• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oregon will sue federal police agencies, open criminal investigation into use of force

Stealers Wheel said:
Are there any other political philosophies that you have decided are now criminal?

When someone is arrested, there is a legal term "habeas corpus" which requires the police to either charge with a crime or release the individual. 48 hours is a typical time frame. American laws require crimes to be associated with criminal behaviors, not simply expressions of political ideologies.

Therefore, the arresting agency will have to articulate a specific behavior that violated a statute at the preliminary hearing in order for the individual to be held over for trial. Simply being present during chaos will not fill the bill. At the same time the agency employees will also be required to account for their behavior during and following the arrest. I know that's the part that really pisses folks like you off. Law and order and all that.
Click to expand...

Antifa has been labeled a 'Terrorist Org' by AG Barr. Therefore, they are treated as such
 
VySky said:
Antifa has been labeled a 'Terrorist Org' by AG Barr. Therefore, they are treated as such
Click to expand...
Arbitrarily abeling ANTIFA a "domestic terrorist organization" (a term with no legal significance whatsoever) does not magically do away with the Bill of Rights.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
The thing is, Obama didn't actually do anything.

All of those agencies had well-armed police forces long before Obama was elected.
Click to expand...

shrug...

Those links I presented say otherwise.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Arbitrarily abeling ANTIFA a "domestic terrorist organization" (a term with no legal significance whatsoever) does not magically do away with the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Gitmo is full of terrorist with ........ cough...... rights
 
CaughtInThe said:
They will stop this crazy national (Trump/Barr) police force from illegal practices during protests/etc.

I can't believe I actually had to type that.
Click to expand...

I've got news for you... There is no Trump/Barr national police.
 
with past Presidents the conversations probably went like this...


"Can't we just do 'X'?"
"Sir, that would violate the law/statue against 'Y'"
"Then what are our options?"




now, it's probably just...

"Just get those ****** off the street. I don't care how you do it. I SAID GET THOSE ******* OFF THE STREET!"
 
VySky said:
Antifa has been labeled a 'Terrorist Org' by AG Barr. Therefore, they are treated as such
Click to expand...

Protestors hauled off the streets in Portland have been law abiding, no connection to Antifa. I remember no so long ago the Federal Government was much disliked on the right. Oh yes, days of the Tea Party and all the ignoramuses carrying around their little specially printed copies of The Constitution, even taking courses in The Federalist Papers so above their heads. That classic Tea Party woman with her sign, "Keep Your Hands Off My Medicare". What happened?

Trump happened. Obama un-happened. And all was right with the Federal Government,.
 
Anthony60 said:
I've got news for you... There is no Trump/Barr national police.
Click to expand...

and yet...

"Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced late Friday that her office would sue several federal law enforcement agencies over their response to Portland protests and launch a criminal investigation into an incident of force by federal officers.

Rosenblum is seeking a temporary restraining order to stop federal officers from detaining Portlanders, arguing federal agencies seized and detained Oregonians without probable cause. She said the state’s lawsuit in federal court will name the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Federal Protection Service as defendants."


so it doesn't really matter if it's one force or what it's actually called. it's still federal agencies doing the wrong thing and there's only one President and there's only one United States Attorney General.
 
CaughtInThe said:
and yet...

"Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced late Friday that her office would sue several federal law enforcement agencies over their response to Portland protests and launch a criminal investigation into an incident of force by federal officers.

Rosenblum is seeking a temporary restraining order to stop federal officers from detaining Portlanders, arguing federal agencies seized and detained Oregonians without probable cause. She said the state’s lawsuit in federal court will name the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Federal Protection Service as defendants."


so it doesn't really matter if it's one force or what it's actually called. it's still federal agencies doing the wrong thing and there's only one President and there's only one United States Attorney General.
Click to expand...

The mayor should probably just resign so someone can come in that can enforce the law and keep people and property safe. Kind of an embarrassment for her to now run to federal court because she couldn't do the job.
 
Anthony60 said:
The mayor should probably just resign so someone can come in that can enforce the law and keep people and property safe. Kind of an embarrassment for her to now run to federal court because she couldn't do the job.
Click to expand...

or the Feds can stop doing stuff they shouldn't.


let me guess, you were previously a State's Rights guy.
 
Mr Person said:
The way the Trump administration is using these federal forces is effectively an end run around posse comitatus. They are doing what one would expect the army to do if it was sent in to "keep the peace". The only real difference is that they aren't in the army, but rather, in agencies also under the executive. Difference, yes, but not much of any distinction.

Very different from, say, DEA agents raiding one specific warehouse that just got a 20-ton coke shipment. They're generally deployed over large areas, enforcing a domestic policy.




Which brings to mind...

Where are the states' rights folks? You know, the people who pretended to be conservative but cannot possibly be in light of continued Trump/GOP support? You'd think they'd be outraged at the Trump admin for sending in federal forces to carry out local police duties.
Click to expand...
They're out chasing imaginary black helicopters.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... using that "logic": if one state employee of Oregon allegedly commits a criminal act (wile on duty) then the entire department, agency or program to which he belonged should then be forced to cease their operations (indefinitely?) by a judge. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you didn't take a logic course....
If the AGENCY is engaging in actions By And Through their officers, it can be enjoined.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Has it been established that (bolded above) was the case? If so, please provide a (credible) source.
Click to expand...
And now for the remedial course...
 
Ikari said:
I don't believe the Federal Government can just swoop in and start black bagging people because they want to. Oregon may have a claim here, I don't know. But regardless, the black bagging can't be allowed to continue.
Click to expand...

If the subject who was arrested has committed Federal crimes, then the Federal law enforcement agency which has jurisdiction over those violations does not need the permission of the state, the county, or the city where a Federal crime has occurred. Even where there may be concurrent jurisdiction overlapping with state penal statutes. Where the Federal agents are making arrests, it isn't for state violations.

Libtards are under the mistaken belief that the places they may occupy are their own sovereign territory unencumbered by Federal laws.
 
Court Jester said:
If the subject who was arrested has committed Federal crimes, then the Federal law enforcement agency which has jurisdiction over those violations does not need the permission of the state, the county, or the city where a Federal crime has occurred. Even where there may be concurrent jurisdiction overlapping with state penal statutes. Where the Federal agents are making arrests, it isn't for state violations.

Libtards are under the mistaken belief that the places they may occupy are their own sovereign territory unencumbered by Federal laws.
Click to expand...

Conservtards are often mistaken that the exercise of rights relegates on to black bagging by the government.

In a Republic where we push the rights and liberties of the individual, then those must come first. If someone is merely protesting, not engaged in "occupation" or violent crime, then we should not be OK with the Federal Government black bagging them. That's a bit fascist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom