Oregon GOP Senator to State Police “Send bachelors and come heavily armed”

[Radagast]

You're sticking with the absurd claim that when the state constitution says that they can "compel" the attendance of members that it means the other state Senators can physically accost them, but they can't have the police perform that action.

The constitution seems to me disappointingly vague. But I see nothing authorising the police to arrest someone on the Senate President's behalf. In fact, I see explicit laws saying that police must have either a warrant or "probable cause."

The absurdity of questioning the LEO's role in carrying out the Governor's orders reveals a disturbing trend in the far right to opposed democratic republican government.

LEO arrest people based on a warrant from a judge, not on the say-so of the Governor. If the Governor gets to tell police to arrest people, then you have a police state.

 

[Belk]

The constitution seems to me disappointingly vague. But I see nothing authorising the police to arrest someone on the Senate President's behalf. In fact, I see explicit laws saying that police must have either a warrant or "probable cause."



LEO arrest people based on a warrant from a judge, not on the say-so of the Governor. If the Governor gets to tell police to arrest people, then you have a police state.

Why do you keep speaking about arrest? Nothing ever said they were being arrested. This seems a classic straw man.

 

[Radagast]

Why do you keep speaking about arrest? Nothing ever said they were being arrested.

When police forcibly restrict your freedom of movement for more than a brief period, that's an arrest (possibly false arrest).

It's only legal for police to do that if there's (a) a warrant from a judge or (b) probable cause indicating a breach of a law or of a regulation with the force of law.

Police in Oregon (as in most places) are authorised to enforce laws or regulations with the force of law by arresting those people that break them. They're not, afaik, authorised to carry out political enforcement at the request of the Governor.

 

[Belk]

When police forcibly restrict your freedom of movement for more than a brief period, that's an arrest.

It's only legal to do that if there's (a) a warrant or (b) probable cause indicating a breach of a law or of a regulation with the force of law.

Oh yes? If the police bring you in for questioning you are under arrest?

Police in Oregon (as in most places) are authorised to enforce laws or regulations with the force of law by arresting those people that break them. They're not, afaik, authorised to carry out political enforcement at the request of the Governor.

"I don't have knowledge of this" seems a poor argument. Those who do have knowledge seem unperturbed by it.

 

[Radagast]

Oh yes? If the police bring you in for questioning you are under arrest?

If it's done by force, it's an arrest (possibly false arrest).

If you agree to go with them, it's just transport.

"I don't have knowledge of this" seems a poor argument. Those who do have knowledge seem unperturbed by it.

Well, the Republicans with knowledge are highly perturbed. The police seem to be perturbed (which is presumably why they took no actual action other than politely asking senators to come home). The Democrats who claim knowledge are unperturbed, but can't seem to be able to point to anything that would justify use of force by the police.

"Trust us, it's legal" seems a poor argument for depriving somebody of their civil rights.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

The GOP has surrendered the point, so all is moot.

 

[Kentonio]

Well, the Republicans with knowledge are highly perturbed.

Funny, they seemed remarkably unperturbed when it was Democrats fleeing a state in the exact same situation. They only became perturbed when the boot was on the other foot.

 

[Belk]

If it's done by force, it's an arrest (possibly false arrest).

If you agree to go with them, it's just transport.




Well, the Republicans with knowledge are highly perturbed. The police seem to be perturbed (which is presumably why they took no actual action other than politely asking senators to come home). The Democrats who claim knowledge are unperturbed, but can't seem to be able to point to anything that would justify use of force by the police.

"Trust us, it's legal" seems a poor argument for depriving somebody of their civil rights.

I'll leave you to argue the finer points of the Oregon constitution with someone who does not find your claims silly.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

It's moot, Kentonio, it's over, and the GOP lost. So I will leave you to it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Aaand they're doing it again...

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...s-walk-out-climate-change-cap-trade-democracy

 

[Ana the Ist]

Aaand they're doing it again...

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...s-walk-out-climate-change-cap-trade-democracy

This whole thing was over a cap and trade legislation?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

This whole thing was over a cap and trade legislation?

Apparently.

 

[tulc]

This whole thing was over a cap and trade legislation?

I suspect that was the excuse more then the reason.
tulc(just a thought)

 

[TLK Valentine]

This whole thing was over a cap and trade legislation?

Are you surprised? They've done it before to block legislation over guns and healthcare...