"Operation Legend" Launches - Sending a "surge" of federal agents to U.S. Cities... "No Choice" ???

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,069
No one has changed the meaning of proactive. In the context of the entire statement, and given the lack of evidence that he meant anything other than what he said, that they were having to act on their own, without the usual support from local authorities, your interpretation is looking more and more stupid all the time.
Hmm it kinda seems like you are changing the definition of proactive though. And making excuses for the feds.

I think we get you though. You want a mountain of evidence when it's a federal officer doing wrong. But when it's a protestor you are good with the cops words.

When I get off work I'll dig around for those testimonials you were asking for.
 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,055
Hmm it kinda seems like you are changing the definition of proactive though. And making excuses for the feds.

I think we get you though. You want a mountain of evidence when it's a federal officer doing wrong. But when it's a protestor you are good with the cops words.

When I get off work I'll dig around for those testimonials you were asking for.
Wolf explains exactly what he means by proactive. Since you clearly have no evidence to make you do so, do you mind explaining what makes you interpret it any other way?
 






Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,069
Wolf explains exactly what he means by proactive. Since you clearly have no evidence to make you do so, do you mind explaining what makes you interpret it any other way?
His admission corroborates reports from the ground. Check the link I just posted for more information on that.

Furthermore your interpretation makes even less sense. If the feds are within their jurisdictional authority they don't need to proactively take over anything. At best Wolf choose the worst possible wording. At worst he's confirming everything we are hearing.
 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,055
Sounds like she was arrested for probable cause (she was in the middle of a riot), then released a few hours later. This has happened to probably thousands of people, including plenty of journalists and photographers, during these protests and the attending riots. You wouldn’t know this because you seem pretty clueless in general, but authorities can hold a person for up to 72 hours without charging them. She was out in five hours. Someone call the ACLU. If she had a case for her constitutional rights being restricted, she’d be suing.
 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,055
His admission corroborates reports from the ground. Check the link I just posted for more information on that.

Furthermore your interpretation makes even less sense. If the feds are within their jurisdictional authority they don't need to proactively take over anything. At best Wolf choose the worst possible wording. At worst he's confirming everything we are hearing.
The link you posted doesn’t corroborate anything at all. Authorities are well within their constitutional rights to arrest people who are in the middle of a riot and to hold them for up to 72 hours without charge. Your argument is nonsense. This is what happens when you get all your information from slanted sources. You miss out on a lot of information.
 






Joined
Jun 15, 2020
Messages
570
@justjess
Simmer down! Lol!
I was only suggesting that the law could (you know lawyers and their loopholes) possibly argue that the justification for arrests be based on conspiracy to commit a crime because of previous events and destruction of properties.
I'm not agreeing with either side, here.
Abuse is abuse no mattered who is behind it.
Any advantage one exploits and uses over another could also be observed as abuse...

ETA: I do not agree with violence though!

Mind over Might
 






Last edited:

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,055
This is Wolf’s quote:

“Attacking federal police officers and law enforcement officers which they have done for 52 nights in a row is a federal crime. And so the department, because we don't have that local support, that local law enforcement support, we are having to go out and proactively arrest individuals."

When they are called in, federal authorities will generally take their cue from the local or state PD. They rely on local intelligence and operations to lead the way. In Portland, and elsewhere, the local authorities have had their powers curtailed by their own political leaders. In reaction to the non response from the local police in the face of clear violations of federal law, the federal troops have to be “proactive” and conduct their own operations without the usual local leadership and direction. How this common sense interpretation of a straightforward statement has turned into “jackbooted secret police are snatching innocent people off the street” is completely beyond me. I understand if you think the worst of the government, but you can’t just pull things out of your ass when the facts don’t support your narrative, and we are seeing a LOT of that. I have never seen so many straight up lies being published and spread by mainstream media. I don’t know how you can defend such idiotic untruth.
 






Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
1,381
businesses closing down and not reopening, more evidence of dana coverstones dream coming to pass.
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,365
I have never seen so many straight up lies being published and spread by mainstream media.
New ice age
Killer bees
Save the ocean
Three minutes to midnight
Global warming
Global cooling
Murder hornets
Dust storm heading across the Atlantic.
Climate change


They lie a lot..
 






Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,069
Sounds like she was arrested for probable cause (she was in the middle of a riot), then released a few hours later. This has happened to probably thousands of people, including plenty of journalists and photographers, during these protests and the attending riots. You wouldn’t know this because you seem pretty clueless in general, but authorities can hold a person for up to 72 hours without charging them. She was out in five hours. Someone call the ACLU. If she had a case for her constitutional rights being restricted, she’d be suing.
So they had probable cause to arrest, but still released her? Yeah your arguments make perfect sense.

Besides the fact that you completely misinterpreted the 72 hour rule. Standing outside of a courthouse doesn't warrant any sort of detainment period.

It's not a crime to stand on public property! It's not a crime to protest either. The woman in this article literally did nothing wrong, and you support the feds kidnapping her for up to 72 hours without trial.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
9,348
And yet, it hasn’t, really.



No, see, when you actually read the entire “proactive” quote, you see that it didn’t mean they were just hauling people off the street. The federal police were being proactive by arresting criminals when local authorities were not. This has already been established, hasn’t it?

If you insist on interpreting that quote to mean what you think it does, then do you have any evidence that the feds are actually arresting randos for no reason? Other than the one quote? If the police were doing what you say, to the extent you say, where are the testimonies?


Videos embedded throughout links. I don’t have the patience to link more atm.
 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,055
So they had probable cause to arrest, but still released her? Yeah your arguments make perfect sense.

Besides the fact that you completely misinterpreted the 72 hour rule. Standing outside of a courthouse doesn't warrant any sort of detainment period.

It's not a crime to stand on public property! It's not a crime to protest either. The woman in this article literally did nothing wrong, and you support the feds kidnapping her for up to 72 hours without trial.
So why isn’t she suing?
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,365
It's not a crime to stand on public property! It's not a crime to protest either. The woman in this article literally did nothing wrong, and you support the feds kidnapping her for up to 72 hours without trial.
She should have stayed home if she wanted no trouble..
 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,055


Videos embedded throughout links. I don’t have the patience to link more atm.
What is that supposed to prove? That federal authorities are arresting people suspected of committing crimes? Is that illegal now?
 






Joined
Jun 15, 2020
Messages
570
You know, speaking of "stay safe, stay at home"..whatever happened to that?!

Protesters are immune to covid19?
 






Top