John Fetterman Rips Fellow Democrats For Not Condemning LA Riots

BPPLEE said:

Shame on the Democrats for running terribly unpopular women, even one who replaced an even more unpopular man.

Click to expand...

They’re paying for it now.

BPPLEE said:

Seems like both parties could select better candidates in their primaries

Click to expand...

Agreed, providing they hold an actual primary.

rambot said:

Vague proclamations do little to prove your point.

Click to expand...

Sorry but Vambram is right.
In the mid-1960s we had Watts and Detroit riots put down by force.
In 1968 we had MI governor Romney pretty much give a shoot-to-kill order in the riots that followed MLK's death.

BPPLEE said:

Shame on the Democrats for running terribly unpopular women, even one who replaced an even more unpopular man.
Seems like both parties could select better candidates in their primaries

Click to expand...

She was unpopular for frankly stupid reasons mostly having to do with image rather than substance. Given the vetting of a proper primary she could have done ok imo. Its on Joe Biden for stubbornly and egotistically clinging to his promise-breaking notion that he could win a round II - and was the only one who could beat Trump. That really tainted a pretty decent presidency for me.

durangodawood said:

She was unpopular for frankly stupid reasons mostly having to do with image rather than substance. Given the vetting of a proper primary she could have done ok imo. Its on Joe Biden for stubbornly and egotistically clinging to his promise-breaking notion that he could win a round II - and was the only one who could beat Trump. That really tainted a pretty decent presidency for me.

Click to expand...

Kamala did campaign in a primary prior to being selected for VP and it didn't work out real well for her

BPPLEE said:

Kamala did campaign in a primary prior to being selected for VP and it didn't work out real well for her

Click to expand...

4 years plus VP experience could have made a lot of difference. And if she failed - then we'd have a different candidate with time to do a proper campaign, which would be preferable to the last minute debacle Biden forced us into.

John G. said:

Sorry but Vambram is right.
In the mid-1960s we had Watts and Detroit riots put down by force.
In 1968 we had MI governor Romney pretty much give a shoot-to-kill order in the riots that followed MLK's death.

Click to expand...

oh wow.
Two examples.

Consider me whelmed.

Vambram said:

I truly doubt that anyone could dissuade you from your point of view on this topic.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you feel that way but you'd be mistaken.

In regards to these riots I may be closer to you than you think.

But when don't put up convincing arguments for your point, what am I supposed to say? "Well gorsh! You're right. Youre complete lack of convincing arguments has changed my mind."

There are CERTAINLY topics I CANNOT be dissuaded from. But this one, yes I could.

durangodawood said:

4 years plus VP experience could have made a lot of difference. And if she failed - then we'd have a different candidate with time to do a proper campaign, which would be preferable to the last minute debacle Biden forced us into.

Click to expand...

If she could just be unburdened by what has been

GoldenBoy89 said:

Nope. Looks like the entire state of New York court system still has Donald Trump as a convicted 34 count felon.

People v Donald J. Trump (Criminal) | NYCOURTS.GOV

Decision & Order: Motion to Terminate Order Restricting Extrajudicial Statements, June 25Presence of Counsel at Presentence Order, June 7Letter to Parties, June 7

ww2.nycourts.gov

Click to expand...

Looks like they are Democratic Party to me.

rambot said:

I'm sure you feel that way but you'd be mistaken.

In regards to these riots I may be closer to you than you think.

But when don't put up convincing arguments for your point, what am I supposed to say? "Well gorsh! You're right. Youre complete lack of convincing arguments has changed my mind."

There are CERTAINLY topics I CANNOT be dissuaded from. But this one, yes I could.

Click to expand...

The use of the U.S. military to quell riots is governed by a combination of legal frameworks, historical precedents, and constitutional considerations. Below is a concise overview of the legal basis and historical instances of such use, focusing on the United States:

Legal Framework
The Insurrection Act of 1807 (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255):
This is the primary legal authority allowing the President to deploy federal troops or federalize state National Guard units to suppress domestic insurrections, rebellions, or riots that impede the execution of federal or state laws.
Key provisions:
Section 251: Allows the President to deploy troops if requested by a state’s legislature or governor to suppress an insurrection.
Section 252: Permits the President to act unilaterally if the insurrection makes it “impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States” by ordinary judicial means.
Section 253: Allows deployment to suppress any insurrection, domestic violence, or conspiracy that obstructs federal law or deprives citizens of constitutional rights.
The Act requires the President to issue a proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse before deploying troops (10 U.S.C. § 254).
Historically, the Act has been interpreted broadly, giving the President significant discretion, though its use is rare due to political and practical concerns.
Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (18 U.S.C. § 1385):
Limits the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement, except where expressly authorized by Congress or the Constitution (e.g., the Insurrection Act).
It does not apply to the National Guard when under state control, only when federalized.
Exceptions include situations where military involvement is deemed necessary to protect federal property or enforce federal law.
Constitutional Basis:
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution designates the President as Commander-in-Chief, granting authority to use military forces to protect national interests.
Article IV, Section 4 obligates the federal government to protect states against “domestic violence” upon request, providing a constitutional basis for the Insurrection Act.
National Guard Dual Status:
The National Guard operates under state control (Title 32) for local emergencies but can be federalized (Title 10) for national purposes. Governors typically deploy the Guard for riots, but the President can federalize it under the Insurrection Act.
Historical Precedents
The U.S. military or federalized National Guard has been used sparingly to address riots or civil unrest, with notable examples:

Whiskey Rebellion (1794):
President George Washington invoked the Militia Acts of 1792 (precursor to the Insurrection Act) to mobilize state militias to suppress a tax revolt in Pennsylvania. This was the first use of federal authority to quell domestic unrest and set a precedent for federal intervention.


Reconstruction Era (1865–1877):
Federal troops were deployed in Southern states to enforce Reconstruction policies and suppress violence by groups like the Ku Klux Klan, authorized by the Enforcement Acts and early versions of the Insurrection Act.

Labor Riots (Late 19th Century):
Pullman Strike (1894): President Grover Cleveland deployed federal troops to Chicago to break a railroad strike that disrupted mail delivery and interstate commerce, citing federal authority to protect commerce and mail.

Civil Rights Era:
Little Rock Crisis (1957): President Dwight Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and deployed the 101st Airborne Division to enforce school desegregation against resistance from state authorities and mobs, invoking the Insurrection Act.

Ole Miss Riot (1962): President John F. Kennedy federalized the Mississippi National Guard and sent federal troops to quell riots over James Meredith’s integration of the University of Mississippi.

1968 Riots: Following Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, President Lyndon Johnson deployed federal troops and federalized National Guard units in cities like Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and Chicago to control widespread rioting under the Insurrection Act.

Los Angeles Riots (1992):
President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy federal troops and federalize the California National Guard to restore order after riots sparked by the Rodney King verdict. This followed a request from California Governor Pete Wilson, as local law enforcement was overwhelmed.



Key Considerations and Modern Context
Rarity of Use: The Insurrection Act is rarely invoked due to the preference for state-controlled National Guard or local law enforcement to handle riots. Federal troop deployment is seen as a last resort due to political sensitivities and the Posse Comitatus Act’s restrictions.
Judicial Oversight: Courts have generally deferred to the President’s discretion under the Insurrection Act, with limited judicial review (e.g., Luther v. Borden, 1849, affirmed broad executive authority in domestic disturbances).
Recent Debates: During the 2020 George Floyd protests, discussions arose about invoking the Insurrection Act, but it was not used. Instead, National Guard units under state control were deployed in multiple cities. The debate highlighted tensions between federal and state authority and concerns about militarizing domestic law enforcement.
Civil Liberties: Deploying the military domestically raises concerns about First Amendment rights (e.g., free speech and assembly) and Fourth Amendment protections against excessive force, prompting calls for clear rules of engagement.
Conclusion
The legal basis for using the U.S. military to quell riots primarily rests on the Insurrection Act, supported by constitutional provisions, but is constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act. Historical precedents show its use in extreme cases of civil unrest, often when state or local authorities are unable to maintain order. While legally permissible, such deployments are rare and politically sensitive, typically requiring a clear justification, such as a direct threat to federal law, constitutional rights, or public safety.

The Ferguson riots, also referred to as the Ferguson unrest or uprising, occurred in Ferguson, Missouri, following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old Black teenager, by white police officer Darren Wilson on August 9, 2014. The unrest involved protests, riots, looting, and clashes with law enforcement, sparking a national debate on race, police brutality, and the militarization of police. Below is a focused examination of whether the U.S. military was used to quell the riots, in line with your original question about legal and historical precedents for military involvement in domestic unrest.

Legal Context for Military Involvement
As outlined previously, the Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the President to deploy federal troops or federalize the National Guard to suppress domestic insurrections or riots when local or state authorities cannot maintain order. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 restricts federal military involvement in domestic law enforcement unless authorized by Congress or the Constitution, such as through the Insurrection Act. The National Guard, when under state control, is often deployed for civil disturbances, but federal troops are rarely used.

Military Involvement in the Ferguson Riots
During the Ferguson riots, the Missouri National Guard was deployed, but federal active-duty U.S. military forces were not. Here’s a detailed account based on available information:

Missouri National Guard Deployment:
On August 18, 2014, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon ordered the Missouri National Guard to Ferguson to help restore order after days of escalating violence, including looting, arson, and clashes between protesters and police. This followed incidents on August 17, where Molotov cocktails and gunshots were reported, and police responded with tear gas.
The National Guard operated under state control (Title 32), not federal control, meaning their deployment did not require invocation of the Insurrection Act. Their role included securing key areas, such as the police command center, to free up local law enforcement to manage protests and unrest.
Governor Nixon’s decision came after criticism of the initial police response, which involved militarized tactics (e.g., armored vehicles, tear gas, and riot gear), escalating tensions. The National Guard’s presence was intended to de-escalate by supporting local authorities without directly engaging protesters in most cases.

No Federal Military Involvement:
There is no evidence that President Barack Obama or federal authorities invoked the Insurrection Act or deployed active-duty federal troops (e.g., U.S. Army or Marines) to Ferguson. The response remained primarily a state and local effort, with federal oversight limited to investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI.
The federal government’s role was investigative, not operational. Attorney General Eric Holder visited Ferguson on August 20, 2014, to oversee federal inquiries into the shooting and the Ferguson Police Department’s practices, but no federal military forces were mobilized.
Controversy Over Militarized Response:
While the National Guard’s deployment was limited and state-controlled, the broader response by local police drew significant criticism for its militarized nature. Police used armored vehicles, military-style weapons, and tear gas, prompting debates about the militarization of law enforcement. Some U.S. military veterans criticized these tactics, arguing they escalated tensions and misused military equipment in a protest setting.
The Missouri National Guard’s internal documents later revealed that some personnel referred to protesters as “enemy forces,” highlighting a military mindset that fueled criticism of the overall response.
Historical Precedent Comparison
The Ferguson riots align with historical precedents where state-controlled National Guard units, rather than federal troops, were used to manage civil unrest:

Similar to the 1968 riots after Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, where National Guard units were deployed in cities like Washington, D.C., under state or federalized control, the Ferguson response relied on state authority.
Unlike the 1992 Los Angeles riots, where President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy federal troops and federalize the California National Guard, Ferguson did not escalate to a level requiring federal military intervention.
The Posse Comitatus Act ensured that federal military forces were not involved, consistent with the preference for local and state law enforcement or National Guard to handle domestic disturbances.
Key Outcomes and Context
Scale of Unrest: The riots began on August 10, 2014, with looting and arson (e.g., a QuikTrip convenience store was burned). Violence peaked again on November 24, 2014, after a grand jury declined to indict Officer Wilson, leading to widespread property damage, including a dozen buildings burned and 61 arrests in Ferguson.
Police and National Guard Role: The Missouri National Guard’s limited role focused on supporting police, who were criticized for tactics like the “keep moving” rule, later ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.
Federal Response: The Justice Department investigated the shooting and found systemic racial bias in the Ferguson Police Department, leading to reforms but no federal military action.
Public and International Reaction: The unrest drew national attention to the Black Lives Matter movement and prompted international criticism, with Amnesty International deploying observers to Ferguson, a rare move for the U.S.
Conclusion
The Ferguson riots of 2014 did not involve the use of the U.S. military under the Insurrection Act or federal authority. Instead, the Missouri National Guard, under state control, was deployed by Governor Jay Nixon to support local law enforcement in restoring order. This aligns with historical precedents favoring state-controlled National Guard over federal troops for domestic unrest, as seen in various 20th-century riots. The absence of federal military involvement reflects the high threshold for invoking the Insurrection Act and the preference for local and state responses, despite criticisms of the militarized police tactics used in Ferguson.

The same Fetterman who was called unfit and unstable here not too long ago due to his difficulties post stroke and because he was treated for his depression?

Desk trauma said:

The same Fetterman who was called unfit and unstable here not too long ago due to his difficulties post stroke and because he was treated for his depression?

Click to expand...

Yeah, the one the Democrats defended and said those things would not impede him

ozso said:

Source please?

Click to expand...

Whoopi and the View ladies have loads of friends in LA who said the riots started when the president, as usual, broke the law.

Fantine said:

Whoopi and the View ladies have loads of friends in LA who said the riots started when the president, as usual, broke the law.

Click to expand...

Whoopi and her friends are incorrect. Also, the President did not break the law. The President is enforcing the law.

Always in His Presence said:

John Fetterman Rips Fellow Democrats For Not Condemning LA Riots​

Click to expand...

There are no riots. How can one condemn that which does not exist?

The Democrats have nothing to apologize for here.

Vambram said:

Only people in the Democratic Party and their voters actually believe in the legitimacy of calling President Donald Trump a felon.

Click to expand...

Only criminals believe Trump is innocent.

BPPLEE said:

If she could just be unburdened by what has been

Click to expand...

What is and what should never be.

Fantine said:

Whoopi and the View ladies have loads of friends in LA who said the riots started when the president, as usual, broke the law.

Click to expand...

I looking for the source of "LA law enforcement said it was just a few troublemakers, perhaps even planted, until Trump unconstitutionally sent in armies to fight our citizens". Like a quote in a newspaper or a tweet from LAPD.

NxNW said:

Only criminals believe Trump is innocent.

Click to expand...

Trump is innocent of the crimes that he was accused of committing.