
Oregon, Journalists Sue U.S. over Portland Arrests, Violence - laurex
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-17/u-s-agents-are-added-to-suit-alleging-attack-by-portland-police
======
Munky-Necan
I'm surprised that someone hasn't been shot yet. Unmarked camouflage officers
in unmarked vans that do not identify themselves as officers sounds like they
might get shot at if they try detaining the wrong person.

~~~
koheripbal
They aren't unmarked - their camouflage uniform clearly says "POLICE" on the
front.

To be clear, do not shoot someone with POLICE written on their uniform, or
even anyone you _suspect might_ be a police officer, because you will spend
the rest of your life in jail.

~~~
xref
The pics I’ve seen show a small “police” patch in dark lettering over camo
obscured by assault rifle straps and equipment. That’s not very clear in the
dark when they don’t identify themselves and are putting a bag over your head

------
mfer
I'm left with a lot of questions like...

When someone is arrested there are certain legal requirements, like the
miranda warning, that must be done. Are those all being followed?

People need to be charged in the proper jurisdiction for the proper laws. Is
that happening?

A person can only be held in custody for a limited period of time without
charges being filed. Is this being followed?

Are the details documented anywhere?

~~~
tantalor
> certain legal requirements, like the miranda warning

No. _Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their
rights," they can escape punishment. Not true. But if the police fail to read
a suspect his or her Miranda rights, the prosecutor can't use for most
purposes anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial._

[https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-
questioning-m...](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-
miranda-warnings-29930.html)

------
staycoolboy
Was just in Portland last weekend. Other than the all the masks, and the
awesome new outdoor dining where they shut down streets for restaurant
patrons, it's identical to how it was the last time I was there in November.

These are authoritarian scare tactics to make the protestors stop protesting
police violence, so that they can go back to the violent status quo and
maintain the blue wall of silence. The outcry from the pro-militants about
public property damage is a day late and a dollar short: the point of the
protests is about the murder of innocent blacks by out of control police.
Murder >> Vandalism.

Want the protests to stop? Address police brutality, don't escalate with
random acts of surreal violence.

------
pmoriarty
This article echoes another recent article[1], which has more details.

[1] - [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/n7w4w8/trump-sent-the-
fed...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/n7w4w8/trump-sent-the-feds-to-
portland-and-theyre-kidnapping-people-off-the-streets)

------
itchyjunk
DHS is like that youngest kid that gets to do a lot more and get away with.
Assume that what happened is legal and this type of `snatch and go` is a valid
way to detain someone. Does it make it right? It doesn't sound like they were
grabbing someone who had an arrest warrant against them. The state seem to not
know that these detention were being made. Hard to know who is making the
arrest. Hard to know what was being done during detention. Was their phone
copied? Is that okay? Maybe more than just the local police have a bit too
much power than they need.

------
simonsarris
FYI, what DHS alleges and is trying to stop, however competently or not:

[https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/07/16/acting-secretary-wolf-
co...](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/07/16/acting-secretary-wolf-condemns-
rampant-long-lasting-violence-portland)

~~~
e12e
Wow, that's a long list of mostly labeling minor property damage "violence".
In a context where there have been some killings (car driving into
demonstrations, shootings) - this seems like a clear case of wrong priorities
along the lines of:

[https://theintercept.com/2020/07/15/george-floyd-protests-
po...](https://theintercept.com/2020/07/15/george-floyd-protests-police-far-
right-antifa/)

Thanks for posting the link, by the way. Very illuminating to the DHS state of
mind.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
Yeah,very illuminating. It's amazing how everyone who caused property damage
was a "violent anarchist."

~~~
bleah1000
Have you seen pictures from Portland? It looks like the site of a third-world
battle field.

I'm sure it sounds like minor property damage, but when you see what's
happening, it's not as minor as you think.

Remember, these are the folks that destroyed the elk statue for some reason.
Nobody is really talking about the fact that these riots have been going on
for more than a month, so people don't know how bad it is.

~~~
Thetawaves
Will nobody think of the elk? Thats a fine molehill you've got there.

------
nickysielicki
If you’re looking to hear the other (pro-police) side of the story, I’d
recommend checking out this video by YouTuber “Donut Operator”. He’s a former
LEO and he makes pretty fair videos doing breakdowns of officer involved
shootings and whether they were justifiable or not. He did some commentary on
videos coming out of Portland.

[https://youtu.be/5EgMijMhS_U](https://youtu.be/5EgMijMhS_U)

~~~
aerovistae
There is no "other side" for unidentified officers in unmarked cars with no
accountability. There's no justifying that. This problem could be dealt with
by forces who identify themselves and can be held responsible for violations.

Do you have some videos explaining the "other side" for the SS too?

~~~
alexose
Well said. The attempt to divide this into a binary issue is (sadly)
predictable. Nobody here should support the use of these gestapo-style tactics
from the federal government, ever. For anything. Full stop.

------
reaperducer
I see a lot of comments on HN, and elsewhere along the lines of "America is so
terrible! Look how the police treat their own citizens!"

The difference between the United States and many (most?) other countries is
in the article's title: The word "sue."

In America, aggrieved citizens have the right to correct their government.
It's not always easy. It's rarely quick. But it can be done, and it has been
done hundreds or even thousands of times in the past.

America is a work in progress. Deliberately.

~~~
GaryNumanVevo
Do you think they would be protesting still if there was an easier way to
petition the government to make actual changes?

Of course not. No one wants to potentially risk arrest and or be seriously
injured in the political process. What we're seeing is the last resort of
people organizing against a broken political system.

~~~
koheripbal
No. These (mostly teenagers) want change that most people _don 't_ want. That
is why the process doesn't work for them - because they are the minority
opinion. So that's why they resort to violence.

~~~
GaryNumanVevo
> mostly teenagers [citation needed]

> want change that most people don't want [citation needed]

~~~
kyleee
probably closer to 18 - 34 demo based on looking over a number of arrest
records. WRT the 2nd part, look up general polling for defunding the police,
or general sentiment for communism

------
xenadu02
Secret police snatching people off the street in unmarked vehicles is 100%
police state / gestapo behavior. No one should be OK with it.

~~~
itsoktocry
> _No one should be OK with it._

Agreed. And no one should be okay with the police standing down while rioters
smash public buildings, vandalize and desecrate public spaces and burglarize
innocent local businesses. What is the fair middle ground, and how do we get
there?

~~~
balr0g
I’d suggest the fair middle ground is to loosen state power by defunding
police departments and reinvesting in communities. I keep seeing this
sentiment voiced, but from a ground level looking up it comes off as
closeminded because it implies that “riots” and “protesting” are different
things. The reality is no one in portland tried to burn down the justice
center, if they did they would be shot on sight. Whats happening is people are
disrupting their societies to make a point to the people who run it that
they’re doing a poor job. That’s a noble endeavor, no matter the means.
America’s founded on white supremacy, and America’s maintained white
supremacy. I think it’s inspiring that people are targeting the police forces
of their cities, who are in no uncertain terms the major enforcers of a rotten
status quo.

~~~
itsoktocry
> _That’s a noble endeavor, no matter the means. America’s founded on white
> supremacy, and America’s maintained white supremacy._

That's fair. But understand that not everyone agrees with this, and will be
willing to do what it takes to defend their way of life. What does the end-
game look like?

~~~
maxerickson
The people holding on to the past lose. It's not complicated.

Hopefully they don't use a bunch of violence in the process.

------
cwhiz
“Protests.” Let’s be honest on both sides. What’s going on in Portland is
violent rioting. “Demonstrators” don’t burn cars in the street, but rioters
do.

~~~
Jgrubb
Burning cars, so what? Parisians riot like this about every 18 months or so
and the state doesn't call out the secret police and somehow the country still
exists.

~~~
beervirus
Maybe the fact that there are no consequences has something to do with the
fact that it keeps happening every 18 months?

~~~
dwaltrip
You are in support of secret police extrajudicially detaining citizens? Over a
burnt car?

Why can’t law enforcement do this by the book?

~~~
beervirus
The initial detention of suspected criminals usually is “extrajudicial” in
that it’s done by police without a warrant from a judge. These are federal
officers instead of the local police (who should be handling this, except that
they’re being hamstrung by local officials’ pandering to the mob). But that
doesn’t make them “secret police.”

------
thinkingemote
Whilst it's potentially interesting, this submission will probably get flagged
by other users who can see that the flame value outweighs any curious
discovery.

There are a few comments which follow the guidelines and encourage discussion
though, but more that are quick to temper.

------
dontcarethrow2
alright, so who pays when the lawsuit goes through? Taxes? How do we get it
from the guilty department's budget?

~~~
DrJokepu
I’m no lawyer, but the article implies that the purpose of the lawsuit is not
to seek compensation but to stop the Federal Government from continuing these
operations.

------
gguevaraa
Any lawyers or people familiar with law want to chime in on how this will turn
out?

~~~
throwaway_USD
The States should prevail, because under the Constitution the Federal
Government does not have police powers and under the 10th Amendment police
powers are reserved for the states.

Now the limit on the Federal government police powers has eroded slowly (like
all limitations on the federal governments power under the constitution), so
you could point to the FBI, secret service, ICE/CBP...but if the Federal
Government prevails it would be a giant leap in erosion of State rights and
limitations on Federal powers. Basically it would be negating the 10th
Amendment and authorizing the Federal Government to establish their own police
and unilaterally deploy them nationwide.

In short the States should prevail based on police power and 10th amendment
arguments, but I wouldn't foreclose this being the spark the Federal
Government is looking for to gain the police powers they have always wanted.
If the Federal Government prevails over the States here, you can anticipate a
"commerce clause" argument where the Federal Government will use mental
gymnastics to claim State failures to police their States effect interstate
commerce, so the Federal Government must have the right to step in with their
own police powers and regulate.

~~~
beervirus
When was the last time a 10th amendment argument won the day? Like 200 years
ago?

~~~
GaryNumanVevo
Last time I checked, the fed doesn't have policing power, only states do. This
is a huge overstep of states rights.

~~~
beervirus
That’s the plenary “police power” you’re thinking of, and it has a lot more to
do with the constitutionality of legislation than with actual police work. It
doesn’t mean that federal officers can never engage in police-like activities.

See, e.g., the FBI.

~~~
throwaway_USD
We have seen federal agents acting as police and detaining and arresting
individuals on the streets over objections from the Governor and Mayor.

If you are going to support these acts:

1\. Cite any legal precedent where Federal government has policed and made
arrests over state/local government objections?

2\. Identify the Federal Criminal Statute any of the suspects violated
authorizing these "arrests"? (presumably even if you believe the Federal
government has the power to police over State/local objections, you hopefully
agree they don't have the power to make arrests without probably cause a crime
was committed, so what is are the federal criminal statutes?)

3\. Now even supposing the Court did side with the Federal Government, finding
that they have police powers they may unilaterally deploy over objections from
local governments and that the arrests here were lawful, you would still tons
of other Constitutional issues. For example: in all the arrests I have seen, I
have not seen any miranda warnings, post arrest I have yet to find any
confirmation the arrestees were afforded their constitutional rights to an
attorney...seeing as the Federal agents to date have not had these traditional
police powers I think it is fair to assume they haven't received this basic
training, and for that reason alone even if the Fed had these powers they are
still likely violating numerous constitutional rights in each arrest.

~~~
beervirus
1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807)

2\. Attempting to burn down the federal courthouse would probably violate
federal law, one would think.

3\. You’re just speculating. There’s no reason to think the arrestees aren’t
being mirandized and given access to counsel.

~~~
throwaway_USD
>1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807)

Before invoking the powers under the Act, 10 U.S.C. § 254 requires the
President to first publish a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse.
So if this is your precedent and there is no Presidential proclamation, then
you would agree Trump has engaged in illegal acts?

>2\. Attempting to burn down the federal courthouse would probably violate
federal law, one would think.

There have been multiple "arrests" on video, and in the video the individuals
were not attempting to burn anything down, much less a federal courthouse, in
fact they weren't even near a federal courthouse and had no materials in their
hands to suggest they could burn anything down.

>3\. You’re just speculating. There’s no reason to think the arrestees aren’t
being mirandized and given access to counsel.

There is video of some of these "arrests" including the prior to the
interactions, the initial interactions, the detention, the "arrest" and
placement into unmarked vans...in these videos there was no Miranda given.
Since when is verifiable video evidence speculation?

But yes, my point is even if a court ruled the Federal Government has this
power, there would still be many other Constitutional protections that apply,
and based on what we have seen there seems to be those kinds of violations
based on verifiable video evidence. I have also yet to see anyone who was
arrested be bonded out nor make a public statement through any
attorney...where are these arrestees held? Have they been afforded the right
to an attorney? Have they appeared before a Judge for bail?

~~~
beervirus
1\. I don’t know if this is exactly what’s being relied on here. You asked for
_any example_ , and this is one.

2\. It’s easy to trim videos to remove the incriminating parts. You can make
anyone look like the bad guy with selective editing.

3\. Maybe they mirandized them as soon as they were in the van? We have no
idea. Anyway, failure to mirandize doesn’t make an arrest illegal—it just
means that if the suspect says something incriminating before the Miranda
warnings, it can’t be used against him later.

The fact that _you haven’t seen_ anyone bonded out is meaningless.

~~~
throwaway_USD
>The fact that you haven’t seen anyone bonded out is meaningless.

If you believe Constitutional rights are meaningless.

~~~
beervirus
You missed the part of that statement that was emphasized. I was saying that
the fact that you personally haven't seen it happen doesn't mean it isn't
happening.

~~~
throwaway_USD
> I was saying that the fact that you personally haven't seen it happen
> doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Yes, when bail hearings aren't seen, its good proof they aren't happening
because its contrary to legal procedure. Are you claiming all people snatched
off the streets have had bail hearings in secret and for some reason the court
orders aren't being made public? You do realize news would show up to these
bail hearings if they were happening and otherwise the Court orders would be
public record right?

You have the President bragging about these actions:

"We’ve done a great job in Portland," Trump said. "I guess, we have many
people right now in jail, and we very much quelled it. And if it starts again,
we’ll quell it again very easily. It’s not hard to do if you know what you’re
doing."
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/17/report...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/17/reports-
federal-officers-detain-portland-protesters-unmarked-vans/5457471002/)

The fact people would be in still be in jail as opposed to being brought
before a judge for a bail hearing shifts the burden, sure some could have been
denied bail (on the merits), but either way the Judge/Court order would exist,
the fact there are no court orders is prima facie evidence they are not
happening, there are ongoing violations of constitutional rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also condemned the reported actions
of the agents.

"Usually when we see people in unmarked cars forcibly grab someone off the
street, we call it kidnapping," the organisation wrote on Twitter. "These
actions are flat-out unconstitutional and will not go unanswered."
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-
canada-53453077](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53453077)

Anyway its clear this won't go anywhere, because unless I see that which does
not exist, in your opinion the same can not be excluded from existence...which
is obviously an impossible burden. Should unmarked militarized federal
officers occupy your city and snatch you off the streets, I wish you the best.

~~~
beervirus
I mean, it's not like these people are just being disappeared. "Federal
officers have charged at least 13 people with crimes related to the protests
so far, while others have been arrested and released . . . ."

[https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-
unm...](https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unmarked-
vehicles-portland-protesters/)

------
solidsnack9000
Not sure why they are saying the detentions are conducted "secretly".

~~~
MengerSponge
Because they're being conducted by unidentified agents of the state and there
isn't a thorough public record of it. The idiom refers to state records, not
to public knowledge or visibility.

~~~
koheripbal
The uniform clear says "POLICE" on it.

~~~
kyleee
Along with agency patches on the shoulder area

------
pmoriarty
Why isn't Oregon law enforcement treating this as they do any other
kidnappings: by finding and arresting the kidnappers, and freeing the victims?

The people who ordered the kidnappings could also be rounded up on charges of
conspiracy.

~~~
koheripbal
Because the uniforms clearly say "POLICE" on them.

~~~
krapp
> Because the uniforms clearly say "POLICE" on them.

You keep pointing that out as if it actually means something.

~~~
koheripbal
You keep denying it as if no one watches the video themselves

~~~
krapp
Anyone can buy a patch that says "POLICE" on it and sew it to some fatigues.
That's not a legitimate form of identification.

There is no law enforcement organization or bureau named "POLICE" which one
could petition, interview or sue.

Stop being purposely obtuse.

~~~
lostmsu
That's a stupid argument. Anyone can buy any easily visible publicly
recognizable sign.

I fail to see how this badge is insufficient in a potentially aggressive
situation.

~~~
fzeroracer
So let's change the situation then.

If someone was trying to kick in your door wearing generic fatigues and a
patch that says 'POLICE' while refusing to identify themselves, would you let
them in? I'm assuming that would be sufficient identity for you to agree that
they are in fact police and they have a sufficient reason to kick in your
door.

~~~
koheripbal
Yes, absolutely, and so should you if you're smart.

------
Google234
Maybe these Portlanders should stop trying to burn down the federal
courthouse.

~~~
whatthesmack
My thoughts exactly. When they’re being violent and destroying things, does it
really come as a surprise that they’re getting arrested?

~~~
LurkersWillLurk
This isn't about whether or not they get arrested. This is about certain
ground rules and principles that the government must always uphold, even
against unprincipled opponents.

Federal law enforcement officers, dressed in camo gear and without any
identifying insignia, arresting and covering the faces of alleged rioters and
stuffing them into unmarked vehicles and taking them God-knows-where is
absolutely unacceptable.

These principles are what separates the government from the rioters. How are
you going to hold the government accountable when you don't even know which
government agency a certain police officer belongs to?

~~~
koheripbal
The uniforms in the videos clearly say "POLICE" on them. According to the
people released, they were read their Miranda rights - and who cares that they
are dressed in camo and using unmarked cars?

As long as the suspect is put before a judge, I don't see the issue.

~~~
LurkersWillLurk
A tiny amount of "police" text isn't worth much of anything. There is
absolutely no defensible reason to hide the agency patch and badge number of
every individual officer on the ground. There is absolutely no defensible
reason to tie beanbags around the faces of arrestees. There is absolutely no
defensible reason for the police to put arrestees into unmarked vehicles.

There is no way of ascertaining exactly who these federal agents are. This
precludes court redress and is unacceptable.

~~~
kyleee
They have agency patches on too, just for the sake of truth

------
jorblumesea
Ironically, giving ideological ammo to the protestors that the system is
rotten to the core and needs to be completely replaced. Unmarked rented
vehicles kidnapping protestors that lead to interrogations in a secret offsite
location sounds a lot like the Stasi or Nazi germany. No one should be ok with
this, ever.

Where are the "second amendments against tyranny folks"? Oh, they probably
support the police. Nice to see that when democracy is under attack, it's fine
if they're just attacking the other side.

An alternate sources:

[https://www.newsweek.com/trump-accused-deploying-secret-
poli...](https://www.newsweek.com/trump-accused-deploying-secret-police-
portland-political-stunt-1518595)

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-
canada-53453077](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53453077)

Seems like it's largely to shore up Trump's flagging poll numbers as the hope
is that it plays well on Fox News. Feels like a fascist Nixonian "law and
order" political calculation but like most Trumpian endeavors it will probably
backfire.

edit: Let's put this another way. If these were the anti-mask protestors or
the anti-lockdown protestors how do you think this would go down? Do you think
elements on the right would be okay with this? My feeling is that it would be
a shit storm. But because it's happening to "left wing thugs", "looters" and
"antifa" it's ok right? Whether you believe these people have committed crimes
or not, having secret police round them up is completely unamerican. If they
committed crimes, serve up formal arrest warrants, give them their Miranda
rights and their day in front of a judge with lawyer representation.

Democratic values and human rights only exist for those who political
positions we agree with, right? I forgot there was a clause in the
constitution that allowed you to just skip articles because it happened to
people you don't like /s

~~~
pravus
We were told to shut up and put away our guns because these things could never
happen...

~~~
jorblumesea
Well if you don't use it to defend democratic values then I'd say you don't
deserve those guns. The 2nd amendment was literally a hedge against these
situations but many of those strong believers in the second amendment are
conspicuously absent and probably side with the right wing fascist elements.
Unfortunately many if not most gun owners seem to be entirely ok with eroding
American democratic values and freedom so long as the other side "gets what's
coming to them".

~~~
whatthesmack
Yeah, because we’re tired of mayors and governors letting the real fascists
own the streets, causing untold violence and damage. If those folks are
breaking the law, it should be no surprise when they’re placed under arrest.

------
GaryNumanVevo
It's a perfect Kafka trap, by resisting arrest by secret police in unmarked
vehicles you can be labeled as a "domestic terrorist" later, justifying the
arrest post-hoc.

It's especially concerning they have no ID or agency badges, as right wing
extremists have been using the protests to dress up like soldiers.

~~~
kyleee
"It's especially concerning they have no ID or agency badges"

Do you have source(s) for this claim?

~~~
GaryNumanVevo
Local LEO told them to identify themselves and they were told to “fuck off”

------
eanzenberg
Antifa was declared a terrorist organization. They were seen as co-opting a
movement, instigating with violence throughout the country, especially in poor
neighborhoods, and attempting to start a race-war. However you may feel about
the designation, the means to stop them are deemed serious enough to warrant
these measures.

~~~
orwin
> Antifa was declared a terrorist organization.

Is this true? Was the identity right declared a terrorist organization as
well?

Did "antifa" killed someone in the US? (Genuinely asking, i stopped following
the new around may).

Because I will tell you that Antifa in europe is the leftist equivalent of the
identity right (neonazis groups and white supremacists). So if antifa as a
whole is deemed a terrorist organisation despite not having killed anyone
while you have members of the identity right driving into a crowd or mass
shooting people at a synagogue and the identity right as a whole is not at
least declared a terrorist organization, this is a weird asymmetry.

~~~
fzeroracer
No. There's been violence for sure, but 'antifa' as people claim have no
murdered anyone nor caused any mass murders. Trump has said that he will
declare them a terrorist group however.

The great irony of this all is that we have direct examples of the alt-right
straight up murdering people during protests. Like Heather Heyer. But the
Unite the Right rally 'wasn't responsible', it was just some rogue person
totally unrelated to the alt-right (despite them cheering it on).

During these events, all protesters are considered rioters and thus are
considered criminals. But during Unite the Right, not all protesters are
considered neo-nazis despite marching with neo-nazis. Guilt by association for
BLM, and then 'fine people on both sides' for neo-nazis.

------
mindslight
We're at the point where the larger Republican establishment either needs to
repudiate and remove this anti-American wannabe dictator, or they're going to
find themselves at the guillotine alongside him. Our society cannot take
another 6 months of economic destruction, brazen totalitarianism, and
weaponized ignorance.

~~~
itsoktocry
> _or they 're going to find themselves at the guillotine alongside him_

Be careful what you wish for, because the tech overlords and their enablers
aren't very far down the list after the politicians.

~~~
mindslight
I'm not wishing for it. I stated what I'd like to see happen to prevent
collapse from occurring.

