Portland protesters say federal officers in unmarked vans are detaining them(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Portland protesters say federal officers in unmarked vans are detaining them
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/17/portland-protests-federal-arrests/
101 comments
Nice theory, except they are not being arrested. They are being detained, and then released with no charges, and no apparent record of having been captured.
Have a source? I don't think that's true. This is what I'm seeing.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=25099...
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=25099...
Oregon law seems straightforward:
ORS 162.367:
(1) A person commits the crime of criminal impersonation of a peace officer if the person, with the intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another person, uses false law enforcement identification or wears a law enforcement uniform to give the impression that the person is a peace officer and does an act in that assumed character. (2) Criminal impersonation of a peace officer is a Class C felony. ... (3) As used in this section: ... Law enforcement uniform” means clothing bearing words such as “police,” “sheriff,” “state trooper” or “law enforcement,” or clothing that is an official uniform or substantially similar to an official uniform of a law enforcement unit that would make it reasonably likely that a person would believe that the wearer is a peace officer. [1993 c.243 §2; 2005 c.259 §1]
ORS 133.005:
(3) “Peace officer” means: (a) A member of the Oregon State Police; (b) A sheriff, constable, marshal, municipal police officer or reserve officer or a police officer commissioned by a university under ORS 352.121 (University police departments and officers) or 353.125 (Creation of police department and commission of police officers); (c) An investigator of a district attorney’s office if the investigator is or has been certified as a peace officer in this or any other state; (d) An investigator of the Criminal Justice Division of the Department of Justice of the State of Oregon; (e) A humane special agent as defined in ORS 181A.345 (Humane special agents to enforce animal welfare laws under direction of law enforcement agency); (f) A regulatory specialist exercising authority described in ORS 471.775 (Service of subpoenas) (2); (g) An authorized tribal police officer as defined in ORS 181A.680 (Definitions for ORS 181A.680 to 181A.692); or (h) A judicial marshal appointed under ORS 1.177 (State plan for security, emergency preparedness and business continuity for court facilities) who is trained pursuant to ORS 181A.540 (Certification of judicial marshals).
There is a separate definition of "Federal Officer." A Federal Officer is not allowed to wear clothing bearing the word "Police", because they are not a police officer.
Impersonating a police officer is a class C felony, carrying a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
ORS 162.367:
(1) A person commits the crime of criminal impersonation of a peace officer if the person, with the intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another person, uses false law enforcement identification or wears a law enforcement uniform to give the impression that the person is a peace officer and does an act in that assumed character. (2) Criminal impersonation of a peace officer is a Class C felony. ... (3) As used in this section: ... Law enforcement uniform” means clothing bearing words such as “police,” “sheriff,” “state trooper” or “law enforcement,” or clothing that is an official uniform or substantially similar to an official uniform of a law enforcement unit that would make it reasonably likely that a person would believe that the wearer is a peace officer. [1993 c.243 §2; 2005 c.259 §1]
ORS 133.005:
(3) “Peace officer” means: (a) A member of the Oregon State Police; (b) A sheriff, constable, marshal, municipal police officer or reserve officer or a police officer commissioned by a university under ORS 352.121 (University police departments and officers) or 353.125 (Creation of police department and commission of police officers); (c) An investigator of a district attorney’s office if the investigator is or has been certified as a peace officer in this or any other state; (d) An investigator of the Criminal Justice Division of the Department of Justice of the State of Oregon; (e) A humane special agent as defined in ORS 181A.345 (Humane special agents to enforce animal welfare laws under direction of law enforcement agency); (f) A regulatory specialist exercising authority described in ORS 471.775 (Service of subpoenas) (2); (g) An authorized tribal police officer as defined in ORS 181A.680 (Definitions for ORS 181A.680 to 181A.692); or (h) A judicial marshal appointed under ORS 1.177 (State plan for security, emergency preparedness and business continuity for court facilities) who is trained pursuant to ORS 181A.540 (Certification of judicial marshals).
There is a separate definition of "Federal Officer." A Federal Officer is not allowed to wear clothing bearing the word "Police", because they are not a police officer.
Impersonating a police officer is a class C felony, carrying a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
This was happening in Cincinnati about 20 years ago and nobody believed me the neighborhood I lived in was so bad with gang violence anytime you called the police they showed up an unmarked clothing wearing masks in unmarked police cars white and black
Bostonian(3)
This article offers scant evidence that this occurred.
A man claims that he was arrested "as he was walking home from a peaceful protest" and taken to the courthouse in an unmarked vehicle. This strikes me as unlikely to be the full story, but it is presented as the gospel truth. The entire thing is based on the word of this guy. What did the Washington Post do to verify the truth of this story? Anything?
The WaPo article refrences Oregon Public Broadcasting as a source, and their article[0] contains more allegations:
> Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14.
and
> Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off.
Neither article links to these videos. So, in terms of supporting evidence, we're left with the word of one man and a perfectly credulous article written in a local publication.
Has anyone seen one of these videos?
[0]https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unm...
A man claims that he was arrested "as he was walking home from a peaceful protest" and taken to the courthouse in an unmarked vehicle. This strikes me as unlikely to be the full story, but it is presented as the gospel truth. The entire thing is based on the word of this guy. What did the Washington Post do to verify the truth of this story? Anything?
The WaPo article refrences Oregon Public Broadcasting as a source, and their article[0] contains more allegations:
> Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14.
and
> Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off.
Neither article links to these videos. So, in terms of supporting evidence, we're left with the word of one man and a perfectly credulous article written in a local publication.
Has anyone seen one of these videos?
[0]https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unm...
Many of the comments note a number of highly suspicious irregularities which point towards this being some kind of asset extraction, as opposed to a genuine arrest.
Thank you for the link. That's some scary stuff.
> Has anyone seen any of these videos?
https://twitter.com/matcha_chai/status/1283328232033411072
Is the one I've seen going around
https://twitter.com/matcha_chai/status/1283328232033411072
Is the one I've seen going around
[deleted]
[deleted]
It is nice to see this finally getting the attention of national media. It was a week or so ago I saw videos of some guy get shot in the face while holding up a sign and another being kidnapped and dragged in to an unmarked car by unidentified individuals for an unexplained reason.
just a reminder of the dress rehearsal from Standing Rock
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/27/leaked-documents-reveal-...
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/27/leaked-documents-reveal-...
How can you have the right of habeaus corpus when nobody knows which agency seized your corpus?
We urgently need a federal statute to require that armed federal agents wear prominent identification. Even just a number that we can lookup for the details.
Cops with no accountability are how we got in this mess and this anonymity amounts to more of the same.
We urgently need a federal statute to require that armed federal agents wear prominent identification. Even just a number that we can lookup for the details.
Cops with no accountability are how we got in this mess and this anonymity amounts to more of the same.
The article says which agency it was (CPB), and quotes the CPB as saying that the agents identified themselves as CPB agents.
It also says that they weren't individually identifiable, which is an issue, but a different issue.
And uotes the CPB as saying that the agents identified themselves as CPB agents.
Not that we have any reason to take CPB for their word on what they say about these events, after the fact.
Not that we have any reason to take CPB for their word on what they say about these events, after the fact.
Yup. What I would like to see: Normally, to act as a law enforcement official you must have clearly displayed identity. Without this identity you are not considered to be an agent of the state and have no powers a passerby would not have.
The identity may be pseudoanonymous but the agency must be able to link it back to the individuals.
I would make exceptions for undercover officers who are discovered or who choose to break cover, and I would make exceptions for circumstances beyond their control. (You don't cease to be a cop because someone destroyed your identification in the incident etc.)
Likewise, I would like to see their powers go away if they aren't filming, likewise with an exception for something that happened during the incident. (But turning off one's camera is voluntary, it doesn't count unless you did it under duress.)
The identity may be pseudoanonymous but the agency must be able to link it back to the individuals.
I would make exceptions for undercover officers who are discovered or who choose to break cover, and I would make exceptions for circumstances beyond their control. (You don't cease to be a cop because someone destroyed your identification in the incident etc.)
Likewise, I would like to see their powers go away if they aren't filming, likewise with an exception for something that happened during the incident. (But turning off one's camera is voluntary, it doesn't count unless you did it under duress.)
What good are laws when the government doesn't obey them anyway? They will just find some way to side step it, Like "This a national security matter" and that will be that.
This is one of the classic pillars of fascist politics. Justify atrocious, anti-democratic actions by citing widely shared ideals.
Implement Jim Crow laws and prevent Black people from voting under the guise of "states' rights".
Invade a nation that does not threaten us in order to "liberate their people" and "spread democracy".
Encourage paramilitaries to intimidate peaceful protesters with weapons of war to "protect property and the rule of law".
And now send heavily armed mercenaries or federal agents into cities, with no identification and no accountability, against the will of local leaders, to kidnap citizens from the streets to "protect federal property".
Implement Jim Crow laws and prevent Black people from voting under the guise of "states' rights".
Invade a nation that does not threaten us in order to "liberate their people" and "spread democracy".
Encourage paramilitaries to intimidate peaceful protesters with weapons of war to "protect property and the rule of law".
And now send heavily armed mercenaries or federal agents into cities, with no identification and no accountability, against the will of local leaders, to kidnap citizens from the streets to "protect federal property".
Justifying things you do - atrocious and anti-democratic or not - by citing widely shared ideals is a pillar of any kind of politics. To claim that sending feds into cities is like Jim Crow in a meaningful sense because it was also justified with widely shared ideals is ridiculous.
Or just straight up ignore it completely like the president has done with some laws. Sometimes the courts catch up to him, sometimes the senate doesn't give a shit
Something that an observer said when Trump was elected has really struct with me : "the next 4 years are going to be a stress test for the checks and balances of the US political system".
I could not have been truer and damn ... the system is not faring well.
I could not have been truer and damn ... the system is not faring well.
I've heard some talk that the NDAA allows overriding habeus corpus, but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if it's entirely true.
Source: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57c9b648e4b06c750dd9cd6f
Source: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57c9b648e4b06c750dd9cd6f
If it's legal then there's even less prospect of accountability, so it's worse.
[deleted]
So what happens if you manage to shoot these (quasi- or even actual) kidnappers in self-defense?
You'd get shot back, and you very well might lose the civil suit:
In every video I've seen, there's a big POLICE patch on their plate carriers.
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.
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.
> You'd get shot back, and you very well might lose the civil suit: In every video I've seen, there's a big POLICE patch on their plate carriers.
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.
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.
> If having a POLICE patch is a license to commit violence without the target having a right to self-defense, that’s...a problem.
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.
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.
> 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?
How so?
A reasonable observer could conclude that they are almost certainly American law enforcement. Is is difficult to tell that these German fellows are police officers?
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.
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.
> A reasonable observer could conclude that they are almost certainly American law enforcement. Is is difficult to tell that these German fellows are police officers?
>https://i.redd.it/b6xjl7nugoq41.jpg
Based on the comments here, it is difficult for these people. Perhaps they are not reasonable observers?
Based on the comments here, it is difficult for these people. Perhaps they are not reasonable observers?
Along those lines, aren't situations like these precisely why the Second Amendment exists?
You'd think so, but yet I see the same people who are ardent defenders of the Second Amendment and supposedly hate government tyranny come out to defend what is essentially unnamed federal officers in unmarked vehicles grabbing people off the streets.
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.
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.
[deleted]
Since when is officers arresting people tyranny? That sounds like a "sovereign citizen" kind of position.
It's tyranny when the people being arrested have not committed any crimes. Half the country has forgotten that peacefully protests aren't just legal, but protected by the first amendment.
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
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
>It's tyranny when the people being arrested have not committed any crimes.
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.
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.
> Why would you assume they haven't committed a crime?
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.
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.
"Innocent until proven guilty" does not prevent a suspect from being arrested. Being released with no charges is not a statement of innocence or guilt, but of whether the prosecutor believes there is enough evidence to go through with prosecution.
> Why would you assume they haven't committed a crime?
> 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.
> 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.
No, you just misunderstand what the presumption of innocence means. It means that people are assumed to be innocent and that it is the duty of the prosecution to show their guilt.
It doesn't mean that you can't arrest people suspected of a crime. That's how arrests work, FYI.
It doesn't mean that you can't arrest people suspected of a crime. That's how arrests work, FYI.
This has been going on for a while. It started with using unidentified units at the DC protests. Then the clearing of protestors for the photo op.
Now they're roaming the streets in unmarked rentals in Portland abducting people. This is against the wishes of the Governor and the Mayor.
The DHS secretary visited Portland yesterday, this is what he saw that has prompted him to send in these forces: pictures of graffiti [1].
For that he labeled these are violent extremists and violent anarchists. And he has labeled these unidentified units abducting people as our valiant men and women in uniform and patriots. This is war on terror language used in our country, on our streets.
On Wednesday Trump, with AG Barr next to him named other "blue cities" in addition to Portland: Seattle, Minneapolis, and Chicago.
If this chills you and you don't want to see it progress, call your representatives and ask them to intervene to stop this.
[1] https://twitter.com/DHS_Wolf/status/1284095525122453504
The DHS secretary visited Portland yesterday, this is what he saw that has prompted him to send in these forces: pictures of graffiti [1].
For that he labeled these are violent extremists and violent anarchists. And he has labeled these unidentified units abducting people as our valiant men and women in uniform and patriots. This is war on terror language used in our country, on our streets.
On Wednesday Trump, with AG Barr next to him named other "blue cities" in addition to Portland: Seattle, Minneapolis, and Chicago.
If this chills you and you don't want to see it progress, call your representatives and ask them to intervene to stop this.
[1] https://twitter.com/DHS_Wolf/status/1284095525122453504
Legit curious about the down voting. If we're going to allow news like this to be posted, then what about my comment is not adding facts or to the conversation? Is it because of this line: "If this chills you and you don't want to see it progress, call your representatives and ask them to intervene to stop this."?
I upvoted to counter the downvotes, but I'd guess the downvotes were because you described what some people feel were legal arrests as "abducting people", and because you suggested the the DHS secretary sent in forces solely because of graffiti. Your point of view is legitimate, but others might legitimately disagree with it. I think just about everyone would agree with the "call your representatives" part.
I strongly suggest you don't ask these questions. I upvoted your comment because I think it's worth being upvoted, but I'm generally a downvoter when I see that someone asks, regardless of how much I might agree with the comment, and I think I'm not the only one.
I've been wondering if that's a good approach, but I mostly feel that it's a good principle to uphold the HN rules over whatever comment I might agree with, so I downvote comments that include complaints.
I've been wondering if that's a good approach, but I mostly feel that it's a good principle to uphold the HN rules over whatever comment I might agree with, so I downvote comments that include complaints.
I tried to upvote your parent comment earlier today but the action did nothing. Your karma did not increase.
I was able to upvote it just now, though it's still in the gray.
I have noticed that a minority of comments seem to be "locked" against voting for a certain period of time. I have previously found unvotable comments like yours, spotted them again hours later, and found that voting worked again.
I haven't been able to spot any common patterns in these temporarily unvotable comments. I wonder if there is some sort of cooldown timer on voting for comments that have received heavy voting in both directions. I'm not entirely satisfied with that guess, because IIRC some unvotable comments I have encountered in the past appear to be anodyne and unlikely to have attracted prior vote controversy.
There's also a limit on how frequently your votes will affect another user, but I hadn't voted on any of your other comments in the past day.
I was able to upvote it just now, though it's still in the gray.
I have noticed that a minority of comments seem to be "locked" against voting for a certain period of time. I have previously found unvotable comments like yours, spotted them again hours later, and found that voting worked again.
I haven't been able to spot any common patterns in these temporarily unvotable comments. I wonder if there is some sort of cooldown timer on voting for comments that have received heavy voting in both directions. I'm not entirely satisfied with that guess, because IIRC some unvotable comments I have encountered in the past appear to be anodyne and unlikely to have attracted prior vote controversy.
There's also a limit on how frequently your votes will affect another user, but I hadn't voted on any of your other comments in the past day.
How did he know they were federal?
The feds have said they're there. Not what they're doing exactly but they haven't been hiding their presence. If you know they aren't local PD because you've been there long enough to know what swat-ass PPD look like the choice is vigilante cosplays or Fed, and Occam says fed.
I think they have patches and stuff on their uniforms, a bit hard to tell in video but looks like it
We need to follow up with the arrests and make sure due process is being followed. If you're inciting violence or destroying property, you need to face justice. If you're assembling peacefully, we need to monitore for/end the abuse of power.