politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I don't want to downplay the alarm bells going off over this move. It's definitely as bad as many are saying. On the other hand, I do want to set some right expectations. National guardsmen are modern professional soldiers and, as such, are far more disciplined than average police officers. Civilian casualties are always a possibility, and might even be what this administration wants, but I think it's unlikely that we'll see anything like another Kent State. If anything, I'll bet most of the guardsmen are pretty frustrated with Trump for being called up for bullshit reasons.
Do you still have misplaced faith in US institutions? Your conjecture was proven incorrect in less than 24 hours.
https://sh.itjust.works/post/39788677
https://sh.itjust.works/post/39779078
My point was that soldiers are less likely than cops to unnecessarily use lethal force, and you think that cops using lethal force is somehow a counterexample? Logic.
To be fair those incidents aren't inconsistent with his hopes, that the national guard may be more restrained than the police forces that did those actions.
Police have spent an entire career actively considering the civilian population potential enemies at all times, with less vetting and training than you'd hope they should have.
National Guardsmen have access to equipment and training, but their careers are less likely to have been antagonistic to civilian populations.
This may be an overly optimistic viewpoint, but it's not one disproved by those incidents just yet.
To be fair, that was a cop, trained to panic
Edit: nevermind. Got on wifi and watched video. That was a cop trained that there are no consequences for its actions, and getting off on the impunity.
Not trying to defend NG or any US troops, but those examples were from the LA police, not the national guard. Of all the worst direct violence I've seen so far from LA, National Guard haven't been the ones attacking. From reports I've heard they are mostly standing around federal property because that's all they have jurisdiction at.
Frustrated, modern (whatever that means in this context), professional, and yet, still willing to point a gun at peaceful civilian protestors.
The jackboot is coming down on your head, but at least it's polished, neatly tied, and only coming down hard enough to knock you out, not kill you.
Modern, as in trained for flexible mission parameters in a modern urban environment where earning/keeping the respect of the local civilian population is a critical part of the mission. A step beyond the reactionary notion that Brute force and brutal suppression are always the most effective path. A military where soldiers are trained to question orders and made individually responsible for following illegal orders.
For example, say what you will about America's ultimate failure in Afghanistan, our soldiers on the ground became experts in local culture and factions and built cooperation to achieve mission objectives without alienating the population. If our political leadership was as professional as our soldiers I think things would have ended a lot differently.
I think the key difference between soldiers, leadership at home, and police: The soldiers are at risk of dying, if they piss off the locals. Our police and politicians are insulated from the consequences of stupidity and malice, so they never develop the character needed to ease tensions.
The training is not even similar, and neither are the hiring practices. I think that is the key difference.
I don't think you are entirely wrong though. Police tend to act very differently when up against protesters who are known to be armed. That's a big reason why concealed carry is allowed in many places when open carry isn't. The politicians don't want their thugs to be intimidated.
I think there's a chance they dont pull the trigger when the order comes, or point up the chain of command. Thats kind of the only option for avoiding Really Bad here.
I dont have enough faith in them to expect any particular outcome here, but it's in their hands. Kind of holding my breath.
The order is far from certain to come. It's not like Trump or his buddies will be anywhere close to the action, and a general order to unnecessarily fire on civilians is not even likely to be passed down.
The order will be issued from tge top. Its already in the minds of every cop.
The question is how far down the chain it gets.
Maybe the general says 'No.'
Maybe a captain goes off mission.
Maybe a bottom level guy pretends his gun is jammed.
And maybe if they all fail, we go from the bad timeline to the worse one
There's plenty of modern professional soldiers doing the worst shit imaginable with a smile on there face.
Modern is different from contemporary, and by professional I don't just mean paid.
Yeah but the idea is the bar for them to start is higher than cops, who are trained to panic. I really fucking hope so.
I think the problem though is neither side is going to back down which means clashes between troops/police is going to keep escalating until someone at one of these events pushes things too far and the troops/police end up firing on people. Especially as they are most likely going to start trying to push to end the protests through arrests rather then just focusing on control which will just antagonize people more. Realistically what other end scenario is there to this if Trump keeps throwing gasoline on the fire? It's either gonna be a brutal crackdown on the protests with "less then lethal" weapons done by the military or end up being a bloodbath. Either way both outcomes would be horrifying to see happening in America, dictators use the military to put down protests and if we let that happen without any kind of severe backlash then we're pretty much fucked.
"Oh, you have a [baby|upcoming deadline|scheduled holiday] in your regular life? Drop everything and harass these protesters while trying not to worry about regular life "
I'd be frustrated, too.
I agree for the army. National guard? Nope. As redneck as it gets.
Pretty much everyone I've even met in the national gaurd are people who re-enlisted after their first stint in the army to get a regular paycheck while they go to school
No, I never heard of Kent State. If I had I might have mentioned it in my above comment. Oh, wait.
Oops haha thanks.
Lulz. The bulk of the military is 18Y old chumps.
I have trust in the generals, but they keep getting fired by this administration. The enlisted mooks will brainlessly shoot at civilians and call themselves heroes if given the chance.
The grunts and mooks aren't professional at all. That's the fucking point.
Police are those who actually study the law. Soldiers at best know they haven't studied the law. It's always the generals and officers who step in and protect us from the dumbasses, but the brains of the military are actively being drained right now.
Funniest thing I've read all week
You may laugh but it's the reality.
Soldiers don't have legal training, riot training, or any other legal maneuver. Meanwhile, Police and Police investigators need to actually win court cases if they want their charges to stick.
Police know what they can get away with given the local judges and politicians.
This liberal fantasy where your enemies can just be 'taught' habeus corpus and suddenly agree with you is just fucking fantasy. Maybe the dumbass soldiers might learn that but Police absolutely already have legal training and experience in legal matters. They won't listen to your lectures on legality.
The benefit to soldiers is that they often know they don't know legal matters and know their ignorance on riot training. But otherwise you have to treat typical soldiers as ignorant. Police on the other hand are pretending to be dumb, they have far more legal experience than typical citizens.
That doesn't make Police correct mind you. It just makes them more legally experienced.
The police system actively rejects people for being too smart, and ousts people that ask too many questions. I don't know if the "legal experience" police officers receive is the kind of experience we want them to receive.
I'm not saying it's what we want them to receive.
But Police are constantly surrounded by lawyers, criminologists and judges. You ain't convincing them of anything, they have higher trusted authorities on the issue of law and a single officer likely have stood inside of courtrooms longer than you and me and everyone else in this thread combined. (Unless we have a lawyer in the peanut gallery??)
So this idea that you can just call them ignorant of law (and consequently, capable of learning or changing their opinions on these issues give. Am online debate) is... grossly optimistic.
You have to see them as legal professionals. Not necessarily legal authorities (like a judge or lawyer). But as a legal professional, cops almost certainly know more about law then the typical person. Enough to be dangerous.
Trained enough to be stubborn.
I feel like there isn't an assertion that the police would act out from ignorance of the law, but just how they operate. If anything the enhanced legal awareness may embolden them to know how far they can push the line and get away with it.
More than the legal awareness or lack thereof, there's the nature of the careers. American police day to day consider everyone around them to have the capacity to become a threat. The national guard certainly will have training, but most of their actual job experience on average has been devoid of actual potential threats.
At least, there's the hope this is true, to offset the rather dire context of federal authority mobilizing military within a state against the will of that state..
More importantly, their enhanced legal training means that in say, 80% of cases, I'd expect an Officer to win in most legal fights vs a typical layperson (ex: typical protesters).
Yes we have some incredible abuses out there and it's important to bring up Police Abuse to raise awareness. But there's also the pragmatic truth that we cannot expect for protesters to truly match up well in a legal fight vs Officers.
There's some dumbass advice out there about knowing your rights and asking the officers badge number and stuff. I think for most laypeople, this is bad advice because the typical protesters or layperson will mess up in the interaction. The proper recommendation when dealing with officers is to remain quiet and call your lawyer, and then have your lawyer always speak for you.
Nah, not until they act like it.
Can you do me a favor and restate your point in clear, succinct language? I'm not really following the point you're trying to make with all this "law professional" stuff
Policemen have more experience with the law than you.
It is a liberal fantasy to think that spouting a few words here and there could pin these guys in an ethical or legal dilemma. The officer has likely heard the argument before whatever you think you are pinning them on.
I'm not saying that means Officers are ethical people. But I'm trying to make sure everyone understands the threat here.
The protesters will fuck up first. We need to be ready for this. It only takes one protester to step out of line while the officers here are politically savvy and know what they can (and do) get away with.
The smart aren't planning for how to escalate these protests. The smart are planning for the inevitable crackdown after a building is looted and the arson starts, and the police use that as an excuse to crack skulls with legal backing.
Our move after that, I dunno. But that's happened in 2018, 2019, even 2012 with Occupy Wall Street. Building our coalition vs Trump will be harder but I get it, protesters need to strike back in anger after aggressions at this level. Just know we are getting actively outplayed by Trump as these predictable events happen.
You will be unfairly demonized. Republicans will get law and order propaganda on Fox News. Your Boomer grandparents will fall for the propaganda.
But where's the silver lining here? What can we do to turn the tide in our favor despite this? I think we can start pointing out the overreach of the President here taking over States authority. We can use January 6th and Trump's pardons against him. We need to start preparing these arguments moving forward.
The soldier vs officer discussion is important because I do think the soldiers are more ignorant of these matters, in a good way. Soldiers didn't sign up to be riot squad or crack down on protesters. The National Guard do want to save the country from Wildfires and Floods (under normal circumstances).
Police easily will side with ICE. National Guard probably sides but there is a Hail Mary argument we can make to them (National Guard shouldn't be riot squad) that could get them to flip.
I expect that if National Guard has a higher chance of fucking up and shooting a protester than a Police Officer. They know this however, but that's the fear we can actually take as an argument point.
The idea that conservatives are unthinking dumbasses or ignorant people who can be convinced of a greater truth is a horrible, horrible liberal lie. Conservatives think deeply about these things and have already preplanned how they should act and react to various news. You liberals need to start thinking at least as deeply as they do on these subjects if you hope to win this coming political battle.
That was neither clear nor succinct, but it sounds like you agree that for protesters, police are a bigger problem than the National Guard. Which was the point being made by the comment you originally replied to in this thread.
The average age for active duty enlisted is 28.5yo, not 18.
Yes, active duty law enforcement is more competent at the intricacies of law enforcement, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about things like trigger discipline and doing proper reconnaissance before charging into a situation.
As far as I'm aware, the guard still doesn't have the power of arrest anyways. They will have to coordinate such actions with local law enforcement. They have no prosecutors or jails store detainees.