Who wants to defend these Marines actions?

[cpwill]

I agree she wasn't going to grandma's place. I want to know what they were blocking her from and was she doing anything illegal or was it the Marines performing an illegal maneuver?

Looked like she was trying to get through a security forces blocking position, and wanted some internet fame for doing so, which you gave her. If she'd tried to use force to shove past them, that might have given her detained until he police showed up to make a determination, but, other than her just kind of being deliberately annoying, I didn't spot anything.

Castigating the Marines for wearing "uniforms for war" was weird. It's summer: those are the cammies we got, lady .

 

[bongsaway]

I watched the video. I saw nothing wrong that the Marines did. What was I supposed to be offended by in their behavior?

First off the military should not be on our streets just because people are protesting. Secondly, why are they not letting her pass?

 

[bongsaway]

Looked like she was trying to get through a security forces blocking position, and wanted some internet fame for doing so, which you gave her. If she'd tried to use force to shove past them, that might have given her detained until he police showed up to make a determination, but, other than her just kind of being deliberately annoying, I didn't spot anything.

Castigating the Marines for wearing "uniforms for war" was weird. It's summer: those are the cammies we got, lady .

Looked like equals opinions in your world. Looked like she might be doing something is good enough for you folks. Should our military be on the streets during a protest?

 

[Questerr]

It appeared to be closed by United States Marines.

And without an invocation to the Insurrection Act, they have no legal authority to close anything.

 

[cpwill]

First off the military should not be on our streets just because people are protesting

Sure. The problem.(and why they can be called in) is when they move beyond protesting.

. Secondly, why are they not letting her pass?

Apparently that's a blocking checkpoint.

 

[cpwill]

Looked like equals opinions in your world. Looked like she might be doing something is good enough for you folks. Should our military be on the streets during a protest?

They depends on whether is has remained a protest.

For example, after the "protest" that occurred on Jan 6th, we sent in the military for weeks.

People have the right to protest - and should, when they feel a situation warrants it.

Riots get suppressed. Wage violence against society, and society will respond in kind.

 

[Emlee]

This picture looks like it’s the same spot taken at a different angle.

Looking at the sign on the left it says that it’s federal property. Not sure why the yahoo article just referred to it as a bridge.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Here's a game- imagine you're standing on a sidewalk and trying to name all the agencies who can arrest you.
Seattle city police, King county sheriff, Washington state police, FBI, DEA, BATF, Homeland Security, nobody can name them all.
It's amazing. Land of the free. More prisoners than anyone else in the world.
If I'm on the corner of Georgia and Granville I could be arrested by Vancouver city police or RCMP. Thats it.
Sure wish Canada was a free country like the USA

Actually, any more they would need to demonstrate a 'clear and present threat to the safety of the public and/or yourself.

You would have to be in "clear violation' of a criminal law and even then they can't do shit without calling in a mental health professional. Under our constitution you have a right to be as nuts as you want as long as your are not a threat to others. "Threat to self" is no longer adequate to detain, unless a mental health professional is involved.

The result is the Downtown East Side, (DTS) where a few hundred very strange and threatening people live.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Looks like the shooter of 4 people associated with the democrats in the Minnosota house is actually a supporter of the NO KINGS protest, mostly peaceful of course.

Thanks for spreading a baseless rumor.

That really helps unite the country. I can see you are a 'patriot' and care for ALL your American neighbors !!!!!!

 

[Fearandloathing]

NO - WRONG AGAIN! Do you ever get anything right? I'm here illustrating that there might have been a thousand reasons why that woman was there, and that you still have no proof whatsoever it was because of your as-of-yet unfounded accusation. Let us all know when that finally sinks in. Or don't bother. I have no more time to educate you today on your folly.

Ta-ta ...

You are inventing a counter argument where the need for one is questionable.

Based on your logic you might be an alien from Tralfamador ****ing with out minds

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Regardless of her reason/s for wanting to cross the bridge, was her action illegal?

I would use "unauthorized" because given the orders the soldiers were following, it was a case of "no unauthorized entry onto this property at this time".
And again, this is not the kind of bridge used on a regular basis by necessary foot traffic.
Look at this bridge the way you might look at one of those garden fountains in a person's yard with a statue of a cherub pissing water.
A fountain like that is not usually an actual water supply, it's a decoration.
So is this "bridge"...it does not cross a thoroughfare or a significant body of water, it's a decorative feature.
But it is located on Federal property and it being the weekend, about 75% of the VA Hospital is closed...only the ER and a few essential parts of the hospital are in operation on the weekend.
And that piece of property is FAR away from any patient rooms, too.
It's on a far corner of the campus, next to Wilshire Blvd, which is why you can see the big Federal Building across the street in the video.
This is a very large campus.

The soldiers can not be blamed if they feel silly doing it but they're not playing Mall Cop because they want to, they were given orders.
Normally the VA Police Dept would handle something like this.
But a Marine from Twenty-Nine Palms or wherever they are stationed is not an expert on the West Los Angeles VA Hospital, nor do they need to be.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

When did it become the job of US Marines to defend any building from the public. If this property is closed to the public, then it's the job of local law enforcement - NOT the US Marine Corp. Whose ****ed up orders led to this?

Actually, no. Local law enforcement are under no obligation to protect federal buildings.

 

[CLAX1911]

Marines prevent a civilian from crossing a bridge in Los Angeles​

So?

Is this really the best use of our armed forces, interfering with civilians just trying to cross a bridge?

Depends, what is she crossing the bridge for does she have any business over there and if so why doesn't she have clearance?

What did this woman do to deserve this behavior from our military who shouldn't even be there?

Tried to enter a restricted area.

Before spouting off defending the Marines, watch the video of this apparent domestic terrorist.

I watched the video they didn't do anything.

It's clearly a restricted area and this person didn't have clearance thank you for doing your job.

Marines prevent a civilian from crossing a bridge in Los Angeles

U.S. Marines stationed in Los Angeles stopped a woman wearing a hooded jacket from crossing a bridge on Friday. The presence of Marines comes after protests erupted last week over immigration raids.

www.yahoo.com

 

[bongsaway]

Sure. The problem.(and why they can be called in) is when they move beyond protesting.



Apparently that's a blocking checkpoint.

Excuse me. They were called in before the protests on Saturday even started.

 

[bongsaway]

They depends on whether is has remained a protest.

For example, after the "protest" that occurred on Jan 6th, we sent in the military for weeks.

People have the right to protest - and should, when they feel a situation warrants it.

Riots get suppressed. Wage violence against society, and society will respond in kind.

After the protests of 1/6 that did a helluva' lot of good. I only saw the capitol police trying to defend the capitol from the 1/6 folks. I didn't see any troops, national guard, or Marines that day, wonder why? You guys deal in bad faith, you want to demonize the very vast majority of people protesting peacefully and yet your right wing news outlets won't report that, instead we hear about Portland. In my opinion from what I watched, law enforcement instigated most incidents.

 

[uptower]

Looks like the shooter of 4 people associated with the democrats in the Minnesota house is actually a supporter of the NO KINGS protest, mostly peaceful of course.

Here we go. You guys always truck out the same shit the day after something like this happen and a day before the facts come in, then slink away shamelessly and never bring it up again. We hear it every time: He's a tranny, a secret gay, a closet Mexican, voted Democrat once in 1994, yada yada yada.

Give it a rest, literally: Let the dust settle and the facts come out for chrissakes. You don't have to be first in with the latest lies. There are no points for being quicker, but still wrong. This ain't 4chan, you'll eventually be fact checked (so get those slinkaway skates on).

Generally his targets and current manifesto (if there is one) are more than enough to tell you about a shooter's politics in the moment he acted. Other than that, and often in addition to it, he's just ****ing crazy anyway.

 

[cpwill]

After the protests of 1/6 that did a helluva' lot of good. I only saw the capitol police trying to defend the capitol from the 1/6 folks. I didn't see any troops, national guard, or Marines that day, wonder why?

Because they weren't called in until after a protest turned into a riot, as here.

You guys deal in bad faith, you want to demonize the very vast majority of people protesting peacefully and yet your right wing news outlets won't report that, instead we hear about Portland. In my opinion from what I watched, law enforcement instigated most incidents.

And 99.9% of Trump voters (a group to whom I do not belong, btw) didn't attack the capital in 1/6. That doesn't make the appropriate story for 1/6 about the vast majority of Trump voters who didn't participate in it. Riots are salient, and deserve attention and security force response in a way protests do not.

 

[cpwill]

Excuse me. They were called in before the protests on Saturday even started.

And after the protests in LA turned into riots.

 

[Tangmo]

Respectfully, that is not entirely correct. Part of a MEU workup involves certifying the Battalion in crowd control and non lethal engagement, and this Battalion had to go through that course prior to being moved to LA.



They have not been ordered to engage in law enforcement without invocation of the insurrection act so, that is also incorrect.

Incorrect.

Correct is yes, the NG troops deployed in LA do have this authority, which is to engage in law enforcement "without invocation of the insurrection act."

Trump's memo of June 6th federalizing the CA NG cited Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 12406. This provision enacted in 1903 enables the Potus to activate the NG "when there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the USG. Indeed, Trump has called the civil disturbance in the central patch of LA an "insurrection" and a "rebellion" although we know neither is fact nor true.

Judge Breyer in the US District Court rejected this Trump assertion which ruling is on appeal to the 3 judge panel of the 9th circuit appeals court which will hear the case on Tuesday.


Trump is consciously and carefully avoiding the Insurrection Act. According to the Brenan Center, "Americans are more familiar with the Insurrection Act and its potential for abuse; invoking it would have been sure to provoke an immediate firestorm of controversy. Section 12406 is far less well-known, and its complicated relationship to the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act can be confusing."

Because your post is confused, it is your post that is incorrect. That is, Section 12406 means Trump doesn't need the Insurrection Act to give the military the authority to enforce the laws. This authority is in Sec. 12406 -- although Trump is abusing it by making his false claims of "insurrection" and "rebellion".

 

[Tangmo]

No surprise either, Trump is also making the long standing assertion by a succession of presidents that being commander in chief has "inherent Constitutional power" to use troops for the protection of federal property and federal functions -- and that this is outside the Posse Comitatus Act because PCA does not apply.

Moreover, that this "inherent Constitutional power" authorizes the C'nC to deploy active duty troops to do the same protections and functions. This is how the Marine battalion got deployed to central LA.

The memo applies everywhere in the country. Its first application is in central LA. With many more applications and deployments of NG together with active duty troops intended.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I would use "unauthorized" because given the orders the soldiers were following, it was a case of "no unauthorized entry onto this property at this time".
And again, this is not the kind of bridge used on a regular basis by necessary foot traffic.
Look at this bridge the way you might look at one of those garden fountains in a person's yard with a statue of a cherub pissing water.
A fountain like that is not usually an actual water supply, it's a decoration.
So is this "bridge"...it does not cross a thoroughfare or a significant body of water, it's a decorative feature.
But it is located on Federal property and it being the weekend, about 75% of the VA Hospital is closed...only the ER and a few essential parts of the hospital are in operation on the weekend.
And that piece of property is FAR away from any patient rooms, too.
It's on a far corner of the campus, next to Wilshire Blvd, which is why you can see the big Federal Building across the street in the video.
This is a very large campus.

The soldiers can not be blamed if they feel silly doing it but they're not playing Mall Cop because they want to, they were given orders.
Normally the VA Police Dept would handle something like this.
But a Marine from Twenty-Nine Palms or wherever they are stationed is not an expert on the West Los Angeles VA Hospital, nor do they need to be.

After years of protest and covering protests, I have learned never to criticize the cops or whoever is called out to do their job.

They are following orders and my experience tells me that most don't want to be there, it isn't what they signed up for and are often as scared as the demonstrators. I interviewed a retired Mountie who had been in a riot where two people died. He wore that for a few decades!

Later as a reporter I watched both sides with a grain of suspicion and found that there is much more deliberate antagonism designed to provoke a heavy handed response than anyone suspected.

 

[braindrain]

People don't hate the military; they hate the way the military is being used as a prop. There was a time when conservatives would have been outraged by this, too, but owning the libs is important business.

I don’t know, I think someone saying **** the Marines and **** the military probably has some hate.

 

[Tangmo]

Sure. The problem.(and why they can be called in) is when they move beyond protesting.

Apparently that's a blocking checkpoint.

Your post is a fragment, not a whole. That is, a riot per se is not necessarily cause enough for military intervention.

Local and state police are fully capable to handle a riot. Many urban riots have over a long time been subdued by local and state LEO and LEA exclusively. Just because peaceful protest might transition into a riot is not a legal basis for the armed forces to intervene. There's no law saying the moment peaceful demonstrations become a riot the military takes over and moves in.

The norm is for the local and state elected authorities to handle it -- and to REQUEST military intervention as they may see as necessary or desired. A riot itself is not automatic for troops to be applied. In this instance in central LA the Blood Thirsty Generalissimo Trump has acted on his own and AGAINST local and state authorities who don't want the troops and are in the federal courts to remove the NG at the least. There are grounds also for CA to petition the federal courts to negate the Generalissimo's "Memorandum" that deployed the Marines too.

What the Generalissimo is doing in His "Memorandum" is to implement the components of the Insurrection Act without activating the Insurrection Act. Trump is using 10 USC 12406 and his "inherent powers" as Potus/C'nC to deploy the NG and then the Marines too. Your fragment of a post -- and all your posts -- miss this entirely. Their arbitrary pronouncements don't meet the facts of the events underway -- and not in any way either.

 

[Tangmo]

And after the protests in LA turned into riots.

The fact of a riot is not a basis in law or the Constitution for the Potus to federalize a state's NG and to deploy active duty troops. The extent of the riot is a major factor in this determination.

There are numerous factors beyond the fact of a riot that determine whether troops might be deployed. If a Potus wants to federalize a state's National Guard because of a local riot the law requires the Potus consult with the governor which Trump did not do in the instance of central LA. In fact, the governor has asked Trump to remove the NG from central LA and return command of the state's NG to the CA governor.

The federal district court judge negated Trump's federalizing of the CA Guard on this bases of CONSULTATION that at this time is on appeal.
I suggest that henceforth in this matter you should submit your posts to a law student for examination and corrections -- and for a serious redrafting by someone who's up to the task.

 

[Tangmo]

When did it become the job of US Marines to defend any building from the public. If this property is closed to the public, then it's the job of local law enforcement - NOT the US Marine Corp. Whose ****ed up orders led to this?

Potus has the authority to defend and protect federal buildings, property and functions when the C'nC determines local authorities cannot or are not doing it. The Potus/C'nC can do this unilaterally or in consultation with state and local elected authorities.

This is in the Insurrection Act of 1807. It's also in 10 USC Section 24106 in the event of "insurrection" or "rebellion" which we know is not occurring in central LA but which Trump claims anyway.

Trump also claims what a succession of Presidents of both parties have long claimed, that the "inherent powers" of the commander in chief include unilaterally mobilizing elements of the armed forces for missions at home and abroad. As is obvious however the Generalissimo Trump is going OTT when it comes to the armed forces and the events in central LA.