135

Police say they think man suspected of setting fires at ballot boxes in the Portland, Oregon, area intends to strike again (www.cnn.com)

submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by MicroWave@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Investigators in Oregon searching for the person responsible for three fires at ballot drop boxes in the past few weeks – which damaged hundreds of ballots – believe “it is very possible the suspect intends to continue the attacks,” a police spokesperson said Wednesday.

Portland Police Bureau spokesperson Mike Benner described the suspect as a White man between 30 and 40 years old, who is balding or has very short hair. The man has a medium to thin build, he said.

Fires were set at three ballot boxes in the area in the past three weeks. Officials have identified 488 damaged ballots that were retrieved from a burned ballot box in Vancouver, Washington, and 345 of those voters already requested new ballots, according to election officials. Elections staff will mail another 143 replacement ballots to voters Thursday, officials said on X.

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] unmagical@lemmy.ml 53 points 2 days ago

Re: the headline

No they didn't.

“In terms of anticipating future behavior, that’s a speculation,” the chief said. “That’s just what we have to anticipate. It would be really naive of us or unjust for us to say that ‘hey, it’s all taken care of,’ and we don’t have him in custody.”

They are planning for future attacks because it would absolutely stupid and a failure of their duties to not, but nowhere in that article are they quoted as saying they think he will.

That might not seem like an actual distinction, but to claim they think he will act again implies they have some material insight and can discourage voters even further from attempting to use drop boxes; conversely, to claim they are anticipating future attacks does not imply any material insight and if anticipation is followed with increased security can help to assuage voters' fears.

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

Also, while this individual is clearly unhinged and stupid, it would be insanely stupid to try and pull it off again with all of the scrutiny.

I hope this fucker tries and gets caught in the act.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

They probably do, though. One of ‘em called their cousin Vern and told him to knock it off-making ‘em look bad, an’all

[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 days ago

Cousin? Feels like they were describing the guy as balding and one of their guys in the back said:"it's just short" trying to defend themselves. (This is how that line felt, and I thought it something from an 80s cop comedy)

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Maybe he’s his own cousin?

[-] maxenmajs@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

This is the kind of person who gets caught while people like Trump never get punished for instigating the mob.

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago

https://lemm.ee/comment/15830550

Right on the first part, lmao.

this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024

135 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19136 readers

3621 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News