against American civilians by destroying medical equipment used to assist wounded or hurt protesters.

Stewey88, that was a heck of a first post. Lots of assumptions, lots of innuendo, lots of what are arguably straight up lies.

If the personnel, employed by the federal government, are sworn law enforcement officers working in their professional capacity, yes they are required to identify themselves.

They also cannot hold persons without charging them beyond the statutorily permitted times.

If the individuals that the federal employees are being sent to address do not wish to be detained, face arrest and prosecution, and hopefully incarceration then there is a simple answer; stop committing illegal acts.

Peaceful protesting does not involve throwing incendiaries, throwing explosives, setting dumpsters on fire, looting, or murder. The first amendment provides a a guarantee to peaceably assemble to address grievances against the government. The first amendment does not provide any cover for insurrection or sedition.

I find the federal governments restraint to be excessive. I find the inaction of certain state and local governments to be heinous crimes against the majority of the citizens which they were elected to serve.

The scenes from Chicago and representative Jordan's video yesterday are illustrative of what is occurring in small pockets throughout our nation. Unlawful conduct, violence against those employed to protect and serve the greater community, destruction of private and public property, and the serious bodily injury and even death of fellow citizens. These are all crimes, serious crimes which should result in long jail terms at hard labor or capital punishment.

You appear to claim that federal law enforcement officers have destroyed medical equipment used to treat injured protesters, and that such actions are war crimes. We are not at war, yet! Unfortunately if the minority Marxist anarchist communist elements in our society continue down the path they currently are pursuing we may well end up there. I pray for myself my community and my country that we can handle this current discord in a manner which never rises to a level of war. If it does however, let that happen on my watch so that I may spare my children.

So long as the current discord remains at the level it is, it amounts to sedition and insurrection. The Constitution and law have remedies for these things. So far the federal government has shown great restraint in not taking action that has been obviously justified by the actions of the minority.

I would recommend Stewey88 stop believing what it sees on Twitter, Facebook, and the evening news and start applying critical analysis of what is stated from as close to primary sources as you can get.

I'll suggest a reading of the Constitution of the United States of America in full. When you're done go back find all the places where the phrase " the right of the people ", "shall not be infringed " occur, and then reread the preamble to the Bill of Rights. Once you've completed that trivial task, go look closely at article I section VIII. Congress has addressed this in the insurrection act and the president may act based upon it as a commander in chief.

So please Stewey88 go troll elsewhere. Nearly everyone on this board is a patriot. We may have different political views. We may not all agree on all government policies. I think you will find few here however who are hostile to the government of the United States of America and who do not support and will not defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Here we go.

Behind the scene "Shirley" didn't last long...

 

[Notropis]

Who voted for this? I'm pretty sure "let people riot without consequence" wasn't a ballot option in any jurisdiction. These elections happened way before any of this ****storm started.

Did Trump voters vote for a bumpstock ban?

Well, where riots persist, local LEO are fully capable of arresting ne'er-do-wells and stopping unlawful activity. Elected people are preventing local LEO from preserving order. So yes, people directly elected the people who decided to let people riot without consequence. Simply put, the people of Chicago vote every year for people that let violent criminals go. The people of Portland elected people that feel rioting/looting without consequence is acceptable. By Feds intervening, you are suppressing the will of the voters. If you asked me, they get what they deserve and should perhaps consider electing people that do hot tie the hands of LEO when trying to preserve order.

 

[KLB]

Who voted for this? I'm pretty sure "let people riot without consequence" wasn't a ballot option in any jurisdiction. These elections happened way before any of this ****storm started.

Did Trump voters vote for a bumpstock ban?

You didn't see that referendum on your ballot? They voted it down here in Porter County.

 

[Phase2]

The Trump administration has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to move special federal agents (dressed in full military combat gear) into specific states and cities to 'help' with the current protesting and violence issues. The problem is, they do not have to identify themselves when arresting people and can hold anyone without charges. They have also committed whats considered war crimes against American civilians by destroying medical equipment used to assist wounded or hurt protesters.

Another Soros sleeper cell member self-identifies.

 

[biggggg]

OK BY ME...

 

[biggggg]

AGREE...

 

[JettaKnight]

OK BY ME...

AGREE...

 

[Expat]

ya think?

 

[biggggg]

JJUST A MARSHMELLOW ROAST

 

[DRob]

I haven't read and won't read the entire thread but I'd like to point out what seems to be going on here. Whatever title you may wish to put on these Federal personnel, they are deployed to protect Federal buildings/property. If you try to burn down the Federal Courthouse in Portland, which the "peaceful protesters" have tried to do, you may encounter them doing their job. The #1 job of government is to protect the community. Many (read Democrat) mayors have not only failed miserably in that regard but by their inaction have encouraged, and in the case of Portland, even participated in the riots. The word is out........they can burn, loot, destroy, assault and even kill people with no concern about being prosecuted. All "the Feds" are saying is you can't do that to Federal buildings without facing consequences. Good on 'em!

 

[JettaKnight]

ya think?

Definitely.

JJUST A MARSHMELLOW ROAST

And where's BigRed to tell us that there shouldn't be any federal buildings in any states to protect?

 

[Expat]

He's a sly one isn't he... put them in one thread so you don't see him as last post on a bunch of threads on the main listing.

 

[Ingomike]

Well, where riots persist, local LEO are fully capable of arresting ne'er-do-wells and stopping unlawful activity. Elected people are preventing local LEO from preserving order. So yes, people directly elected the people who decided to let people riot without consequence. Simply put, the people of Chicago vote every year for people that let violent criminals go. The people of Portland elected people that feel rioting/looting without consequence is acceptable. By Feds intervening, you are suppressing the will of the voters. If you asked me, they get what they deserve and should perhaps consider electing people that do hot tie the hands of LEO when trying to preserve order.

I get your point, but every citizen of every state, enjoys the same constitutional protections. If your neighbors were engaging in unconstitutional behavior restricting your rights wouldn't you want the Feds to help you if your local government failed to do so?

 

[KittySlayer]

The Portland rioters, or rather their handlers at RevComUSA, are just hoping to provoke a reaction where they will get seriously hurt.
They would love nothing more, than for either the feds, or a fed up American to shoot a few of them with all their cameras rolling.

Well they almost got their wish when the morons were playing in the highway and one got run over and killed. Only the narrative was spoiled because of a black driver so it quietly disappeared from the media coverage.

 

[JettaKnight]

I get your point, but every citizen of every state, enjoys the same constitutional protections. If your neighbors were engaging in unconstitutional behavior restricting your rights wouldn't you want the Feds to help you if your local government failed to do so?

The government can engage "unconstitutional behavior", a citizen is simply breaking a law, which is almost always defined and enforced on a state level.



I like how you put it - the Feds are "helping me". Perhaps someday soon they'll help me get rid of all these guns and ammo I have.

 

[OakRiver]

Federal agents to begin leaving Portland’s downtown: DHS, Oregon governor



Wow, what a concept.

After the Governor of Oregon called the federal agents an occupying force that brought violence. Must have been using their time machines, because I'm pretty sure the violence started before they arrived.

 

[QBall]

On the whole, yes.
I'm sick and tired of these so called "peaceful protesters", destroying property and lives and businesses.
If local governments Portland, Chicago, Louisville, (Greg Fisher I'm looking at you, you worthless bag-o-crap) don't have the guts to do their jobs, to maintain a reasonable degree of order I'm completely okay with the Federal Government taking action.