The detained this guy, then had no records of detaining him and denied they detained him. So I'm not even sure you can say they are law enforcement.

Are the police required to tell you why they're arresting you?

Here's a resource on your rights if you're confronted by the police (or any agent of the government, one supposes):

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police/#ive...

They are required to tell you that they're arresting you (it's unclear if they were actually saying that), they're required to tell you who is arresting you, they're required to have probably cause, they're required to document it.

Are they required to tell you who is arresting you at the moment of your arrest? Is that a local rule?

It feels like an enhanced version of "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride".

I think this is practice for a national program.

I'm not the only one: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a33347230/por...

What evidence do you have that these are police?

It says "POLICE" on their uniforms

No, a badge that says "police" is not a police badge.

Police badges have the name of the police department, and the badge number. These are clearly toys.

And if you were to say "this is reasonably interpreted as police" then you have federal agents committing a felony - pretending to be police officers.

Like this?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B085485BKV

That's sufficient for you?

It's always possible to impersonate police, I'm not sure what your point is?

Wearing what the officers in the video are wearing - uniform with a prominent POLICE label - is sufficient to be identifying yourself as police, and would be impersonating a police officer if a member of the public did it.

So you agree that they're breaking the law by impersonating police?

If they don't have police powers, then yes.

Again, I agree the video looks pretty bad, but these aren't peaceful protests that the article is describing. The protesters have repeatedly attacked officers and tried to destroy the courthouse. In such a volatile situation, I can imagine reasons why military police might need to quickly and urgently arrest the guy - maybe someone who looked similar had a weapon or explosive.

When you keep framing the protests as riots you delegitimize what's going on.

US Police forces are out of control and unaccountable for their actions. We've seen reporters arrested live on the air for simply reporting on the scene.

There's plenty of evidence linking lots of police to the white nationalist movement, so lets stop pretending like they're all impartial enforcers of justice.

There's also the issue of agents provocateur. It's definitely happening and in fact having "riots" is exactly what the police want, because it gives them literal license to shut down any protest.

So just stop with the "but the riots!"

A quick search brings up the following but I'm sure there's plenty more info if one were to dig deeper: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-officials-investigate-p...

I've been asked not to get into shouting matches on this site, so I'll stop at agreeing with your first line. I intend to delegitimize what's going on, since anyone protesting in Portland right now is providing cover for bad actors trying to do real harm.

I too don't want to get in a shouting match but you interestingly disregarded my second point (let alone the others).

Here is a clip of a notable instance (CNN reporter and crew arrested, live): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIClA57jWmQ

If this doesn't bother you, then you are beyond reasoning with.

I'll close the loop then by acknowledging that it doesn't bother me.

We've rate limited your account again for perpetuating flamewars on this site.

I don't really think it's fair to characterize any of my recent posts as a "flame war". I haven't yelled, insulted anyone, accused them of being dishonest or anything. I'll give myself a time out and see if I can't get to a healthier mode of engagement here, but I'm concerned that my opinions on a wide variety of topics are being treated as hostile and political simply because others vehemently disagree with them.

I believe that you are debating in good faith. I'm just flummoxed by your assertions.

It frustrates me to no end that things that I think should be incontrovertible are not.

The division between "left" and "right" is destroying our country and I'm desperate to try to find some way of some dialog to find common ground. I've failed consistently so far.

Edit: "political" discourse comes in different flavors -- there's the tribal/theater/personality side (where most of the ugliness lives), and there's the policy side which is entirely germane to our lives. It is the policy issue that I'm interested in.

Agreed. I respect that HN doesn't want to be the place for that dialogue - having apolitical spaces is probably a key component of finding common ground - but I struggle to identify anywhere where it could happen nowadays.

It should be positive dialog. I try my best but slip when I'm tired and frustrated, mea culpa.

Could we try this again with an explicit goal of finding common ground?

For example, I'm not a supporter of rioting (but there's some compelling thoughts that in some cases it effectively becomes necessary because the system has failed those involved). I throw that last part in to acknowledge that the topic of "civil unrest" is complicated and can't be reduced demonizing every instance and participant (e.g., the Boston Tea Party is celebrated in our annals of American History).

Likewise, I'm not for eliminating all policing, but I do think the current structure we have does not serve society well. You can't fix what ain't broke, and it ain't broke until it's noticed.

Thoughts?

I'd like to, but the rate limit dang mentioned leaves me unable to have long discussions - I won't be permitted to make more than a handful of comments a day. More generally, he's made it clear that my opinions on this kind of topic are simply not welcome here. I'm planning to take a break from the site through the weekend, and then start from a clean slate with a new handle SaltyLemonZest where I won't make any comments on any political topic.

Roger that. But this "meeting in the middle" thing is a worthwhile goal, n'est pas?

My email is in my profile. If you'd like to explore this directly I would be thrilled. If not, I understand as well.

by this logic would you say that normal people using tor are providing cover for bad actors?

The difference is that people aren't saying not to go after the bad actors in on tor.

There's no logic involved. It's all "feelings".