Mass protests & riots happening over murder by police officers

I posted this video in the other thread as an example, somebody asked to define "fascism". In the fascist mind, it's perfectly acceptable to fire cannister rounds into an innocent family's house to maintain "order", in a suburban neighborhood that doesn't seem to be anywhere near any looters or rioting. It's just the way you keep the pegs in line, you make an example by hanging, torching, or spraying chemicals on law-abiding civilians, because when the actual rioters and looters see that, they might take the threat seriously.

Sad day for America.

 

Just to show that there is still some hope for humanity; here are a few of the better moments of unity and peace:



I'm also glad to see bishops of various denominations condemning Trump for using religion as a prop to further an authoritarian political agenda.

 

Too late to edit, but about that video above:

Note those white girls spraying "BLM" on a Starbucks at the end. They certainly didn't act like well-meaning but misguided protesters when confronted by an African American woman about it. It wouldn't be the first time right wing agitators engaged in these "false flag" stunts against Black Lives Matter.

 

White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter

False flag did anyone say?

 

Regarding using the US military against its own people; Republican Senator Tom Cotton was on Fox News suggesting the 101st Airborne should be deployed where governors have refused to call in the National Guard.

This is in direct violation of the US constitution: Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

Maybe they'll try to change the US Navy regulations so they can send the marines in, or maybe Trump can use his new Space Force to murder US citizens.

 

Same.link

In the mid-20th century, the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower used an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, derived from the Enforcement Acts, to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, during the 1957 school desegregation crisis. The Arkansas governor had opposed desegregation after the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1954 in the Brown v. Board of Education that segregated public schools were unconstitutional. The Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allowed the president to call up military forces when state authorities were either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that were in opposition to the citizens' constitutional rights.[5]

 

Yeah, the Enforcement Acts were brought in to protect African Americans if states violated their 14th and 15th Amendment rights.

 

I don't think even trump listens to trump!

 

I don't know. It was the 101st Airborne in Little Rock, the 82nd Airborne in response to Katrina. If I were to hazard a guess it is because they are rapid response units with substantial logistics capabilities.

It would be a stain on the history books if, 63 years after the federal military protected the rights of citizens against racist protesters, Trump were to deploy the federal military to infringe on the rights of people to protest racism.

I don't have time to read all this right now, but here is paper on domestic deployment of US military: In Katrina's Wake: Rethinking the Military's Role in Domestic ...scholarship.law.wm.edu › cgi › viewcontent

A quick skim suggests that it is not so clear-cut.

 

As David Harrison wrote, Airborne units tend to be very easy to deploy... they are light infantry that can be brought in and deployed quickly and easily. Both the 82nd and the 101st are also on standby status and the promise is that they can have troops on the ground within 24hrs anywhere in the world from those units. Additionally, Airborne troops tend to be highly motivated, well trained, and very loyal (Airborne or Parachute school is all voluntary, and serves as one of the lower rungs into the more high speed, low drag units like Rangers/Special Forces/etc).

Of course, the 82nd remains parachute based (Airborne) while the 101st has morphed into an Airmobile (helicopters) unit, which leads to lots of inter unit rivalry. Airborne (and Airmobile) units work best as 'shock troops'... drop them in and let them do their thing until they can be replaced by units with more equipment and supplies... then pull them out, re-equip them and set them on standby for the next time. Sadly, thoughout history, many Airborne units have been used as conventional long term units instead, partly because of their morale, readiness, and gung-ho attitude... which doesn't always end well.

 

Sounds rather similar to our Parachute Regiment in Northern Ireland.

Soldiers don't make good police, and as we are seeing, training police as if they are soldiers doesn't make good police either.

That video Grond posted really looked like a group of thugs acting out their fantasies and playing war.

 

Right down to the maroon berets, if I recall.

The training school uses the old unit designations as well... in 1991, it was the 507th Parachute Infantry Regiment (PIR) (not sure if they still do)

Sadly, you are right. I have been hearing quite a bit about some of our Law Enforcement groups (especiall federal level) that recruit a lot of veterans into law enforcement... on one hand it works well with the discipline, morale, skills, and so on but military and law enforcement have vast differences in use in force and in the thinking style of how to deal with things. I can see where veterans (especially combat veterans) would fit very nicely into law enforcement, I also know you would need a lot of training and practice to switch from a military to a law enforment mindset.

 

Reminds me of a documentary I saw years ago. A British captain in Afghanistan was describing the catch-22 situation his unit found itself in. Their mission was to keep a road secure and patrol it for IED's and insurgents, but the only reason there were IED's or insurgents on the road was because the British Army was patrolling it.

Similar spirals of escalation can be seen in the riots in the US. See how the police that dropped their riot gear and joined the protestor's march, or the police that dropped to one knee to show solidarity with the protesters, defused and de-escalated tension. That is policing by consent and acting as public servants.

The police in the US have been getting out of control since 9-11. Being told by their superiors that they are warriors at war, and the government and private companies maximising profits from foreign wars by giving the police the equipment to fight a war.

 

Insurrection Act of 1807

 

Which also explains the horrendous Beatles of P

to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights


So they will stop police brutality, by policing more brutally?

I'm not sure that they have thought this through properly.

 

No, they will stop people protesting police brutality with military brutality.

Sadly, I think they absolutely have thought this through.