Strongly agreed and largely for the same reasons, save that I’m not familiar with California’s applicable use of force law.
Trump administration 2024-2028
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
Strongly agreed and largely for the same reasons, save that I’m not familiar with California’s applicable use of force law.
Haggis
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,568
- Points
- 1,140
I don't know of any North American jurisdiction that would condone that.
UoF by police in CA is governed by CA Penal Code § 835a, which is summed up as:
"Officers shall use only that amount of force that reasonably appears necessary given the facts and totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time of the event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose."
Wording very similar to our Incident Management Intervention Model. I'd give him a "Fail" on the bolded part, but I wasn't there so the 'totality of the circumstances" could be his saving - but I doubt it.
Multiple news outlets are reporting that a regular U.S. Marine Corps battalion out of Twentynine Palms is deploying to Los Angeles. It’a not clear what their intended employment will be. My speculation is that they may be intended to fill the same federal site security role that California National Guard are currently filling; this may be in anticipation of courts ruling against the federalization of the National Guard without the state’s consent.
A deployment of regular active duty military members is probably going to be seen as a further escalation. Thus far I’ve seen little (may no but I’m not sure) evidence of the National Guard specifically confronting crowds, so hopefully any USMC deployment likewise stays away from a law enforcement role.
A deployment of regular active duty military members is probably going to be seen as a further escalation. Thus far I’ve seen little (may no but I’m not sure) evidence of the National Guard specifically confronting crowds, so hopefully any USMC deployment likewise stays away from a law enforcement role.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 38,446
- Points
- 1,160
Amen to that.
When you appear before a judge because you thought shooting someone with even a non-lethal round, or spraying them with tear gas, was justified you'd better have an answer that persuades them you were 'matching the level of force' being used against you.
Given some of the video footage being shared widely there is no way many of those troops would be able to pass that test.
HavokFour
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 687
- Points
- 810
Getting dangerously close now, I'd say.
Pentagon to deploy 700 Marines to Los Angeles, official says
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 9,953
- Points
- 1,040
Obvious question: what other federal agency should provide a protective force?
That the federal government may act to enforce federal law and to protect the members of the agency (and its physical infrastructure) charged with enforcing that law cannot seriously be in dispute. That leaves only the question of who provides protection. If not a component of armed forces, who?
That the federal government may act to enforce federal law and to protect the members of the agency (and its physical infrastructure) charged with enforcing that law cannot seriously be in dispute. That leaves only the question of who provides protection. If not a component of armed forces, who?
- Reaction score
- 6,013
- Points
- 1,260
<sarcasm>Meh - POTUS47 & Co. say reporters are very bad, right? </sarcasm>
The Fed’s writ large have over 130,000 law enforcement across their various agencies. Obviously that’s a massive variety of different roles and tasks, but the bodies are there.
The use of military forces strictly in protection of federal property is acceptable; the law provides for it, and there’s ample historical precedent for it.
The concerns for the military deployments in the last few days generally stem from:
- A potentially illegal federalizing of state level resources Without gubernatorial assent, outside what the law provides for;
- It generally not being necessary to use the military in lieu of law enforcement resources, and most significantly;
- Trump’s framing of this whole situation as deploying the military into LA is going to “liberate” the city, suppress riots, and otherwise generally do things that could only logically mean the military is being used in policing roles.
The last in particular raises obvious Posse Comitatus concerns. This is still further exacerbated when rather than being a callout in support of the state on the rest of the state, it’s imposed by the federal executive, and particularly with regular military forces. State and law enforcement officials are rejecting any notion that this is beyond the usual realm of policing, and there is every reason to question and suspect Trump’s motives in why he’s doing this.
Hopefully any deployed military remain strictly employed in static security roles. The military broadly, and soldiers individually, are generally not adequately or appropriately trained for law enforcement roles, and neither are most of their leadership. Crowd confrontation ops are particularly at risk of going badly sideways with how heated everyone and everything can get. This should remain strictly a law enforcement role until such time as law enforcement officials identify that their capabilities are exceeded and that mutual aid from other appropriately trained and equipped police is not sufficiently available.
PrairieFella
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,609
- Points
- 990
Marshals, DEA, FBI, literally anything is better than deploying Reg Marines in terms of escalation. He's looking for a fight and trying his best to get one.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,525
- Points
- 1,160
Job security for the second amendment.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 9,953
- Points
- 1,040
I agree it should remain with law enforcement. But it isn't enough to hand-wave at the number of people involved nationally. A single law enforcement agency with enough people to spare that can respond as quickly as NG or regular army: which one is that?
Trump's framing is regrettable but irrelevant. His framing on a host of issues is plainly wrong, but doesn't mean the people carrying out orders are going to carry out unlawful orders.
The hail Mary legal challenge based on what the governor "shall" do (a strong wording) might plausibly succeed. The administration might still want a protective force.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 9,953
- Points
- 1,040
It doesn’t have to be a single agency, that’s an artificial constraint at this moment there are multiple police services deployed within LA. Between ICE, HSI, FBI, Marshals, CBP and a plethora of others, there exist a lot of federal law enforcement who can contribute bodies to a joint force, all the moreso with tasks as straightforward as “you guard this section of the property line”. Combined operations happen so utterly regularly that it’s not remarkable in the least. That’s not a ‘hand wave’, that’s just ‘our profession does this regularly’.
Trump’s framing is absolutely not irrelevant. It’s a big part of the fuel being dumped from the gas can.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 9,953
- Points
- 1,040
To believe that, I would have to be able to imagine that if the security were provided by other LE agencies, there would be significantly less outrage. People are outraged because laws are being enforced, and in CA/LA they're not used to those laws being enforced that much, and are not used to low tolerance for violence. The military angle is being exploited to fan the outrage.
If you want to pretend this event exists in a frictionless vacuum, and not in the larger context of Trump constantly pushing boundaries on how he can wield federal executive power and try to stomp on the independence of institutions and other levels of government, go nuts. It’s disingenuous as hell, but have at ‘er.
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,300
- Points
- 1,160
Having seen only a grainy photo of the LEO in the background who fired the round, I was unsure what agency he belonged to when I looked through CA Penal Code as to who § 835a applied. The reporting since id him as LAPD. However my perusal of the code brought this to my attention.
It is very extensive about who is, and is not, a peace officer in California or who can exercise limited state LE functions under the state's Penal Code in certain circumstances. As for federal employees:
"830.8. (a) Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers are not California peace officers, but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer in any of the following circumstances:
. . .
(b) Duly authorized federal employees who comply with the training requirements set forth in Section 832 are peace officers when they are engaged in enforcing applicable state or local laws on property owned or possessed by the United States government, or on any street, sidewalk, or property adjacent thereto, and with the written consent of the sheriff or the chief of police, respectively, in whose jurisdiction the property is situated."
"830.85. Notwithstanding any other law, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and United States Customs and Border Protection officers are not California peace officers."
The specific exclusion of ICE and CPB dates from 2017.
California Bans ICE From Masquerading as Police Officers
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Monday barring federal authorities from presenting themselves as law enforcement officers in the Golden State. Assemblyman Ash Kalra, D-San Jose, wrote the bill, Assembly Bill 1440, in hopes of reducing unethical tactics by...
www.courthousenews.com