https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O95BnX1CsYM
Where is the outrage from constitutional die hards?
Printable View
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O95BnX1CsYM
Where is the outrage from constitutional die hards?
I feel that a lot of questions about context are unanswered.
-Who were they rendering aid to, why and what his ailment was.
-Why did they not remove themselves from the situation after being asked to.
-Whether they're trained to render aid, or whether they're just Antifa 'medics' with Neosporin, Asprin and a saline solution.
It seems simple to assume when the national guard is marching towards you and telling you to leave, shouldn't that be the end result? Even if we were to suppose they were rendering aid -- the military would be much better equipped to identify and handle such a situation. And, frankly in this video it doesn't look like they're rendering much aid at all. They're simply standing around a man lying on the ground with their equipment and waving to the national guard that something is wrong with him (which I don't think is a difficult observation to make.)
If we're supposing excessive-force here, I can get in line with that a bit I think. But, these are in all things soldiers. Does that excuse them in this context? No, but let's consider who has more training AND experience in civilian relations; The cop or the militant. Portland has done a fantastic job of making the cops more necessary than ever while reducing the presence of them, so you get the military handling things.
But even if excessive-force was the go-to: Why the fuck are they walking backwards instead of walking away? Consider an alternate universe of this video where the camera-man (who clearly has a bright light shining towards the NG) was filming two medics walking AWAY from the situation and being clubbed over the head by a baton. Does that seem likely? You be the judge. But to show aggression or dismissal of the direct call to get the fuck away in the video would be to face they people telling you to turn around and walk away, right? Was it that they feared for repercussions or the wellness of the person they were 'aiding?'
Also what the hell does this have to do with the constitution? lol
I suppose what I'm questioning more so is that why you would expect that have a red + on your shoulder/backpack would make you exempt from this situation.
Consider if these had been actual EMTs, recognized in their jurisdiction; Would the situation have happened similarly? No.
But when you want to burn down, destroy and ruin your own infrastructure in an attempt to create some new, unrecognized entity -- how is this not the result in context? It seems abhorrent (and I'm pretty sure it breaks some Geneva Convention shit) to assail medics "rendering aid" but is that what we're seeing? They rendered about as much aid as I did here. I looked at a guy on the ground for 30 seconds. There was no CPR, or otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frinckles
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/24/u...uit/index.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Frinckles
Here's your context. One of them was an EMT, the other an emergency medical services volunteer. They were better equipped to help that person than the NG guy who, in your words "looked at a guy on the ground for 30 seconds" as you can clearly see in the video.
Here comes the next goalpost-moving essay.
I'm also a little astonished that there are people who defend federal agents using violence against retreating medics, regardless of whether they were "true" medics or not. This is state terrorism and anyone who defends it is unequivocally an authoritarian, or at least someone who would be okay with living in a authoritarian state. The state should not use violence to suppress speech or protest. The state should not use violence against people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Okay, that article does give a bit more background to the video so thanks for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
But I'm still skeptical that this was violence to control the peaceful assembly, though it certainly could be. Do you not see crowd control as necessary to remove violent protesters from an area when they are a danger to live and property? If you can find a longer video of this incident/stream, I think we could hopefully learn a lot about what lead up to this and why it occurred.
They were walking away in the video, and the federal agents started beating them. That isn't crowd control to remove violent protesters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frinckles
My point is whether there were violent protesters in that vicinity and whether the Marshall saw this as failure of compliance when they're trying to clear the area. Throwing mortar shells into densely packed pockets of police is not peaceful, but neither is the returned teargas. These are reasons to have medics and medic tents on hand because if everything were simply peaceful, these would not be necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
It feels pointless to have a conversation about whether they should have retreated earlier, faster or whether the Marshall were justified hitting one in this situation without seeing a full video leading up to it. It'd certainly be pointless without context and it would be less debate and more opinion.
To be clear, I'm certainly not trying to frame the medics as violent protesters.
The guy really be banging the stick like a monkey.
That's one of the simplest form of crowd control. Scare em' with loud noises and aggressive movement. Goes back to medieval times where you'd bang on your shield a bunch while looking at enemy combatants.Quote:
Originally Posted by rumox
There is absolutely no context that would excuse federal agents beating anyone, medic or protester, with a stick repeatedly and shoving them while they're retreating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frinckles
Idk what this is about but Frinckles is probably right
tbh I don't see any stick beating. i hear what sounds like it but can't be certain since view is obstructed. he defs does some pansy ass toe poke on the guy on the ground tho lol. if the camera wasnt right there he may have wound that boot up good but had the awareness to somewhat stop himself, only explanation I have for that weird ass kick lol
There are plenty of context where that would be the correct reaction, how else do you uphold law and order when the destruction of it is at your doorstep?Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
From the article you linked:
This is in every way a direct dismissal of an order by the Marshals to leave the area. Under threat of force, arrest or what have you -- why would they not comply? I find it bizarre that their own testimonials in that article don't even detail why they felt the inclination to stay but rather focused on the result.Quote:
Durkee said he and Guest were called by protesters to help treat the man, and, as officers attempting to clear the area of demonstrators came towards them, the two volunteer medics signaled they intended to stay and treat the man laying on a sidewalk.
And here, a definition of Authoritarian:
They were given a choice (even ignoring the chaos and around them) and did not do it. This is not a war and these are not enemy combatants. These are protesters both peaceful and violent but above all, they are American citizens. I find this hardly more authoritarian than a cop asking you for identification, failure to comply and subsequent arrest. But perhaps it seems that way because of the need for Federal troops while the city burns.Quote:
favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
One more point of context of force. Here's a 1:48 video showing something that might provoke Federal troops to assail you. It was taken in the same city, Portland about five nights after the incident described in this thread. Notice the peaceful grafitti above as well. AND TURN DOWN YOUR VOLUME DO NOT WATCH WITH HEADPHONES.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7vlKbR3Gcs
Are the two incidents the same? Absolutely not. But they do share many similarities and so I'd argue why anyone in that situation would do anything opposite of compliance. Unless they really were under the impression that Portland has some sort of insurrection occurring and that they're in a war, Medics protected by the Geneva Convention.
This actually seems to be the case here, which is quite interesting: https://youtu.be/vxmST0yOKoM?t=47
Oh hey. I found the new political arguement topic.
I'm kind of bored with it now to be honest but it was a little fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJack
I think Chris Rock puts it better than I ever could.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEvMc-K8XHY
Also I really am trying to give some respect to the fact that this subforum is for serious topic and debate. Hence why I try to cite everything, get definitions etc. I miss my high school debate team.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJack
Ignore my comments Frinckles. I use my sarcasm to cover up the fact that my participation is useless. Politics is not my cup of tea.
Politics is tedious but I think most highly contentious topics are. Funnily enough, I've done more research on topics of race and politics in the past month than I ever had to in school. Just trying to understand and explain what the fuck happened to get us where we are in 2020. The overlying theme seems to be when one side focuses on the problem, and the other, the solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJack
They were beaten as they were walking away. There is no context in which someone who is complying with orders to leave and is currently doing so should be beaten by federal agents. They were not arrested after, so the beating wasn't to force them into submission or because they were resisting arrest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frinckles
If you defend the government indiscriminately beating someone who is currently complying with orders, then you are absolutely a fascist.
The way you're framing the incident simply isn't true. They were in a declared riot area and they were 'retreating' while facing the Marshals (also filming with a bright light pointing at them.) I'm not sure how much of the video you've watched but you can clearly see him being shoved to the ground and immediately picked back up by the same Marshal who pushed him. I have not found any evidence such as pictures or otherwise to suppose that anyone was 'beaten' aside from a testimonial from one of the people directly involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
In fact, the title of the argument points out exactly what happened: "Policing tactics under fire as video shows medics in Portland getting shoved to the ground." Had this been "Policing tactics under fire as video shows medics in Portland being beaten on the ground" perhaps that'd be different.
And why would they be arrested? The request was for them to remove themselves from the area immediately and swiftly and had nothing to do with them arrested. Physical force was only used after their failure to comply in a timely manner and that's nothing new to any sort of law enforcement. This is AFTER initially saying that they intended to stay there, despite the Marshal's requests.
To your earlier point that these two medics were better equipped to handle the situation, I'll quote your article:
I'm don't identify with Authoritarian/Fascist and I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic or why we're talking about me.Quote:
A medically trained deputy US Marshal stayed with the man seen on the ground, who was later determined not to be injured, according to the statement.
It certainly looked and sounded to me like the gestapo goon was beating the guy at 0:25. Maybe I'm wrong about that one, but being shoved to the ground is still violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frinckles
You are defending state violence against people who are complying with orders. Violence was unnecessary in this situation, and the medics would have left in either scenario. Violence was not used to subdue the medics, because they were not being detained, nor did it work to encourage them to leave. It was indiscriminate and unwarranted violence by the state, which is something that must by opposed by any means possible.
I'm calling you and anyone defending these actions an authoritarian because I'm calling it how it is. Authoritarianism must be pointed out and fought at every opportunity.
I'll agree that it is quite difficult to discern what exactly is happening, but want to make sure that it's at least somewhat accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
It's common-place for these kind of things to happen though, isn't it?
I'd apprehensive to say that in most other circumstances, the shove was justified. But unless we take into account the context of the situation and the accountability of both sides, we'll get nowhere.Quote:
The spokesman said responding agents gave verbal and physical instructions to the people in the area to clear out, adding, "Sometimes physical pressure is used by law enforcement officers when necessary to safely ensure compliance to the lawful orders."
This was declared a riot zone and these medics likely knew exactly why they were there and who threatens to use force in the event of violent protest. They've been pepper sprayed and had flash bangs thrown at them. The Marshals, similarly have been shot at, had explosives thrown at them and probably have gone through plenty of psychological abuse. Violence has plagued both sides of this with Portland being one of the most, if not the most extreme.
And in the middle of all the chaos, two medics attempting to render aid to someone who (as we now know) didn't need it while refusing to comply. Is it a bad look for a bunch of soldiers to act aggressively towards medics who probably have good intentions? Yeah, I'd say so. It paints a picture of exactly what you're saying; Authoritarian oppression but I just cannot see that being the case here because there is more to it.
It doesn't matter if the aid was or wasn't needed. It doesn't matter if they were supposed to be in that area or not. They had not broken any law to enough of a degree that subduing them with violence was necessary, as you can tell by the fact that they weren't arrested for anything. They were actively leaving the area. The goons advanced on them for the purpose of beating them. This isn't something that any amount of context can justify. This was an extrajudicial beating since the violence wasn't used to subdue them, or get them to comply with any other order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frinckles
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. We have a fundamental break in opinions, where I think that the state using violence extrajudicially is absolutely unacceptable, and you think it is acceptable. There's nothing else we can gain from this discussion with that in mind.
Quelling an unruly crowd is always a difficult and controversial thing to do. But yeah I say agree to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
Hopefully they can come to some resolution in Portland.
Aren't we all glad those rabid animals masquerading as cops don't discriminate based on skin color, though?
I thought this was the worst of it, but I guess I should have posted a few more abhorrent videos like the navy vet being beaten, or protesters being kidnapped by unmarked vans and federal agents.
Things that bother me with these tactics in this video, by this branch of government is the following
- there's no identification on these wanna-be soldiers. so if these individuals do commit human rights violations (which are more important than property rights violations right??) it's insanely hard to say who they were. They're anonymous.
- no one asked the federal government to step in here, nor are they within their rights here. the mayor, the governor, and other Oregon authorities have asked the federal government to leave.
I can say that I don't like the property damage that is happening in alongside the protests. Sure, you can declare an area a riot zone, and there are things authority figures can and should do to protect property.
The way it is happening in Portland is not the way. It reeks of fascism.
I feel that peaceful protesting is an important right. It allows people to participate in demonstrations that are used by folks on both sides of the aisle like Black Live Matter, and Unite the Right. But in both of these scenarios you get other tagalong groups that poison the protesters message (violent anarchists in Portland, and nazis in Charlottesville).
The answer here is not to cancel all protests. The answer here is not to use the federal resources to beat its citizens.
If we're debating whether the man was beaten or not because we can hear punches but don't see them, I can find other videos of these goons beating americans. I just don't know if I can find medics being beaten.
Also another point that I wasn't able to fit into my rant is that these agents were referred to as soldiers. They are not soldiers, and frankly I wish real American soldiers were being deployed here. It'd be more justified to see actual soldiers doing this behavior, and paradoxically, trust our soldiers a little bit more to show better restraint and not be goons. It doesn't seem like the military's been politicized and hope it never is, but what do I know.
Was your first reaction to "American Federal Agents Beating Medics in Portland" Voss is probably wrong? Why even insert your opinion if you don't know anything about what I'm posting about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
It'd be great if your reaction was "WoW!! that IS horrible! Let me see if I can find something that proves Voss's statement/video and also disproves it so I can draw my own conclusions" instead of this post.
But like, do that before you post in a Serious Discussion thread.
Hey man I was just kiddingQuote:
Originally Posted by Voss
have you come to a conclusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frinckles
We can't trust that everyone who puts a red cross on their shoulder is protecting our health, but we must believe that everyone who wears a riot vest is protecting our safety?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frinckles
Fyi, I think the federal government sending in the national guard to prevent protests or riots is technically unconstitutional.
These guys aren't the NG. They're a newly formed force from a bunch of federal agencies, mostly border patrol but also the US Marshals Services. That's why people are calling them "federal agents". I prefer the term gestapo.Quote:
Originally Posted by yzb25
Why can't state authorities deal with it?
Another good one, goons walking out of their line to pepper spray someone for yelling: https://twitter.com/andrewkimmel/sta...19466120904704
it'd be cool to acknowledge this as wrong or hear defenses on why the goons, sorry federal agents, were within their rights here.Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
We've gone over the fact that these two were trained to render aid. We've also established that the person in question was treated by the Marshals and uninjured.Quote:
Originally Posted by yzb25
There are not NG, that was incorrectly said by myself above; These were US Marshals, a body under the DOJ.
I'm not quite sure what your correlation is though. If I'm getting surgery done, I'd much rather the trained surgeon over the med-student. If your angle is outright distrust in all institutions, I cannot change that and don't intend to try.
Are you okay with the riots and looting occurring? These people are not here to break up peaceful protest.
Can you elaborate? US Marshals have been around for a long time. Is it one entity or multiple?Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
My points have been directly to this specific video that you linked, it's implications and context. Oops and I have done a lot on it already. So, respectfully if you'd like me to hold a position I need to know what we're talking about in the OP overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voss
Less formally, I'll be clear; I've seen some stupid shit occur over the past month or so. I've seen protesters, cops and bystanders killed, shot, run-over, maimed, burned, beat-up, beaten, cut and crushed. This is the reality of the situation and it's to say nothing of the millions of dollars lost by companies and businesses. Divulging into demographics of ownership would betray the topic, but even that's evident.
It's difficult to put my own disconnection between reason and result into words, quite honestly.
But if you're supposing I have too much faith in our institutions, would it be unfair to say you have too much fair in our protesters?
We have good cops, bad cops, good protesters, bad protesters. But we give powers to each individual to assemble protest peacefully. If you choose to associate yourself with compromised peace, why should you be treated differently?
And a step further, when does the de-humanization of police stop? To place rhetoric exclusively on protesters vs. a large faceless body seems disingenuous does it not? In such a world where you hadn't seen them; Would you be more taken-aback by a protester or a cop being beaten? I could show you both.
We could go on and on about who is wrong and right. We could talk about why people are even protesting (in another thread though.) But I cannot get in line with this consensus that every incident occurring is some act of police brutality.
I don't really approach topics like that. If people want to have a conversation (like we've been hearing for the past few decades) they need to be open to discourse and some mental fluidity. How else can you learn?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
What is the goal of debate? What are your goals debating, etc. It's kind of funny, in debate we had to be able to hold different positions on topics even if we didn't believe in them. Imagine having to debate over a topic affirming Slavery as morally and economically correct while the other guy gets to say it's bad for 15 minutes. lol
Even Mafia is kind of like this. "I'd prefer to be town because I can be natural!.. but I was given Mafia so now I have to seem natural."
If you're asking where I stand about these protests, the fact that I disagree with them is irrelevant. What matters is whether they're allowed to occur and that they're conducted peacefully. There have been multiple instances of both of these terms being broken; worst of all it's becoming cyclical if it wasn't already.
But I'd say historically this isn't new.
Thanks. That had already been said too, my bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
I'll try and flesh out what I meant: You entertain the possibility that the guy in the med outfit is with antifa. What about the guy in the fed agent suit? If it's reasonable for the guy in the fed agent suit to be suspicious of the guy in the med outfit, why can't the guy in the med outfit be suspicious of the guy in the fed agent suit? Even if the fed agent is actually a fed agent, what if the medic was worried that the fed agent will use excessive force? Even if the fed agents are wonderful and that concern is unreasonable, can you blame him for being a little scared in that situation and not looking away from the person yelling at him to get away from someone he's trying to treat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frinckles
My point is you come up with a whole essay of farfetched possibilities for the fed agent but the medic gets branded as a possible antifa agent lol. I wasn't trying to encourage "outright distrust" lol, it just seemed like a lopsided analysis. The fed's whole job is based around handling these situations effectively. Not giving him the scrutiny feels like sympathizing with the plumber who broke your toilet and turning up your chin at the consumer getting mad at him. Not a perfect example but also the best I can come up with cuz I really need to piss I'm sorry
W.r.t. the rioting and looting in general, it's a case by case thing, honestly.
From opb.orgQuote:
Portland police, city officials and officials in the federal government have aimed to undermine protesters, calling them violent criminals, anarchists or saying they were not there to talk about racial justice.
“What happened here isn’t helping to bring about any meaningful change, reform or an end of historic racism that all of us are joined together and seeking to eliminate,” Mayor Ted Wheeler said during a June 26 press conference at the city police’s North Precinct after a dumpster had been set on fire outside the building the night before. “Last night was plainly and simply about arson. It was about destruction. It was about endangering lives. It’s blatant criminal violence. That is totally unacceptable.”
A subsection of the crowd marches toward the Marriott hotel in downtown Portland, Ore., July 25, 2020. Portland has sustained protests against police brutality and systemic racism for 58 days.
The protestors have been deliberately pushing the boundary on what the government thinks is acceptable. Viewing the progression of the local government and the federal government towards protestors in Portland are dynamic, kinda like how you town read someone but then they become your null read into your scum read. The protestors have gone from very peaceful -> more and more violent, even as structural and legislative changes have been made.
Portland's chief of police has stepped down
Sending police to schools of higher gang activity has been stopped
A neighboring city's mayor has resigned
They've cut funding for police
A few weeks ago, Ted Wheeler was out giving speeches about how he has been promising changes and that we can work together for real change, but resources for crowd control are drying up. Shaky relations with neighboring city's police forces have been forced to diplomatic as Gresham and Clackamas sent their police to work in a joint effort. Just a week or two ago the local police force were disapproving of federal agents controlling the riots and protests.
I don't know that there is a good solution when protests get this extensive. Each entity is trying to balance power, control, public approval. I wish I had more to say about what is going on in my city, but I do not go out and protest. Did the federal agents respond with too much force? Those people were in the wrong location and disobeying authority while trying to treat someone. There was never going to be a good outcome to that dilemma.
Case by case is for the courts. This is more of policing, or riot control, or a display of governmental power.Quote:
Originally Posted by yzb25
https://www.facebook.com/natescohen/...57473208325976
that's a personal story from someone that's out on the "front lines" of the protest. also he nearly died.
okay so, what do you think caused our present situation then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frinckles
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e0d_story.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Frinckles
They're sending agents from a number of agencies, most seem to be from the US Marshals and Border Patrol.
This situation was forseeable, though. Weeks of violent rioting and looting are accomplishing what decades of peaceful legislative efforts failed to do, which is invigorating the living crap out of these protestors. Combine the incendiary actions of Trump's administration appealing to their base and you've got yourself a perfect storm. Historically, there tends to be a huge conservative backlash to these things, but I have no idea what that entails in the case of the US, which is already the most conservative country among the "developed western" countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by secondpassing
The rioters lack organization and cohesion, in terms of their demands, their strategy and their principles. However, these riots have also presumably put massive networks of people open to property violence in contact, both through social media and the riots themselves. Some radical leftist groups will probably form out of this, and I'm not talking about the boogeyman antifa, which is a decentralised collective with no actual official membership or organization. We're in for a long year.
That'd be somewhat off-topic. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
Yes, this exactly. 2021 will be even more of a pivotal year.Quote:
Originally Posted by yzb25