Did Trump declare martial law while I was asleep? Because last time I checked, he can’t deploy the military on US soil unless the country is in a state of emergency. And peaceful protests don’t count.
The people setting those fires should absolutely be charged for their actions. But their actions don’t negate the Constitutional rights of everyone else who is protesting. And calling in the National guard before the local authorities have declared the situation to be out of their control, is a direct violation of Constitutional law.
But, when you say, “they”…you are painting the entire protest as violent, unless you make the distinction that it isn’t. And the vast majority of protestors are simply exercising their 1st amendment rights, in a perfectly legal manner.
I never said they were violent, I haven’t heard of anything violent (edit: from the protesters) yet personally. There’s a difference between peaceful, not peaceful, and violent.
If there’s enough bad actors doing things like setting cars on fire, then it warrants a larger police presence (but not the national guard at this level or ever the military)
Edit: Just to add clarity, it warrants a larger police presence, because they are in fact no longer peaceful. Sure most people are, but the protest itself isn’t.
Did Trump declare martial law while I was asleep? Because last time I checked, he can’t deploy the military on US soil unless the country is in a state of emergency. And peaceful protests don’t count.
Until one of the other branches of government decides to grow a spine, Trump is free to do whatever he wants.
Or the people.
The people can’t do much against an MQ-9 reaper, much less strategic bombers that can fly well higher than civilian aircraft.
If it comes to something like Red Dawn, we are fucked.
he doesn’t need to apparently.
Well, he IS the king of America (and Canada, Panama and Greenland), so why would he need approval?
I don’t condone deploying the military, its illegal, but burning waymo’s isn’t peaceful.
The people setting those fires should absolutely be charged for their actions. But their actions don’t negate the Constitutional rights of everyone else who is protesting. And calling in the National guard before the local authorities have declared the situation to be out of their control, is a direct violation of Constitutional law.
Agreed that the national guard shouldn’t have been deployed as well. I’m just saying they aren’t peaceful.
But, when you say, “they”…you are painting the entire protest as violent, unless you make the distinction that it isn’t. And the vast majority of protestors are simply exercising their 1st amendment rights, in a perfectly legal manner.
I never said they were violent, I haven’t heard of anything violent (edit: from the protesters) yet personally. There’s a difference between peaceful, not peaceful, and violent.
If there’s enough bad actors doing things like setting cars on fire, then it warrants a larger police presence (but not the national guard at this level or ever the military)
Edit: Just to add clarity, it warrants a larger police presence, because they are in fact no longer peaceful. Sure most people are, but the protest itself isn’t.
Impressive how the troll farms always manage to put one “yeah people were hurt but what about property?!” in every thread about our pigs.