How bad will the rioting be when the cop is found not guilty in court?
- Thread starter johnhugh
- Start date
Assuming the chart is true, what does it have to do with white police killing blacks ?
Hopefully not as bad as the ones after this cop got off for doing the same thing to a 911 caller.
https://t.co/Bx6Oq72jsR
You trust the FBI? I thought they were ALL part of the Deep State.
I've got one for you guys... If you recall the Fergason riots back in 2014, we had someone who knew EXACTLY what was going on and who to blame. Check out these quotes.
"Our country is totally fractured and, with our weak leadership in Washington, you can expect these types of riots and looting in other places"
"Can you imagine what Putin and all of our friends and enemies throughout the world are saying about the US as they watch the riots?"
"As China and the rest of the world continue to rip off the US economically, they laugh at us and our President over the riots.".
These are of course Trump's tweets on the subject back in 2014. I wonder what he's going to say now to bring our fractured country together? One thing is for sure. there will be NO BLAME associated with the current President.
"Our country is totally fractured and, with our weak leadership in Washington, you can expect these types of riots and looting in other places"
"Can you imagine what Putin and all of our friends and enemies throughout the world are saying about the US as they watch the riots?"
"As China and the rest of the world continue to rip off the US economically, they laugh at us and our President over the riots.".
These are of course Trump's tweets on the subject back in 2014. I wonder what he's going to say now to bring our fractured country together? One thing is for sure. there will be NO BLAME associated with the current President.
Just for context
Which party was in charge of those cities? Who was the leader of that party?
Ithink the POTUS has already done much to bring us together...calling for law and order, calling for swift action by inept democrat local government against the thugs looting and burning, calling for ANTIFA to be named a terrorist organization. All things that Americans should easily rally behind.
You make me laugh out loud. In a time of National Crisis, the POTUS runs off to his bunker like a little bitch, and tells the 50 state governors to handle the problem... in other words passing the buck (and just FYI practically guarenteeing 50 different responses instead of one response to a NATIONAL problem). No attempt at a national address to calm the nation down and bring us together, no attempt at a collective national response when damn near every major city in the country is having trouble. . Then he tells the governors that he is passing the buck to, that they are weak. I guess you should be happy... sounds like typical Trump.
Heart of a Lion for sure. Scared to make a decision as commander in chief b/c no matter what he does there will be consequences ... And we know how Trump is about taking any blame. So... Punt.
In otherwords, who was in charge of "those" cities. DONALD TRUMP.. You know, the farking PRESIDENT OF THE US.
Last edited:
Ok... I'm not sure what difference it makes, though. If Floyd was resisting arrest, he should have still been arrested. That appears to have happened. The the policeman and cohorts choked Floyd to death while he was handcuffed and lying on the ground. Does the fact that they were coworkers make it OK for this to happen? Does it make is less OK for this to happen. I'm not sure of the point being made.
Not to enter into any extended debate but the National Response Framework (NRF) and National Incident Management System (NIMS) prescribe government response during all contingencies/catastrophes (FEMA doc agreed to by the Governors and Territories).
In short, local responders, cities, counties, then states are the first line of defense/response (hurricane, tornado, pandemic response, riot, earthquake, etc.).
If the problem starts to tax local capacities, governors activate their respective National Guards and leverage state to state agreements called Emergency Management Assistance Compacts (EMAC). As a last resort, or if the State is unable to squelch the issue, Federal Resources are employed i.e. FEMA, FBI, Active Duty Military. In most cases, a Lead Federal Agency (LFA) will coordinate federal assistance in a supporting role to the governors.
Active Duty military will normally be assigned to the State Adjutant General who is a Dual Status Commander--meaning he oversees both National Guard (Title 32) and Active Duty (Title 10) troops. They receive taskings from both the Governor and Federal Authorities. The President can deploy active duty troops on U.S. soil (Insurrection Act) but that hasn't been done since Lincoln in New Orleans (1860). Although Eisenhower threatened to do it to Little Rock to force school integration in the 50's.
Bottom Line, it is the State, and only the State who determines the response within their jurisdiction. Federal resources and responses are only by the invitation of the governor--unless the incident is on a federal installation or land, or the state is unable to respond (San Andreas fault) And, yes, there will be 50 different responses (and 4 territories) to every incident. But one size does not fit all.
But I do agree that the President needs to address the nation soonest.
Not bad. Pretty much checks all the righteous outrage blocks. Has profanity, although that could be a little stronger (sexually vulgar would be an added plus), a personal attack against Trump. A weak attempt at being condescending to me but you did do it, so good for you. Also great deflect from my questions and failure to comment on any of my statements. Overall, good job.
Ok to answer my tough questions for you. Democrats were in charge of those cities (and are now, and have been for years), and Obama head of the party.
Today ... Trump, a Repub, is the POTUS and all the Dem leadership at the local and state level and national level think that he is the anti-christ. Trump has no sway within the dem party.
Ok let me continue. Security of the POTUS is governed by the Secret Service. What was the problem with him following their commands? HIm going to a more secure location in the White house impacts nothing and is purely following long-established protocol.
I don't really have the time or the energy to give you a civics lesson or a lesson on how the local state and federal levels of government interact in times of emergency. @Extender did a good job. Local and state governments have to act before we look to the Federal government.
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, but you want a dad figure to issue platitudes. Trump came out tonight with a good speech. He should have done it yesterday and should have been forceful. However the facts remain, the correct level at which action should be taken is at the City and State level..
You may be for more federal overreach (Which I find ironic given the left's baseless accusations against Trump). I am not, even though I voted and will vote again for Trump.
The leaders of the party in charge in all these burning cities (Pelosi and Shumer) what have they said? I don't ask about Biden because we already know that his staffers are bailing the rioters out of jail and he really isn't exactly leading....
I stand by everything I said. Trumpians are gonna vote for Trump. I know that. Trump could hand the nuclear codes over to the Russians, and half this board would be out in the street welcoming our new Russian overlords. The man can do no wrong. When you are a national crisis, the federal government takes charge. That's WHY we have a federal government. That's why we have agencies like FEMA and why the President can call up the National Guard and place them under Federal Control. So that the states act as one. Trump punted b/c he doesn't want to be held responsible, the buck stops any and everywhere else but with Donald Trump. Just like he refused to shut the country down over the virus, claiming he didn't have the authority. He didn't seem to think he lacked the authority to open it back up though. Also, the Secret Service service works for the President, not the other way around. The President ran from his own citizens...
What you state is simply incorrect and based purely in emotion. Go read the source documents and federal/state law.
Research how Texas and Mississippi wanted feds out of their states after Hurricane Katrina. Texas forbid the feds from coming to their state. To this day, one would think the hurricane only hit New Orleans. Louisiana pointed the finger at Bush and Brown because they were incompetent and CNN was all too willing to oblige Louisiana.
Look at how NY and NJ pushed the feds out promptly after Superstorm Sandy. Both those states performed well.
A little research into NRF protocols and State law will help you here.
Also, one size doesn't fit all. Had we as a nation acted more proximate in terms of local/regional/state responses, we might not have shuttered an entire economy. NY City needed to be shut down, Wyoming or Vermont did not. Centralized control is a tenant of socialism/communism not constitutional republics.
Thank you. Better than I have the energy to say, because it's really asking too much for the emotional left to deal in facts. You just wasted your time. But thank you for picking up the ball and giving it a shot.
I regret that I can only give you one thumbs up.
@hopefultiger13 BTW, Trump, like him or not, is POTUS. He has a whole apparatus of professionals whose sole existance is to maintain his personal security..not because they like him, but because the people elected him and it is their job. They made a professional recommendation based upon established protocols that he move to a more secure location for his own good... and the good of the nation. So he did so. Could he have refused? Sure. Then that would have forced the security forces to act differently in ways that you would not like. It's really just that simple. He acted rationally and properly. Something that so many in this country have a hard time doing and understanding.
Last edited:
Dude, Federal oversite is WHY we have a United States and not 50 separate countries. If the Feds aren't needed and you are "performing well" , fine. But when you've got shit burning down in your cities and are needing SOLDIERS (not police) to help out... that JUST MIGHT be a sign that you are NOT performing well. That's when the feds (working with the states) can really help out. Maybe that Texas F-16 and engineering batallian National Guard Outfits in Texas may not be the best units to patrol the streets of Houston. Maybe an infantry group from Oklahoma could do that instead? Maybe the streets of Houston don't even need patrolling... THAT's where working together, the Feds and locals can do MUCH MUCH better than either can working alone.
BTW, Texas most certainly didn't forbid the feds to come in... (because they can't). I remember the Texas State government bitching about how they didn't need the feds while there were pictures of people trying to get rescued from the tops of their houses.
I'd also like to point out that the Federal Government DID NOT shut down the states for the pandemic. Trump again punted to the governors and you see the results... Having a central authority working hand in hand with locals IS the way to handle crisis situations.
But, now we know that Trump didn't run off to the bunker like a little bitch during the protests. He says that he was just down there inspecting everything. So there's that.
Last edited:
You're wrong. Again, look at the law...both state and federal. Read the NRF pamphlet from FEMA. Stop with the emotion.
BTW, I don't do politics and haven't voted since 1988. I always thought you espoused a fondness for "middle of the road" and finding sources. Just trying to help you.
Jesus... I hoped that some common sense would break out on this board and people would realize that the Federal Government does indeed have the power to send in Federal Troops to enforce the law. Apparently not. Don't think about the 60s and the racial problems in the South East where the Feds were all in states that didn't want them there, because that wouldn't help you or anything...
Anyway... listen up for lawyering 101:
The Insurrection Act of 1807 gives the President the power to deploy the National Guard or the military to enforce laws in certain circumstances. It expanded upon the Militia Act of 1792, which gave the president power to command state militias in cases of an insurrection or an invasion “from any foreign nation or Indian tribe. The Insurrection Act can be invoked if there’s an insurrection against state law and a state government requests federal assistance restoring order. Now that last part seems to support your position. HOWEVER...It can also be invoked if there’s an insurrection against federal law. After the Civil War, Congress added a provision allowing the president to invoke the Act without a state’s permission if the state is failing to protect the Constitutional rights of its citizens. So while the use of the Insurrection Act has been rare since the 60s (it was last used in 1992 for the LA riots), the President can CLEARLY send if troops if he feels it necessary.
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act dozens of times throughout U.S. history. Here's a link from the Congressional Research Service on when, where, and how this was done... CLICK
The Posse Comitus Act outlaws the willful use of any part of the Army or Air Force to execute the law unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. HOWEVER.. The express statutory exceptions include legislation that allows the President to use military force to suppress insurrection or to enforce federal authority, and laws that permit the Department of Defense to provide federal, state, and local police with information, equipment, and personnel.
So easy peasy version is that when you have mobs burning shit down, the President can send in troops b/c other US Citizens are having their constitutional rights of life and the right to own property violated.
I wrote the support plan for the DoD. I also taught it at the National Defense University. I'm certified in Defense Support to Civil Authorities I and II. And was assigned to US Northern Command as a Senior Military Officer.
Whether or not a President can send Federal Troops into a state, uninvited, was never in question during this thread as there is precedent and law supporting this construct.
I can give you a long lecture on posse comitatus if you like (origins, application, etc) but you were originally on a tangent about how the Federal Government and Trump owns "those cities" and then went on to say the Federal Government "takes charge" and (among many other things you said) are factually and practically incorrect.
You also mentioned FEMA but transitioned to PC and implying a lack of common sense on this board. Hmmm...remember what I said about emotion?
Then you mention lawyering 101. Let me help you. Governors and Adjutant Generals exist for a reason. There are several states (i.e. Virginia, and Kentucky for example) that are actually Commonwealths. They (and the states) have constitutions which prescribe federal support. There's also Tribal and Territorial jurisdictions to respect. The Federal Government cannot, and will not, run over a state to be in-charge. I can go on re Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Maria, Superstorm Sandy, Earthquake in DC, LA riots, 9/11, BP Oil Spill, and Contingency/Consequence Management for Presidential Inaugurations and State of the Union Addresses. I was involved with all of them.
I did the 2013 Inaug (ceremonial and defense support to consequence management) and spent countless hours briefing leadership or VA, MD, DC, DoD, Nat'l Guard, Park Police, DC Metro, etc on jurisdictions, unity of effort, and unity of command. States were unwilling to cede anything to the feds.
Also, I developed the final construct for Federal/State responsibilities within the National Capital Region--which encompasses 2 states, a federal city, and numerous jurisdictions. Most of this need stemmed from 9/11...guess who the on-scene Incident COMMANDER was for the airplane crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11? The Arlington Fire Chief.
You also said Trump didn't have the authority to shut down the states (he's right) and then you said he sure did open them (no he didn't).
You also said the Secret Service works for the President--implying, I guess, that he can force them to do whatever. Again, untrue. Don't mistake authority for responsibility. The USSS protects the POTUS--even from himself. They will utilize any means to protect the President. They are tremendous professionals and do an amazing job protecting some major egos.
Again, reading back through your posts, I'm not sure what you're saying other than you don't like Trump (fine); and you think he left it up to the states (law says he must unless there's some very serious issues); the Federal Government should take over everything (they can't) and you think he should Federalize the National Guard and send in Active Duty troops?
So many bad things happen when you turn federal troops onto U.S. citizens...trust, safety, perception, all suffer. It is a last resort. I can assure you the Governors are monitoring events and, if they are ready to end it, they will. If they cannot disperse the riots, they will ask for federal assistance. I.e. LA Riots.
If, God-forbid, there comes a point where there is massive loss of life/threats to law and order, you could see the President exercising Insurrection Act. Unfortunately, this would be yet another action viewed purely through partisan politics, racism, or, like you, a hatred for Trump, and the U.S. military is caught in the middle.
Bottom line, if you've got a problem with what's going on in the state, take it up with the governor and his/her constituents.
Well, I'm just a regular guy. But I know bullshit when I see it being shoveled in my direction.
You said..."Whether or not a President can send Federal Troops into a state, uninvited, was never in question during this thread as there is precedent and law supporting this construct."
The above is EXACTLY my point. My post that got this started reads "the POTUS runs off to his bunker like a little bitch, and tells the 50 state governors to handle the problem... in other words passing the buck (and just FYI practically guarenteeing 50 different responses instead of one response to a NATIONAL problem). No attempt at a national address to calm the nation down and bring us together, no attempt at a collective national response when damn near every major city in the country is having trouble. . Then he tells the governors that he is passing the buck to, that they are weak. I guess you should be happy... sounds like typical Trump"
I probably should have added in the quote that Trump made that said "When the looting starts the shooting starts". In other words, Trump is expecting the state governers to call in the national guard and stop the riots by whatever means necessary. Right? You are correct in that I despise Trump, but in this situation I actually agree with his premise... You simply can not allow mob rule and chaos and violence can not be tolerated. The point here is that Trump talks all big and bad, but even though he had the ability (as you said) to call up the NG under federal control and work with the states to settle the violence down, he chose to not do that and then tells the governers that he just passed the buck to that they are too weak to do so. If the President believes that the governors of the states can't solve the problem because they are too weak, then who has to solve it? The National Government, right? When the states can't deal with the situation, that's what the central government is for. That's what the insurection act is for.
Every city and state that is experiencing this violence is a part of the USA. It doesn't matter who voted for who and who's in charge of what. Donald Trump is the President of the United States. It's HIS JOB to lead this country and that leadership is never more important than when we are in crisis. What the President of the US says and does MATTERS.
If Trump wants to say... Well, this is a job for the states and I can't do anything about it. If you governors can't handle it, I'll try and send some help your way OK, that's weak sauce, but I can live with that. If he says, this violence won't be tolerated and I'm calling up the national guard and putting a stop to it. I can live with that. But when Trumps says this violence won't be tolerated and now you 50 governors need to handle this even though you are too weak to do so, you've kind of lost me. Trump is playing both sides ... wanting a hard line solution, but being scared to do the job himself.
