So what happens if you manage to shoot these (quasi- or even actual) kidnappers in self-defense?
That doesn't make what's happening super awesome, but OTOH it's not like these are like the Russian Little Green Men in Ukraine, operating without any visible affiliation whatsoever.
If having a POLICE patch is a license to commit violence without the target having a right to self-defense, that’s...a problem.
> OTOH it's not like these are like the Russian Little Green Men in Ukraine, operating without any visible affiliation whatsoever.
It's exactly like that: LGM were armed troops that wore generic military-style fatigues with no identification with a specific accountable organization, though behavior and common sense linked them on some level to the Russian governmwnr. These armed troops wear generic law-enforcement style gear with no identification with a specific accountable organization, though behavior and common sense link them to the US federal government. It's exactly the same thing, except that it's internal unaccountable repression and not an external not-quite-plausibly-deniable invasion.
I suppose so, but it's currently within the law to do so. In fact, the police don't always have to identify themselves as the police in certain exigent circumstances (!). It's also a common myth that universally the police must identify themselves personally and give a badge number. That's up to department policy.
I support reform in these cases, at the least requiring officers to wear patches that uniquely identifies them ("X25" or something) for later use in court. That said, what we are seeing is within the bounds of the law today.
>It's exactly the same thing
No, it really isn't. Men in civilian clothing or blank fatigues blowing things up with zero identification is indeed distinguishable from men in uniform with American flag and POLICE patches.
How so?
https://i.redd.it/b6xjl7nugoq41.jpg
The LGM had no patches, no flags, nothing to indicate to a reasonable observer where they were from or what authority they might have. This was more pronounced with LGM in civilian clothing:
https://i.redd.it/2sukgo8bjjl41.png
I'm not a giant fan of the cammies. I think a solid color would suffice for all but snipers and it looks less militaristic. But that doesn't negate the fact that all of the videos show men with POLICE patches in the middle of their plate carriers and American flags on their uniforms.
Based on the comments here, it is difficult for these people. Perhaps they are not reasonable observers?
You'd think that the same people that are incredibly pro-freedom would see this as a massive assault on someone's rights and yet, well.
I know the knee-jerk reaction to this statement is that rioting isn't peaceful protest, and you'd be absolutely right.
But the media (especially on the right) has blown the number and severity of riots completely out of proportion, because riots are sensational. They're exciting and get a lot of eyeballs watching their broadcasts and reading their articles. They've successfully convinced half the country that the riots significantly outnumber the peaceful protests.
This focus has made it impossible for any change to occur, because they defend the unjust actions of the police. You can point to this massive list of over 200 videos showing police brutality during the protests [0], and they will respond with "BUT THE RIOTS!", as if that excuses any of it.
[0] https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1266751520055459847
Why would you assume they haven't committed a crime? The camouflaged cops are clearly targeting individuals, not kettling up whole groups of peaceful protesters. Also, police brutality doesn't excuse serious crimes. We can do something about both at the same time.
I don't presume guilt (this is America, after all), but I rather suspect the Federales have some reason to arrest some but not others, and that reason might be things like arson, assault, or other serious crimes.
I'm not arguing that the media have pumped some things up to get ratings, but it's undeniable there have been criminal acts in and around legitimate protesters, perpetrated by bad actors, and it's not unreasonable to think perhaps the Feds have some evidence of wrongdoing by virtue of the targeted nature of the arrests.
> I don't presume guilt (this is America, after all)
These two lines are explicitly at odds. You said you don't presume guilt, but you presumed the people the cops are picking up have committed a crime. You have presumed guilt.
It doesn't mean that you can't arrest people suspected of a crime. That's how arrests work, FYI.
Because "Innocent until proven guilty" is supposed to be a ideal in the USA.
Also, the people being kidnapped are often being released with no charges. Source: https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unm...
> I don't presume guilt (this is America, after all), but I rather suspect the Federales have some reason to arrest some but not others, and that reason might be things like arson, assault, or other serious crimes.
The first 4 words of this statement don't work with the rest of the sentence. You claim to not presume guilt, then essentially claim that they must be guilty or else why would they be arrested?
Despite how much unwarranted police brutality is going on, you're continuing to defend the authorities.
You are part of the problem.