Another violation of Posse Comitatus

[oldfb]

hope this isn't too far off topic. Wasn't this guy an ex deputy.
Who actually killed another deputies wife and child?
When I saw the concerned neighbor interview describe how he hid behind his pos camaro lawn ornament I wanted to choke him. One armed citizen with half a brain a fair amount of skill and maybe the troll doesn't hit everyone at his will. Neighborhood watch doesn't mean WATCH!
As for military getting involved I wouldn't fear them until it was too late I suppose. Since I tend to support the troops. I am starting to really fear the people behind the curtain almost as much as the people who say it could never happen. everyone is so tied to their own deals they won't believe it even as the gate locks them in to the pen. Sheeple are friends not food!

I agree that our President has enough gray areas surrounding his whole rise to office that he should bear closer scrutiny as well as go out of his way to prove once and for all with the sealed records. Trust is great but cut the cards anyways. Nothing irks me more than broken promises. Just the other day he broke his no pork promise and follows it up with a statement that I had to sign the bill but this really is the last one. Almost like all the lines slick willy drew in the sand with Iraq. ...you cross this line-you die no no this line wait this line... well ya see the point. It will be interesting to see how/if anyone calls them on the carpet about the legal issues of using soliders this way.

 

[4sarge]

Neither do the lawfully armed citizens mentioned several times throughout this posting. What they do have is training, structure and most importantly accountability. If a legally armed citizen whom we'll call Bubba were to get involved and hit a bystander or shoot an undercover police officer or even get shot by responding police officers due to his lack of identifying markings, how much worse did the situation or its aftermath just get? If one of those MP's were to have been put into a situation to use his sidearm, he has general ROE, SOPs and policies. All of those criteria needing to be met lessen the chance of an unfortunate incident. You can trust your troops guys, afterall they are made up of the same kind of people that make up this forum. That being said, holy-overreation batman! My town has 4 full time police officers last year we had a lone gunman do his thing and the four of them handled it. You don't see me outside killing ants with a flame thrower. If the city and county LEO's were incapable of handling a situation that the all train for then they need to be replaced.

Good Post

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
You can trust your troops guys, afterall they are made up of the same kind of people that make up this forum. snip.

Katrina proved that statement flat wrong.

 

[jeremy]

Katrina proved that statement flat wrong.

BS! Name one unit or state guard that took weapons. I dare you to.

I was there all we did was security on the deserted sections of the city and humanitarian needs (passing out food and FEMA checks to people).

What you see in all the vids and pics is the damn NOPD and LASPD In their SWAT uniforms conducting raids and taking weapons. In the area's we patrolled we forbid the LEO's from entry if they were not in proper uniform. The only thing more corrupt than a cop from Lousiana is a Chicago politicain!

 

[HICKMAN]

Obama is currently considering whether or not to send troops down to the Mexican border. I'm tired so I can't remember if it is National Guard troops or Army troops.

I know it isn't the same situation, not my point. Just saying that, in the case of supporting the border, Obama is the decision maker.

That's not new though, we've had troops on the border SEVERAL times over SEVERAL years. I'm pretty sure the 38th ID from here in Indiana has been down there.

National Guard wrapping up its U.S.-Mexican Border duty

 

[HICKMAN]

Katrina proved that statement flat wrong.

And you base that statement on what? Something you read or saw on the Internet?

The Troops don't even like their fuggin CiC, so stop comparing him to Hitler because he doesn't have that kind of support.

Once Odumbass gets his "civilian" army built THAT'S when you've got something to worry about.

 

[INRanger]

"I support our troops" is the new "I don't mean to be rude but...."

 

[Cwood]

Obama is currently considering whether or not to send troops down to the Mexican border. I'm tired so I can't remember if it is National Guard troops or Army troops.

I know it isn't the same situation, not my point. Just saying that, in the case of supporting the border, Obama is the decision maker.

That's not new though, we've had troops on the border SEVERAL times over SEVERAL years. I'm pretty sure the 38th ID from here in Indiana has been down there.

National Guard wrapping up its U.S.-Mexican Border duty

That is very true, the 2nd of the 16th Infantry (active duty unit) spent 2 months in the summer of 1995 in New Mexico patrolling the boarder.

 

[ihateiraq]

I have seen some video of some actions taken by officials in New Orleans that IMO were treasonous. I don't know what you ran into or what part you played there. I count myself blessed everyday because I was not there. Otherwise I would undoubtedly be dead today. Had I been there anyone attempting to take away my ability to protect my property or to forcibly enter my home for any reason without my consent would have been fired upon.

i didnt play any part. i just walked around, with an unloaded weapon and the order to not shoot except to prevent violent felonies.

 

[printcraft]

I think they are trying to blur some fine lines for a later time.

Exactly. One word "Precedent"

 

[jsgolfman]

Neither do the lawfully armed citizens mentioned several times throughout this posting. quote]

The difference is, there is no law preventing an armed citizen from helping, while there is one preventing the military. While MP's certainly do have the authority to stop, interview, arrest, etc. someone from the armed forces, that power does not extend to non-military personel regardless of proximity to base (unless it is actually on base property) without the aforementioned constitutional and legal requirements being met.

I certainly don't intend to disparage any of those men by posting my comments on here, as I don't have any idea their state of mind or motivation in this event. I simply point out there is no legal authority granting them any more power than a normal citizen under the circumstances, so I reiterate my initial questions.

 

[INRanger]

I didn't say legal. I did say accountable. That oversight makes a big difference when it come to dealing with the aftermath. The armed citizen could be acting completely logically and correctly and still end up as a defendant. All it takes is one LEO, administrator, prosecutor, or you name it to decide that they don't want citizens getting involved and decide an example needs made. Those soldiers on the other hand, must violate general ROE or regulations before any disciplinary actions are taken. Armed citizens have no direction or any understanding of any "bigger picture", their potential to exacerbate the situation is too high. The exception being any armed citizen on scene during the actual shooting, they have a moral obligation to intercede in coarse of saving innocents. There may be no law preventing citizens from helping nor should there be, but restraint and common sense must rule the day.

 

[hornadylnl]

I didn't say legal. I did say accountable. That oversight makes a big difference when it come to dealing with the aftermath. The armed citizen could be acting completely logically and correctly and still end up as a defendant. All it takes is one LEO, administrator, prosecutor, or you name it to decide that they don't want citizens getting involved and decide an example needs made. Those soldiers on the other hand, must violate general ROE or regulations before any disciplinary actions are taken. Armed citizens have no direction or any understanding of any "bigger picture", their potential to exacerbate the situation is too high. The exception being any armed citizen on scene during the actual shooting, they have a moral obligation to intercede in coarse of saving innocents. There may be no law preventing citizens from helping nor should there be, but restraint and common sense must rule the day.

I guess no member of the military ever got out and became a civilian have they?

I spent 2 years in Germany as an 11M where 90% of my training was peacekeeping or deployment to Bosnia. I guess since I no longer have that green id card in my wallet, I can't be trusted.

 

[INRanger]

Who said anything about untrustworthy? Any entity not working in concert with the overall effort is harmful to the accomplishment of the overall mission. The LEOs don't need to be worrying about IDing you from friend or foe when they have larger issues to deal with. The armed citizens place is in the critical period between the beginning of an attack and the arrival of the responding elements. After that if the LEOs need further assistance they can/will ask. If you can't see where getting involved without some sort of sanctioning is bad for the effort then maybe a refresher on your training is in order,

 

[jsgolfman]

Accountable or not, my question still stands. What authority do they have to be there and what would happen if you refused their commands? If they have no authority (as proscribed by law), what better use are they than non-military? As I posted before, the reason they were there was to provide crowd control and similar duties. The assumption by local law enforcement and everyone involved is that they would have the power to enforce their commands. Otherwise why call them? So, by extension, they were there to execute laws pertaining to assembly and crowd control, all civilian law enforcement duties and against the law for them to perform.

I don't for a second doubt their training or ability to control crowds. The threat of violence tends to control most people. But it is irrelevant as to the legality.

 

[techres]

Accountable or not, my question still stands. What authority do they have to be there and what would happen if you refused their commands?

Would you feel ok if they were deputized?

If they have no authority (as proscribed by law), what better use are they than non-military?

Training & experience. Gear & uniforms. Being present & accounted for.

As I posted before, the reason they were there was to provide crowd control and similar duties. The assumption by local law enforcement and everyone involved is that they would have the power to enforce their commands. Otherwise why call them? So, by extension, they were there to execute laws pertaining to assembly and crowd control, all civilian law enforcement duties and against the law for them to perform.

"Jeb, can you keep the press over there please? Thanks!" That may have been all the local command they got after the "The Sherrifs have a huge problem in town, can you guys [MP's] run over there and see if they need a hand?" orders from their command.

Somehow a picture of 4 MP's still strikes me very differently than pictures of platoons securing neighborhoods and putting up training road blocks. See many previous threads on this subject and you will see me arguing very, very differently. I still owe INRanger a lunch after the last time!

I don't for a second doubt their training or ability to control crowds. The threat of violence tends to control most people. But it is irrelevant as to the legality.

These last three sentences are interesting. The first contradicts your earlier question about ability. Your second sentence seems to imply their power comes from their sidearms which is strange. And the third is the valid question.

If I can be deputized, could not MP's? If they are deputized, could they not ask people to stay back?

If they are not deputized, could they not ask you to stay back anyways? What would happen if you refused? Maybe your town sheriffs would just come over and repeat the request, less kindly.

Again, with no real info, I see 4 MP's offering help to the town cops after a very tough situation with an enormous crime scene that likely drew more than a simple gaggle of reporters.

I see "assistance" and "co-operation", not a "deployment". Really.

I just can't get to tin foil hot this time, sorry...

 

[jsgolfman]

Would you feel ok if they were deputized?
They can't be deputized, hence the title of the thread.


Training & experience. Gear & uniforms. Being present & accounted for.
This does nothing to speak to the authority question, nor did I question their ability.


"Jeb, can you keep the press over there please? Thanks!" That may have been all the local command they got after the "The Sherrifs have a huge problem in town, can you guys [MP's] run over there and see if they need a hand?" orders from their command.
So, what authority do they have to "keep the press over there"?
Somehow a picture of 4 MP's still strikes me very differently than pictures of platoons securing neighborhoods and putting up training road blocks. See many previous threads on this subject and you will see me arguing very, very differently. I still owe INRanger a lunch after the last time!
Doesn't matter if it is 4 or 400


These last three sentences are interesting. The first contradicts your earlier question about ability. Your second sentence seems to imply their power comes from their sidearms which is strange. And the third is the valid question.
1. I never questioned their ability as it has nothing to do with legality.
2. Yes, I do imply their power comes from the threat of violence, as does all government power. Would you willingly be placed in cuffs and led to prison without the threat of violence?
3. Yes it is valid as are the others.
If I can be deputized, could not MP's? If they are deputized, could they not ask people to stay back?
Answered above
If they are not deputized, could they not ask you to stay back anyways? What would happen if you refused? Maybe your town sheriffs would just come over and repeat the request, less kindly.
Yes, they could ask. But their requests carry no more weight than yours or mine as they have no law enforcement authority.
Again, with no real info, I see 4 MP's offering help to the town cops after a very tough situation with an enormous crime scene that likely drew more than a simple gaggle of reporters.
I see 4 MP's helping as well, I just don't see it as legal.
I see "assistance" and "co-operation", not a "deployment". Really.
Doesn't matter if it's a deployment or not, you can't do it.

I just can't get to tin foil hot this time, sorry...

I've done nothing in this thread but ask for someone to show me the legal authority for their presence and the tasks they were doing. I've already agreed that they are well trained, have some great gear and snazzy uniforms. We are big on this site for quoting the law and how it is illegal to do this and unlawful to do that (i'm guilty as anyone on that count), so why not the same here when it involves the military?
You don't need to get all Alex Jones, but either it's the law or it's not. Motivation doesn't come into play.

 

[lumpy39us]

They cannot be deputized, It would place them in a role other than their official duties. REF UCMJ. Only National Guard is authorized to assist state officials on order of the Govenor of said state, REF ARNG reg.
Question earlier, who ordered them? Simply put any order comes from and shall be considered the order from the CinC, REF UCMJ.
Principle command, Department of Homeland Security, secondary command, Department of Defense.

 

[eatsnopaste]

There was an election, yes. Obama was reported to have gotten the majority of the popular vote despite some major questions about his eligibility for office; questions which remain to this day. Of course, with him now in office, I do not think that any "evidence" supposedly proving his birth in the US would be accepted, considering the power of the office.

Of note, no, no one was in the booth with me, however I do recall pictures, some of which were posted here on INGO, of the Black Panthers apparently standing guard outside of polling stations in Pennsylvania, if memory serves. I do not recall if this happened in other places as well.

Obama has access to some very scary powers now, thanks to Bush and the Congress in the post 9/11 fervor and furor. Will he be putting people in ovens? Not likely, I'll agree. This does not mean he will not be implementing some very unConstitutional policies which will stand until they are challenged and a lawsuit against the government is permitted and winds it's way to SCOTUS. This could be a long time away. He has spoken openly of a civilian security force as well funded and equipped as the US military. Somehow, I'm betting that they won't be out delivering Christmas cards to patriotic American gun owners, though it would not surprise me if they were all willing to kneel several times a day with their butts facing the sunset.

In sum, yes, I do fear the power that Obama currently wields. I do not know what he's going to do with it, but I do not see much good coming from it.

Blessings,
Bill

LMFAO... you REALLY do question his eligibility to run? Come on! I've been a conservative and voted Republican or Libertarian all my life and The extreme far right scares me as much as the left...and it isn't people who 'cling to religion and guns" who scare me, it's people who cling to ideas that are thrown out on the internet and have been proven to be wrong by every respected source imaginable. Do I like the liberal agenda that is coming? No. Did I like all the things G.W did during his 8 years...NO. Did I believe that W was a coke head being led by Cheney for the destruction of mankind...no but it was out there..I just chose to use a little common sense and filter what I read, heard and believe.

 

[Dr Falken]

Just for the record, the Posse Comitatus act was repealed:

• Signed by President Bush on Oct. 17, the law (PL 109-364) has a provocative provision called “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.”

• The thrust of it seems to be about giving the federal government a far stronger hand in coordinating responses to Katrina-like disasters.

• But on closer inspection, its language also alters the two-centuries-old Insurrection Act, which Congress passed in 1807 to limit the president’s power to deploy troops within the United States. CQ.com