Troops Deployed Under Posse Comitatus and The Insurrection Act? (LegalEagle’s Law Review)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.lin... ⚖️
The military and national guard are being deployed. Is it a violation of Posse Comitatus?
Call your lawyer using Ting Mobile and get a $25 credit! legaleagle.ting...
⚖️⚖️⚖️Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my PRELAW COURSE:
legaleagle.tea...
©©©©© Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you (15% OFF!):
www.copyrightc...
★ A Few of My Favorite Things★
🕵️♂️My Custom Suits: legaleagle.lin...
👔My Ties: fave.co/2ImLY9I
📎My Tie Clips/Bars: amzn.to/2WIQ6EE
🔲My Pocket Squares: amzn.to/2UfsKtL
💈My Hair Product amzn.to/2Ui2aQx
📸My Video Camera Setup www.amazon.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Real Law Review by LegalEagle; a series where I try to tackle the most important legal issues of the day. If you have a suggestion for the next topic leave your comment below.
And if you disagree, be sure to leave your comment in the form of an OBJECTION!
Remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate. Stella is the LegalBeagle and she wields the gavel of justice. DO NOT MESS WITH STELLA.
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta: / stellathelegalbeagle
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv
![Cody Johnson - I'm Gonna Love You (with Carrie Underwood) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yy9PuYMU29g/mqdefault.jpg)
⚖️Should the federal military be activated?
☎️ Get $25 off of you first month with Ting Mobile legaleagle.ting.com
You are first. But in all seriousness, no. I don't think so. Our military is meant to protect the people, not kill them for using their rights.
@@raawesome3851 lmao
Thank you for doing your part
thx for making these vids as a person living in the uk it is confusing about any abuse of power in america and how trump gets away with things he does?
@@rosco4766 what's so funny?
I am amazed by the unlimited suit and tie combinations this guy has
Indochino
U forgot to whisper it
*hushed whisper* Indochino
quiet whisper only Cthulhu can hear: *indochinoooooooo*
He’s a lawyer, he gotta stay sharp.
If nothing else, 2020 is giving LegalEagle plenty of material to work with.
We have a saying for that in Norwegian. Roughly translated.
Nothing is so bad that is does not do anything good. (Sounds better in Norwegian)
Martin Klingenberg we have that too🇫🇴
@@martinklingenberg637 I like that. I'm gonna remember it.
@@martinklingenberg637 yeah it's a good day for George flyod
@@jaiparwani4279 Are you purposefully misunderstanding? The saying means just finding the silver lining. Very few bad things are fully all bad with all bad consequences. Like without Floyd's death none of this police reform was never even gonna be talked about, orcwithout covid some people would never spend time with family. Silver lining. And there are other examples.
Dude is working himself ragged to try and keep up with the insanity recently, and we appreciate your efforts Devin.
James Bremner Just need to market a line of cases to carry around those spare suits.
@LegalEagle Objection: do people have a right to peacefully assemble during a pandemic
Doubting Rich I would love so see some of the real lawyers pointing out his mistakes and biases. What channels? Do you have links?
Yeah... Doubting Rich, I’m gonna need links and names of lawyers that are saying this.
Preferably non-Faux news lawyers.
His name's Devin?
Sobering when LegalEagle reminds us that no, the law is not inherently on the side of doing the "right" thing, it's a tool that can be used or abused.
Joey Weisen One can interpret the law in a way that purposefully engenders, promotes, and permits abuse.
Abused by mayors to let millennials create an autonomous zone to murder people.
They set the church basement on fire prior to the bumbling photo op.
When it's been legal in the past to own slaves or illegal to vote because of your race or gender, or illegal to live because of your sexuality I simply can't understand why anyone would think the law has anything to do with being right.
That is why I love the movie Star Chamber because the murderers that got off on technicalities get hitmen sent to dispatch them with extreme prejudice for manipulating the justice system.
Darkest segue I've ever heard. "If you got unlawfully arrested for exercising your first amendment rights, why not use Bing to call your lawyer?" - Wow 2020, just wow.
I find it nice that he himself noticed how bad it is to do that
@@justinconnelly5011 Protestors and looting are different activities done by different people. Looters aren't the ones being shot at with rubber bullets and tear gassed; looters take shit and run away, they don't stick around.
@@justinconnelly5011 The thing is not everyone that is protesting are looting or burning down building, it is just opportunists that are taking advantage of this situation to be A**holes basically, but we cannot let those people make us loose focus from the injustice that has been going on in this country. We are not Democrats or Republicans this issue affects us all as American citizens!
@@jeuce111
Well said.
@@grmpEqweer Thank you I just think that people try to focus to much on political parties but do not understand that we are American first and foremost and we have to stick together or else the government will just walk all over us and take our rights away.
"So it's not clear how long he's going to be the Secretary of Defense," it's so sad because it's so true.
Trump called him into this office and he flipped his tone REAL quick.
"So it's not clear how long he's going to be the Secretary of Defense," unlike the calls on Ting where its crystal clear.
@@ariez84
lol! that's some cheese!
KEvron
Has Trump said he has "full confidence" in Esper yet?
@@dog61 That's like the equivalent of "You are my number 1 guy" in Batman 1989.
Moral of the story: We shouldn't rely on norms when it comes to laws. Lay it out in detail.
norms give presidents the necessary leeway to adapt. you can't foresee every situation when crafting a law. the moral is: do not elect someone who has no regards for norms and is clearly going to abuse his power.
Wrong.
moral of the story less goverment is a better goverment
@@gagetomerlin9822 how?
@@jy-op6cs not less government, but a system that works more to represent its people than gambling 4 years at a time to see how much hidden crazy there was...
As my own country and place of residence i like to pull up Switzerland as an example of a decent system that works to adjust to the will of the people, even if that will is misguided at times, i still prefer it to other systems. i know its not possible for a state as big as the US to effectively copy that and it has its disadvantages but there is examples of approximations out there.
"Bumbling example of a pretext". Absolutely brilliant!
"So it's not clear how long he's going to be the Secretary of Defense" that just made me laugh
💯
It's funny, depressing, and horrifying because it's true.
@@KonolaChopin i can picture Trump asking himself "wait, can i become secretary of everything while still being prez?"
@@edoardoprevelato6577 in all honesty he would just give it to Jared Kushner.
It's clearly going to be 4 more years. But, that was very funny Edoardo.
So the takeaway is that Posse Comitatus is one of those iconic, history textbook laws that, really, doesn't mean much in practice due to the loopholes.
It doesn't mean much in practice because its effectively "if you're a good person, you know what you should be doing"
Almost like Newcombe's paradox...
My understanding of Posse Comitatus is that it had less to with ever actually placing legal restraints on the president and more with expressing the desire that Military be used in only the most dire and urgent situations.
@@conniethesconnie So kind of like Nebraska's law involving tannerite, an explosive compound. It's technically illegal to have it, but you can get the two ingredients sold together, but if you are a dumbass with it they can charge you for possessing it.
(Someone blew out all the windows in a 5 mile radius)
@d bc - yes completely windowless Nebraska now ;-) ;-) ;-) ... all running linux now. **harr harr harr**
It is...sWiSS ChEesE
Can we all take a moment to appreciate how knowledgeable and honest he is? There are lawyers that use this knowledge in a selfish way and here LegalEagle is sharing his vast knowledge with us so we can better understand the law. Thank you LegalEagle, sincerely the less educated public.
I like to think hes teaching us to be better and more knowledgeable american citizens.
I’m sorry, but he is manipulating the facts here, making trump look like a tyrant rather than a helper. The so called “peaceful protestors”(note the air quotes) have been beating people into the hospitals, killed, looted, burned businesses, white AND black, including black cops, so if you call them peaceful I’m sorry for you. The cops have a right to gas and rubber bullet then. The cops have evacuated entire parts of cities, and hundreds of million dollars of property have been destroyed. The cops can no longer protect the people, there aren’t enough of them and too many rioters. If this is not the time to call in the military, than what is? Watch fox, or heck, even look at NBC, even they have given up on saying these are peaceful. CNN won’t even go to the ground because almost every protest goes to violence in half an hour.
Except he lied in the literal first 30 seconds of the video by saying Trump deployed the military against "peaceful protesters". A complete joke and twist of reality that is at best intellectual ignorance and at worst is intellectual dishonesty. The military was only deployed because amongst the "peaceful protesters" there began rioting, fires, theft, and vandalism of completely innocent peoples homes and businesses as well property in general, including ironically property belonging to those of African Americans, the very people these protesters are supposedly rallying for. Shame on him for spreading his political beliefs via misinformation especially to his large audience. Sincerely the less educated public indeed.
He isn't being honest or even relaying the facts of the matter correctly at all.
Signed - licensed to practice law in Canada.
@@Zack-bl2gg It doesn't matter, you don't use the military on your own citizens. I don't care if there were people that were being beat and killed, you let the citizens deal with that stuff, ya know like what actually happened. There were far more peaceful protest than there were riots. And the people that were rioters weren't protesters at all, they were opportunist. I know because I was there for the furgson shit that went down years ago. A member of my family was one of the dumbasses that went down there to loot and vandalize. He never wanted change. Also trump is a tyrant, you don't even joke about sending in the military on your own people.
I was in the National Guard for 8 years, deployed to Iraq in 2008 and the only deployment that filled me with dread and fear... was being deployed domestically, in fact there were several of us who secretly discussed not showing up. I'm thankful I never had to.
Edit: ofcourse with the exclusion of natural disasters, that's basically the definition of National Guard. I just couldn't imagine being asked to control or break up protests.
“There is a reason why you separate military and the police. One fights the enemy of the state the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.” -William Adama Commander Battlestar Galactica
SO SAY WE ALL
Wow Trump thinks he invented that.
in this case... the 'people' became the enemy of the states.!
when 'people' form a mob and begin rioting (vandalizing and looting in mass) then it is beyond regular police duties,.
Rubble Maker You’re making a broad statement. You should’ve said “some people” are looting and rioting.” Which, btw we’ve seen before during and after sports events. But the military was never threatened then, was it? I think it’s overkill. The looting and rioting is messed up and wrong, but if you turn the people into “the enemy “, you’re going down a slippery slope. Time to ease up
People who are doing a peaceful protest and having the First Amendment Rights being removed by armed soldiers could take up arms under the Second Amendment rules as well. The use of the Military should never be used unless complete and total loss of all rule has commenced. We have enacted Martial Law here in Canada in the past but not to attack peaceful protests even riot's were not ground's for that.
I love that he acknowledges how he plugged Ting was a little messed up hahah!
that moment where he lost it for a second.... on point
Sometimes you have to do what you have to do to keep afloat. Especially when it’s important you can produce vital content during a pandemic and a civil rights catastrophe on the federal level. But yah it is kinda weird
He can't have a show without funding
When you cringe on your own segue ;) Loved it.
he need the support. all of us would do the same. at least he make it entertaining by being self aware
So part that needs to be highlighted is that soldiers are legally obligated to refuse any order that is not lawful. So if say a soldier is ordered by his commanding officer to shoot non-lethal munitions at non-violent protesters is legally obligated to tell said officer "no" under UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). I'd recommend an in-depth dive into UCMJ to show civilians that the Military has rules in addition to local, state, and national laws.
Source: Served almost eight years in the Army National Guard across two separate states (Indiana and New Jersey)
And do you really think the majority of your former peers wouldn't act first and think later?
The problem is that it might not be unlawful
Yes but those laws don't mean anything if they don't choose to follow them. They're the ones with the guns.
Whose to say the soliders would say no?
Ah, yes... I would say the same to the so called Governors, but hay, corruption smiles.
this might not be of the same tone as the video, but I've always imagined that Mr. Legal Eagle is swinging his legs through his videos. Makes me giggle every time. Hope it makes someone else's day better. :)
It did
This made me very happy
Point of fact: “the distinction between norms and laws” could be uniformly applied to every facet of the current administration.
Trump 2024 - exhibit the destinction between norms and laws again!
might not roll off the tongue as well but it is painfully accurate.
“Rule by Fiat” is one
The 'norms' are exactly what got Trump elected.
Fool... That was here long before Trump is here now.
@@iCloxx
Trump was not the first, but hay, do you want an enemy you do not know? I wonder.
Can we all just take a second to remember that this man is still a practicing lawyer, yet still makes it's a point to research for his videos and willing to bet, write the script he needs to do these videos, then work with the editor to make sure the video is of consistent quality.
Legal Eagle is a boss! Keep doing you dude!
Lawyers don’t know every aspect of every law. They’re knowledgeable about the field they specialize in, but they don’t know every law.
@@dr.floridamanphd They sure as hell know how it works though and are able to teach themselves better than the average person about any other law.
Merle Periwinkle, I know how the law works too and I’ve never been to college. But I can read statutes and court rulings.
Law isn’t nearly as complicated as they want you to believe.
@@dr.floridamanphd that's a ridiculous statement, the law is incredibly complex and incredibly intricate. Anyone can read a statute, but knowing how to apply it, knowing what precedents apply, knowing the mens rea and actus rea that make up the burden of proof etc is far more complex than you are giving credit for.
There is a reason training to be a lawyer takes so long, I guess next you'll claim being a doctor isn't that hard?
@@dr.floridamanphd you're the problem we have in society where people make that huge leap (due to Narcissistic tendencies probably) because they can understand a few things that they know more than the professionals. That's why we have idiots running around without masks protesting for haircuts in states like Florida... oh.. now it makes sense.
Yet another law that sounds super strict and then you realize it's got so many.loopholes it is basically non-existent
Whenever these are passed, someone always objects and the argument " Well the president would never abuse this right " but what about the next guy? or the guy after him? or the guy after that. You aren't just giving the current president the power, you are giving them all it. It was asked if Obama had the right to crush a little boys testicles and the response was " It would depend why the president felt he needed to " and that isn't a no.
Yeah, its quite clearly a law that's more "if you're a good person, you know what to do"
@@captainplaceholder4482
That's how it should work. Presidents need power. I'm not sure if there is a possible way to do it otherwise. The system has already failed absolutely when someone like Trump is elected into office. Furthermore, if any position in government becomes fool proof, I have to ask what's the point of the position? It seems that preexisting law already has everything covered.
So many loopholes it's not a law, it's a crochet.
@@castonyoung7514 shut up lmao. Its people like you that are helping his reelection right now.
Anyone else looking back at this during the DC situation on January 6th 2021?
"and ill see you in court... Hopefully not literally" 😶
It's funny because he will see them in court
his saltiness during the paid promotion is absurdly refreshing
literally everyone soft clapping at that segue into the advertisement
That transition to an ad was kind of amazing.
Especially the "oh god." It was a pretty nice transition but _such_ a tonal shift!
While I was watching this, my mom came into my room and said
"Honey, have you heard?," "There are lawyers who are on Facebook!" I still can't believe or understand her excitement over it. It was weird. We don't even need a lawyer
Pedro Rosas Might wanna get prepared for a parental divorce...
@@yoda5280 Master Yoda what the heck dude
@@pedrorosas3842 gone senile he has, gotten over his divorce he has not
We don't even need FaceBook either.
In a revolution the lawyers will be shot too - in a socialist society no lawyers are needed.
It feels surreal seeing the news from the U.S. these days. Stay strong.
@Grailsarvas
Trump is simply a tool. The real war has yet to surface.
This is a worldwide thing. Not sure why you are trying to frame it as only an American thing.
@@compatriot852 wtf global? Where hahahahahahaha
OBJECTION
The one phone call thing is a tv and movie thing. You're never guaranteed anything when arrested.
How are you supposed to get your lawyer there? I dont see many policemen make the effort to look up their mumber and call them themself.
While the “one phone call” is a trope, you do have a right to contact counsel among several other rights that allow communication under certain circumstances.
At any point when you are being interrogated you have the right to say "I want my lawyer/I want a lawyer" and legally the interrogation must stop and a lawyer must be called for you. You are not garenteed the one phone call bs.
@@Jartran72 Sixth Amendment Assistance of Counsel clause. Basically they gotta.
If they don't, you raise a big stink about it and sue them.
If they instead give you unqualified counsel or someone who's throwing the defense, you have a different 6A case about the effectiveness of counsel instead.
Even if it has become somewhat of a norm (maybe? somebody check me on this) you'd probably be making a collect call from a landline. The chances of them letting you use your Ting mobile are laughably negligible.
"LawFare... Bar none..."
I see the thing you did there.
Would love to see you do something on the "Panic" defense and why it's can still be accepted in court. If not that, something for your LGTBQ Eagles. We're out here.
Jesus, I just looked that up, I had no idea this was a thing! It's basically saying "I dislike them too much, and therefore can't be held accountable for my actions." The worst part of it is that it still isn't banned in the US, aside from some states, and that it's been used fairly recently, and been used successfully a couple times.
@@MatthewSmith-sz1yq I just wanna clarify that the panic defense rarely ever works (but that it works at all is a shame). In the recent cases where it has worked, the panic defense "only" decreased the punishment but did not acquit the defendant. By using the panic defense, the defendant practically admits guilt.
@@georgebrantley776 yeah, unless you have that weird legal loophole where a jury thinks someone is guilty of a crime, but decides to let him off anyways. Hopefully this defense never resulted in this, but I know in the south there were several cases where the defendant even admitted to hanging a black dude, but then the jury refused to find him guilty because they didn't think he was "wrong" to do it.
Objection: "To Serve and Protect" is a slogan that was birthed from a PR campaign, not a mission statement. The police have the right to not serve or protect and this has been upheld by the Supreme Court. They have no 'duty to intervene' if they see and are capable of stopping a murder, for instance. The SC believes that the police forces of the US exist only to uphold laws, investigate possible crimes, and make arrests; not to maintain civil order, protect civilians, and et cetera.
Well they should.
@@JoshSweetvale There's a lot of things the police 'should be' which they aren't. Accountable for their actions, for one. Even if you manage to evade Qualified Immunity and successfully sue a police officer for violating your civil rights (good luck) guess who pays out? You do. The taxpayer pays it. How much does that impact the police budget if they have a friendly mayor and AG? Not a bit. So you sue them, you get your case won, and everybody *but* the police lose. We need serious, deep, reforms in our police forces.
One of my teachers used to be part of swat and he witnessed a arm robbery at a gas station but they didn’t do anything the reason that they gave him was that swat is not meant for petty crime or something like that.
Well isn't that false advertisement then?
Its actualy verry commen to see police not intervene, remember the fiasco where a civilian stoped someone on a train who was swinging a knife while police did not intervene until after the armed man was uperhanded by the civilian? Ofcourse police are not obligated to endanger there own lifes to save another. They are just as much people as enyone else who deserve to live another day. If you were legaly obligated to risk your life to save another nobody would join the police force that is actualy sane.
"In ways that most people would find unobjectionable, at least in this day and age" I'm not so sure anymore...
I was really thrown when he said this,
having just detailed that the insurrection act was used
1, 1957 Eisenhower used to escort students into school. (pro civil rights)
2, 1962 + 63 Kennedy used to enforce civil rights laws (pro civil rights)
3, 1967 Johnson used to stop riot after MLK assasination
(against civil rights)
4, 1992, Bush, used against race rioiters (against civil rights)
following the clip of GB saying "there are 3000 national guardsmen on duty... I will use whatever force necessary to restore order" @8:59 he says that it's use has been unobjectionable.
1967 MLK was assassinated, the people rioted and the army was used to stop people protecting and rioting against discrimination.
1992, four police officers were acquitted, following there being video evidence of them beating a black man. the army is called in to stop protests and riots that are against discrimination.
Then he says it's been used in ways that people don't find objectionable.
It's looking like 2020, insurrection act may be used (again) to suppress protests and riots that are (again) against discrimination.
I can't understand why for half the uses of this law it's been used to suppress those seeking equality, but to reasonable and educated people that use is "unobjectionable"
@Apathetic Apparition And to insure that no demonstrators are on camera when Trump stages a photo op.
Do we really expect him to ask (congress) for consent before he grabs us by the posse?
🤫😄☺️
Oh shiiiiiiiit 😂😂
Get that from Colbert, did we?
Good reference.
BSinNYC
Lol
Not to get into semantics though but doesn’t “let” imply consent?
Do you expect him to ask consent for anything 😳 and yes I got the joke but still valid question.
"A police force that is trained to serve and protect."
It seems "trained" is interpreted very broadly. Police that acts as judge and hangman at the same time don't seem very "trained" to me.
A lot of training is also more on establishing 'control' than any serve and protect ideal.
I was thinking the same thing, "A military that is trained to kill, and a police force that is trained to kill" would be more accurate it seems considering how often it occurs.
How long is the average police officer trained for in the US?
Over here in Portugal, a cop usually trained for a year then an internship. A chief needs at least 10 years experience and then another year course. And a higher officer goes to Police Academy for five years to get a degree in Police Science and then each promotion includes several months of training.
In contrast, you average army joe trains for 7 weeks plus 5weeks to 6 months of a specialty. Sargents train for 12 weeks plus 3 to 9 months of specialty. And an Officer either trains for six years plus a one year internship or the same as a Sargent if they are what we call Contract Officers (think a Lawyer who wants to become a Military Lawyer, or a PE teacher hired just for military fitness).
That means that the lowest soldier can be "ready" to kill in less than three months, but a cop/guard never less than a full year. And still our cops do have close ties to extreme right-wing, but at least they are not trigger happy.
You think "trained" is broad, wait till you see "serve and protect".
Heien v. North Carolina--cops do not need to know the law.
Gonzalez v. Castle Rock--cops do not need to enforce the law.
Warren v. DC--cops can twiddle their thumbs while you get raped for 14 hours, no matter how many times you call it in.
What you interpreted wrong was the "serve and protect". Because they are not there to serve and protect you, they are there to serve and protect the laws. They do not care about you.
11:55 "military that's trained to kill and a police force that's trained to serve and protect"
Looks like quite the opposite these days...
Oh, shut up.
@@HauptmannKrause nice way of saying you have no idea what your talking about.
Well though there definetly exists many bad cops i do think that its kind of over reacting to say that police on general wants to kill you.
After flicking through the Army Field Manual on Civil Disturbance (FM 3 19-15 if you're so interested) and assuming the deployed personnel followed the guidelines therein, IMHO, the military might actually do a *better* job at policing the protests and protecting the rights of the protestors than some of the police departments
on the flipside, a lot of PDs are backing off the riot responses, I just wish that it hadn't taken a week of bad press and lawsuits to get them there
@@ravengrey6874
it would probably depend on which elements of the military were called upon to do the job. army police should be very familiar with fm 3.19-15. other elements of the army have not been trained from that field manual and may not even know it exists. if, for example, an infantry unit were called upon to control a protest, they're much more likely to "wing it" and to fill in any gaps in their instructions with the training _they_ have received.
The Insurrection Act: *exists*
*Military:* _good soldiers follow orders_
*Civilians:* why do I hear boss music?
*Mayor Bowser:* THIRD AMENDMENT BITCHES!!! *maniacal laughter* GTFO outta my city.
-me being non-fluent in English, not even understanding the joke but still liking cause it sounds too funny not to-
@@mirakovacs6981 The Third Amendment (Amendment III) to the United States Constitution places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime.
Meaning that what happened in Washington DC was in violation of that amendment because they were quartered up in hotels which are private property and Bowser used this amendment to basically kick the troops the hell out of DC.
Who knew the 3rd amendment would ever be used in modern times lol
@@TheRibottoStudios ooooh wow! Thank you so much!
This channel is a blessing, so much misinformation and confusion going on and LegalEagle is managing to keep up with it. Must be an incredible amount of work. We appreciate it!
@@randomxnp "Real lawyers" what makes those real lawyers more real than him ?
@@tamhuy10 They actually practice law. This guy has a sole purpose of giving biased information. Emit Sullivan does not have total power or control over the Flynn case. Separation pf powers does actually exist. Executive branch brings charges and Judicial decides. Sullivan cannot do both no matter how much he hates Flynn.
@@randomxnp The Legal Eagle is much more qualified, your friend there Robert Barnes is a pundit who even failed an easy case like the one with wesley snipes. he's a hack. he's just bad-mouthing him because of his political leanings.
my goodness this has deteriorated into chaos so quickly
"Police force that is trained to serve and protect." Are you sure about that mate?
Pretty sure the courts have ruled that they have no obligation to do so, and that's not at all what their training it about (unless we're talking about serving and protecting themselves)
That is there goal not there obligation they are just people and shouldent be forced to take a bulet for someone else
The words I'm afraid should not be an option for police officer .
It is like when SPD tells protesters: "We care about your safety, and to prove it, we will mace, tear gas, flash bangs, and rubber bullets". WTF
@@dynamicworlds1 Do you have sources to share on what their training is? It's really important those things be brought up specifically so that they can be addressed for reform.
I'm glad you laughed at the darkness of that inglorious transition to your ad...lol. I did.
Oh wow, you're really putting a lot of videos out lately. Then again, I suppose there is a lot of scary stuff to talk about right now.
"I have pulled dead, mangled bodies from cars.
I have lied to people as they were dying.
I said you are going to be fine as I held their hand and watched the life fade out.
I have held dying babies. Bought lunch for people who were mentally ill and haven't eaten in a while.
I have had people try to stab me. Fought with men trying to shoot me.
I've been attacked by women while I was arresting their husband who had just severely beat them.
I have held towels on bullet wounds.
Done CPR when I knew it wouldn't help just to make family members feel better.
I have torn down doors, fought in drug houses. Chased fugitives through the woods.
I have been in high-speed car chases.
Foot chases across an interstate during rush hour traffic.
I have been in crashes. Been squeezing the trigger about to kill a man when they came to their senses and stopped. Waded through large angry crowds by myself.
Drove like a madman to help a fellow officer. Let little kids who don't have much sit in my patrol car and pretend they are a cop for their birthday.
I have taken a lot of people to jail. Given many breaks. Prayed for people I don't even know. Yes, and at times I have been "violent" when I had to be. I have been kind when I could.
I admit I have driven to some dark place and cried by myself when I was overwhelmed.
I have missed Christmas and other holidays more than I wanted to.
Every cop I know has done all these things and more for lousy pay, exhausting hours, and a short life expectancy.
We don't want your pity, I don't even ask for your respect. Just let us do our jobs without killing us"
Thank You Police Officers of#America
I remember talking about the rise of fascism in 1930s Europe with my students and they couldn't understand how the "decent people could just let that happen" and that was four years ago. I told them to watch what's happening in America right now, how facts and truth and human rights are becoming void terms. The same thing is a bit more stealthily happening here in the Czech Republic. It is scary.
Same in Germany.
Except it's more or less the rise of socialism and communism again in Europe. Nations, such as the UK becoming more authoritarian regarding speech, hundreds of permit/legalwork for everything, taxes up the ass.
Europe is just America on fast forward when it comes to the worse than could happen politically.
@Grailsarvas at length
@Grailsarvas I think its more a matter of how deep is appropriate to go. there is so much history to go through in so few years. you could go a year alone into the why and how of people allowing hitler to do what he did, you could go a year alone into the intricacies of Ceasars lifetime. or into almost any single topic. i know i had 7 years of history classes in Switzerland, 2 of those were spent in WW1 and WW2, one in middleschool and one in high school, there just is only so much you can fit in 1 year with 1 or 2 hrs a week. I am a curious one and i was lucky to also have taken philosophy, psychology and paedagogy in highschool which lent me some philosophical, sociological and psychological background, but i still feel like i dont know half the things id want to know about most time periods in history
@@compatriot852 my nation has gone through both and both extremes are horrible. And neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism work on their own. We need to accept that there is a middle ground and that we have to carefully negotiate where it is.
Another excellent explanation. Thanks. People seem to conflate "legal" with "moral", but the fact is that moral people can do illegal things, while immoral people can use the law in immoral ways.
Facts! Morality /=/ legality.
As a retired Constitutional Law Professor, I have issues with your interpretation of the Insurrection Act. Using definitional reasoning, a basic component of legal analysis insurrection is defined legally as a form of sedition, rebellion against the government. which would not by any stretch of the imagination include First Amendment-protected Free Speech. Governor Abe Fortas was engaging in insurrection by refusing to obey a Supreme Court ruling. He was disobeying a Federal kaw The situations are completely different. Most civil disturbances are violations of State law, not Federal law. That is why Governors have correctly argued that they must invite Federal troops in. That is arguably what happened in California in 1992. We must not forget that we have a Federal system of government where most policing power resides within the States. The District of Columbia is on horrific exception where America has imposed taxation without representation.
Is not a protected right and neither was the Boston Tea Party which was nothing but looting. Oh, I forgot that it was done by White people so people like you think it was OK even though ot was illegal.
John Armwood, don’t feed the troll. He’s posting that comment everywhere.
When you see some one trying to suppress their anger disgust. And discuss things clearly. This man is impressive.....can the people impromptu vote to remove donald trump from office?
Unfortunately no. The Founding Fathers didn't think a mutated subhuman moron like Trump would ever get into the White House, so they made no provision for removal of the President beside the conventional one, impeachment. Which, thanks to the cowardice and tunnel vision of a few dozen other subhumans, failed to do so.
"(...) a police force which is trained to serve and protect." Not sure about that one, chief.
Yep. The police have become a paramilitary force; I see no real difference between them and the military in this context.
@@FarnhamJ07 us military police try everything to not end up with a lot of paper work and explain to our chain of command what happened. then go to a court like trial to explain why we use deadly force. Police just write one paper and that it.
Lack of mechanised Armor divisions, no artillery parks, no air strike on call, no standard issue flak jackets, camo or gun emplacements.
The police couldn’t hold Kabul as they are now.
Much less a major us city with much more hostiles and no permission to actually engage the enemy.
@@dennis4774 pretty much. The problem is the police have slowly been given more military might without the corresponding restrictions and checks the military has.
@ They don't seem to need permission to engage the "enemy". Which in this case you're referring to your fellow citizens as enemies, kind of surreal.
I’m a long-time watcher and I’m truly enjoying the recent frequency of your videos but the content is far more depressing, mirroring what the world is feeling, I suppose. But these are topics that NEED to be covered and the world crying out in pain might just be crucial for desperately-needed change to the system as more and more people are finally accepting as truth that humanity has been in pain for so long and this pain is just now finally being heard and seen. I’m glad you’re able to cover it with some impartiality by providing multiple sides (something the general public needs to learn how to digest and then put to use themselves.). Although some topics might come with intense indigestion, there’s always Tums and Omeprazole** to rectify those isssues that so I say: write on and keep ‘em coming!! Thanks, Devin!
(**Note: I’m neither a medical professional nor providing medical advice for other viewers.)
You _really_ need to reposition that disclaimer...
Lmao at the non-medical-advice! 😂 Agreed on all points, and well said! I wish more people approached topics with Devin's level-headed, fact-based logic.
That self realization at how horrible the situation is that you paused to laugh at the t-mobile ad that people really do need a lawyer and a call lest they be imprisoned quietly illegally.
"It is unclear."
FAMOUS LAST WORDS OF A DYING DEMOCRACY..
Technically, the federal electoral (college) system of government used in the United States is not democratic.
America isn't a democracy its a constitutional republic
@@DougHanchard
True Democracy is a failed democracy because only the mob rules above all.
@@DougHanchard If you want to be pedantic than at least do it correctly. While it may not be a "true democracy" (which is a debatable point in itself), it is certainly democratic. Did you catch the difference in the wording? ;)
You mean such as in all the western democracies that do not rely on an electoral college - all except the US?
Nothing like trying times to keep a lawyer (and even a legal educator) busy!
TL;DR- Would it be possible for State police to arrest Troops illegally used within a State?
I asked this the other day but the comment got lost in the commotion. If Trump deployed the military into a State in a way that is illegal, could State police arrest the troops? If the deployment is illegal wouldn't the troops lose any immunity they might have and could be arrested just like any other armed civilian trying to control people by force?
This might be a way for State police to prevent escalation. A debatable but likely significant number of soldiers might fire on civilians if ordered, I can't imagine that a significant number of U.S. soldiers would be willing to fire on Law Enforcement in the name of "law and order".
Keeping in mind, this would be in a situation where the deployment isn't legally justifiable.
And because it never can be said enough to everyone: Remember to Vote.
That would be fun thing to watch.
You have to have power backing you to enforce arrest.
And police dont have that power over military.
THAT WOULD BE AMAZING TO WITNESS.
I feel like, even if it's legally possible, practically it isn't
Something like that might happen, but it would not likely be a mass arrest of troops, but rather, a negotiation between the state governor and the military commander.
What law?
You seem to be wrong on history and law and well in to fantasy land. Cops arresting troops? Seriously....
During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard set up at the private airport near my neighborhood and flew supplies to Bay St.Louis, Gulfport, and Biloxi as the Hwy 90 Biloxi Bay Bridge was destroyed. There were Humvees at intersections and armed guardsmen throughout our city. It was a surreal experience for sure.
when i first started watching your channel years ago, i would have never imagined that it would become one of the most important channels on youtube ever
yeah, but it isnt.
He isn't correctly explaining this by any means. Please look it up for yourself. He isn't even correctly relaying the facts of the situation leading to this.
@@abbadabbafartcum He's totally emotional and does not see this rational and unbiased.
17:40 "it's not clear how long he will be secretary of defense" 😂😂😂 savage
That could alsi mean that it will change the name back to the old "secretary of war".
@@alexandrub8786 Or it could change to a "new" one like... Secretary of Peace.... if you know what I mean. O.O
This came to mind The troops massed on the Ellipse, right outside the White House: More than two hundred soldiers on horseback, plus men on foot and five tanks.
On July 28, 1932, at the command of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, they marched down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol to launch an attack on World War I veterans.
The "Bonus Army".
They called the WW1 veterans "communist and criminals" just to smear them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
It's telling that not only the veterans and their families were driven off and their possessions burned or trashed, but some were killed. The veterans were hungry and out of work and wanted to cash in their certificates early because they didn't want to wait until 1948. Calling in the Army to force them to disperse was at the direction of Herbert Hoover.
In 1933 a smaller group collected in DC, again asking the feds to allow those certificates to be cashed in. Roosevelt's response was totally different. He offered them jobs in the Civilian Conservation Corps (most of them accepted), and those that refused the work were given free transportation home.
@Filip Nikolic Patton was insane nutjob who would gladly join the Nazi party if the circumstances were slightly different. His accident in WW2 was lucky break that probably prevented WW3 from erupting...
@@KuK137 At least he's less of a nutjob than you.
Omg since when does he have 1M? Feels like yesterday when he just started and reacted to series and stuff. Well deserved!
Nothing says Dystopia like shoehorning the sponsor message around abuse of rights.
The unquestionable thing we can all agree is, how extremely well prepared the Army is in comparison to the police. Such difference shouldn't be so extensive and gigantic.
That's because the Army has been doing hearts-and-minds work in the Middle East for two decades now, so they've received training in proper force escalation and not acting like a bunch of jack-booted thugs. Police departments train FOR that mentality.
Army personnel also actually get in trouble (with teeth, not paid vacations) if they do awful things. Well, unless Trump pardons them, but that guy was a Navy SEAL, not Army.
Also, the National Guard is the branch that should be doing any necessary work within the US, since that's their role. Those people are mostly normal people who have taken on the National Guard as a side job to help people in disaster relief.
So the difference between a civilian working in law enforcement and a military living a military life?
Would you prefer the law enforcement be taken care of by military personel instead?
snaplemouton no because as soon as that becomes one of their established purposes then the same issues that we have with the police might pop up. The military may be doing a better job because of the fact that they’re not used to this and they’re being more careful
I don't think any of you have the slightest clue how the military works. No soldiers don't view themselves as policeman other than military police. But when the military faces resistance it applies extreme force. And example explain to people for years when a confident police force has bad people and an apartment building they surround the apartment building and negotiates to get everyone out safely and take the perpetrators into custody. When soldiers face that level of threat they level the building
Not going to lie, you're a big help through all of this as an outsider to the ins and outs of US law. Thank you for breaking down everything into manageable chunks and conveying the information in a calm, conversational manner.
Is anyone else someone from a European country, watching everything go down
Yeah, having fun watching the show.
Helping me ignore my country collapsing
Most of Europe isn't any better.
10:10
WOWOWOWOWOWO..... As an European citizen, let me get this straight.
What you're telling is, that up until 2005 (Hurricane Katrina) US armed forces were simply not allowed to help in case of natural disasters (or to say it better: were not allowed to be ordered to help)?
As an Austrian (we don't have a professional army instead of a general conscription system) I find this highly concerning, as in our country, protection and help in the case of natural disasters is the second highest ranking order, only next to comprehensive national defense. Is there a possibility to elaborate on that matter?
One way to look at it is that the United States isn't a country, it's an empire. There are multiple nations under the US, and they don't really like each other. Would Austrians be comfortable with a EU federal army having broad latitude in Austria? The potential for simple misunderstandings turning tragic is high. Especially if that army has spent the last 75 years conducting brutal counter-insurgency wars.
The US Military has ALWAYS rendered aid. Such as the Berlin Airlift, famine relief in Africa and aid to communities experiencing disaster here at home. From Mutual Aid in case of Off-Base fires to airlifting endangered citizens overseas.
What was different in Katrina was the use of Armed Military Police to assist in providing Law Enforcement services to overtaxed municipal, parrish, state and National Guard units.
the purpose of the US military is to invade and massacre non US people. and sometimes US citizens too, like in the area 51 raid.
they are not shy about this, they are even proud of being mass murderers.
@@AsBobSeesIt Having these examples in mind, I was actually curious and this is the reason, why I asked. Thanks for clarifying.
Me, watching him damn near cry talking about this: how is he possibly going to segue to his sponsor?
Legal Eagle: nails the landing perfectly. Frighteningly perfectly.
11:54 a police force that *SHOULD* be trained to serve and protect. its not what we have though.
They should be required to have a college education (psychology, sociology, criminal justice) instead of taking the first low lives who dragged their feet through high school.
@@alexanderrobins7497 Unfortunately there are plenty of good people who would be interested in being police officers, but the pay isn't high enough for a life-risking job (even without college debts involved), and then combine that with being in a position where so many people think its perfectly okay to verbally abuse you just for taking a profession where you're risking your life often times to help people - it really all pushes away lots of people from wanting to take the job, even if they'd be a good fit and able to perform it well.
Exactly. Our police force is militarized to protect us from citizens who have also militarized themselves...it’s ridiculous. We should be focusing on demilitarizing our society as much as possible
@@SwtBeat lol and how do you plan to do that?
I'm Canadian, and we have our own policing issues. But y'all seem insane. Post-secondary education in a relevant field is nearly a necessity here.
A constable in my city starts at just shy of 50k (USD) and within a few years easily 75k(USD). How much do you pay your cops? It's a really hard job, they should be paid fairly.
I want to say a sincere thank you for these rapid-fire law review videos you've been putting out to help everyone better understand everything during these tense and difficult times.
I always love your segues into the ads, I really appreciated your chuckle at the absurdity in this case. Thanks for the informative vids as always.
I just became the Title IX coordinator for our higher-ed school, can you do a video about that position and the new regs? I’m overwhelmed that it’s such an intricate process for live hearings and have a full-time position in addition.
Trained to kill versus trained to protect, well, there's you're problem. You've got two trained to kill and none to protect.
I heard someone make the argument that soldiers have more training in deescalation than the police do.
For a "free country" you sure give dictatorship level of authority to your president.
Yep, it's a sign of how free we really are that those powers have been so rarely used, and typically only in some fairly extreme situations, even though the bar to use them is pretty open ended, as LE just explained. The tools are there, and it's our duty to elect people who will use them responsibly.
@@adamcarroll9613
Or, you could do what Germany did after WW2 and take a look at all those laws and modernise accordingly...
I know, crazy!
Yeah, the thing about that is that power is designed to be used in emergencies, such as a full-on rebellion, or an invasion of the homeland. It is not designed to be used on people who take advantage of peaceful protests to commit petty theft and vandalism.
oof
That’s why there is always talk on the president. Everyone in the country needs to know how they react to recent events and such. This is also why there are so many branches and restrictions to the president-to keep them in check.
The way you laughed doing your transition to Ting was great
Oh god I've got to do an ad. I can at keep a straight face, I know how ridiculous it is...
LBJ: deploys Insurrection Act for "rioting" over MLK
Bush Sr.: deploys Insurrection Act for "rioting" over Rodney King
- and now -
Trump: deploys Insurrection Act for "rioting" over George Floyd
Imagine thinking the George Floyd riots were protests.
@@JaredKelso123 Just because there was violence doesn't mean it wasn't a legitimate protest.
@Purplefood when you condone violence, you lost the argument
@@daveinspiration7333 Which is what you do every time you support the police (as they exist). You tacitly condone violence with your silence and indifference at all times, and then try to dictate to others how they make their voices heard when "not making anyone uncomfortable" has, as is intended by the disingenuous, fallen on deaf ears. Where do you want to go when taking a respectful knee has the president calling you a son of a bitch, and then someone kneels for 8m 46s until another PoC dies?
But, most relevantly, you conflate lives and property, and would damn the founding fathers by your words. You either don't believe them or are worse than I could imagine you pathetic piece of shit.
Dave Inspiration not really lol....actually that’s stupid because there is something called realism
I am loving your videos about the protests! Your video about Lafayette Park was so moving. Thank you for using your platform
You know that station is bad when Nixon's actions are multiple times mentioned as a better example...
Hahaha this made my day
this channel made me decide I want to pursue law school!
You have the right to protest, not to riot.
I see no problem with stopping looters and rioters.
I DO have a problem with violence against protests.
problem is the looters and people starting riots leave immediately when the police/ military start taking action, leaving none violent protesters to be assaulted and arrested by the police/ military police. couple cities had cops starting shit specifically to justify force, other areas have white supremacists and even just regular anarchists going our to make protesters look violent. They pulled similar shit during the 60's to make the protesters look bad and to justify the use of force.
Roderico
Read my comment.
Again, you have the right to protest and anyone who tries to stop you is wrong.
You do not have the right to riot or loot and you should be stopped if you do.
That is what I am saying, that is what I believe, end of story.
The difference between past protests was, people weren’t there to destroy property.
among other good points that LegalEagle made, the spotlight on the role of the courts to expand and contract civil liberties, particularly the restrictions around the public's ability to protest bear repeating. We don't end up in a situation where the president can clear out peaceful protestors because he wants to stage a photo-op overnight. People have been fighting these battles in court for decades to maintain our right to meaningful exercise of our civil liberties, but the courts will often adopt the most government friendly interpretation of the laws; they, by and large, believe that the appropriate method of redress are the elections for the legislature, not court intervention. If there isn't sustained public pressure on our elected officials, we will be the land of the free in name only.
I object to further limiting posse comitatus and The Insurrection Act. The remedy, in this case, appears to be the removal of the orangutan authoritarian rather then the limiting of laws that have served well with more reasonable people in that office.
For your second question, as a veteran, there is absolutely no reason to activate the military unless, perhaps, they are being activated to "protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic." in this case there is one specific domestic enemy of the Constitution, Donald J. Trump.
Interesting that the Navy (the second oldest service)-and its Marine Corps-are not mentioned in the statute as quoted here. Also, the Rubicon was not a norm. Roman law expressly forbade a Roman general to cross it with an army.
That's the definition of a norm. Norms are behaviours that are seen to be desirable and important enough to reinforce with social, political, or legal punishment if they are broken.
you are correct sir!
And I've seen numerous videos from veterans condemning the president's actions has unconstitutional and unlawful.
@@BigHenFor while that is the definition I think he was using norm more in the sense of a precedent
@@BigHenFor The video literally has a section called laws vs norms, did you watch it? Legal punishment is what makes a norm a law. Being a law is literally not the definition of a norm and being a norm is literally not the definition of a law. Again, this was in the video. Try again. Also he's right about Roman history, other than the fact that generals were both legally forbidden from crossing the Rubicon with an army *as well as* it being the norm not to do that.
If it's really a Norm, they'll let it know as soon as it walks into Cheers.
My grandpa was actually in the 101st airborne in 1957 and was deployed to Little Rock as part of that group.
not gonna OBJECT here, but LET THE RECORD STATE that you don't have to call them "rubber bullets", they're not rubber, they're a thin rubber coating over giant steel bullets (and sometimes just uncoated hardwood btw), made to look "humane" but capable of dealing more (and often long term or lethal) damage than a clean small caliber "live ammunition" shot.
"rubber bullet" is a misleading term. they aren't shooting people with rubber, they're shooting them with oversized bullets.
also, since you mentioned the "distinction between a military that's trained to kill and a police that's trained to serve and protect", first, good one, second, the military is better at deescalating than the police, so yeaaah....
Can they consistently pierce the body and destroy vital organs?
The proper term is "less lethal"
@@Freekymoho pierce the body? only partially (as in "they don't go all the way through", which you normally would a bullet want to do, to prevent infection, embedded shrapnel etc), which is why i said normal bullets are "cleaner".
destroy vital organs? definitely. i've seen them literally embedded halfway into people's skulls, with the bone fractured and brain leaking out.
that said, the issue is that we even have to have this talk, since when did the acceptable response to "people are outraged because our paramilitarized police force forgot their job and start torturing and murdering people for no reason" become "torture and murder more people"?
@@Freekymoho It's not necessary to pierce into the body to kill a person
@@Freekymoho
I know a rubber bullet put out that one journalist's eye, the cop shot her in the face.
Soldiers did go to Louisiana during that hurricane, I know because I was there serving in the military at the time, sent from a base in Texas.
Yes, but not under Insurrection Act powers. Mostly what happened was, that all the military in Louisiana wasn't FEDERAL authority. Rather other states national guards were send to Louisiana and while there were technically under authority of Louisiana Governor just as Lousiana National guard is. This then avoided all Posse Commitatus etc. questions since almost all States codes say Governor has wide power to use their Guard inside the State to keep order. Lousiana Guard just swell in size overnight and lot of the members weren't from Lousiana.
As I understand also Federal soldiers were send, but worked in support etc. and not in order keeping duties. Again in order to avoid Posse Commitatus and Insurrection Act. Providing transport, search and rescue, logistics etc.
Of course technically on the ground this was all kinda her nor there with Pentagon organazing much of everything to coordinate, but as said technically, legally all the order keeping on the ground was under authority of Louisiana Governor via Louisiana National Guard.
Same happened also in neighboring affected states. All military acting in various states to keep order was under State Governor, thus avoiding questions of "Is President being tyrannical and using military on US soil?".
Devon: “this video is sponsored by ting mobile”
Me: “the ting goes skraa”
Skebe pop pop
Skrrrraaaat
#bristolstatue #tearitdown #blacklivesmatter
And duku doo toon toon
Real talk here, though:
If Dwayne Johnson does actually decide to run for President, he's going to need a running mate. Ideally, one who is well versed in the workings of the American legal and political systems. One who could match his charisma and character, and give him proper insight to being an effective politician. Someone like you, Devin.
With close examination of both candidates currently, it is clear that much of the US is not too excited about this coming election. I am confident that a Johnson/Stone 2020 ticket would bring millions of traditionally non-voters out of the woodwork.
The Rock and The Eagle. I would ship that so hard.
I say Kevin Hart
And I dint read full comment
I love you how he laughs at the obscenity of the advertisement. He has to do it, but oh god is it dystopic and he knows it. "Try new hand made Soylent Green"
8:23
Because of Drunk History, I will never refer to that Arkansas governor as anything other than Orvile Fart Bus. Thank you, Amber Ruffin.
I've said for a while, the US president has an unconscionable amount of power in the US system. It makes it even worse when you consider he's typically the leader of the main component of the legislative branch and also appoints the members of the judicial branch. Seperation of powers in the US is tenuous at best and the president has many ways which he can unilaterally implement his will. The monarchy doesn't have anywhere near as much power as the president, even prime ministers don't come close. This has been the case for a very long time by the way. The system was set up with a certain understanding of a balance of power between the states and the federal government. As the authority of the states has been eroded, the president's power has gone far beyond what is warranted. This didn't just start with trump, this has been set up by previous administrations and handed off to trump. Remember, as obama was on his way out, knowing the big bad orange man was coming into office, he increased government spying powers.
Fancy seeing you here, fren
Okay, there are literally buildings on fire and stores being looted, at what point ARE we allowed to let big daddy government to take off the belt and get to work?
It's a matter of state vs federal authority. Nobody wants to occupy their own country. It's very bad press and very demoralizing. The troops themselves would not like it.
Like the big OP said: there's a bad pretext of force being used in response to 'looters' against peaceful protesters.
John Doe What is also demoralizing is Antifa running amock and destroying majority black neighborhoods. But hey, feel free to watch your cities burn and for the cops and Feds to do nothing while they do so they don’t hurt your feelings. I’ll be out in the countryside minding my own business and sipping sweet tea.
" *against* the american people."
That says an awful lot.
I dare say that protesting =/= insurrection.
If they attack the peacekeepers and burn down + loot civilian property, maybe it is insurrection
@@duckshallrule6937 So you're one of those idiots who is too dense to differentiate between people peacefully protesting and looters. Good to know, that means your opinion is worthless
The right to protest does not include the right to riot, insurrection is basically just an old-timey term for rioting.
@@Jack-tm4er It would be super cool if law enforcement would only focus their efforts on rioters and not peaceful protestors, but they aren't.
2020policebrutality.netlify.app/
I really like your legaly sane arguments in thise insane times
@@randomxnp
Objection! Calls for hearsay ...
But seriously, as I have already asked, in a non-partisan way ---- I would like to hope --- for actual evidence, to prove your point. If he is a failed Corporate Lawyer, then it should be easy, if you also belong to the legal profession, to provide evidential proof to your statement ... otherwise you'll be the one to be called the idiot ...
... For as I learnt in school, decades ago, especially in English Literature, that which is asserted without evidence, can be equally dismissed without evidence ...
@NW Emerson
Well he certainly isn't a Marcus Aurelius ... even being a Nero may be somewhat better ...
@@nigelft yeah, but at least we have any excuse to think that _Nero_ could actually play worth shit...
Woah, didn't think my commant would turn to this heated argument :o
I¨'m an outsider from Norway, but that shouldn't mean I can't have an opinion.
I might be bias towards Devin, but I disagree more to Trumps actions than someone who may or may not be a respected lawyer.... But if I'm not totally wrong here, I'm seeing some similarities between Trump reenforcing states with military and other state leaders using the military against their people... (I know he's using them against the looters and the people being agressive against the police, but in my opinion, that's just a stepping block to crack down on the protesters)
18:20 i loved that dying moment with your sponsor lmao
Why did the chicken cross the road? To get his picture taken in front of a church.
BECAUSE THE CHICKEN WAS FOOCKING RAW !!!
-Gordon Ramsey
Mr Bone Splints the Draft Dodger is gonna call out the Army? Ridiculous.
You need to get on the Joe Rogan podcast. That's would be an amazing interview.
Yes, please do this.
Indeed
Can someone explain:
tiananmen square where the military was sent in to clear out protestors was horrible
Lafayette square where the military was sent in to clear out protestors was ok.
Racism.
Some of those that run forces are the same that burn crosses.
There is literally no point of comparison with the horrible acts of the CCP to what Trump is doing, don't get things out of proportion.
@@alex8130a Except you can easily compare the two acts as they are both immoral and not too far from one another.
@@pakman184 used illegal force*
Non-violent protest in a public space is a right afforded by the Constitution, and cruel and unusual punishment is also barred by the same document.
No crime, no punishment. It's simple.
pakman184 you make two points:
1. The Chinese government tried to cover it up. I refer you to the ABC news article: www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-calls-tear-gas-reports-fake-news-protesters/story%3Fid%3D71052769
Also abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-denies-ordering-protesters-forcibly-removed-church-photo/story?id=71042680
2. No-one died at Lafayette square. I would claim that this is fortuitous. As Barr said the the protestors were charged by mounted police, police fired canisters of noxious smoke into the crowd and (as seen on videos) use shields to attack people, we are lucky there are no deaths.
Ref: www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-again-defends-police-move-on-demonstrators-outside-lafayette-square-in-an-account-that-belies-what-happened/2020/06/07/31a0833a-a8d6-11ea-a9d9-a81c1a491c52_story.html%3FoutputType%3Damp
Great content LegalEagle! I learn so much here.
9:10 "In modern times, the Presidential use of the Insurrection Act has generally been used to enforce civil rights... and has generally been used in ways that most people find unobjectionable."
I don't understand what you mean here. Your description of LBJ's and George H.W. Bush's use of the act (to stop race riots) seems almost identical to Trump's use of the Act.
The difference is that the current riots are pretty much over with because the cops were actually arrested and are being charged (for now, there will definitely be more riots if they are acquitted). Trump isn't actually threatening to use the military to stop riots, he's using the false pretext of riots to crush lawful and peaceful political protests.
I suppose the keyword here is "generally", meaning some exceptions have been voiced, though I agree the wording was a tad confusing especially with the close proximity.
@@ashkebora7262 lmao a "few looters". No, people are straight up rioting
@@dyslexicbatnam1350 Some people are so sucked into their echo chambers that they will defend mass violence against civillians if it furthers their politics.
Ash Kebora these rioters are not just throwing rocks, they are planting explosives, performing drive-by shootings, and throwing deadly fireworks at police. And rather than protesting at the mayors and the governors, who actually manage the police and would likely fold, they are claiming this is somehow trumps fault because the politicians that the protestors elected don’t care about the black community. And then they destroy the black community. Since the protesters are failing to peaceful assemble in quite a few places, it would be trumps obligation to halt the rioting mobs.
1:13 “it’s simply BAR none the best...” haha I see what you did there
Alright, time for a veteran to chime in...
The news has shown that everyone doesn't mind fighting the local police but not everyone has the same mind to even dare stand against the Army.
Now, everyone likes to call out police brutality but the Army keeps such a tight leash on the Soldiers in general that there are too few incidents of Soldiers taking aggressive action against civilians besides the Ohio state shooting and a few others.
There is a significant difference between using Military Police to aide municipal police and the deployment of an Infantry unit. Where law enforcement understands chargeable offenses, the regular Troops only receive a briefing on the task, purpose, and intent before the establishment of the Rules of Engagement.
Soldiers are more reluctant to fire a weapon with the understanding of possible consequences under the UCMJ that can and will ruin their lives should they be punished.
Not to mention that every tactical unit looks for orders from higher before the use of force where as law enforcement is semi individually responsible for use of force.
To wrap up this comment, all I can say is that Soldiers genuinely want to serve the people of the United States in any way possible, be it relief efforts, security, etc. No civilian should EVER be afraid of the American Soldier unless they present themselves in a clearly hostile situation. We all have family, we all have friends, and we all signed away our lives to support America.
Thank you for doing these videos. I have a Master of Jurisprudence (Energy Law), which I haven't used in a few years. Your videos help me stay in touch with my legal education.
Trump lost my vote with his actions at Lafeyette Park and St. John's Church.
Thanks you gave me hope XD
Feel free to doubt and hate Biden or whoever your voting for next. You must've been _blind_ to stick with Trump this long.