It’s been more than 50 nights of protests and riots in an American city. Like it or not, Portland is still an American city, even if it seems more like Somalia or, as President Bush called it, Little Beirut. You can call it “peaceful protests,” and there certainly is peaceful protest, but that doesn’t make the riots disappear. Or the damage caused by the riots. Of the many shocking things that happened, the attacks on the Portland federal courthouse loomed large.
Even if you support the general cause of the protesters, you can’t rationally deny that when they decided to go after the courthouse, shoot commercial grade fireworks into it, break into it, the rioters were begging for trouble. And they got it.
It started as drunken party, more or less. At random, cops began shooting into the crowd. Protesters coalesced around the idea of firing commercial-grade fireworks into the Justice Center and Federal Courthouse. You had law enforcement firing rubber bullets, foam bullets, pepper balls and tear gas as crowds circled in around the courthouse firing rockets into the side of the building. That went on for a shocking length of time — there was this running three-hour street battle. I couldn’t tell whose explosions were whose. Just a constant series of concussions.
The president started taking Portland personally after that.
Few would seriously argue that the federal staff, United States Marshals, Federal Protective Service, were in the wrong in defending the courthouse from attack. But then there was the shot into Donavan La Bella’s face.
One recent video appeared to show a protester, Donavan La Bella, being struck in the head by an impact munition while he was holding a sign across the street from the federal courthouse, leading to a bloody scene. His mother has told local media that he suffered skull fractures and needed surgery.
No, this shot doesn’t excuse or forgive the attack on the courthouse. No, the attack on the courthouse doesn’t excuse or forgive this shot. Nor does any of this explain or excuse what followed. Without the request of local officials, and against the wishes of the mayor, governor, police chief and others, the “troops” appeared.
Federal agents dressed in camouflage and tactical gear have taken to the streets of Portland, unleashing tear gas, bloodying protesters and pulling some people into unmarked vans in what Gov. Kate Brown of Oregon has called “a blatant abuse of power.”
They drove rental vans, without markings or government license plates. They wore camo uniforms with patches on their shoulders for CBP or DHS, which failed to identify the individuals, their command or their authority. Heck, they could have been guys who bought patches on eBay for all anyone knew. Some had “Police” emblazoned on their body armor, except they weren’t police at all.
No longer were these forces defending federal property, but now roving the streets of Portland and, upon seeing someone, perhaps described as “white male wearing black clothing and a hat,” snatching them off the streets and throwing them into a van, then driving off. While feds have “peace officer” status under Oregon law, it authorizes them only to act upon personally observing a crime being perpetrated, and then to deliver the perpetrator to the police or court. It does not allow them to take a person to an unknown location, interrogate them, then (as it later turned) release them.
Up to now, there was a stand-off between young activists, maybe anarchist or maybe bored kids wanting to be part of the Portland Cool Kids Club, and the Portland police. They weren’t exactly having fun with each other, but they came to some odd pas de deux.
[P]rotests have become, for many people, the main culture that exists in Portland now. We have a virus here, there’s not much else going on. There’s an understanding there’s an opportunity to either accept how bad things are or you can go out every night and try to do something about it.
Then the “troops” arrived, as the local cops and the kids were existing in some bizarre Voodoo equilibrium.
I’ve seen them rolling around in the vans and tackling people. My partner has watched them do a few snatch and grabs. The difference is they’re not cops. They go after people like soldiers, where the goal is to be unpredictable. The way they use munitions is different.
In Portland, people are scared of the feds. But nobody is scared of the cops anymore. At a certain point of being subjected to police flash bangs and gas, you stop fearing it.
The Trump supporters are thrilled by this, their manly president taking charge and putting fear into the hearts of these Godless commies, returning Gomorrah to law and order, They’re thrilled at the use of force to put down, to injure, these anarchists white kids doing their best Angry Young Man dance by destroying, damaging, and harming between munching on ribs and basking in the camaraderie of the other cool allies.
The line, however, between rioters in the streets and goons in uniforms driving rental vans and snatching people off the streets, is a critical one that they lack the capacity to grasp. Much like the simplistic left contention that you’re either an active anti-racist or you’re a racist, there is the simplistic right contention that if you’re an anarchist rioting in the streets, all bets are off, all rules can be broken and the government can be not merely as riotous as them, but even worse.
Portland is being used as a bellwether to see what this administration can get away with. And also what works to quell protest. The police tactics don’t work. We’re on night 50. There’s this knowledge, I believe, in the more lucid chunks of the administration, that this problem will get worse in the next month. August is shaping up to be one of the hardest months in our nation’s modern history. September may be worse. And it will have to come to a head.
Much as I support some of the goals of the Portland protests, I do not support their riots, destruction and harm. Protest is a right, but I’m appalled that the Portland police have failed to address the riots. But by definition, rioters don’t play by the rules. That never makes it acceptable for the government to ignore the rules. Once the government acts outside the authority of the law, they have no greater legitimacy than any dangerous criminal. And they are far better armed and more dangerous than some kids throwing bottles and toppling statues.*
*Some will take issue with this characterization as minimizing the conduct of rioters. The point is that they aren’t firing live rounds at cops. There are instances of more serious violence, but that is neither pervasive nor the norm.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I want more details before I decide if the feds actually snatched people or if the grabs were staged. There are too many questions unanswered and too many actors on both sides with an agenda.
Ah, yes. Staged.
A tin foil hat will cause an erection?
Damn I wasted $35,000 on implant surgery.
Likewise, I would want to know if the shot that hit Donovan was deliberately aimed at him or was fired at someone else actually rioting and missed or was just fired randomly. All three circumstances would prompt different responses, although the final outcome is horribly bad regardless.
Do you think there’s a point at which an issue resists for too long civic pressure to resolve it, and so becomes worth slightly un-civic attention? Not to say the current situation with policing is of the same magnitude, but I’m thinking of abolition: for an issue of such clear importance, how long do you give voting and peaceful protest before you try a different tact? How long do you ask people to suffer in the name of preserving the system? Why should we preserve a system that allows them to suffer?
Personally, that line is very high for me, but I’m interested in your opinion.
As much as your interest in my opinion is a driving motivator for me, as nothing matters more to me, random person, than things that interest you, your question is meaningless. Of course there’s a point where one must “spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” And when you reach that point, be prepared for the other side to slit your throat in return.
As for the rest of your question, I demur. You’re free to ask questions grounded in self-serving delusional assertions, and I’m free to refuse to play Calvinball using your rules.
I get that the internet pushes us to assume the worst, but if that’s where you thought I was going, the problem was in my terrible writing, not malicious or even argumentative intent. I was genuinely curious and I placed no expectation or demand on your reply. The following questions were rhetorical, because I thought they made my earlier question clearer. Apologies for the lack of clarity. I think I erred bringing abolition into it, because obviously it’s not the same magnitude.
I wasn’t necessarily implying “all bets are off, get your gun” though. There’s “work through the system until the system doesn’t work, then burn it down” and then there’s slight escalation outside the norms to push the system into disequilibrium in hopes that change is easier there. I vacillate between the two, but I’m an armchair philosopher, you’re more in the arena than me. If you feel like throwing a bone to a fan, I’d still appreciate it, but again, I’m not so arrogant or rude to expect you to reply to every question you get through a comment section.
There has never been a time when there is less racism, more equal opportunity and greater likelihood of reform (provided this unduly passionate activists don’t fuck it all up with this untenable schemes) than today. Your question was falsely loaded. We’re doing spectacularly well at the moment, even if it’s neither fast enough nor good enough for some. The system is working, even if remains imperfect and still in need of reform.
But if it’s not good enough for you, go “slightly un-civic” all you want, but be prepared to pay the price for it. That’s how it works. As for me, my gravest concern is that this opportunity will be squandered by idiots and close the window of opportunity because their demands are childish and unworkable fantasy. That would be a terrible waste.
It was definitely loaded on the “fast enough,” though if you’re thinking I’m absolutely not qualified to speak on that, you are correct.
I appreciate the response, and your commitment to sharing your expertise. Thank you.
There’s a saying amongst lawyers: “comply now, grieve later,” because you can’t grieve later if you’re dead. It’s remarkably unsatisfying, but so is death, and at least it gives you the chance to work to make things better.
By the way, I have no issue with civic disobedience, provided it doesn’t involve harm or damage. But the nature of civic disobedience isn’t that you get a free pass for good intentions, but that the cause is worth the consequences you will suffer for it. As long as someone is prepared to suffer the consequences, then their “un-civic” conduct is their choice. But if they want to harm others or damage other people’s property, they go beyond un-civic into criminal.
A.H. Bell – if someone wants to see how peaceful protests work they should try it. Portland has been beset with violent protest for 3 1/2 years, inflicted by this group, with limited push back by the city government.
The feds are horribly abusing their power here. That’s beyond dispute.
But there aren’t any good guys involved in this.
If they truly believed a such a line had been crossed, they’d be doing something more meaningful or constructive, peaceful or otherwise, than violent tantruming in the street.
Lock up millions of millions of young people for months with no schooling, no work, and limited social contact (Read “sex’) to bore them out of their minds. What could possibly go wrong?
Some of this looting and rioting looks like the old night before the Big Game college football rallies of the past. With better fireworks.
All of my sympathy is gone. It was sky-high at the start.
There seems to be real push-back from this, and that is heartening. It’s been a shitlonging time since there was such a mass recognition of overstepping by the federal administration. But will the administration back down? Is it collectively too stupid and stubborn to do so?
This could be a real constitutional moment.
There’s no shortage of guys who are screaming “fuck the anarchists” and cheering on the snatches as well. Including, sadly, some prosecutors I know. You should my twitter feed. It’s can get ugly.
Can we say fuck the anarchists AND the snatches? How soon can we get back to sanity?
You bet we can.
While masked men with little identification aren’t ideal, one of the Portland protest groups chiefly responsible for the riots started spreading a document containing the names and addresses of every member of the Portland Police Department, with the obvious implication: we know where you and your family live. If you want to be in law enforcement, it’s fair to expect you to know you’re putting your safety and life on the line every time you put on the uniform, but not fair to expect you to accept the specter of harassment and threats at your home and against your family (anytime someone posts a federal judge’s address online in a way even slightly suspicious, they can expect a visit from the g-men). I can see why the deputized feds, stepping in for PPB, would go to lengths to conceal themselves against such tactics. The lack of agency identification is still a problem.
None of this is meant to imply the snatchings themselves are legal, though.
Is there a good reason why I have to explain this over and over? That one side does wrong has no bearing on the other side doing wrong. Yes, doxxing the cops to create an implicit threat that they, their families and their home will be attacked is terrible and needs to be addressed. But no, that doesn’t mean the feds get to skirt their legal duties. Two wrongs, etc.
The sane people in Portland need the police to restore order. The local local authorities can’t or won’t, so the police that work for the federal government are arresting the unruly. I can’t see how this is an abuse of power or a violation of anyone’s rights. Are you upset at seeing camo uniforms? Or do you think people have the right to loot, vandalize, burn, and assault? I see only one kind of wrong being committed, not two. Righting the wrong is going to require police to use force to disperse the mob and put some of them in jail.
This is a law blog, for lawyers and judges, not a shit for brains blog. That’s why you can’t see the problem. Go play on reddit.
Welcome to America, where there are laws that either authorize or restrict various law enforcement agencies from engaging in “policing” with regard to what they’re allowed to do. Nobody is supporting the rioters, but just because you’re astoundingly ignorant doesn’t change the law.