
Videos Show How Federal Officers Escalated Violence in Portland - syspec
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007243995/portland-protests-federal-government.html
======
ehvatum
I watch protest live-streams on one of my monitors every evening as I code and
design. It’s not the absolute focus of my attention, but I have done this for
months, and there is something very wrong with the impression I receive from
this NYT video.

Specifically, the courthouse attacks absolutely and without a doubt preceded
Federal response. These were not peaceful protests that the Federal action
prodded into violence.

Consider the timeline.

May 29: A vigil in North Portland is followed later in the evening by a march
downtown. A small group breaks into the Justice Center and sets a fire.
Several businesses, including the Apple Store, are looted. Police declare a
riot and arrest 13 people.

May 30: Mayor Ted Wheeler declares a state of emergency and announces a
citywide 8 p.m. curfew. A large protest at the Justice Center turns ugly, more
businesses are looted, and more illegal fires are set. The protest ends after
police tear gas the crowd. Fifty-one people are arrested.

............

July 4th: Federal police response begins in Portland.

~~~
throwaway-4512
The people attacking federal law enforcement are not "peaceful protestors".
For the last 50+ days they have thrown rocks, fireworks, used lasers to blind
officers, used wrist rockets to fire metal balls into their faces, etc. When
the police have retreated behind fences to guard buildings, these "protestors"
try to bring down the fences and attack the police the entire time. They
attack people they find recording their actions, beating them into submission
and/or stealing their equipment and breaking it. They have tried (and in some
cases succeeded) in breaking into buildings and setting fires inside. They
have tried to light police precincts on fire.

Portland Police has been catching and releasing these rioters for over 50+
days because the DA refuses to prosecute. The mayor is the police commissioner
of Portland and he recently came out to stand with the people attacking
federal law enforcement. The city council is even more radical than the mayor.
The local government and state government have done nothing to suppress the
riots and arguably are aiding and abetting the actions of a violent and vocal
minority of citizens.

The omission of the recent history of the violent actions of many of the
"protestors" in Portland is shocking to see. Only conservative news
organizations are making any mention of what is going on. Outlets like CNN,
ABC, NYTimes, WPost, etc. have been silent until the recent actions taken by
federal law enforcement. When they have talked about now, the coverage has
been anything but even handed and has veered into gaslighting and willful
blindness. Anyone who tries to speak out about this on Twitter is attacked en
masse. Unless you go looking for a different opinion, you likely have no idea
what is really going on.

~~~
md_
Certainly anyone violently attacking law enforcement is not a peaceful
protestor. But protestors are not a monolithic entity: the vast majority are
clearly peaceful.

In a free democracy that values the right to peaceful protest, law enforcement
and political leaders have to ask the best way to preserve that essential
right for _all_ citizens while keeping the peace. The question I would
rhetorically ask—because the answer is fairly obvious—is whether sending
poorly trained agents armed with lethal weapons and, apparently, improper
instruction on probable cause to "keep the peace" achieves that end.

It's easy—and correct—to condemn acts of violence by protestors. But in a free
democracy, we should hold the armed representatives of the people's government
to a higher standard than we do a mass of protestors, among whom there are, no
doubt, some provocateurs and law breakers.

This isn't an either/or proposition. One need not defend brick-throwers or
arsonists in order to condemn arrest-without-probable-cause or the use of
"less lethal" munitions against bystanders. That false dichotomy is what
authoritarian regimes use to try to justify the wildly inappropriate—and, in
the US, illegal—use of force to put down political opposition.

~~~
makomk
The feds have allegedly been arresting people "just" for dressing entirely in
black - or at least, that's the narrative the press has been pushing to
convince people that this is some kind of totalitarian military occupation.
The thing is, the _entire point_ of the Black Bloc tactic of dressing everyone
like this is to make it as hard as possible to identify which specific
"protestors" tried to burn down the federal courthouse, and which attacked law
enforcement officers, and so on - in short, to turn protestors into a
monolithic entity where crimes cannnot easily be attributed to any specific
individual within the entity.

~~~
md_
First, I'm aware of cases where protest organizers have asked protestors to
wear black out of solidarity with BLM, so I'm not convinced by the argument
that this is the entire point of wearing black.

But even if we take that as a given, it seems to me that everyone wearing the
same color clothing—and thus it being harder for the officers to distinguish
protestors from each other—works against the probable cause argument, and not
in its favor. I'm far from an expert on this, but my understanding is that in
some (most?) applications of probable cause, individualized suspicion is a
requirement; if officers are unable to distinguish protestors from each other,
it seems like that would make it harder for them to meet the necessary
standard to justify an arrest.

The argument that innocent protestors didn't make it easy for the police to
distinguish them from criminals in their midst does not seem like it modifies
the probable cause requirement; officers can't go around arresting (or, worse,
using violence against) peaceful protestors simply because the officers are
unable to easily identify the minority who are lawbreakers in their midst.

~~~
md_
A bit more info on the legal basis for arrests (and how this does not meet
that standard): [https://www.lawfareblog.com/unpacking-dhss-troubling-
explana...](https://www.lawfareblog.com/unpacking-dhss-troubling-explanation-
portland-van-video)

------
pharke
I urge everyone to search out longer videos for all of these clips being
shown. Every "attack" by the federal agents is preceded by some form of
provocation by the protestors-cum-rioters that start by refusing repeated
warnings to disperse after the protest has been declared an unlawful (not
peaceful) assembly, generally after someone starts destroying property or
committing arson. The federal agents can be seen tolerating long periods of
harassment and in every instance I've seen where they do respond it is when a
protestor crosses the line by striking an agent or engaging in destruction of
property. The spin on this information is so heavy it's terrifying.

~~~
happytoexplain
Even if I were to agree that every rioter who destroyed property (or, even
less, provoked an agent) "deserved" the exact response they received, which I
don't, still I find all the spin with the politically opposite motivation - to
legitimize violence by the government against citizens who _didn 't_ do
anything to "deserve it", to be much more terrifying. For example, I
personally know people who think the tear-gassed peaceful protesters outside
the church "deserved it". Why? "They're Antifa". Our society is desperately in
danger if that's not much more "terrifying" to you than spin whose
"terrifying" crime is omitting the property damage a rioter just committed
before being violently attacked by federal agents.

~~~
pharke
I'm sorry if it came off like I was saying "they deserved it", I didn't intend
it that way. What I was trying to illuminate is that this is a much more
complex situation that is being papered over for unknown reasons. News should
not have a political spin in any direction, we need to see clearly everything
that happens from start to finish to make our own judgements. I doubt that
there is even much political difference between us but we've all been trained
to categorize each other when we should be establishing the points on which we
agree. I agree that our society is in danger, it is under threat from all
sides at the moment. The terror I feel is not that of facing an opposing
viewpoint, it is the fear that the centre cannot hold[0] and our grip has
loosened so that we cannot catch the end of the rope.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(poem)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_\(poem\))

~~~
mercer
I honestly don't see how the threat is from 'all sides', but I honestly do
want to try to understand that point of view.

From my perspective, the US is run by right-wing nutjobs, for many of whom the
'quacks like a duck' applies in regards to racism. Their primary opponents are
marginally better, but still at best center-right from my European
perspective.

It's mind-bogglingly weird to me that universal health care is relatively
well-supported, but in the democratic upper echelons a no-go. It's mind-
boggling that the very best democratic candidate is not only someone who
clearly seems to be suffering from old-age ailments, but someone who
historically has been basically a republican democrat.

News generally reports within the spectrum provided to it, I believe. I'm
becoming more and more convinced that news just mostly regurgitates and chews
on whatever the politicians and lobbyists provide them with. They /react/,
more than anything.

But if the range of discussion, whether defined by politicians or the media,
is all much further right than what would be considered reasonable in most of
Europe, what does it even mean to be 'reasonable' and hold a 'center'
position?

Again, I liked your comment and am absolutely not trying to be antagonistic,
but to me it's just really confusing to hear reasonable people here and
reasonable people there consider the 'reasonable' thing to be wildly
different. I'd have to conclude that either Europe or the US has gone mad, but
they can't both be 'reasonable' and 'center'.

------
nocturnial
I'm really confused about this.

If law enforcement refuses to identify themselves and also, you need to obey
the orders of law enforcement but don't need to obey the orders of persons who
dress up as law enforcement.. What happens next? For all they know, it could
be some random "team" claiming to be a part of the executive branch.

If you resist arrest from someone claiming to be law enforcement but actually
isn't, then there's no problem.

If you resist arrest from someone who says they are law enforcement but
refuses to prove it, would you still be charged with resisting arrest?

It seems like a catch-22 for the citizen.

~~~
bendbro
I totally agree that officers should better identify themselves.

But I disagree that the actions of federal officers can be conflated with
"tyranny", "atrocities", "overreach", "abduction", and "waging war" as has
been done in this thread. It's called policing: criticize it as such.

~~~
KozmoNau7
Unidentifiable federal officers with no markings on their combat uniforms, who
refuse to identify themselves as federal officers when asked, taking
protestors by force and driving them away in unmarked rental vans is an
unaccountable authoritarian show of force, it is not merely policing.

~~~
bendbro
I partially agree. I think it is definitely an authoritarian show of force,
but I believe it is accountable, as the outcome of the arrested should be
public record. And as an accountable, authoritarian show of force, they are
working as intended.

I would be open to debating whether those methods of arrest should be used: I
lean toward yes, and don't see them as anything similar to brownshirts or
secret police, as these federal police merely arrest on probably cause, rather
than affect punishment on false pretenses.

I would also be open to arguments about whether the federal police should
conduct operations outside the grounds of their property, which I have heard
others say has happened. I lean toward yes.

~~~
KozmoNau7
That is putting a _lot_ of faith into an administration that has shown
countless times to not care about fairness, to have acted in severely bad
faith against civilians and to have courted and outright worked together with
far-right movements. It has also aggressively fired anyone who has dared
question these policies from the inside.

These are all signs of an authoritarian power grab.

In addition to that, you make a number of arguments with absolutely no
evidence to back them up. You claim that the arrests are public record and
completely on the level. There is no evidence of that. You claim that they
arrest on valid probable cause. There is no evidence of that.

When people in military uniforms with no markings roll up in unmarked rental
vans and refuse to identify themselves before taking away random protestors,
that is a deliberate scare tactic and fear campaign.

As protestors, you do not know whether you are being taken by federal officers
or by a far-right militia. You do not know where you will be taken or when (or
_if_ ) you will be released again.

This is completely deliberate, and designed to instill a fear of protesting
government injustice. There is a very good point to be made that this is a
gross violation of the first amendment.

------
gonzo41
You can watch this live right now on periscope. Rob Evans is a journalist who
writes for Bellingcat.
[https://www.pscp.tv/w/1gqGvaMDkanKB](https://www.pscp.tv/w/1gqGvaMDkanKB)

He's been doing a great job streaming for about 50 days.

------
Yetanfou
The NY Times has devolved into a political pamphlet and as such has - at least
in my eyes - lost nearly all credibility. This is a shame, the paper used to
represent the best of what journalism had to offer, "all the news that's fit
to print" and all. Now they actively engage in revisionism - the '1619
project' \- and push forward the narrative of 'white guilt' and other such
divisive nonsense.

From what I gather - listening to Brett Weinstein explaining things who again
got it from a former DHS officer - those federal agents have observers on top
of buildings who direct street level agents towards potential targets who
engage(d) in actions deemed illegal. Those street level agents arrest
individuals who are taken to some federal property where they are held for a
few hours after which they are released, usually without being indicted. In a
few cases people have been read their rights which would indicate they are to
be subjected to interrogation. While having federal officers prowling the
streets in unmarked vans gives off bad vibes of south-American
'disappearances' this has - at least thus far - not been documented. What is
also clear is that the fact that local authorities allowed the situation to
escalate to this level is inexcusable and is what eventually gave rise to
these federal actions.

~~~
d4mi3n
There's a lot to unpack here, but I'd like to engage you on a few points in
your comment:

> Those street level agents arrest individuals who are taken to some federal
> property where they are held for a few hours after which they are released,
> usually without being indicted. In a few cases people have been read their
> rights which would indicate they are to be subjected to interrogation.

The NYT footage clearly depicts uniformed individuals without identification
detaining protesters. When asked who they are, they do not respond. The bit
about cars has been documented elsewhere, but is immaterial to the problem of
identification and accountability: you can't expect people to react well when
they don't even know who is arresting them, or why. I'm also personally
alarmed that people are "sometimes" being informed of their rights, but we can
save that for another discussion.

> What is also clear is that the fact that local authorities allowed the
> situation to escalate to this level is inexcusable and is what eventually
> gave rise to these federal actions.

The "local authorities" include the mayor of Portland _and_ the governor of
Oregon. Regardless of how one feels about the protests or their legitimacy,
any proponent of state's rights should be _very_ alarmed by the situation.
They are elected officials representing their constituents, and in their own
state their rights and desires should be respected.

I don't want to get into arguments about how trustworthy NYT is, but many of
the things covered in the footage above have been confirmed and documented by
many other news sources. Regardless of which one you trust, I think we can all
agree that the situation could be handled much better than it has been and
that regardless of what the federal response is, we need accountability at all
levels of law enforcement.

~~~
bendbro
The very first line of what the NYT wrote is a complete lie: "Peaceful
protests were already happening for weeks when federal officers arrived on
July 4. Our video shows how President Trump’s deployment ignited chaos."

May 31st: Looting and fire at Justice Center, adjacent to federal courthouse:
[https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=25081...](https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=250814)

June 27th: Some feds arrive in response:
[https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/07/evidence-shows-
portl...](https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/07/evidence-shows-portland-
police-working-with-federal-officers-at-protests-contradicting-city-
officials.html)

~~~
chx
Complete lie?? No. The protests have been mostly peaceful with a few small
incidents.

[https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/126713404017754521...](https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1267134040177545216)

> Letting a demonstration be judged by its most violent participants but not
> judging a police force by its most violent cops is the language of the
> oppressor.

Calling them a "few feds' as if they were inconsequential is again
disingenious. The problem is not their number but that they are not in
uniform, they have no insignia and they kidnap people off the streets.
[https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-
unm...](https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unmarked-
vehicles-portland-protesters/) The big problem here, of course, is if white
supremacists show up in "tacticool" gear and truly kidnap you to murder you
then it'd be prudent to resist. But if these goons are actually feds then it'd
be prudent not to resist. But you _can 't tell_. Even just four feds _behaving
like this_ would be enough to create this unbearable situation. But beyond
such practical concerns, this is the tactics of an authoritarian regime. This
is why my so many of my friends in Portland joined the protests, this is
absolutely not tenable.

I was born behind the Iron Curtain. Our phone was bugged. We knew. I know a
... little ... about authoritarian regimes and secret police.

~~~
bendbro
> Complete lie?? No. The protests have been mostly peaceful with a few small
> incidents.

See my comment in the sibling thread. The protests have been composed of both
violent and peaceful members. While peaceful protestors far outnumber violent
ones, violence does occur most of the nights between those two dates. Calling
the protests peaceful is a lie and saying the federal police started the
violence was a lie- it was well established there before they arrived.

> Letting a demonstration be judged by its most violent participants but not
> judging a police force by its most violent cops is the language of the
> oppressor.

I fail to see why this is relevant. I think the demonstrations are fine. I
think the riots are not. I think the federal police can defend their federal
courthouse from vandalism and breakins.

> Calling them a "few feds' as if they were inconsequential is again
> disingenious.

My mistake, I am willing to amend to "many". I used "some" as I do not
actually know their number.

> The problem is not their number but that they are not in uniform, they have
> no insignia and they kidnap people off the streets.

Kidnapping is an exaggeration. It is an arrest. While I agree the uniforms are
problematic, it doesn't make the act illegal.

> The big problem here, of course, is if white supremacists show up in
> "tacticool" gear and truly kidnap you to murder you then it'd be prudent to
> resist.

It's prudent to resist in any case where someone tries to arrest you without
cause. That said, you may incorrectly judge whether or not they have cause, so
simply listening to their orders since they are police is a better option.
When you can't identify them as police, as you said, that is a problem. That
said, the odds that you will encounter a situation where you are have
unknowingly committed a crime and cannot identify the person arresting you as
an officer are highly improbable. It's worth criticizing the officer's
uniforms and approach, but going from that criticism to "tactics of an
authoritarian regime" is a unfounded jump.

> This is why my so many of my friends in Portland joined the protests, this
> is absolutely not tenable.

Simple way for your friends to avoid arrest by the feds: don't go hang outside
their courthouse while people throw shit at it.

> I was born behind the Iron Curtain. Our phone was bugged. We knew. I know a
> ... little ... about authoritarian regimes and secret police.

These aren't KGB breaking into your home at 3am for whispering some slight
dissent to your third cousin- these are federal police arresting people for
standing on the fed's doorstep and breaking shit. There is an obvious
difference and I will be side-by-side with you when they actually start
abducting people.

That said, where did you live and what did you experience? Why do you think
the feds, who I see as arresting people for obvious acts of vandalism, are
similar to a secret police, who punish people for spurious crimes without a
public trial?

~~~
sseagull
I know “abducting people” usually has a stronger connotation. However, at
least one of the “kidnapping” videos, as described and justified by the Deputy
Director, shows an unconstitutional arrest. Should the police be punished for
breaking the law?

[https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewMCrespo/status/128573800100...](https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewMCrespo/status/1285738001004482561)

~~~
bendbro
They absolutely should. What makes this arrest unconstitutional?

[edit] read more of the twitter thread. It is speculative. If the speculation
is proven then I agree the federal police were wrong in this instance.

------
notmyfriend
The newspeak used here is amazing. Rioters become peaceful protesters. Police
officers defending a court house each night against people trying to torch it
become invading illegal forces. All that video show is people attacking the
building and the police rebuffing the attack and arresting people for it.

Maybe the citizens of Portland should ask themselves why there are still riots
every night and why their useless mayor is not putting a stop to it. What is
his goal with this. Does he think there will be some peaceful revolution that
will turn Portland into some sort of glorious marxist paradise where there is
honey and unicorns for everyone. They will come for him next.

~~~
kevingadd
If all these "rioters" are trying to burn the courthouse down, why didn't it
burn down before the armed feds showed up and started hitting people with gas?
The protests have been ongoing for quite a while, the feds are a comparatively
new presence.

~~~
ehvatum
Note that Portland Police deployed CS gas against protesters attempting to set
fire to the courthouse _on May 30th_. That night, Portland Police arrested 51
people.

------
rich_sasha
Is there any indication as to what the federal agents think about it? They
can’t be happy to be ordered to wage war against their own citizens.

~~~
iron0013
Well, they have an ethical duty not to follow those orders. Since Nuremberg,
at least, “just following orders” has not been considered an acceptable
defense for having committed atrocities.

~~~
loopz
They will be fired and cancelled though.

[https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/05borderlands.html](https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/05borderlands.html)

------
082349872349872
"... when federal officers arrived on July 4"

I hope they got weekend/holiday pay.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lMOL7GaPWI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lMOL7GaPWI)

