Jack Bauer said:

---

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

quash said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

quash said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Cops will either be no help, or overwhelmed and unable to answer your 911 call for help. You better have your own plan to protect yourself, your family and your property against these animals.

---

I hope you have your safe space.

---

North Korea just declared owning dogs as pets to be illegal because it is "bourgeois". Citizens are now required to handover their dogs to the authorities to be given to restaurants for meat. That sounds like your kind of country. Why don't you move there.

---

Why don't you start with something I actually supported? I support Constitutional carry, sex work, legalized drugs, immigration, gay marriage, free speech, free trade, free markets, deregulation, and keeping my earnings, as taxation is theft. All of those things oppose the govt telling me what to do.

But you were going to say something relevant, pretty sure...

---

You support riots and looting and rape and murder and flag burning and attacking cops and torching cars and tearing down monuments and teaching kids America is evil and that there are 784 genders. You support destroying America. Go ahead and move out. We don't need you.

---

I don't know if he's actually supported the riots. He merely believes that they aren't happening.

He's just another riot denier.

---

Never said that either. All I have ever done is ask people to distinguish protests from riots. Shouldn't be that hard.

---

What are the protests, protesting these days? Why not just call stupid, stupid and move on. There is really no reason why they should be defended any longer. Call a spade, a spade.

---

What does it matter? Citizens have the right to protest, even if you think their point is stupid you don't get to shut down their 1A rights.

---

What about people who just happen to be in the neighborhood? Should they have an expectation of not being beaten unconscious for being in the neighborhood?

---

That's two posts in a row where you fail to distinguish the rioters from the protesters. Even though it's an overlapping Venn diagram I will not go along with making protests illegal. None of you say that out loud but the state violence you sanction is not far removed.

" All I have ever done is ask people to distinguish protests from riots. Shouldn't be that hard."

---

You called the federal officers "Jackboots". Rioters were trying to burn a courthouse & you claimed it would stop when said "jackboots" left. It didn't. Local police arrest rioters and DA won't prosecute. That is up to the locals if they tolerate such things.
You claimed they were peaceful. Rioters weren't. Who suggested making protests illegal?

I assume you are ok with police protecting drivers and pedestrians attempting to travel on the streets? Should rioters be arrested? Is it "state violence" to protect life and property with force?

---

When the feds left the attacks on the federal building shifted to the local police station and another location.

Local police were arresting rioters (20 arrests) the very night the jackboots pulled their bag and snatch operations. Have you seen me condemn the Portland police for arresting rioters? Nope. Those guys are not only doing their jobs they are, near as I can tell from Texas, doing it correctly. The feds not so much.

I have read nothing about the prosecutions, although I can see why it would be difficult.

When I say state violence it refers to these acts: shooting protesters in the head with rubber bullets, targetting of media and medics, unlawful stops and detentions, and the lack of due process afforded those snatched by the jackboots. If LEOs cannot tell a protester from a rioter, on the spot, then we are in for more protests and riots. The moment a protester decides to damage property or attack anyone they have lost their status as a protester. I really feel like I'm stating what should be obvious.

---

It would appear in my opinion that law enforcement officers are able to make a accurate determination of protestors vs rioters based the ACLU of Oregon's literature and ORS 131.675 Regarding dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblages.

Per ACLU

Limitations on Action
Demonstrators who engage in civil disobedience defined as non-violent unlawful action as a form of protest are not protected under the First Amendment. People who engage in civil disobedience should be prepared to be arrested or fined as part of their protest activity.

If you endanger others while protesting, you can be arrested. A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit.

You do not have the right to block a building entrance or physically harass people. The general rule is that free speech activity cannot take place on private property, including shopping malls, without consent of the property owner. You do not have the right to remain on private property after being told to leave by the owner.

https://aclu-or.org/en/know-your-rights/your-right-protest

ORS 131.675

Dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblages
When any five or more persons, whether armed or not, are unlawfully or riotously assembled in any county, city, town or village, the sheriff of the county and the deputies of the sheriff, the mayor of the city, town or village, or chief executive officer or officers thereof, and the justice of the peace of the district where the assemblage takes place, or such of them as can forthwith be collected, shall go among the persons assembled, or as near to them as they can with safety, and command them in the name of the State of Oregon to disperse. If, so commanded, they do not immediately disperse, the officer must arrest them or cause them to be arrested; and they may be punished according to law. [Formerly 145.020; 1987 c.526 1]
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/131.675

Please explain why limitations on actions above should not be enforced?

---

Please show me where I ever said police should not enforce the law.

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

quash said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

quash said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Cops will either be no help, or overwhelmed and unable to answer your 911 call for help. You better have your own plan to protect yourself, your family and your property against these animals.

---

I hope you have your safe space.

---

North Korea just declared owning dogs as pets to be illegal because it is "bourgeois". Citizens are now required to handover their dogs to the authorities to be given to restaurants for meat. That sounds like your kind of country. Why don't you move there.

---

Why don't you start with something I actually supported? I support Constitutional carry, sex work, legalized drugs, immigration, gay marriage, free speech, free trade, free markets, deregulation, and keeping my earnings, as taxation is theft. All of those things oppose the govt telling me what to do.

But you were going to say something relevant, pretty sure...

---

You support riots and looting and rape and murder and flag burning and attacking cops and torching cars and tearing down monuments and teaching kids America is evil and that there are 784 genders. You support destroying America. Go ahead and move out. We don't need you.

---

I don't know if he's actually supported the riots. He merely believes that they aren't happening.

He's just another riot denier.

---

Never said that either. All I have ever done is ask people to distinguish protests from riots. Shouldn't be that hard.

---

What are the protests, protesting these days? Why not just call stupid, stupid and move on. There is really no reason why they should be defended any longer. Call a spade, a spade.

---

What does it matter? Citizens have the right to protest, even if you think their point is stupid you don't get to shut down their 1A rights.

---

What about people who just happen to be in the neighborhood? Should they have an expectation of not being beaten unconscious for being in the neighborhood?

---

That's two posts in a row where you fail to distinguish the rioters from the protesters. Even though it's an overlapping Venn diagram I will not go along with making protests illegal. None of you say that out loud but the state violence you sanction is not far removed.

" All I have ever done is ask people to distinguish protests from riots. Shouldn't be that hard."

---

You called the federal officers "Jackboots". Rioters were trying to burn a courthouse & you claimed it would stop when said "jackboots" left. It didn't. Local police arrest rioters and DA won't prosecute. That is up to the locals if they tolerate such things.
You claimed they were peaceful. Rioters weren't. Who suggested making protests illegal?

I assume you are ok with police protecting drivers and pedestrians attempting to travel on the streets? Should rioters be arrested? Is it "state violence" to protect life and property with force?

---

When the feds left the attacks on the federal building shifted to the local police station and another location.

Local police were arresting rioters (20 arrests) the very night the jackboots pulled their bag and snatch operations. Have you seen me condemn the Portland police for arresting rioters? Nope. Those guys are not only doing their jobs they are, near as I can tell from Texas, doing it correctly. The feds not so much.

I have read nothing about the prosecutions, although I can see why it would be difficult.

When I say state violence it refers to these acts: shooting protesters in the head with rubber bullets, targetting of media and medics, unlawful stops and detentions, and the lack of due process afforded those snatched by the jackboots. If LEOs cannot tell a protester from a rioter, on the spot, then we are in for more protests and riots. The moment a protester decides to damage property or attack anyone they have lost their status as a protester. I really feel like I'm stating what should be obvious.

---

It would appear in my opinion that law enforcement officers are able to make a accurate determination of protestors vs rioters based the ACLU of Oregon's literature and ORS 131.675 Regarding dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblages.

Per ACLU

Limitations on Action
Demonstrators who engage in civil disobedience defined as non-violent unlawful action as a form of protest are not protected under the First Amendment. People who engage in civil disobedience should be prepared to be arrested or fined as part of their protest activity.

If you endanger others while protesting, you can be arrested. A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit.

You do not have the right to block a building entrance or physically harass people. The general rule is that free speech activity cannot take place on private property, including shopping malls, without consent of the property owner. You do not have the right to remain on private property after being told to leave by the owner.

https://aclu-or.org/en/know-your-rights/your-right-protest

ORS 131.675

Dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblages
When any five or more persons, whether armed or not, are unlawfully or riotously assembled in any county, city, town or village, the sheriff of the county and the deputies of the sheriff, the mayor of the city, town or village, or chief executive officer or officers thereof, and the justice of the peace of the district where the assemblage takes place, or such of them as can forthwith be collected, shall go among the persons assembled, or as near to them as they can with safety, and command them in the name of the State of Oregon to disperse. If, so commanded, they do not immediately disperse, the officer must arrest them or cause them to be arrested; and they may be punished according to law. [Formerly 145.020; 1987 c.526 1]
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/131.675

Please explain why limitations on actions above should not be enforced?

---

Please show me where I ever said police should not enforce the law.

---

I did not say that you did. The form of question is exploratory not accusatory.

You have said that "state violence" (assumed to be in response to Portland) has included "unlawful stops and detentions".

If LEO are able to determine the difference between protesters and rioters from above (Limitations on Action) and are lawfully able to disperse unlawful or riotous assemblages.

*What has made LEO stoppage "unlawful" in your opinion?

Do you have evidence of LEO stopping lawful civil protest (as defined above) in Portland?

*Question is under the assumption you are not going to bring up the validity of Federal Law enforcement action on state property as I assume there is no definitive legal cases that can be presented and discussed without other posters requesting that it go private.

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

quash said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

quash said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Cops will either be no help, or overwhelmed and unable to answer your 911 call for help. You better have your own plan to protect yourself, your family and your property against these animals.

---

I hope you have your safe space.

---

North Korea just declared owning dogs as pets to be illegal because it is "bourgeois". Citizens are now required to handover their dogs to the authorities to be given to restaurants for meat. That sounds like your kind of country. Why don't you move there.

---

Why don't you start with something I actually supported? I support Constitutional carry, sex work, legalized drugs, immigration, gay marriage, free speech, free trade, free markets, deregulation, and keeping my earnings, as taxation is theft. All of those things oppose the govt telling me what to do.

But you were going to say something relevant, pretty sure...

---

You support riots and looting and rape and murder and flag burning and attacking cops and torching cars and tearing down monuments and teaching kids America is evil and that there are 784 genders. You support destroying America. Go ahead and move out. We don't need you.

---

I don't know if he's actually supported the riots. He merely believes that they aren't happening.

He's just another riot denier.

---

Never said that either. All I have ever done is ask people to distinguish protests from riots. Shouldn't be that hard.

---

What are the protests, protesting these days? Why not just call stupid, stupid and move on. There is really no reason why they should be defended any longer. Call a spade, a spade.

---

What does it matter? Citizens have the right to protest, even if you think their point is stupid you don't get to shut down their 1A rights.

---

What about people who just happen to be in the neighborhood? Should they have an expectation of not being beaten unconscious for being in the neighborhood?

---

That's two posts in a row where you fail to distinguish the rioters from the protesters. Even though it's an overlapping Venn diagram I will not go along with making protests illegal. None of you say that out loud but the state violence you sanction is not far removed.

" All I have ever done is ask people to distinguish protests from riots. Shouldn't be that hard."

---

You called the federal officers "Jackboots". Rioters were trying to burn a courthouse & you claimed it would stop when said "jackboots" left. It didn't. Local police arrest rioters and DA won't prosecute. That is up to the locals if they tolerate such things.
You claimed they were peaceful. Rioters weren't. Who suggested making protests illegal?

I assume you are ok with police protecting drivers and pedestrians attempting to travel on the streets? Should rioters be arrested? Is it "state violence" to protect life and property with force?

---

When the feds left the attacks on the federal building shifted to the local police station and another location.

Local police were arresting rioters (20 arrests) the very night the jackboots pulled their bag and snatch operations. Have you seen me condemn the Portland police for arresting rioters? Nope. Those guys are not only doing their jobs they are, near as I can tell from Texas, doing it correctly. The feds not so much.

I have read nothing about the prosecutions, although I can see why it would be difficult.

When I say state violence it refers to these acts: shooting protesters in the head with rubber bullets, targetting of media and medics, unlawful stops and detentions, and the lack of due process afforded those snatched by the jackboots. If LEOs cannot tell a protester from a rioter, on the spot, then we are in for more protests and riots. The moment a protester decides to damage property or attack anyone they have lost their status as a protester. I really feel like I'm stating what should be obvious.

---

It would appear in my opinion that law enforcement officers are able to make a accurate determination of protestors vs rioters based the ACLU of Oregon's literature and ORS 131.675 Regarding dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblages.

Per ACLU

Limitations on Action
Demonstrators who engage in civil disobedience defined as non-violent unlawful action as a form of protest are not protected under the First Amendment. People who engage in civil disobedience should be prepared to be arrested or fined as part of their protest activity.

If you endanger others while protesting, you can be arrested. A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit.

You do not have the right to block a building entrance or physically harass people. The general rule is that free speech activity cannot take place on private property, including shopping malls, without consent of the property owner. You do not have the right to remain on private property after being told to leave by the owner.

https://aclu-or.org/en/know-your-rights/your-right-protest

ORS 131.675

Dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblages
When any five or more persons, whether armed or not, are unlawfully or riotously assembled in any county, city, town or village, the sheriff of the county and the deputies of the sheriff, the mayor of the city, town or village, or chief executive officer or officers thereof, and the justice of the peace of the district where the assemblage takes place, or such of them as can forthwith be collected, shall go among the persons assembled, or as near to them as they can with safety, and command them in the name of the State of Oregon to disperse. If, so commanded, they do not immediately disperse, the officer must arrest them or cause them to be arrested; and they may be punished according to law. [Formerly 145.020; 1987 c.526 1]
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/131.675

Please explain why limitations on actions above should not be enforced?

---

Please show me where I ever said police should not enforce the law.

---

I did not say that you did. The form of question is exploratory not accusatory.

You have said that "state violence" (assumed to be in response to Portland) has included "unlawful stops and detentions".

If LEO are able to determine the difference between protesters and rioters from above (Limitations on Action) and are lawfully able to disperse unlawful or riotous assemblages.

*What has made LEO stoppage "unlawful" in your opinion?

Do you have evidence of LEO stopping lawful civil protest (as defined above) in Portland?

*Question is under the assumption you are not going to bring up the validity of Federal Law enforcement action on state property as I assume there is no definitive legal cases that can be presented and discussed without other posters requesting that it go private.

---

Lack of probable cause.

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

Can you imagine the end result if these pieces of feces tried to do that to someone in Texas?

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

Can you imagine the end result if these pieces of feces tried to do that to someone in Texas?

---

90% of the time..the result would be the same .

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

Can you imagine the end result if these pieces of feces tried to do that to someone in Texas?

---

90% of the time..the result would be the same .

---

If my wife or kids were in the vehicle, I don't think so.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

Can you imagine the end result if these pieces of feces tried to do that to someone in Texas?

---

90% of the time..the result would be the same .

---

If my wife or kids were in the vehicle, I don't think so.

---

My friend, if you were in the vehicle ......within 72 hours I'd be sending a contribution to your defense fund.

---

BaylorOkie said:

---

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

quash said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

quash said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Cops will either be no help, or overwhelmed and unable to answer your 911 call for help. You better have your own plan to protect yourself, your family and your property against these animals.

---

I hope you have your safe space.

---

North Korea just declared owning dogs as pets to be illegal because it is "bourgeois". Citizens are now required to handover their dogs to the authorities to be given to restaurants for meat. That sounds like your kind of country. Why don't you move there.

---

Why don't you start with something I actually supported? I support Constitutional carry, sex work, legalized drugs, immigration, gay marriage, free speech, free trade, free markets, deregulation, and keeping my earnings, as taxation is theft. All of those things oppose the govt telling me what to do.

But you were going to say something relevant, pretty sure...

---

You support riots and looting and rape and murder and flag burning and attacking cops and torching cars and tearing down monuments and teaching kids America is evil and that there are 784 genders. You support destroying America. Go ahead and move out. We don't need you.

---

I don't know if he's actually supported the riots. He merely believes that they aren't happening.

He's just another riot denier.

---

Never said that either. All I have ever done is ask people to distinguish protests from riots. Shouldn't be that hard.

---

What are the protests, protesting these days? Why not just call stupid, stupid and move on. There is really no reason why they should be defended any longer. Call a spade, a spade.

---

What does it matter? Citizens have the right to protest, even if you think their point is stupid you don't get to shut down their 1A rights.

---

What about people who just happen to be in the neighborhood? Should they have an expectation of not being beaten unconscious for being in the neighborhood?

---

That's two posts in a row where you fail to distinguish the rioters from the protesters. Even though it's an overlapping Venn diagram I will not go along with making protests illegal. None of you say that out loud but the state violence you sanction is not far removed.

" All I have ever done is ask people to distinguish protests from riots. Shouldn't be that hard."

---

You called the federal officers "Jackboots". Rioters were trying to burn a courthouse & you claimed it would stop when said "jackboots" left. It didn't. Local police arrest rioters and DA won't prosecute. That is up to the locals if they tolerate such things.
You claimed they were peaceful. Rioters weren't. Who suggested making protests illegal?

I assume you are ok with police protecting drivers and pedestrians attempting to travel on the streets? Should rioters be arrested? Is it "state violence" to protect life and property with force?

---

When the feds left the attacks on the federal building shifted to the local police station and another location.

Local police were arresting rioters (20 arrests) the very night the jackboots pulled their bag and snatch operations. Have you seen me condemn the Portland police for arresting rioters? Nope. Those guys are not only doing their jobs they are, near as I can tell from Texas, doing it correctly. The feds not so much.

I have read nothing about the prosecutions, although I can see why it would be difficult.

When I say state violence it refers to these acts: shooting protesters in the head with rubber bullets, targetting of media and medics, unlawful stops and detentions, and the lack of due process afforded those snatched by the jackboots. If LEOs cannot tell a protester from a rioter, on the spot, then we are in for more protests and riots. The moment a protester decides to damage property or attack anyone they have lost their status as a protester. I really feel like I'm stating what should be obvious.

---

It would appear in my opinion that law enforcement officers are able to make a accurate determination of protestors vs rioters based the ACLU of Oregon's literature and ORS 131.675 Regarding dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblages.

Per ACLU

Limitations on Action
Demonstrators who engage in civil disobedience defined as non-violent unlawful action as a form of protest are not protected under the First Amendment. People who engage in civil disobedience should be prepared to be arrested or fined as part of their protest activity.

If you endanger others while protesting, you can be arrested. A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit.

You do not have the right to block a building entrance or physically harass people. The general rule is that free speech activity cannot take place on private property, including shopping malls, without consent of the property owner. You do not have the right to remain on private property after being told to leave by the owner.

https://aclu-or.org/en/know-your-rights/your-right-protest

ORS 131.675

Dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblages
When any five or more persons, whether armed or not, are unlawfully or riotously assembled in any county, city, town or village, the sheriff of the county and the deputies of the sheriff, the mayor of the city, town or village, or chief executive officer or officers thereof, and the justice of the peace of the district where the assemblage takes place, or such of them as can forthwith be collected, shall go among the persons assembled, or as near to them as they can with safety, and command them in the name of the State of Oregon to disperse. If, so commanded, they do not immediately disperse, the officer must arrest them or cause them to be arrested; and they may be punished according to law. [Formerly 145.020; 1987 c.526 1]
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/131.675

Please explain why limitations on actions above should not be enforced?

---

Please show me where I ever said police should not enforce the law.

---

I did not say that you did. The form of question is exploratory not accusatory.

You have said that "state violence" (assumed to be in response to Portland) has included "unlawful stops and detentions".

If LEO are able to determine the difference between protesters and rioters from above (Limitations on Action) and are lawfully able to disperse unlawful or riotous assemblages.

*What has made LEO stoppage "unlawful" in your opinion?

Do you have evidence of LEO stopping lawful civil protest (as defined above) in Portland?

*Question is under the assumption you are not going to bring up the validity of Federal Law enforcement action on state property as I assume there is no definitive legal cases that can be presented and discussed without other posters requesting that it go private.

---

Lack of probable cause.

---

Please expand. Probable cause of what (the reason LEO is stopping)?

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

Can you imagine the end result if these pieces of feces tried to do that to someone in Texas?

---

90% of the time..the result would be the same .

---

If my wife or kids were in the vehicle, I don't think so.

---

My friend, if you were in the vehicle ......within 72 hours I'd be sending a contribution to your defense fund.

---

I appreciate that Sir. Actually, I think one would only have to raise their weapon and the little peckerheads would scatter like cockroaches.

---

BaylorOkie said:

---

---

Florda_mike said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

New York checks in today with the following.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/19/retired-nypd-sergeant-attacked-in-garment-district-beatdown/

---

Democrats mayors like DeBlasio should face charges for causing this mayhem and damage to NYC

It'll take another transformational figure like Guliani to fix NYC

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

New York checks in today with the following.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/19/retired-nypd-sergeant-attacked-in-garment-district-beatdown/

---

Democrats mayors like DeBlasio should face charges for causing this mayhem and damage to NYC

It'll take another transformational figure like Guliani to fix NYC

---

You might like this video.
It is insane that anyone ever voted for this idiot. The people of NYC should be forced to stay in Manhattan, and suffer through the results of their foolish voting. They elected this moron, and they should suffer the consequences... maybe then they would learn from their mistakes.
Instead, they are fleeing to other parts... to start ruining those places with their foolish leftists ideas.

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

quash said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

quash said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Cops will either be no help, or overwhelmed and unable to answer your 911 call for help. You better have your own plan to protect yourself, your family and your property against these animals.

---

I hope you have your safe space.

---

North Korea just declared owning dogs as pets to be illegal because it is "bourgeois". Citizens are now required to handover their dogs to the authorities to be given to restaurants for meat. That sounds like your kind of country. Why don't you move there.

---

Why don't you start with something I actually supported? I support Constitutional carry, sex work, legalized drugs, immigration, gay marriage, free speech, free trade, free markets, deregulation, and keeping my earnings, as taxation is theft. All of those things oppose the govt telling me what to do.

But you were going to say something relevant, pretty sure...

---

You support riots and looting and rape and murder and flag burning and attacking cops and torching cars and tearing down monuments and teaching kids America is evil and that there are 784 genders. You support destroying America. Go ahead and move out. We don't need you.

---

I don't know if he's actually supported the riots. He merely believes that they aren't happening.

He's just another riot denier.

---

Never said that either. All I have ever done is ask people to distinguish protests from riots. Shouldn't be that hard.

---

What are the protests, protesting these days? Why not just call stupid, stupid and move on. There is really no reason why they should be defended any longer. Call a spade, a spade.

---

What does it matter? Citizens have the right to protest, even if you think their point is stupid you don't get to shut down their 1A rights.

---

What about people who just happen to be in the neighborhood? Should they have an expectation of not being beaten unconscious for being in the neighborhood?

---

That's two posts in a row where you fail to distinguish the rioters from the protesters. Even though it's an overlapping Venn diagram I will not go along with making protests illegal. None of you say that out loud but the state violence you sanction is not far removed.

" All I have ever done is ask people to distinguish protests from riots. Shouldn't be that hard."

---

You called the federal officers "Jackboots". Rioters were trying to burn a courthouse & you claimed it would stop when said "jackboots" left. It didn't. Local police arrest rioters and DA won't prosecute. That is up to the locals if they tolerate such things.
You claimed they were peaceful. Rioters weren't. Who suggested making protests illegal?

I assume you are ok with police protecting drivers and pedestrians attempting to travel on the streets? Should rioters be arrested? Is it "state violence" to protect life and property with force?

---

When the feds left the attacks on the federal building shifted to the local police station and another location.

Local police were arresting rioters (20 arrests) the very night the jackboots pulled their bag and snatch operations. Have you seen me condemn the Portland police for arresting rioters? Nope. Those guys are not only doing their jobs they are, near as I can tell from Texas, doing it correctly. The feds not so much.

I have read nothing about the prosecutions, although I can see why it would be difficult.

When I say state violence it refers to these acts: shooting protesters in the head with rubber bullets, targetting of media and medics, unlawful stops and detentions, and the lack of due process afforded those snatched by the jackboots. If LEOs cannot tell a protester from a rioter, on the spot, then we are in for more protests and riots. The moment a protester decides to damage property or attack anyone they have lost their status as a protester. I really feel like I'm stating what should be obvious.

---

It would appear in my opinion that law enforcement officers are able to make a accurate determination of protestors vs rioters based the ACLU of Oregon's literature and ORS 131.675 Regarding dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblages.

Per ACLU

Limitations on Action
Demonstrators who engage in civil disobedience defined as non-violent unlawful action as a form of protest are not protected under the First Amendment. People who engage in civil disobedience should be prepared to be arrested or fined as part of their protest activity.

If you endanger others while protesting, you can be arrested. A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit.

You do not have the right to block a building entrance or physically harass people. The general rule is that free speech activity cannot take place on private property, including shopping malls, without consent of the property owner. You do not have the right to remain on private property after being told to leave by the owner.

https://aclu-or.org/en/know-your-rights/your-right-protest

ORS 131.675

Dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblages
When any five or more persons, whether armed or not, are unlawfully or riotously assembled in any county, city, town or village, the sheriff of the county and the deputies of the sheriff, the mayor of the city, town or village, or chief executive officer or officers thereof, and the justice of the peace of the district where the assemblage takes place, or such of them as can forthwith be collected, shall go among the persons assembled, or as near to them as they can with safety, and command them in the name of the State of Oregon to disperse. If, so commanded, they do not immediately disperse, the officer must arrest them or cause them to be arrested; and they may be punished according to law. [Formerly 145.020; 1987 c.526 1]
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/131.675

Please explain why limitations on actions above should not be enforced?

---

Please show me where I ever said police should not enforce the law.

---

I did not say that you did. The form of question is exploratory not accusatory.

You have said that "state violence" (assumed to be in response to Portland) has included "unlawful stops and detentions".

If LEO are able to determine the difference between protesters and rioters from above (Limitations on Action) and are lawfully able to disperse unlawful or riotous assemblages.

*What has made LEO stoppage "unlawful" in your opinion?

Do you have evidence of LEO stopping lawful civil protest (as defined above) in Portland?

*Question is under the assumption you are not going to bring up the validity of Federal Law enforcement action on state property as I assume there is no definitive legal cases that can be presented and discussed without other posters requesting that it go private.

---

Lack of probable cause.

---

Please expand. Probable cause of what (the reason LEO is stopping)?

---

Lack of probable cause for the detention/arrest.

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

quash said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

quash said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Cops will either be no help, or overwhelmed and unable to answer your 911 call for help. You better have your own plan to protect yourself, your family and your property against these animals.

---

I hope you have your safe space.

---

North Korea just declared owning dogs as pets to be illegal because it is "bourgeois". Citizens are now required to handover their dogs to the authorities to be given to restaurants for meat. That sounds like your kind of country. Why don't you move there.

---

Why don't you start with something I actually supported? I support Constitutional carry, sex work, legalized drugs, immigration, gay marriage, free speech, free trade, free markets, deregulation, and keeping my earnings, as taxation is theft. All of those things oppose the govt telling me what to do.

But you were going to say something relevant, pretty sure...

---

You support riots and looting and rape and murder and flag burning and attacking cops and torching cars and tearing down monuments and teaching kids America is evil and that there are 784 genders. You support destroying America. Go ahead and move out. We don't need you.

---

I don't know if he's actually supported the riots. He merely believes that they aren't happening.

He's just another riot denier.

---

Never said that either. All I have ever done is ask people to distinguish protests from riots. Shouldn't be that hard.

---

What are the protests, protesting these days? Why not just call stupid, stupid and move on. There is really no reason why they should be defended any longer. Call a spade, a spade.

---

What does it matter? Citizens have the right to protest, even if you think their point is stupid you don't get to shut down their 1A rights.

---

What about people who just happen to be in the neighborhood? Should they have an expectation of not being beaten unconscious for being in the neighborhood?

---

That's two posts in a row where you fail to distinguish the rioters from the protesters. Even though it's an overlapping Venn diagram I will not go along with making protests illegal. None of you say that out loud but the state violence you sanction is not far removed.

" All I have ever done is ask people to distinguish protests from riots. Shouldn't be that hard."

---

You called the federal officers "Jackboots". Rioters were trying to burn a courthouse & you claimed it would stop when said "jackboots" left. It didn't. Local police arrest rioters and DA won't prosecute. That is up to the locals if they tolerate such things.
You claimed they were peaceful. Rioters weren't. Who suggested making protests illegal?

I assume you are ok with police protecting drivers and pedestrians attempting to travel on the streets? Should rioters be arrested? Is it "state violence" to protect life and property with force?

---

When the feds left the attacks on the federal building shifted to the local police station and another location.

Local police were arresting rioters (20 arrests) the very night the jackboots pulled their bag and snatch operations. Have you seen me condemn the Portland police for arresting rioters? Nope. Those guys are not only doing their jobs they are, near as I can tell from Texas, doing it correctly. The feds not so much.

I have read nothing about the prosecutions, although I can see why it would be difficult.

When I say state violence it refers to these acts: shooting protesters in the head with rubber bullets, targetting of media and medics, unlawful stops and detentions, and the lack of due process afforded those snatched by the jackboots. If LEOs cannot tell a protester from a rioter, on the spot, then we are in for more protests and riots. The moment a protester decides to damage property or attack anyone they have lost their status as a protester. I really feel like I'm stating what should be obvious.

---

It would appear in my opinion that law enforcement officers are able to make a accurate determination of protestors vs rioters based the ACLU of Oregon's literature and ORS 131.675 Regarding dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblages.

Per ACLU

Limitations on Action
Demonstrators who engage in civil disobedience defined as non-violent unlawful action as a form of protest are not protected under the First Amendment. People who engage in civil disobedience should be prepared to be arrested or fined as part of their protest activity.

If you endanger others while protesting, you can be arrested. A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit.

You do not have the right to block a building entrance or physically harass people. The general rule is that free speech activity cannot take place on private property, including shopping malls, without consent of the property owner. You do not have the right to remain on private property after being told to leave by the owner.

https://aclu-or.org/en/know-your-rights/your-right-protest

ORS 131.675

Dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblages
When any five or more persons, whether armed or not, are unlawfully or riotously assembled in any county, city, town or village, the sheriff of the county and the deputies of the sheriff, the mayor of the city, town or village, or chief executive officer or officers thereof, and the justice of the peace of the district where the assemblage takes place, or such of them as can forthwith be collected, shall go among the persons assembled, or as near to them as they can with safety, and command them in the name of the State of Oregon to disperse. If, so commanded, they do not immediately disperse, the officer must arrest them or cause them to be arrested; and they may be punished according to law. [Formerly 145.020; 1987 c.526 1]
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/131.675

Please explain why limitations on actions above should not be enforced?

---

Please show me where I ever said police should not enforce the law.

---

I did not say that you did. The form of question is exploratory not accusatory.

You have said that "state violence" (assumed to be in response to Portland) has included "unlawful stops and detentions".

If LEO are able to determine the difference between protesters and rioters from above (Limitations on Action) and are lawfully able to disperse unlawful or riotous assemblages.

*What has made LEO stoppage "unlawful" in your opinion?

Do you have evidence of LEO stopping lawful civil protest (as defined above) in Portland?

*Question is under the assumption you are not going to bring up the validity of Federal Law enforcement action on state property as I assume there is no definitive legal cases that can be presented and discussed without other posters requesting that it go private.

---

Lack of probable cause.

---

Please expand. Probable cause of what (the reason LEO is stopping)?

---

Lack of probable cause for the detention/arrest.

---

Sorry if unclear. I would need to know the "offense" that is referenced before I could judge the validity of the "lack of probable cause". Could you please identify the "offense" within the context of this topic in which you believe that LEO have acted unlawfully to "stop"?

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Which celebrity will bail him out? I am betting on Cher or Taylor Swift.

I'm sure Antifa will riot outside MCDC until he is released.

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Which celebrity will bail him out? I am betting on Cher or Taylor Swift.

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Just looking for bread at the local nail salon to feed the family...

---