• 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

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
 
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...

Strongly agreed and largely for the same reasons, save that I’m not familiar with California’s applicable use of force law.
 
brihard said:
Strongly agreed and largely for the same reasons, save that I’m not familiar with California’s applicable use of force law.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Haggis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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...
<sarcasm>Meh - POTUS47 & Co. say reporters are very bad, right? </sarcasm>
 
Brad Sallows said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Brad Sallows said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Could be a great time to book something into San Diego or Palm Springs for cheap. No one riots around golf courses.
 
brihard said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top