> They will come for him next.

already happened https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1286201620120797185?s=2...

If all these "rioters" are trying to burn the courthouse down, why didn't it burn down before the armed feds showed up and started hitting people with gas? The protests have been ongoing for quite a while, the feds are a comparatively new presence.

Note that Portland Police deployed CS gas against protesters attempting to set fire to the courthouse on May 30th. That night, Portland Police arrested 51 people.

The rioters had begun vandalizing, looting, breaking in and setting fire to buildings directly adjacent to the federal courthouse before federal agents arrived to protect the courthouse. Active defense of the courthouse seems justified, and more than that, it is legal.

May 31st: Looting and fire at Justice Center, adjacent to federal courthouse: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=25081...

June 27th: Some feds arrive in response: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/07/evidence-shows-portl...

Now you know how many Chinese people felt about media coverage of the Hong Kong protests.

The difference being that the US is a democracy with the rule of law, and Hong Kong is being denied democracy and the rule of law.

Five demands, not one less:

Full withdrawal of the extradition bill from the legislative process

Retraction of the characterisation of the 12 June 2019 protests as "riots"

Release and exoneration of arrested protesters

Establishment of an independent commission of inquiry into police behaviour

Universal suffrage for the Legislative Council and the chief executive elections

Pretty reasonable. Very relatable for anyone I'd say.

See the little red rectangle on this map?

https://imgur.com/gallery/zJ6dNxf

That's the entirety of the protests in Portland.

Sending in unidentifiable federal officers in unmarked rental vans to snatch away protesters is gross and outrageous government overreach.

And the red square is federal property that is the jurisdiction of federal officers. Protestors broke into and set fire to the adjacent courthouse, in addition to vandalizing and looting nearby buildings, so federal officers were sent to defend the federal courthouse. It is legal to make an arrest with an unmarked vehicle. It is legal to make an arrest of someone damaging property in your jurisdiction. So what exactly is illegal here that makes it an overreach?

Sending in unidentifiable and unmarked officers who refuse to identify themselves, to take away seemingly randomly selected protestors to undisclosed locations, is a clear authoritarian show of force and scare tactic, worthy of a military dictatorship.

How will you know whether you're being taken by federal officers or a far-right militia? That is a deliberate tactic, to have people live in fear of an unknown fate at the hands of unknown assailants.

"Protestors" attack any law enforcement members trying to arrest people committing violence. This allows the arrestee to escape into the crowd.

Talking about gross government overreach without honestly discussing the actions of the "protestors" is intellectually dishonest.

Then surely you agree that the many comments discussing the actions of the protesters without honestly discussing gross government overreach are, as well, intellectually dishonest.