Trump's National Police Force

There was one news reporter at the riots calling them "mostly peaceful" who was literally standing in front of a burning building.

Its surreal.

 

They only "welcome" it because they don't like what the protestors are doing. The First amendment doesn't exist only if you agree with that they are saying. Your saying they only support the constitution when it meets their needs, not the actual constitution.

The idea that cities are becoming unsafe because of the protestors is ridiculous. Do you understand that the PEOPLE of those cities are the ones protesting ? Are you concerned that the cities aren't safe BECAUSE of the police ? You seem to gloss over the reason that we have protests right now. They are protesting the out of control police, which are part of a tyrannical government. We have a new "police" that are actually inflaming the situation. Trump announced new "federal forces" that he will be deploying to cities HE wants them deployed in, no matter what the states want. But "states rights" only matter when your justifying what YOU want

 

It is still out federal jurisdiciton. The Oregon National Guard should be there.

 

Meanwhile, the always peaceful TEA Party protests were vilified by the media. I can only imagine if just one protest resulted in a few broken windows.

How can a mayor allow riots for 50 days in-a-row, and then be upset that the feds were forced to come in to restore order in front of a federal building?????

 

Assault has always been illegal. I am not in agreement with the DHS, when it comes to him over stepping jurisdiction.

 

No not even close.

 

The people, as you put it, are looting and destroying buildings. Do you think the people who lost their business, or saw their dreams go up in flames are in favor of this? Do you think they feel safe?

Your argument that this violence is the will of the people, is unhinged.

 

They never thought that far ahead.

In this case local politicians are losing a battle in national politics.

 

Assault is always a crime. The place where the crime took place is the jurisdiction. The Oregon National Guard should be there, that is between the mayor and the govenor.

 

Wonder when we get the Night of the Long Knives.

 

We just went through the stated positions and actions of the DHS secretary in Portland. You agreed with every one of them and yet somehow you still disagree? It seems like even though you admit all of the actions are justified and sound you just don't want to go along with it for reasons other than what is happening in Portland.

 

3rd time, jursidiction !!!!!

 

If cities and states simply cannot, or otherwise will not, make an effort to stop the unfolding violence that is harming so many of their own citizens, for whatever reason, then sterner measures are both warranted and necessary.

To do anything less is to demonstrate that government at all levels truly does not care about the public, and does indeed view them as the enemy in need of crushing. Why should the public even vote anyone into office if the public believes all government is the same, and will treat them the same?

 

That's not the law.

 

What exactly is "the law" in this particular case? Mayors and governors ordering law enforcement to stand down and make no arrest while rioters and other criminals engage in the unrestrained destruction of public and private property, along with openly murdering anyone who disagrees with their message? Is that "the law" as is being referred to by yourself?

 

We discussed jurisdiction and you said they had the right (jurisdiction) to defend the federal courthouse. Are you changing your position now? If they or the courthouse is attacked then they have the right (jurisdiction) to make arrests. Are you changing your position now?

 

They "feel" its bad because they feel Orange man is bad.

 

I have changed anything.

 

It absolutely is. The first arrest has already been made of a St. Louis gang banger, for the federal crimes of being in possession of drugs and a firearm.

 

I don't agree with the way themayors are handling the protests, but that doesn't give the right for federal police to go in.

 

No, there is a clear deliniation between federal and state jurisdictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_jurisdiction_(United_States)
Federal jurisdiction in this sense is important in criminal law because federal law does not supersede state criminal law. Congress has enacted the Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 13), which provides that any act that would have been a crime under the laws of the state in which a federal enclave is situated is also a federal crime. Per the Article 1 of the United States Constitution "Enclave Clause" the federal government must first own the land, then request jurisdiction from the State, the State must choose to cede jurisdiction to the federal gov't, then the federal government accept jurisdiction to establish a federal enclave, all cessions are recorded in state and federal law.

 

Yes there is overlap, because both (typically, but not in these blue-run cities now) have the same goals of fighting crime. Normally, they are complementary to each other.

In the case of portland the locals may not be enforcing the local law, but that does not mean federal law can't enforce federal laws.

In the case of other blue cities-the feds are not restricted in enforcing of federal laws.

If one say tampers with someones mail, that is a violation of federal law regardless of if its legal under local law, or if its not being prosecuted.

 

So you refuse to say to say what they've done wrong in Portland. Just gonna throw out vague generalities because they are working within their jurisdiction and you've got nothing.

 

I suggest you reread what I posted.

 

I replied to another poster about jurisdiction and even provide a link and highlighted the separation. Go argue with that reality.