• 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

PrairieFella said:
So what happens if this suit goes through with the courts? The NG are ordered back to their barracks? Arrests?
Click to expand...
Well we are getting into uncharted territory.

The real question is how far is the Trump Administration going to take this.
Because so far they seem keen of lighting the fuze and trying to overreact.

At a certain point in time each American is going to need to take a look at ourselves in a mirror and decide what the Pledge of Allegiance means.
 
KevinB said:
Well we are getting into uncharted territory.

The real question is how far is the Trump Administration going to take this.
Because so far they seem keen of lighting the fuze and trying to overreact.
Click to expand...
There is only one reason the NG was called in and that was to escalate. I agree with your assessment here.
KevinB said:
At a certain point in time each American is going to need to take a look at ourselves in a mirror and decide what the Pledge of Allegiance means.
Click to expand...
There's only one inevitable conclusion to that when both camps are diametrically opposed...I play that a solution can be found.
 
KevinB said:
Well we are getting into uncharted territory.

The real question is how far is the Trump Administration going to take this.
Because so far they seem keen of lighting the fuze and trying to overreact.

At a certain point in time each American is going to need to take a look at ourselves in a mirror and decide what the Pledge of Allegiance means.
Click to expand...
Maybe The King should visit the US.....
 
PrairieFella said:
So what happens if this suit goes through with the courts? The NG are ordered back to their barracks? Arrests?
Click to expand...
Can governors fire their AGs?

Also, saw some bit of law (policy?) being referenced on Bluesky that seemed to suggest that calling NG to federal service was only involuntary for tasks outside of the US, i.e., that domestic call ups were subject to the approval of the governor. Might be bogus or misapplied, but who knows.
 
Quick google search:

www.ctvnews.ca

What to know about Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles protests

U.S. President Donald Trump has deployed at least 300 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
www.ctvnews.ca www.ctvnews.ca

Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency.

An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn’t invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday.

Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. He federalized part of California’s National Guard under what is known as Title 10 authority, which places him, not the governor, atop the chain of command, according to Newsom’s office.

The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding.

The law cited by Trump’s proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to “execute the laws of the United States,” with regular forces.

But the law also says that orders for those purposes “shall be issued through the governors of the States.” It’s not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state’s governor.

The role of the National Guard troops will be limited

Notably, Trump’s proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work.

Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that’s because the National Guard troops can’t legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act.

Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that “protection” role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website.

“There’s nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,” Vladeck wrote.
Click to expand...
The Governor of California summed it all up in this letter from his AG to SECDEF (that was posted here 52 mins ago (ie a few posts before you asked the question):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1931840646773715068
 
Meanwhile to revert to the issue of the reporter
IMG_0487.jpeg
It’s a very clear case of a LEO using a Less-Lethal device in a manner that is clearly not in accordance to their agencies policies.

They intentionally targeted the Reporter for no legitimate purpose.
 
KevinB said:
Meanwhile to revert to the issue of the reporter
View attachment 93781
It’s a very clear case of a LEO using a Less-Lethal device in a manner that is clearly not in accordance to their agencies policies.

They intentionally targeted the Reporter for no legitimate purpose.
Click to expand...
At that distance with direct fire (less lethals are supposed to be skipped), he's lucky he didn't kill her. At 15ish meters if that hits her spine, neck or head, she very well could have been a corpse on international TV. He should be fired and arrested.
 
PrairieFella said:
At that distance with direct fire (less lethals are suppsied to be skipped), he's lucky he didn't kill her. At 15ish meters if that hits her spine, neck or head, she very well could have been a corpse on international TV. He should be fired and arrested.
Click to expand...
Honestly it really depends on the system used, as some are designed to be fired directly up to contact distances, and with those only the head would be considered a red zone strike.

There are several CA laws the officer has broken, and due to the way it was done, he should not be immune to any prosecution for it. as one cannot argue that randomly shooting a reporter in the ass is in anyway part of doing ones duty.

I am generally on the side of the Blue, but incidents like this are impossible to defend, and for betterment of the profession should not be defended but rigorously stamped out.
 
KevinB said:
Honestly it really depends on the system used, as some are designed to be fired directly up to contact distances, and with those only the head would be considered a red zone strike.

There are several CA laws the officer has broken, and due to the way it was done, he should not be immune to any prosecution for it. as one cannot argue that randomly shooting a reporter in the ass is in anyway part of doing ones duty.

I am generally on the side of the Blue, but incidents like this are impossible to defend, and for betterment of the profession should not be defended but rigorously stamped out.
Click to expand...
Fair Kevin.

Here is what they are using allegedly. Would this fall into that category of less dangerous projectiles?

bafkreiayiw2tk6mwddrnyqswv4eoqu7jv5cekxgwpdutk4iva2iu34mw4i.jpg
 
PrairieFella said:
Fair Kevin.

Here is what they are using allegedly. Would this fall into that category of less dangerous projectiles?

View attachment 93782
Click to expand...
Here is the spec sheet on that round

It is a direct fire munition (no skipping) with the ideal range for targets being 5-40m, and Min Safe engagement is 1.5m.
So it would not be viewed as a lethal attack.

Also it seems reporters are about the only profession that doesn't have a special cutout in CA Law for additional penalties against crimes against them.

Codes Display Text

California Codes
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top