Legal issues wrt portland (and other proposed) DHS incursions into Democratic Cities

[Ronson]

There needs to be a 7th question just to make it more biblical.

7) Why were the mayor and governor so derelict in their duties that they could not manage this problem themselves?

Now, to be perfectly clear, I don't like this AT ALL, and there are some good questions and observations in the article.

HOWEVER ---- why are they not asking question #7 above?

And as an addendum to #7

If someone's property is destroyed or they are harmed (or a family member is killed) due to a lack of protection supplied by the local government, will the federal government then become liable? Will the Constitutional civil rights of those victimized be violated? Eisenhower apparently thought so when it came to sending troops into Little Rock.

[Cow Poke]

And as an addendum to #7

If someone's property is destroyed or they are harmed (or a family member is killed) due to a lack of protection supplied by the local government, will the federal government then become liable? Will the Constitutional civil rights of those victimized be violated? Eisenhower apparently thought so when it came to sending troops into Little Rock.

And why isn't MSM interviewing property owners and shop owners and home owners who were displaced, put out of business, or lived in fear through all of this unmitigated chaos?

(obviously, that's a rhetorical question )

[Maranatha]

Here's a little gem from the OP's cite, which is, by the way, an OPINION piece.... [bolding same as in the OP]

What the federal agents are not wearing are badges that identify agents’ names. While local police practice may require the use of such identifiers, it may come as an unpleasant surprise for people to learn that federal law does not as a rule require federal law enforcers to wear them.

So, for example, while complaining that the Federal Police [note - not SECRET police] were not wearing name plates, or their personal names on their uniforms, he continues to admit (in a "isn't this spooky" kind of way) that "federal law enforcers" are not required, as a rule, to wear them!

Think about that --- these guys and gals deal with drug cartels, mafia bosses, crime lords, gangs..... and the left is whining that they should have their personal information displayed for all the world to see.

So, the OP unwittingly debunks another false claim - that they should have been wearing name tags.

They have nothing of substance, just a lot of whining without knowledge of the law.

[oxmixmudd]

I took the time to answer all the questions posed (Post #3), and you come up with THIS crap?

You don't want answers, Jim - all you want to do is rail against Trump. OrangeManBad!

Those where not legitimate answers CP. They were snarky little sound bites. Sorry, but your feigned offense over me ignoring your unserious but snarky replies gets old. If you actually want a real discussion, then take the time to create real responses.

[Cow Poke]

Those where not legitimate answers CP. They were snarky little sound bites.

Jim, perhaps if you were to dial down the drama a tad, and read again, I have most certainly addressed your points.

Sorry, but your feigned offense

There is no offense, Jim, feigned or otherwise. You are what you are.

over me ignoring your unserious but snarky replies gets old. If you actually want a real discussion, then take the time to create real responses.

Why, so you can ignore those, too?

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, perhaps if you were to dial down the drama a tad, and read again, I have most certainly addressed your points.



There is no offense, Jim, feigned or otherwise. You are what you are.



Why, so you can ignore those, too?

Thanks for the admission. OTOH, the above is "case in point".

[Cow Poke]

Thanks for the admission. OTOH, the above is "case in point".

Sure, Jim. If it makes you feel better.

Now, do you have anything of substance you'd like to discuss?