Posted on Mar 4, 2021
Feds quietly dismiss dozens of Portland protest cases
829
27
14
8
8
0
Gee why don’t the do this for the protests in DC? Seems assaulting Federal officers really isn’t that big a deal.
Feds quietly dismiss dozens of Portland protest cases
Posted from kgw.com
Democrats
Republicans
Justice
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
5
5
0
From article: "In a recent interview with KGW, Williams explained the cases were dismissed in instances where prosecutors didn’t believe they could prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt."
In other words, there is a difference between protests with extenuating circumstances and an insurrection with abundant video evidence
In other words, there is a difference between protests with extenuating circumstances and an insurrection with abundant video evidence
(5)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
There is abundant video evidence in Portland, as well. But it isn't getting the high profile attention that DC got.
And what are the extenuating circumstances in Portland? What justifies defacing property, burning building, and/or assaulting federal officers?
And what are the extenuating circumstances in Portland? What justifies defacing property, burning building, and/or assaulting federal officers?
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
There were no arrests for protesting in DC. There are people being arrested for committing acts of violence against our government, nd the police trying to protect the building and occupants. That's not the same thing as what went on in Portland.
(2)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
SFC Casey O'Mally - Vandalism is not violence. Did the federal officer get assaulted before or after they assaulted the protestors? Yes, it matters. One is assault, the other is self defense.
Yes, I am firmly rooted in reality.
At any rate, it's up to the prosecutors to decide which cases they feel they can win, and which they can't. We may disagree on what constitutes violence, but at the end of the day, the decision is theirs, and theirs alone.
Yes, I am firmly rooted in reality.
At any rate, it's up to the prosecutors to decide which cases they feel they can win, and which they can't. We may disagree on what constitutes violence, but at the end of the day, the decision is theirs, and theirs alone.
(2)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SGT Edward Wilcox - What do you classify as an "act of violence against the government" as you put it? If attacking a federal official does not qualify, and destroying federal property does not qualify, what does?
Plain and simple, there WERE acts of violence against the government in Portland. Federal officials were attacked, federal property was destroyed - and destroyed with the intent of making it unusable for a period of time. Trying to claim that it is somehow different than what happened in DC is hypocritical, at best.
Yes, it IS up to the prosecutors. But I guarantee the same will not be said if anyone is NOT prosecuted for DC.
Plain and simple, there WERE acts of violence against the government in Portland. Federal officials were attacked, federal property was destroyed - and destroyed with the intent of making it unusable for a period of time. Trying to claim that it is somehow different than what happened in DC is hypocritical, at best.
Yes, it IS up to the prosecutors. But I guarantee the same will not be said if anyone is NOT prosecuted for DC.
(0)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
SFC Casey O'Mally - There is nothing hypocritical about asserting that Portland and DC were different. They just were.
Again, vandalism is not violence. Vandalism of a federal building is not an act of violence against the government. I am not justifying the actions of the protestors in Portland, but breaking a few windows of a federal building is not the same thing as breaking the windows of our Seat our Government. The protestors were acting out against what they saw as injustice. The insurrectionists in DC were attempting to cause harm to our elected representatives, and not out of a sense of injustice, but to cause an illegal change of leadership, to subvert the Constitutional electoral process.
All that aside, the prosecution in Portland decided not to prosecute because they could not guarantee a conviction. That is their prerogative. The prosecutors in DC have ample evidence to gain convictions, so they will be going forward on much more sever charges.
If you can't see the huge differences here, you are either being willfully blind, or just plain stupid.
Again, vandalism is not violence. Vandalism of a federal building is not an act of violence against the government. I am not justifying the actions of the protestors in Portland, but breaking a few windows of a federal building is not the same thing as breaking the windows of our Seat our Government. The protestors were acting out against what they saw as injustice. The insurrectionists in DC were attempting to cause harm to our elected representatives, and not out of a sense of injustice, but to cause an illegal change of leadership, to subvert the Constitutional electoral process.
All that aside, the prosecution in Portland decided not to prosecute because they could not guarantee a conviction. That is their prerogative. The prosecutors in DC have ample evidence to gain convictions, so they will be going forward on much more sever charges.
If you can't see the huge differences here, you are either being willfully blind, or just plain stupid.
(2)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
The protestors in DC WERE acting out against what they saw as injustice. They believed that voter fraud existed and that the election was stolen.
The only real difference is that you place a higher importance on one over the other.
IN Portland: federal officials were physically attacked. A federal building was actively partially destroyed with the intent of interrupting operations. Protestors effectively prevented the use of the building for a duration of time.
In DC: federal officials were physically attacked. A federal building was actively partially destroyed with the intent of interrupting operations. Protestors effectively prevented the use of the building for a duration of time.
Differences: In DC, regrettably, one Officer died, however his cause of death is still unclear. (But we DO know it was not a result of being struck in the head by a fire extinguisher as originally reported.) No officers died in Portland (that I am aware of). IN DC, one federal building was attacked; in Portland, multiple federal buildings (plus countless state, local, and private buildings) were attacked. In DC, the riot lasted for less than a day; in Portland it lasted for MONTHS. In DC, the building in question housed the SACROSANCT legislative branch; in Portland the buildings housed the obscure and meaningless judicial branch.
If one removes any personal ideology of DC being the holy of holies, Portland was a far worse event. DC was worse in ONE DAY than Portland was on any given day. Portland was worse in toto.
Please bear in mind that I am in NO WAY attempting to excuse or justify the riot in DC. I am just saying that most folks are treating it QUITE hypocritically. If DC is an outrage (and I think it is), then SO IS PORTLAND. If over a third of folks arrested in Portland being dismissed with no charges is no big deal, then neither will it be a big deal if it happens with DC. Anyone who claims otherwise is a hypocrite.
P.S. you still haven't clarified what IS an act of violence against the government, only that vandalism is not.
The only real difference is that you place a higher importance on one over the other.
IN Portland: federal officials were physically attacked. A federal building was actively partially destroyed with the intent of interrupting operations. Protestors effectively prevented the use of the building for a duration of time.
In DC: federal officials were physically attacked. A federal building was actively partially destroyed with the intent of interrupting operations. Protestors effectively prevented the use of the building for a duration of time.
Differences: In DC, regrettably, one Officer died, however his cause of death is still unclear. (But we DO know it was not a result of being struck in the head by a fire extinguisher as originally reported.) No officers died in Portland (that I am aware of). IN DC, one federal building was attacked; in Portland, multiple federal buildings (plus countless state, local, and private buildings) were attacked. In DC, the riot lasted for less than a day; in Portland it lasted for MONTHS. In DC, the building in question housed the SACROSANCT legislative branch; in Portland the buildings housed the obscure and meaningless judicial branch.
If one removes any personal ideology of DC being the holy of holies, Portland was a far worse event. DC was worse in ONE DAY than Portland was on any given day. Portland was worse in toto.
Please bear in mind that I am in NO WAY attempting to excuse or justify the riot in DC. I am just saying that most folks are treating it QUITE hypocritically. If DC is an outrage (and I think it is), then SO IS PORTLAND. If over a third of folks arrested in Portland being dismissed with no charges is no big deal, then neither will it be a big deal if it happens with DC. Anyone who claims otherwise is a hypocrite.
P.S. you still haven't clarified what IS an act of violence against the government, only that vandalism is not.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google