• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Just going to drop this OG Battlestar Galactica quote that seems apropos:

There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. - Commander Adama
Click to expand...
 
brihard said:
@KevinB - I know enough to know that ‘detain’ versus ‘arrest’ can be pretty different down there compared to here. Can you clarify the significance of this if you have the time?
Click to expand...
So certain jurisdictions allow LEO’s to temporarily detain people.
I’ve placed people in handcuffs and detained them for various reasons, that hasn’t always resulted in an arrest.

Generally one can detain for identification, and/or officer safety (number of unknowns).

I’ve done Ride Alongs and some Fed TF stuff in CA, but I don’t know enough about CA law to say whether or not Non LEO’s can operate this way.

However I’ve never heard of non LEO’s detaining anyone. Generally one needs reasonable suspicion to detain someone. Though what is RS can vary in certain jurisdictions or locations…


But if this is in regards to Federal Lands/Property, then all everyone on Federal property is subject to search and seizure, as well as detention.
 
KevinB said:
So certain jurisdictions allow LEO’s to temporarily detain people.
I’ve placed people in handcuffs and detained them for various reasons, that hasn’t always resulted in an arrest.

Generally one can detain for identification, and/or officer safety (number of unknowns).

I’ve done Ride Alongs and some Fed TF stuff in CA, but I don’t know enough about CA law to say whether or not Non LEO’s can operate this way.

However I’ve never heard of non LEO’s detaining anyone. Generally one needs reasonable suspicion to detain someone. Though what is RS can vary in certain jurisdictions or locations…


But if this is in regards to Federal Lands/Property, then all everyone on Federal property is subject to search and seizure, as well as detention.
Click to expand...
Ok. I’ve come to understand that in some jurisdiction there’s “no takebacksies” once police tell someone they’re ‘arrested’. Here we can arrest someone if we have grounds, but freely release them if the situation changes; if I understand right, in some parts of the U.S. once someone is under arrest, there’s a lot more obligatory process that precludes release, so ‘detention’ is used much more in situations that would be an arrest here.
 
brihard said:
Ok. I’ve come to understand that in some jurisdiction there’s “no takebacksies” once police tell someone they’re ‘arrested’. Here we can arrest someone if we have grounds, but freely release them if the situation changes; if I understand right, in some parts of the U.S. once someone is under arrest, there’s a lot more obligatory process that precludes release, so ‘detention’ is used much more in situations that would be an arrest here.
Click to expand...
I don’t have to Miranda anyone being detained...
So sometimes people talk themselves into arrest - but one is supposed to stop them, and Miranda them when that occurs.

I suspect that the ‘no takebacksies’ is a DA or PD/SO issue on arrest, simply to stop complaints about false arrest etc. Nothing in any state I’ve seen would preclude an arresting officer from stopping and releasing the person in custody without charges should they have the option (some offenses one can’t just give warnings for…)

I mean who hasn’t SuperTroopered some stoners…
 
Perhaps it comes down to how one applies the definition of arrest, ie: to stop. One coul argue that there does not necessarily need to be sufficient grounds to lay a charge in order to arrest (to stop). In the US, there seems to be more nuance between being detained (no charge) and being arrested (charges).
 
Last edited:
ModlrMike said:
Just going to drop this OG Battlestar Galactica quote that seems apropos:
Click to expand...
What happens when the people who want immigration law enforced and the people who do not are in direct opposition and a choice is required, there being no middle ground? (It is not possible to simultaneously enforce and not enforce a law.) Are those who favour enforcement more or less legitimately "the people" than those who do not; are those opposed to enforcement to the point of obstruction not already some kind of enemies of the state? Obstruction - rebellion - insurrection is a spectrum, but it's one spectrum of action against the state. The point of civil disobedience is that it's deliberately unlawful, and has consequences.
 
It doesn't matter which side you're on. There should be no argument that the current approach of masked, armed men rounding people up, whisking them off to detention camps and then dumping them in out of country prisons, all without the application of due process is not the way things are done in a democracy that touts freedom as its highest value.
 
HavokFour said:
Oh boy.

www.military.com

Bragg Soldiers Who Cheered Trump's Political Attacks While in Uniform Were Checked for Allegiance, Appearance

As President Donald Trump viciously attacked his perceived political foes, he whipped up boos from the gathered troops directed at California leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom.
www.military.com www.military.com

https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/1l939g8/so_they_basically_moved_a_bunch_of_troops_to_the


And in L.A...

Troops in Los Angeles can detain but not arrest individuals, military official says
Click to expand...
I wonder if there will be a big 'dear leader' type portrait at the upcoming big beautiful parade.
 
Brad Sallows said:
are those opposed to enforcement to the point of obstruction not already some kind of enemies of the state? Obstruction - rebellion - insurrection is a spectrum, but it's one spectrum of action against the state. The point of civil disobedience is that it's deliberately unlawful, and has consequences.
Click to expand...
I think where you go off the rails is where you equate "being opposed to actions being taken by the state" with being "enemies of the state."

"Obstruction," "rebellion" and " insurrection," are not a continuum at all. "Rebellion" and "insurrection" are basically synonymous while "obstruction" is a completely different thing. One person's "obstruction" is another person's "peaceful voicing of their 1st amendment rights." A peaceful demonstration, which has a handful of individuals who commit criminal acts during its course, does not equate to an "insurrection," any more than "January 6th" was an insurrection by the Republican Party.

One of the problems with the current White House and those who support it are that it is entirely too quick to label voiced opposition to its policies and procedural ways of enforcing those policies as "enemies of the state." That's blatant nonsense bordering on hysterical paranoia.

What ought to be of much greater concern to the nation than a handful of people waving flags on the streets of Los Angeles is an executive that is riding roughshod over the legislature and judiciary and the constitution and who holds political rallies with the nation's military.

🍻
 
ModlrMike said:
It doesn't matter which side you're on. There should be no argument that the current approach of masked, armed men rounding people up, whisking them off to detention camps and then dumping them in out of country prisons, all without the application of due process is not the way things are done in a democracy that touts freedom as its highest value.
Click to expand...
This.

An immigration-status crackdown conducted by uniformed, unmasked feds using marked vehicles that saw everyone without authorization to be in the states punted back to their home country would be infinitely less riddled with abuses of people and process than this evolution.

On top of the grab/camp/third-country prison mess, grabbing people who're engaged with the immigration application hearing process is an absolutely incredible bit of pointless viciousness.
 
ModlrMike said:
It doesn't matter which side you're on. There should be no argument that the current approach of masked, armed men rounding people up, whisking them off to detention camps and then dumping them in out of country prisons, all without the application of due process is not the way things are done in a democracy that touts freedom as its highest value.
Click to expand...
Yep. Agreed to, 100%. That covers the very, very few bona fide reports of people being abducted into unmarked white vans and/or sent to gulags in South America.

Now, the rest (millions)? They all get to stay? If they don't show up for process, no-one goes after them? Let the ones with criminal histories stay? Even the ones who have been deported already one or more times?

There's much, much, much, much more at stake than the tales of snatch-and-render that are used to front opposition. Those tales can all be true, and it doesn't matter: the laws still ought to be enforced.

Big picture, what else? Wait a few years until Democrats and establishment Republicans agree to another amnesty, then Democrats get power and let in a few more million; rinse, repeat? Give face to the "jobs Americans won't do line" propaganda instead of grabbing the people who roll out that despicable excuse by the heels and shaking them until they admit to de facto support of conditions of labour approximating indentured service?

If some Americans are going to basically ignore laws they don't like, then the field is open for everyone to pick and choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top