WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department explored whether it could pursue either criminal or civil rights charges against city officials in Portland, Oregon after clashes erupted there night after night between law enforcement and demonstrators, a department spokesperson said Thursday.
The revelation that federal officials researched whether they could levy criminal or civil charges against the officials — exploring whether their rhetoric and actions may have helped spur the violence in Portland — underscores the larger Trump administration’s effort to spotlight and crack down on protest-related violence. The majority of the mass police reform demonstrations nationwide have been peaceful.
For many nights, federal officials were told that Portland police officers were explicitly told not to respond to the federal courthouse as hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside, some throwing bricks, rocks and other projectiles at officers, and not to assist federal officers who were sent to try to quell the unrest.
The department had done research on whether it could pursue the charges, spokesperson Kerri Kupec said. She declined to comment on the status or whether charges would be brought. But bringing criminal civil rights charges against city officials for protest-related violence would likely present an uphill court battle for federal prosecutors.
Feds explored possibly charging Portland officials in unrest
Anyone else see the precedent being set, or is it just me?
Feds explored possibly charging Portland officials in unrest
Anyone else see the precedent being set, or is it just me?
Would this be the precedent set when Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock?
If a state or local public official genuinely engaged in criminal activity in violation of Federal law, or incited or induced others to engage in criminal activity, I see no reason for them not to be charged. But mere rhetoric expressing sympathy or even outright support of people engaging in criminal behavior is not enough.
Now, is flat-out ordering the municipal police not to respond to violations of the law against a distinct group of people (i.e., federal employees) a criminal offense under federal law? I do not know. Imagine if in some city the mayor and city council ordered the police not to investigate crimes committed against, say, a distinct racial minority or in particular neighborhoods that are dominated or exclusively home to members of a particular ethnic minority? Would that be illegal?
I would want to ask you, Luce, since you are (were?) a law enforcement officer. Would a specific stand down-order from the head of government of your county or municipality ordering you not to intervene in continuing open and violent criminal violations against a distinct group of people be an illegal order?
Yes. You can't count on city officials to protect federal property, so it's best to send a federal response.Feds explored possibly charging Portland officials in unrest
Anyone else see the precedent being set, or is it just me?
Yes. You can't count on city officials to protect federal property, so it's best to send a federal response.
Feds explored possibly charging Portland officials in unrest
Anyone else see the precedent being set, or is it just me?
It should happen.
It sounds like they explored it and decided not to pursue a legal challenge. They sent in people instead.To charge a mayor with state level offenses (assuming a stand down order is illegal in Oregon)?
It sounds like they explored it and decided not to pursue a legal challenge. They sent in people instead.
Nobody has been charged, correct?
he declined to comment on the status or whether charges would be brought.
Which means no charges have been filed. That's the precedent, if any.From paragraph 4:
Which means no charges have been filed. That's the precedent, if any.
If a state or local public official genuinely engaged in criminal activity in violation of Federal law, or incited or induced others to engage in criminal activity, I see no reason for them not to be charged. But mere rhetoric expressing sympathy or even outright support of people engaging in criminal behavior is not enough.
Depends. Did he have the mayor of Little Rock arrested?
I wouldn't think so, it was the Mayor that requested Eisenhower intervene.
This article is about the federal government attempting to justify arresting officials on state level charges.
No, the article indicates the Justice Department is exploring whether local officials may be subject to civil or criminal liability of Federal crimes. The Federal Government cannot charge local officials for state crimes.
Perhaps you aren't from this country or aren't familiar with the 3 levels of government here.
For many nights, federal officials were told that Portland police officers were explicitly told not to respond to the federal courthouse as hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside, some throwing bricks, rocks and other projectiles at officers, and not to assist federal officers who were sent to try to quell the unrest.
Perhaps you aren't from this country or aren't familiar with the 3 levels of government here.
Oh, wait. We're done here.
I apologize for embarrassing you. It didn't seem like you were familiar with different levels of laws.
It should happen.
Trump, Trump supporters, and the Republican party are traitors to the founding principles of our Republic. They represent an existential threat to the Republic. They must be totally destroyed in a political sense and made to be irrelevant on the national stage for as long as practically possible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?