The Unmarked Federal Agents Occupying Washington, D.C(politico.com)
politico.com
The Unmarked Federal Agents Occupying Washington, D.C
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/05/protests-washington-dc-federal-agents-law-enforcement-302551
169 comments
The lack of badging is unconsciounable, that shit needs to be fixed.
But I would argue that Bureau of Prisons riot units may well be better equipped to handle civil unrest of this sort than most conventional police depts on the following grounds:
The US doesn't have much institutional experience dealing with rioters or massive protests of this nature. What little there is, is in the hands of local agencies, and hasn't necessarily spread to other departments. The closest thing to a law enforcement agency with significant crowd control experience is the Bureau of Prisons.
Your average beat cop is trained for day-to-day enforcement actions, and is accustomed to a certain level of respect or deference not typically granted to prison guards. They're also accustomed to significantly outnumbering the belligerent actors they encounter. The stress of operating in situations where you're significantly outnumbered by contemptuous and openly hostile people is more than likely alien to them.
Conventional police forces - to my knowledge - do not train riot control techniques with any regularity. Comparing livestreams of the Floyd protests with Greek and German crowd control operations, the American police tend to be less coordinated in their advances (more gaps in their lines, they tend to be spread out from one another, they respond less quickly in a coordinated manner), and are quicker to react to potentially hostile actions with violence. Though I'll admit that this could be a difference of crowd control philosophy, or an adaptation to America's wider streets but it does strike me as being more likely to result in unnecessary injury to protestors, and vulnerable to charges by rioters. I believe that the near ubiquitous misuse of rubber bullets by LEOs during the protests are evidence of this.
The Bureau of prisons riot control units may not be accustomed to the scale of the current protests and unrest, but I expect them to be better equipped to coordinate police actions, and operate on the front lines than somebody that writes tickets, and occasionally has to deal with Karen, or an angry junky.
But I would argue that Bureau of Prisons riot units may well be better equipped to handle civil unrest of this sort than most conventional police depts on the following grounds:
The US doesn't have much institutional experience dealing with rioters or massive protests of this nature. What little there is, is in the hands of local agencies, and hasn't necessarily spread to other departments. The closest thing to a law enforcement agency with significant crowd control experience is the Bureau of Prisons.
Your average beat cop is trained for day-to-day enforcement actions, and is accustomed to a certain level of respect or deference not typically granted to prison guards. They're also accustomed to significantly outnumbering the belligerent actors they encounter. The stress of operating in situations where you're significantly outnumbered by contemptuous and openly hostile people is more than likely alien to them.
Conventional police forces - to my knowledge - do not train riot control techniques with any regularity. Comparing livestreams of the Floyd protests with Greek and German crowd control operations, the American police tend to be less coordinated in their advances (more gaps in their lines, they tend to be spread out from one another, they respond less quickly in a coordinated manner), and are quicker to react to potentially hostile actions with violence. Though I'll admit that this could be a difference of crowd control philosophy, or an adaptation to America's wider streets but it does strike me as being more likely to result in unnecessary injury to protestors, and vulnerable to charges by rioters. I believe that the near ubiquitous misuse of rubber bullets by LEOs during the protests are evidence of this.
The Bureau of prisons riot control units may not be accustomed to the scale of the current protests and unrest, but I expect them to be better equipped to coordinate police actions, and operate on the front lines than somebody that writes tickets, and occasionally has to deal with Karen, or an angry junky.
"The US doesn't have much institutional experience dealing with rioters or massive protests of this nature."
Surely you're joking! Grab a history book. Now where would you like to start? I'd suggest you begin 1861 (or a little before) when US Americans went on a four-year mad spree to kill each other which they did in such huge numbers that the death toll tallied more than that of all other wars the US has fought in (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.).
(From my observation of the present troubles, it seems to me that many of the issues that caused the 1861-65 War Between the States still aren't resolved 155 years later.)
Surely you're joking! Grab a history book. Now where would you like to start? I'd suggest you begin 1861 (or a little before) when US Americans went on a four-year mad spree to kill each other which they did in such huge numbers that the death toll tallied more than that of all other wars the US has fought in (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.).
(From my observation of the present troubles, it seems to me that many of the issues that caused the 1861-65 War Between the States still aren't resolved 155 years later.)
A riot is not a civil war. And I doubt that any law enforcement agencies would be able to tap a civil war veteran's experience, even if it were.
Crowd control - especially when that crowd is being adversarial - is its own art, separate from the typical functions of law-enforcement, and one rarely called upon. My point was that few LEOs have experienced real riots/unrest or regularly trained for that function, because it is such a rare occurence. Most of those who have are likely retired, and their successors largely operating on second-hand knowledge.
Crowd control - especially when that crowd is being adversarial - is its own art, separate from the typical functions of law-enforcement, and one rarely called upon. My point was that few LEOs have experienced real riots/unrest or regularly trained for that function, because it is such a rare occurence. Most of those who have are likely retired, and their successors largely operating on second-hand knowledge.
Uh... The entire point of a riot is generally the public making itunequivocally clear it is time to pay attention.
Paying attention by throwing Bureau of Prisons Riot Control officers at free, protesters is very clearly doing the exact opposite. Frankly, if anything, it vindicates the need for more and potentially more extreme protest.
At this point, 0eople need to be sitting down with lawmakers. Law enforcement needs to chill the he'll out, and clean house, and communities need to collect themselves, and get their composure restored.
You don't "handle" large scale protests/riots with the application of more thug. That's how you escalate it. You get people talking. If people are talking, you're getting things on the way to a peaceful resolution. For Christ, sake, the entire damn chain of events started because a bunch of cops ignored all protestations and pleadings from the public around them.
Can we stop proving these people have a bloody point please?
Paying attention by throwing Bureau of Prisons Riot Control officers at free, protesters is very clearly doing the exact opposite. Frankly, if anything, it vindicates the need for more and potentially more extreme protest.
At this point, 0eople need to be sitting down with lawmakers. Law enforcement needs to chill the he'll out, and clean house, and communities need to collect themselves, and get their composure restored.
You don't "handle" large scale protests/riots with the application of more thug. That's how you escalate it. You get people talking. If people are talking, you're getting things on the way to a peaceful resolution. For Christ, sake, the entire damn chain of events started because a bunch of cops ignored all protestations and pleadings from the public around them.
Can we stop proving these people have a bloody point please?
> because a bunch of cops ignored all protestations and pleadings from the public around them.
I guess you've grown up in a pretty privileged low/no-crime place. Go to any high crime neighbourhood. The cops could be arresting someone for murder & rape and lots of neighbours and community folk will gather round screaming at cops to not arrest them amongst other nonsense.
Focusing on the task at hand and ignoring public protestations would be self learned by a cop within a couple months on the job even if it was not in their training.
I guess you've grown up in a pretty privileged low/no-crime place. Go to any high crime neighbourhood. The cops could be arresting someone for murder & rape and lots of neighbours and community folk will gather round screaming at cops to not arrest them amongst other nonsense.
Focusing on the task at hand and ignoring public protestations would be self learned by a cop within a couple months on the job even if it was not in their training.
>The US doesn't have much institutional experience dealing with rioters or massive protests of this nature.
I am guessing by your spelling that you are not American so maybe you are not familiar with American history or politics, but this statement could not be more wrong.
I am guessing by your spelling that you are not American so maybe you are not familiar with American history or politics, but this statement could not be more wrong.
I'm American. The last comparable event that I can think back to is the 1992 LA riots (28 years ago, and several generations of Law Enforcement officers). While the US has a rich history of large scale demonstrations, especially in the past few years, they have largely been premeditated and by activist organizations that collaborate with local governments well in advanced. The Floyd Protests, and the looters riding their coattails are much more emergent in nature. This fundamentally changes the relations between the protestors and law enforcement, because all parties are typically aware of the nature of the event and their roles in it well in advanced. Perhaps to a lesser extent the advent of the Occupy movement.
While I'm certain that there are any number of smaller contrapoints to this, especially in college towns with vivacious activist communities, I can't recall any situation where so many municipal LEOs have been so wrongfooted and outmanned in recent memory.
While I'm certain that there are any number of smaller contrapoints to this, especially in college towns with vivacious activist communities, I can't recall any situation where so many municipal LEOs have been so wrongfooted and outmanned in recent memory.
> While the US has a rich history of large scale demonstrations, especially in the past few years, they have largely been premeditated and by activist organizations that collaborate with local governments well in advanced.
Do you have a source for this? I'm not aware of any widespread protests that are coordinated by activists AND the government.
Do you have a source for this? I'm not aware of any widespread protests that are coordinated by activists AND the government.
Much of that component of protest planning is typically relegated to private planning groups and chats. If you get a whiff of it as an outside observer, it's usually a mayor making a public statement affirming protestor's right to express themselves. This makes sense, because acknowledging that you're collaborating the the local government and police makes your protest work seem much less subversive.
A good example of how this is somewhat standardized among more professional organizers is the March For Our Lives planning Toolkit, wherein they propose having dedicated liasons to serve as intermediaries between the organizers, city, and police. [0]
The collaboration needn't necessarily be initiated by the organizers, however. It's just as, if not more likely that local government reaches out to event planners in order to assess any potential security needs.
Women's march: >_A spokeswoman for the city told Philadelphia magazine that officials had discussed security measures with the march’s organizers “prior to and during planning for the march, and organizers understood the public safety concerns and our responsibilities in ensuring a safe event” but confirmed that “permitting was not contingent on agreeing to these measures.”_[1]
More Recently:
>_"We do not tolerate these acts of protest. We celebrate these acts of protest," Hogsett said. "And just as with yesterday we will continue to work with event organizers to ensure they have a venue to deliver their nonviolent message without interference."_[2]
[0]https://everytown.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/March-For-O...
[1]https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/01/19/womens-march-phila...
[2]https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/indianapolis/2020/...
A good example of how this is somewhat standardized among more professional organizers is the March For Our Lives planning Toolkit, wherein they propose having dedicated liasons to serve as intermediaries between the organizers, city, and police. [0]
The collaboration needn't necessarily be initiated by the organizers, however. It's just as, if not more likely that local government reaches out to event planners in order to assess any potential security needs.
Women's march: >_A spokeswoman for the city told Philadelphia magazine that officials had discussed security measures with the march’s organizers “prior to and during planning for the march, and organizers understood the public safety concerns and our responsibilities in ensuring a safe event” but confirmed that “permitting was not contingent on agreeing to these measures.”_[1]
More Recently:
>_"We do not tolerate these acts of protest. We celebrate these acts of protest," Hogsett said. "And just as with yesterday we will continue to work with event organizers to ensure they have a venue to deliver their nonviolent message without interference."_[2]
[0]https://everytown.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/March-For-O...
[1]https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/01/19/womens-march-phila...
[2]https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/indianapolis/2020/...
I get your points about dealing with difficult situations, being outnumbered. But the public has civil rights and rules for fair treatment. Already the police have been violating that to a pretty big degree. Prison guards probably care about this far less than regular cops.
> When a prison guard sees a crowd chanting protests, they are going to react very badly.
I fear that is the exact point of putting them there in the first place.
I fear that is the exact point of putting them there in the first place.
My feeling is being in uniform and acting under color of authority without a badge and name tag should be a felony.
Even if it were a felony, who would enforce it?
Consider that NYPD, for all of its faults, actually has the Civilian Complaint Review Board. Which provides citizens the ability to officially complain about bad behaviors of various cops.
However, review boards do not exist for all police forces. And many review boards have insufficient power to properly reprimand a specific cop who does a bad job.
We need a specific organization to police the police. FBI kinda-sorta does it (but not under this administration. Under Obama, the FBI was charged with investigating police brutality). Since the FBI's orders changes with the whims of the President, it is clear we need a long-lasting organization that provides oversight even when a Republican is in office.
Consider that NYPD, for all of its faults, actually has the Civilian Complaint Review Board. Which provides citizens the ability to officially complain about bad behaviors of various cops.
However, review boards do not exist for all police forces. And many review boards have insufficient power to properly reprimand a specific cop who does a bad job.
We need a specific organization to police the police. FBI kinda-sorta does it (but not under this administration. Under Obama, the FBI was charged with investigating police brutality). Since the FBI's orders changes with the whims of the President, it is clear we need a long-lasting organization that provides oversight even when a Republican is in office.
> Even if it were a felony, who would enforce it?
What if the law says explicitly that an officer in uniform without a badge and name tag has no legal authority and can be presumed to be committing a felony?
What if the law says explicitly that an officer in uniform without a badge and name tag has no legal authority and can be presumed to be committing a felony?
The law can set the speed limit whatever it wants. If there's no police officer there enforcing the speed limit, I'll drive at whatever speed I care to.
The most important part of law, is law ENFORCEMENT. If you do not assign someone to enforce a law that is written, then it will be ignored.
The most important part of law, is law ENFORCEMENT. If you do not assign someone to enforce a law that is written, then it will be ignored.
It seems we need parallel executive branches. The second which is beholden to the polity, and who’s job is to police the former. That way we don’t have an automatic “regulatory capture”, which we currently have. Heck, let them go after each other: divide & conquer style.
Maybe have the top-level official be elected at a very-fine granularity, but with the power to enforce across locality lines? Like—elect at the county level, but can enforce anywhere in the State?
Maybe have the top-level official be elected at a very-fine granularity, but with the power to enforce across locality lines? Like—elect at the county level, but can enforce anywhere in the State?
I disagree.
Frankly, the American people don't care enough to know their own President, Representative, Senator, Mayor, Governor, Sheriff, School Board, HOA committee members, county commission, and PTA board.
If anything, we need more power consolidated into fewer people. So that Americans know who to blame. In many cases, these "police brutality" issues are extremely local, caused by the local Sheriffs of each individual location. And yet, people don't know who to blame when these things happen.
There are too many positions, so officials can hide behind the confusion and avoid responsibility.
Frankly, the American people don't care enough to know their own President, Representative, Senator, Mayor, Governor, Sheriff, School Board, HOA committee members, county commission, and PTA board.
If anything, we need more power consolidated into fewer people. So that Americans know who to blame. In many cases, these "police brutality" issues are extremely local, caused by the local Sheriffs of each individual location. And yet, people don't know who to blame when these things happen.
There are too many positions, so officials can hide behind the confusion and avoid responsibility.
That's the whole point of elect local, enforce non-locally. I trust that there's enough people in Austin to elect a secondary prosecutorial staff to go after bad actors through Travis & its surrounding counties. The idea is to give voters a bunch of chances to enforce this stuff.
The enforcement in the US legal system comes not from the police it comes from the courts. A law that says a cop in uniform without a badge and name tag is no longer a police officer strips him of the power of the state.
> Since the FBI's orders changes with the whims of the President, it is clear we need a long-lasting organization that provides oversight even when a Republican is in office.
That would require a constitutional amendment, right?
That would require a constitutional amendment, right?
No. Just an act of Congress.
Its actually relatively easy to change the structure of the executive branch. An executive order would do, but each President can overturn executive orders as they get elected.
So it needs to be an Act of Congress if we want the organization to last between presidential terms. Of course, a future act of Congress could wipe it out, but that seems like a hard sell if we ensure that Americans remember the lessons from today's unrest.
Its actually relatively easy to change the structure of the executive branch. An executive order would do, but each President can overturn executive orders as they get elected.
So it needs to be an Act of Congress if we want the organization to last between presidential terms. Of course, a future act of Congress could wipe it out, but that seems like a hard sell if we ensure that Americans remember the lessons from today's unrest.
Better yet, the person that ordered them to do it gets charged with a felony. And so on upwards.
More than that, I would honestly be unsurprised if they are resisted with deadly force, because of the impossibility of distinguishing them from a right wing militia. Were I serving on a jury for someone who killed one of these agents in self-defense there's not even a slight chance I would convict.
There are extra protections for law enforcement; that should be debated.
Ultimately anyone can arrest anyone comitting a felony. Lighting a habitable structure on fire, or causing great bodily harm are ethical reasons to use any force necessary.
Ultimately anyone can arrest anyone comitting a felony. Lighting a habitable structure on fire, or causing great bodily harm are ethical reasons to use any force necessary.
>>When a prison guard sees a crowd chanting protests, they are going to react very badly. Get them out.
Well, I doubt they have better options avail. I doubt active soldiers trained to kill as fast as possible would be any better. Let's be honest, they cannot let major buildings and institutions in DC get overrun...
Well, I doubt they have better options avail. I doubt active soldiers trained to kill as fast as possible would be any better. Let's be honest, they cannot let major buildings and institutions in DC get overrun...
The use of force guidelines in prison vs use of force guidelines for free civilians are totally different. These BoP guards might treat a situation a certain way and not even know they're violating someone's civil rights while doing it.
Oh, I know. They'll break your bones and suffer no consequences because "he resisted."
On the other hand: the White House perimeter is gone...100's of angry people are running towards it. What does the government do?
Idk, soldiers are extremely patriotic, principled, and disciplined. I actually think they’d probably be better than police, even though I think it’s abhorrent to direct the military against citizens.
Police who refuse to identify themselves and carry no markings used against an administration's political opponents sure sounds like something everyone should be opposed to, no matter their political camp.
If someone thinks that's a healthy part of a democracy, I'd be real curious about your reasoning.
If someone thinks that's a healthy part of a democracy, I'd be real curious about your reasoning.
I think the principle is pretty broadly recognized. As I understand it, international law would treat them as unlawful combatants. Use of irregular troops against a civilian population falls pretty much smack dab into the middle of what most people recognize as terrorism.
The only problem is that international law doesn't govern how a country conducts activities on their own people. But it reflects a widespread consensus nonetheless.
Note: I'm not accusing the police of terrorism -- that would be pretty massively inflammatory and not my intent -- but simply giving examples to support a widespread discomfort with using non-uniformed forces.
The only problem is that international law doesn't govern how a country conducts activities on their own people. But it reflects a widespread consensus nonetheless.
Note: I'm not accusing the police of terrorism -- that would be pretty massively inflammatory and not my intent -- but simply giving examples to support a widespread discomfort with using non-uniformed forces.
As you note, police are not subject to the laws of war -- they routinely use devices (pepper spray, tear gas, hollow-point bullets) that would be war crimes were they to be used in an armed conflict.
This is not problematic on the face of it -- police are expected to use non-lethal tactics whenever possible, and the laws of war are hugely biased towards killing rather injuring because overwhelming your opponent with casualties is considered inhumane in war.
This is not problematic on the face of it -- police are expected to use non-lethal tactics whenever possible, and the laws of war are hugely biased towards killing rather injuring because overwhelming your opponent with casualties is considered inhumane in war.
I thought the whole point about "unlawful combatants" is that the concept does not exist in international law. It's just something that the US government made up as a bad excuse for ignoring international law.
Given this is happening within the US I think it's valid to apply 'made up US law' against itself?
They’re not combatants at all. Totally inapplicable to the discussion and absolutely the wrong way to look at this anyway.
If they aren't recognizable, should they be reported for impersonating a police officer?
The self-preservation instincts of the United States government would be difficult for the most imaginative fantasy writer to overestimate. This is an institution that kept a fleet of custom-made aircraft on continuous airborne watch for 30 years, just in case all the secret backups to the secret backups of the underground operations centers were simultaneously destroyed, so that it would absolutely never lose the capability to end all life on earth.
Do you really think there aren't an infinite number of heavily armed spooks ready to materialize from the ground under Washington, D.C. on a moment's notice? Do you really the think the agencies they work for all officially exist? Do you think they haven't been there since at least Reagan?
There were fires near the White House. The leviathan is starting to feel a little bit threatened. Now if these guys are actually mixing it up with protestors I will be deeply worried. But while they are just a small presence on the sidelines, standing at at attention in their G-Man sunglasses and coiled earpieces, I will be reassured that the deep state functions exactly as I expect it to.
Do you really think there aren't an infinite number of heavily armed spooks ready to materialize from the ground under Washington, D.C. on a moment's notice? Do you really the think the agencies they work for all officially exist? Do you think they haven't been there since at least Reagan?
There were fires near the White House. The leviathan is starting to feel a little bit threatened. Now if these guys are actually mixing it up with protestors I will be deeply worried. But while they are just a small presence on the sidelines, standing at at attention in their G-Man sunglasses and coiled earpieces, I will be reassured that the deep state functions exactly as I expect it to.
You have a child’s understanding of our government. This isn’t a Tom Cruise movie.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You haven't read much about the intelligence community or the nuclear weapons and continuity of government programs.
Hollywood has no need to make shit up.
Hollywood has no need to make shit up.
I have read about it. I just don’t fetishize it.
I'd rather they be counterbalanced with a well-armed citizenry, such as the "cosplaying" the article insultingly describes.
Everyone replying to you don't seem to realize that some of these protests have involved 'well armed citizenry' already, and their doomsday predictions of the result haven't happened. https://imgur.com/gallery/p3LRF1L
Not many people are aware - in Coeur d'Alene open-carry conservatives joined and protected protesters and successfully deterred rioters from subverting the protest. Local news interviews with protest leaders and armed volunteers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIS4C7ym5YM
If there is to be an alternative to the distant and aloof police state, it will have to be in the form of attentive and caring locals possessing sufficient enforcement power. Their look may vary based on local demographics, but I think that's okay as long as they are accountable to their neighbors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIS4C7ym5YM
If there is to be an alternative to the distant and aloof police state, it will have to be in the form of attentive and caring locals possessing sufficient enforcement power. Their look may vary based on local demographics, but I think that's okay as long as they are accountable to their neighbors.
Every one of those people should have their weapons removed.
That makes things a lot more volatile: you have one side with a LOT more guns, armored vehicles, and aircraft — all you need is one mistake for them to start thinking force protection and a whole bunch of people are in the crossfire. When the dust settles, a lot of people will believe this says the protests were an Antifa army even if the first shot came from the other side.
There have already been instances of well armed African-American people openly carrying large guns forming parts of these protests. The effect? The police have known better than to respond with violence.
And yet in Vallejo this week a Latino man was shot for suspicion of having a gun in his pocket (not a crime) which turned out to be a hammer (also not a crime).
Not the same thing in the least. I'm talking about people openly carrying guns as 'scary-looking' as assault rifles. I found the story you referred to. The difference is, the victim (at best, from the perspective of the police' defense attourney) looked to be hiding a concealable gun (not saying he was, or that the incident wasn't an atrocity): the man looked relatively defenseless. The people I'm talking about have the appearance of being able to win that same shootout, and the police can see it.
Genuinely curious: do you have sources showing this?
See my other comment. https://imgur.com/gallery/p3LRF1L
The right to peaceably assemble does not include the right to assemble for the purpose of violence.
The first amendment does not include the word "peaceably."
You are incorrect.
Edit: (Full text of the First Amendment that I could find)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It doesn't need to. Just as it doesn't need to have a provision for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. But such actions will have consequences.
Congress has the authority "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;". Assembling for the purpose of violence is by definition an insurrection. So if the First Amendment said nothing of peaceably assembling, we can assume it is meant so, otherwise the Constitution would say nothing of insurrections.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It doesn't need to. Just as it doesn't need to have a provision for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. But such actions will have consequences.
Congress has the authority "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;". Assembling for the purpose of violence is by definition an insurrection. So if the First Amendment said nothing of peaceably assembling, we can assume it is meant so, otherwise the Constitution would say nothing of insurrections.
> It doesn't need to.
Your interpretation is not compelling (as well as not relevant, due to the presence of the term).
When there is a question, entertained by a court and an emduring legal precedent, ipso facto there was a legal question. An assumption about what needs to be enumerated to exist, is the doctrine of strict constructionism.
Your interpretation is not compelling (as well as not relevant, due to the presence of the term).
When there is a question, entertained by a court and an emduring legal precedent, ipso facto there was a legal question. An assumption about what needs to be enumerated to exist, is the doctrine of strict constructionism.
The cosplayers and the unmarked paramilitaries are on the same side.
When the NRA and their allies advocate for an armed citizenry, they emphatically don’t mean “our political enemies”
When the NRA and their allies advocate for an armed citizenry, they emphatically don’t mean “our political enemies”
That’s absolutely untrue.
Any law abiding citizen should have whatever arms they want. I don’t care what their politics is.
Any law abiding citizen should have whatever arms they want. I don’t care what their politics is.
You may feel that way but the NRA has a history of caring who has the arms. See, for example, 1967's Black Panthers
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-...
Claiming that a 1967 position accurately reflects my opinions about something (I wasn't even born then) is pretty silly.
Claiming that something that happened in 1967 is the current position of an organization on record opposing that sort of thing for at least the last 40 years that I'm aware of is also pretty silly.
Claiming that a political organization that is mostly concerned with how pretty Wayne's suits are and how nice his mistress' apartment in Fairfax is reflects modern gun owners' opinions is again -- pretty silly.
The NRA is a Fudd gunner's organization, they're an anachronism of the past, they're being abandoned in droves by anybody born since the 1960s, and quite frankly I don't give a shit what they think about anything -- and I especially don't care what they may have thought in 1967.
Claiming that something that happened in 1967 is the current position of an organization on record opposing that sort of thing for at least the last 40 years that I'm aware of is also pretty silly.
Claiming that a political organization that is mostly concerned with how pretty Wayne's suits are and how nice his mistress' apartment in Fairfax is reflects modern gun owners' opinions is again -- pretty silly.
The NRA is a Fudd gunner's organization, they're an anachronism of the past, they're being abandoned in droves by anybody born since the 1960s, and quite frankly I don't give a shit what they think about anything -- and I especially don't care what they may have thought in 1967.
In this situation, the only thing a well-armed citizenry would weaponize is the false narrative that peaceful protesters are actually violent usurpers/anarchists/antifa/{$right-wing-boogieman-here}.
Do you genuinely believe that if the protestors had been armed that we wouldn't have had multiple deaths when the Park Police took the park by force? Or are you arguing that the police wouldn't have moved on the protestors at all?
Knowing what happened, I think it's clearly better for all of us that the park was held by hippies with spray cans.
Knowing what happened, I think it's clearly better for all of us that the park was held by hippies with spray cans.
He genuinely believes that "armed protests" are peaceful because his side has been involved in hundreds and they were all peaceful.
So he obviously thinks the guns were the differentiator and not the privilege enjoyed by being a bunch of old white men with the support of the authorities.
A number of cops were shot at during these recent protest. Our mayor was discussing this very fact this morning. Turn out, all that body armor is highly effective at stopping small arms fire. (There was no elaboration on who did the shooting though, so I guess it could have been friendly fire)
So he obviously thinks the guns were the differentiator and not the privilege enjoyed by being a bunch of old white men with the support of the authorities.
A number of cops were shot at during these recent protest. Our mayor was discussing this very fact this morning. Turn out, all that body armor is highly effective at stopping small arms fire. (There was no elaboration on who did the shooting though, so I guess it could have been friendly fire)
The black panthers had several armed marches.. and one reason why they took up arms was because they kept getting (illegally) arrested for marching unarmed. They actually sat at the California courthouse while armed.. and everything that day was peaceful. That did inspire Reagan to pass significant gun control laws though, both as Governor and President.
Image: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi...
Image: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi...
Sounds a lot like someone who does not know the history of the Black Panthers and Republicans who used to be all about gun control.
Yes, because pop-guns do anything against trillions of dollars in armor plating and advanced weaponry. Of course we never talk about what happens if the armed population goes along with the tyrannical government against the repressed as we're seeing now.
This is such a mentally lazy platitude. All arming the population has done is incentivize them to use their arms against their fellow countrymen.
This is such a mentally lazy platitude. All arming the population has done is incentivize them to use their arms against their fellow countrymen.
> Yes, because pop-guns do anything against trillions of dollars in armor plating and advanced weaponry.
of course it does. bombs or tanks dont help you hold a city - it is singly people with firearms to kill the other people with firearms.
its a different story if youre talking total war, but theres basically no scenario where american military would decimate american cities.
> This is such a mentally lazy platitude
interesting opinion considering all you have to do is look at the last two decades of failed intervention in the middle east.
EDIT: additionally, many places in the middle east were occupied against their will by the terrorist forces we were there to fight. thats not the same as a citizen militia resisting occupation
of course it does. bombs or tanks dont help you hold a city - it is singly people with firearms to kill the other people with firearms.
its a different story if youre talking total war, but theres basically no scenario where american military would decimate american cities.
> This is such a mentally lazy platitude
interesting opinion considering all you have to do is look at the last two decades of failed intervention in the middle east.
EDIT: additionally, many places in the middle east were occupied against their will by the terrorist forces we were there to fight. thats not the same as a citizen militia resisting occupation
Right, the superior technology and advanced weaponry was what led the US to so quickly and decisively crush insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq using dusty old AK-47s and cheap improvised explosive devices.
Now compare the casualties between the US and Afghanistan or Iraq.
Undercover officers were used to inform on the Trump campaign in 2016 (see Azra Turk), sometimes it's necessary for national security.
There's a big difference between undercover police officers and officers who are overtly police but refuse to identify themselves.
The famous "We don't need no stinking badges" line was spoken by a character who led a band of Mexican bandits posing as Federales.
When bandits become indistinguishable from cops, cops become indistinguishable from bandits.
When bandits become indistinguishable from cops, cops become indistinguishable from bandits.
Investigator vs Enforcer.
Enforcers should should be clearly identifiable.
Enforcers should should be clearly identifiable.
Sure, and they both fall into this category:
>Police who refuse to identify themselves and carry no markings used against an administration's political opponents
>Police who refuse to identify themselves and carry no markings used against an administration's political opponents
That's not the only distinction that matters though. Investigators are assigned to specific crimes. Their job is gathering evidence, not enforcing laws.
The point to needing to identify police is that without that rule and the accountability that comes with it the "police" become just another gang on the streets. None of that is relevant to investigatory law enforcement.
Obviously both kinds of anonymity can be abused, but only one has an easy and obvious solution.
Seriously: no one sane thinks that riot cops should be operating in street clothes and refusing to identify themselves. This whole subthread is a ridiculous digression.
The point to needing to identify police is that without that rule and the accountability that comes with it the "police" become just another gang on the streets. None of that is relevant to investigatory law enforcement.
Obviously both kinds of anonymity can be abused, but only one has an easy and obvious solution.
Seriously: no one sane thinks that riot cops should be operating in street clothes and refusing to identify themselves. This whole subthread is a ridiculous digression.
So I guess my proposal is that any officer who carries a gun should be required to wear a "badge number" of some form, readable from 15-feet, on their back. The badge-number should be a ID that can be matched against a public website to identify the individual, name, bureau, and a picture of course. After all... If they aren't doing anything wrong they have nothing to hide...
I'd also add that failure to do so should result in a $1,000 penalty, half of which should go as a $500 reward to anybody who reports the case (photo would suffice as proof). Officers should have their whereabouts tracked via there phones for accountability purposes, which could be used to verify such reports or identify officers.
I'd also add that failure to do so should result in a $1,000 penalty, half of which should go as a $500 reward to anybody who reports the case (photo would suffice as proof). Officers should have their whereabouts tracked via there phones for accountability purposes, which could be used to verify such reports or identify officers.
And body camera footage should be always streaming to a well known bucket, encrypted of course, but with publicly verifiable keys. Anyone should be able to "backup" body camera footage for any cop for any time range. Getting access to the decryption keys should be a matter of filling out the proper forms.
Body cameras should never be able to be turned off. The most that should be done is an officer should be able to hit a button to drop a marker into the timeline.
> So I guess my proposal is that any officer who carries a gun should be required to wear a "badge number”.
If an officer who isn’t armed kneels on someone’s neck and kills them, they then wouldn’t be identifiable.
If an officer who isn’t armed kneels on someone’s neck and kills them, they then wouldn’t be identifiable.
Nah! Failure to do so should result in being fired, loss of pension, prosecution, imprisonment, and a felony record.
> failure to do so...
How do you enforce the penalty if the perpetrator is anonymous? Fine their management instead? That doesn't work when the executive branch is above the law.
How do you enforce the penalty if the perpetrator is anonymous? Fine their management instead? That doesn't work when the executive branch is above the law.
It's hard to track them down if they don't have the ID number, so the penalty must be very high. Get fired from the force; loss of pension, large fine, etc.
Very good point. Would also make spotting undercover cops easier.
Finally, we'd be at the point 90ies Warez kids thought we were at. "If he wears no badge number on his back, he can't be a cop, otherwise nothing can be used in court. We're safe, boys".
Finally, we'd be at the point 90ies Warez kids thought we were at. "If he wears no badge number on his back, he can't be a cop, otherwise nothing can be used in court. We're safe, boys".
This is the least charitable interpretation of GP's proposal possible. A small amendment to GP's comment to apply only uniformed officers operating in public—as the D.C. troops from the article are—negates this reductio ad absurdum.
I don't care who brought them there, prison guards have no business working in public, they are not trained to do so, have no idea what legal protections ordinary citizens have, and refuse to identify themselves in violation of laws all other agents of the Federal government have to follow (though some might flaunt that too).
I wonder if they are exempt from punishment or oversight if they screw up (which I presume will happen).
I wonder if they are exempt from punishment or oversight if they screw up (which I presume will happen).
There's no need to wonder: yes they are exempt from punishment and oversight.
It doesn't matter what laws they break because it's pretty clear that the executive branch has no intent of abiding by any laws; they won't do so unless forced and clearly no one has the power to force them to do so.
I have no idea how this will end, but I'm fairly sure it won't involve justice for the people.
It doesn't matter what laws they break because it's pretty clear that the executive branch has no intent of abiding by any laws; they won't do so unless forced and clearly no one has the power to force them to do so.
I have no idea how this will end, but I'm fairly sure it won't involve justice for the people.
laws are that which the legal system enforces. Doesn't matter what is written on a piece of paper.
This article uniquely gives a deep historical perspective on the story.
> What is surprising is that those two agencies now facing down Black Lives Matter and crowds protesting systemic racism historically have been enlisted by the federal government to protect blacks against white protestors. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, for instance, deputized officers from the Border Patrol and the Bureau of Prisons to work as U.S. marshals and secure the University of Mississippi in 1962 to protect James Meredith as he enrolled at the school after desegregation. Similarly, the Border Patrol once watched over the Freedom Riders in Alabama and Mississippi in the 1960s.
> What is surprising is that those two agencies now facing down Black Lives Matter and crowds protesting systemic racism historically have been enlisted by the federal government to protect blacks against white protestors. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, for instance, deputized officers from the Border Patrol and the Bureau of Prisons to work as U.S. marshals and secure the University of Mississippi in 1962 to protect James Meredith as he enrolled at the school after desegregation. Similarly, the Border Patrol once watched over the Freedom Riders in Alabama and Mississippi in the 1960s.
So, how are you to distiguish between one of these "Police Forces" and some rogue vigilante militias? Is there some secret hand-signals they use to cross-identify?
Federal law enforcement are obligated to present printed ID cards identifying the officer and their agency. Anyone unwilling or unable to do so is an armed civilian in violation of DCs open carry laws, and the DC Metro Police should be notified.
The law obligates them to present ID, but they have refused and faced no consequences from either DC Metro Police or their own superiors.
Laws are worth zero if the law enforcers ignore them with impunity - a lesson familiar from Caribbean and African banana republics.
Laws are worth zero if the law enforcers ignore them with impunity - a lesson familiar from Caribbean and African banana republics.
President Andrew Jackson famously shrugged off the US Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia by (probably not) saying "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!". Like you said, "Laws are worth zero if the law enforcers ignore them with impunity". This is why we need a system to police the police. At some point, we as a society need to commit to forcing those who swear to uphold the laws to also live by them.
> Laws are worth zero if the law enforcers ignore them with impunity - a lesson familiar from Caribbean and African banana republics.
I think it's a lesson America is currently learning...
I think it's a lesson America is currently learning...
Hopefully this results in successful civil lawsuits against these individuals on the basis that qualified immunity does not extend to these individuals because they didn't follow ID laws.
It might not be the justice people want, but taking away people's money is the most effective means of instituting change in the USA. It's entirely the reason that company's try to eliminate our right to sue them.
It might not be the justice people want, but taking away people's money is the most effective means of instituting change in the USA. It's entirely the reason that company's try to eliminate our right to sue them.
https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/ has been looking into this quite a bit, some here: https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/12682415415476592...
Basically it sounds like her understanding is that they are only required to present ID when they take a police action? But I don't understand why blocking a street would not be a police action.
DC Metro attempting to arrest Bureau of Prisons employees when they fail to identify sounds like a complete mess.
Basically it sounds like her understanding is that they are only required to present ID when they take a police action? But I don't understand why blocking a street would not be a police action.
DC Metro attempting to arrest Bureau of Prisons employees when they fail to identify sounds like a complete mess.
Well, there's no way to know that's who/what they are if they don't provide i.d. If they're carrying weapons and won't show their license to carry said weapons, sounds to me that should be enough to arrest them, if anything could just claim their protesters and tear gas them till they vacate.
I think it's less of a mess legally and more of a mess practically. It seems very unlikely that these people are going to comply with DC Metro police.
[deleted]
>> There are more gun-carrying agents employed across the federal government by inspectors general .. than there are ATF agents nationwide; the roughly 4,000 inspector general agents nationwide, in fact, is roughly equivalent to the entire size of the DEA. The Department of Veterans Affairs’ police department, who guard the nation’s veteran hospitals, facilities and cemeteries, is larger than the entire U.S. Marshals Service.
Why don't security guards guard hospitals and normal investigators work in watchdogs? Why are they all police-style groups? Is there some historical reason?
Why don't security guards guard hospitals and normal investigators work in watchdogs? Why are they all police-style groups? Is there some historical reason?
Note: I performed security audits of VHA facilities for a couple of years.
Unlike non-federal hospital, this is due to jurisdiction. VHA Hospitals are federal land so local police departments wouldnt have any jurisdiction, and the federal government typically looks at its responsibility to enforce laws within the land it owns. Also, some VHA facilities are on large campuses in more rural/less urban areas which effects the size of the police forces there.
Unlike non-federal hospital, this is due to jurisdiction. VHA Hospitals are federal land so local police departments wouldnt have any jurisdiction, and the federal government typically looks at its responsibility to enforce laws within the land it owns. Also, some VHA facilities are on large campuses in more rural/less urban areas which effects the size of the police forces there.
This is an outgrowth of the excess proliferation of federal laws. Taking a page from the UK and appointing a Law Reform Commission to simplify, consolidate, and reduce the body of federal laws would reduce the need for so many policing forces.
If the court system was doing their job, they would strike down many unconstitutional laws and decrees that enabled the growth of big government.
Unconstitutional laws are only struck down when someone with standing challenges it, if it is never challenged, it gets to remain even if obviously unconstitutional.
The article is a mixture of useful and distracting information. The ever-increasing number of federal crimes really is an issue (the example of it being a federal crime to sell jam made from more than five types of fruit is remarkable). The growth in federal law-enforcement agencies is also something which deserves some attention, as is using prison guards to police the streets.
OTOH, I think that comments such as 'What is surprising is that those two agencies now facing down Black Lives Matter and crowds protesting systemic racism historically have been enlisted by the federal government to protect blacks against white protesters,' 'D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser … finds herself in the odd position of not controlling the police forces patrolling her own city' and 'ou read that right: The former head of the Fraternal Order of Police was considered too liberal for the GOP' stoke fire rather than illuminate. The first sentence is unsurprising: the police are not on the streets of DC because of protesters but because of rioters; they are there to keep the peace. The second comment, too, is unsurprising: the federal district … belongs to the federal government. It is no more surprising that the mayor of DC is subordinate to the federal government than it is that the mayor of Chicago is subordinate to the state of Illinois. Nor is the third comment particularly helpful: I imagine that the concern with the nominee could very well be that a former police chief is too authoritarian to helm an agency which has been accused of some pretty serious mis-steps since the Bush years.
I'm not taking any position here on the goodness of any of this, just noting that the author is not making the most of his opportunity to discuss substantive issues and make reasoned arguments.
OTOH, I think that comments such as 'What is surprising is that those two agencies now facing down Black Lives Matter and crowds protesting systemic racism historically have been enlisted by the federal government to protect blacks against white protesters,' 'D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser … finds herself in the odd position of not controlling the police forces patrolling her own city' and 'ou read that right: The former head of the Fraternal Order of Police was considered too liberal for the GOP' stoke fire rather than illuminate. The first sentence is unsurprising: the police are not on the streets of DC because of protesters but because of rioters; they are there to keep the peace. The second comment, too, is unsurprising: the federal district … belongs to the federal government. It is no more surprising that the mayor of DC is subordinate to the federal government than it is that the mayor of Chicago is subordinate to the state of Illinois. Nor is the third comment particularly helpful: I imagine that the concern with the nominee could very well be that a former police chief is too authoritarian to helm an agency which has been accused of some pretty serious mis-steps since the Bush years.
I'm not taking any position here on the goodness of any of this, just noting that the author is not making the most of his opportunity to discuss substantive issues and make reasoned arguments.
> the example of it being a federal crime to sell jam made from more than five types of fruit is remarkable
Wow! I really applied myself to looking for a motivation for regulation but failed. Any hints?
Wow! I really applied myself to looking for a motivation for regulation but failed. Any hints?
~~I'm not a lawyer and the citation provided in the article is too much text for me to try to parse, but I have to assume this is a case of unintended consequences. I expect that each individual section of the law makes sense, and it's only when you read them with an eye to finding gotchas that you realize they work together to prohibit this. In other words, congress needs better QA.~~
Edit: I take it all back. It turns out that you only have to read 21 CFR §150.160(b)(2) to see it, and it turns out that that law is just unreasonably prescriptivist.
>(2) The following combinations of fruit ingredients may be used:
>(i) Any combination of two, three, four, or five of such fruits in which the weight of each is not less than one-fifth of the weight of the combination; except that the weight of pineapple may be not less than one-tenth of the weight of the combination.
It's against the law to make a jam with more than 5 fruits because the law only explicitly allows jams with up to 5 fruits. Bizarre.
Edit: I take it all back. It turns out that you only have to read 21 CFR §150.160(b)(2) to see it, and it turns out that that law is just unreasonably prescriptivist.
>(2) The following combinations of fruit ingredients may be used:
>(i) Any combination of two, three, four, or five of such fruits in which the weight of each is not less than one-fifth of the weight of the combination; except that the weight of pineapple may be not less than one-tenth of the weight of the combination.
It's against the law to make a jam with more than 5 fruits because the law only explicitly allows jams with up to 5 fruits. Bizarre.
My best guess: this prevents situations like selling jars of "strawberry jam" which is only 10% strawberry.
Which is partly backed up by 21 CFR § 150.160 (e)(1):
(e)
>(1) The name of each preserve or jam for which a definition and standard of identity is prescribed by this section is as follows:...
Which is partly backed up by 21 CFR § 150.160 (e)(1):
(e)
>(1) The name of each preserve or jam for which a definition and standard of identity is prescribed by this section is as follows:...
Well, no, the section you quoted is what prevents you from selling "Strawberry jam" that has fruits other than strawberry. The section about number of fruits seems to just be about arbitrarily restricting the amount of any fruit present to at least one fifth of the total (except pineapple for some reason). I don't see why that's necessary, but you could at least write the law as
>(2) The following combinations of fruit ingredients may be used:
>(i) Any combination of such fruits in which the weight of each is not less than one-fifth of the weight of the combination, or in which the weight of each part is no less than half the weight of any other part; except that the weight of pineapple may be not less than one-tenth of the weight of the combination.
I'm not quite sure what the right legal wording is for or such that you can comply with whichever half works for you is, but that would both allow for everything the existing law allows and allow for arbitrary numbers of fruit without requiring that they be mixed in exactly equal ratios.
>(2) The following combinations of fruit ingredients may be used:
>(i) Any combination of such fruits in which the weight of each is not less than one-fifth of the weight of the combination, or in which the weight of each part is no less than half the weight of any other part; except that the weight of pineapple may be not less than one-tenth of the weight of the combination.
I'm not quite sure what the right legal wording is for or such that you can comply with whichever half works for you is, but that would both allow for everything the existing law allows and allow for arbitrary numbers of fruit without requiring that they be mixed in exactly equal ratios.
[deleted]
I thought it was "labeling it jam" and using more than 5 fruits?
> It is no more surprising that the mayor of DC is subordinate to the federal government than it is that the mayor of Chicago is subordinate to the state of Illinois
The relationship is not the same, so this doesn't seem like a "reasoned" argument either. Perhaps it is also time to reconsider how that relationship is structured - residents of DC should probably have a say over whether the military is brought into their city and whether they have to pay to have them quartered.
The relationship is not the same, so this doesn't seem like a "reasoned" argument either. Perhaps it is also time to reconsider how that relationship is structured - residents of DC should probably have a say over whether the military is brought into their city and whether they have to pay to have them quartered.
I'm guessing the actual reason why the guys in question are dressed in mixed uniforms is that someone in the department of justice hit the "send everyone" button, which included investigators typically not kitted out for field duty.
Looks like Government bloat and unconstrained regulation growth applies to law enforcement as well.
It applies almost entirely to law enforcement and military, where budget cuts are rare and accountability is negligible. There's an entire cottage industry devoted to exposing wasteful government spending and they'll expose $600k going to some research scientist at a university, but ignore police departments wasting 100x that amount on equipment that can never really be used.
[deleted]
What I am confused about is why does no one who is in the area follow (at a safe distance) some of these unidentified agents to see where they go after they are done with their patrol?
Interesting story, but I don’t know why the writer had to put so much emphasis on the race of the officers, activists, etc.
Maybe you aren't from the US -- there's a long history of systemic racism here, The protests that are happening across our nation are in response to those systemic issues, particularly how policing and race interact. Race, therefore, is a core part of the conversation going on in our country right now.
Searching the FBO.gov you can find interesting solicitations, like the Department of Education needing 125 shotguns.
pavlov(1)
fascism is getting closer everyday
Is this relevant to hacker news?
From the Hacker News Guidelines[1]:
>What to Submit
>On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
I found the story intellectually stimulating, and thought others might too.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>What to Submit
>On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
I found the story intellectually stimulating, and thought others might too.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
And yet posts on Kobe Bryant’s death were all flagged.
Perhaps individuals should have contributed posts that discuss interesting and lesser known aspects of the man's life and accomplishments.
60 posts of "Extremely Famous Person Dies in Accident" is boring. But learning that said person had a little-know passion for bird conservation or something is interesting.
60 posts of "Extremely Famous Person Dies in Accident" is boring. But learning that said person had a little-know passion for bird conservation or something is interesting.
Guidelines para 1:
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
I found this story interesting. I didn't know that we had all of these disparate police forces roaming around. I haven't visited DC and they aren't really featured in the media. Seeing some of these various forces show up at protests, and having them behave unexpectedly when asked to identify themselves, has attracted my curiosity. I'm glad that someone took the time to write about them.
Note that I'm not prepared to blindly trust Politico's opinions about these policing forces, but opinions are part of what makes this interesting to read.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
I found this story interesting. I didn't know that we had all of these disparate police forces roaming around. I haven't visited DC and they aren't really featured in the media. Seeing some of these various forces show up at protests, and having them behave unexpectedly when asked to identify themselves, has attracted my curiosity. I'm glad that someone took the time to write about them.
Note that I'm not prepared to blindly trust Politico's opinions about these policing forces, but opinions are part of what makes this interesting to read.
It's not even 100% clear that all of them are police forces. I could be out there larp-ing and blend right in.
Seems on-topic to me, but you never know until the the arrow buttons start to be clicked.
angel_j(1)
In armed conflict/warfare, if one deliberately hides or removes one's uniform, or pretends to be a combatant of an force other than one's original allegiance—and if caught by one's enemy—then one is deemed to be a spy and the usual penalty is death.
If one substitutes one's original uniform for the enemy's (or another) to pretend to be other than what one is then the Geneva protocols don't apply—in essence, you're shot rather than be taken prisoner or war.
What these guys are doing is similar. When a State resorts to such action/deception then it's hard to see how the rule of law can apply. Essentially, anarchy has broken out.
From an outsider's perspective, it seems to me that the US is now so polarized that it's almost become ungovernable.
Heaven help the the rest of the free world let alone the poor unfortunate law-abiding US citizens who cannot help but be caught up in this damned mess.
If one substitutes one's original uniform for the enemy's (or another) to pretend to be other than what one is then the Geneva protocols don't apply—in essence, you're shot rather than be taken prisoner or war.
What these guys are doing is similar. When a State resorts to such action/deception then it's hard to see how the rule of law can apply. Essentially, anarchy has broken out.
From an outsider's perspective, it seems to me that the US is now so polarized that it's almost become ungovernable.
Heaven help the the rest of the free world let alone the poor unfortunate law-abiding US citizens who cannot help but be caught up in this damned mess.
All of your premises are incorrect.
The law of war doesn’t work the way you claim. At all. The Geneva convention specifically addresses non uniformed combatants and people wearing the wrong uniform, and does not permit them to be shot rather than taken prisoner.
The law of war doesn’t work the way you claim. At all. The Geneva convention specifically addresses non uniformed combatants and people wearing the wrong uniform, and does not permit them to be shot rather than taken prisoner.
Doubly so when they're prison riot control officers who all look like they're clones of Byron Hadley, The Screw Everyone Hates from "Shawshank Redemption".
When a prison guard sees a crowd chanting protests, they are going to react very badly.
Get them out.
And get badges on the rest of them. Then get them out, too.