Can President Trump Really Send In The Troops To Chicago And Other Cities?
By: President Trump (JONATHAN TURLEY)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
We have previously discussed how President Donald Trump has repeatedly asserted constitutional authority that he does not have in dealing with the pandemic. The President routinely ignored the principles of federalism in such claims of control over states in their internal health and policing decisions. He is not alone. Cities like Portland have demanded that federal officers leave the city and stop making arrested. While there are legitimate questions raised about the conduct of federal officers in putting people into custody and the use of force in Portland, those concerns related to the use of federal powers, not the basis for those powers. The federal government has full authority to protect federal buildings and to carry out arrests for federal crimes in any city. Current reports coming out of the White House appear to refer to surging law enforcement personnel, not sending military personnel. That would be constitutional if used for protect federal assets or enforce federal laws. That is the flip side of federalism. But how about the recent claims that the President is about to take over policing from cities like Chicago? The answer is that such a federal deployment without a request from the governors would be unwise but would be legal. However, there are practical and legal reasons why such any massive deployment is unlikely.
President Trump has declared that he will send in federal forces to quell the violence in cities like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore and Oakland, California. He has used these threats to highlight what he calls the poor records of "liberal Democrats" like Chicago's Mayor Lori Lightfoot. The constant reference to the party affiliation of the mayors by the President only diminishes the position of the federal government is taking any action in these cities.
As many on this blog know, I am from Chicago and most of my family still lives there. I am devastated by the violence shown every night on television. However, President Trump is suggesting an unprecedented deployment if he is serious in saying "We're sending law enforcement. We can't let this happen to the cities."
What he can clearly do is what he did in Portland. Send in federal forces to protect federal buildings and arrest those who commit federal offenses. That can lead to an expanding presence. As more protesters respond to the federal presence, the federal forces can be expanded at their discretion to meet that challenge. It can become a cause-and-effect controversy like the one being raised in Portland. However, a judge who orders the federal forces reduced or out of the city would face a rapid appeal and reversal in my view.
That type of deployment to protect federal enclaves and buildings can be done without any special proclamations or orders. It is part of the inherent authority vested in the federal government. Indeed, it does not even require a special executive order. The Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security may deployed federal officials to protect buildings, support law enforcement activities, or carry out arrests. These are not military troops, but law enforcement personnel being assigned law enforcement duties. The fact that the cities have not requested additional federal law enforcement personnel is relevant to their legality of their deployment.
President Trump's rhetoric suggests something far more robust. He is referring to rising shootings and criminal acts in these cities. To combat such crime, the federal deployment would have to be massive. First there is the question of simple practicality in such claims. Sending in a couple hundred federal officers will do little to quell the violence in the neighborhoods of Chicago — far removed from federal buildings. On a practical level, it is hard to see how even a military force could do so short of imposing martial law over millions of Americans. Most of these shootings have occurred in neighborhoods far removed from riots or protests. The Chicago Police Department has roughly 12,000 officers. The First Army Division is roughly 18,000 soldiers. It would take a division or more to substantially increase patrolling in actual neighborhoods as opposed to hotspots like those around federal buildings. Of course, that is what President Lyndon Johnson did in 1967 when he sent in the 82nd and the 101st Airborne Divisions to Detroit to quell riots after the assassination of Martin Luther King.
Second, there is the authority. We previously discussed this issue in relation to Washington, D.C. and Seattle where I criticized the President for exaggerating his authority in threatening to send in troops. I also criticized the respective mayors in those cities for their own statements.
As I have previously stated. police powers in the United States mostly reside with the states. The Constitution gives Congress authority to overcome disturbances. It can "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions."
With the Insurrection Act, Congress authorized presidents to use troops in response to rioting that "opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws." The president may intervene if requested by a state legislature to suppress an insurrection. The Insurrection Act also allows for unilateral action for cases of unlawful obstruction, assemblies, or rebellion against the United States.
President Trump does have unilateral authority under the law. Indeed, the recent efforts in the House by Democratic members like Rep. David N. Cicilline to limit the Insurrection Act acknowledges that he does have the ability to make such a unilateral proclamation. It can be challenged as unwarranted but, once again, Congress has written a law that gives largely unfettered authority in declaring such unlawful obstruction, assemblies, or rebellion against the United States.
T he law simply states:
"Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time."
This power has been used repeatedly by presidents since Thomas Jefferson. The last president to do so was President George H.W. Bush during the 1992 riots in Los Angeles, an obvious historical precedent that the Trump White House would cite to handle riots in cities like Portland. While the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prevents the use of the United States military in law enforcement, this Act is an exception to that rule large enough to drive an Army division through.
It is certainly true that President have largely used the Act at the invitation of local and state authorities. However, that is not required and that has not always been the case.
Presidents have used the act repeatedly to fight the Ku Klux Klan, enforce desegregation, and protect African American students. This has been done without approval of the state officials as when in 1962, President John F. Kennedy sent in federal marshals to Mississippi to allow black students to enroll in classes at the University of Mississippi at Oxford. It has been used repeatedly to quell rioting and looting.
Thus, it could be used by President Trump to quell rioting in these cities. That does not mean that it would be the right move. In my view, it would not. The shootings that President Trump is referencing in the killing of young children are the result of criminal acts rather than the rioting or looting. We have not seen the use of this Act to try to quell a crime wave. The Act does not allow for much room for judicial review, but the use of the Act to deal with rising crime could present some novel issues for a court. Nevertheless, the language of the Act favors the President.
There are other possible challenges that are more conventional. Once again, I have great concern over the allegations of citizens being picked up by federal authorities and held for hours before being released without charges. There are serious questions of due process raised in these allegations and their impact on protected free speech activities cannot be denied. There has been considerable violence in Portland from protesters but most are not violent. There should be an investigation into the conduct of the federal officers to confirm the basis for these arrests and how these individuals were treated while in federal custody. It is not per se unlawful to use unmarked cars for arrests. Indeed, it happens all the time. However, local officials and protesters are alleging that people have been effectively snatched off the streets and taken away blindfolded — only to be released hours later. The federal officials deny these allegations and insist that these were individual suspects taken into custody on specific alleged federal crimes. They also note that the officers were clearly marked as police and insist that they told the suspects who they were. Thus, we have a conflicted record. That is why we need an independent investigation.
I recently testified in Congress on the Lafayette protest controversy. I identified two primary areas of possible unlawful conduct (including a clearly unjustified attack on a media crew) and suggested a series of inquiries to confirm the facts. I also stated that I believed that the order to clear the park area to allow for the establishment of a new fence line was lawful and that the federal forces complied with the guidelines for three clear warnings to disperse. There also is now evidence that appears to refute the widespread claims that the plan was related to the Trump photo op in front of the church. The point is that many of the initial allegations (widely reported as fact) have not been established and indeed have now been contradicted. That does not mean that unlawful conduct by the federal forces did not occur. I told Congress that I expect the investigation ultimately to narrow to the charge of the police line rather than the plan or authority to clear the area. In reviewing the videotapes of the charging of the line of officers, I believe that it was unlikely unwarranted and unlawful in the use of force.
I expect we will find the same results in the Portland controversy. Like the D.C. protests, it is clearly untrue to portray the Portland protests are peaceful. There have been serious injuries to a large number of officers and considerable property damage, including arson. The police have a right to protect themselves and courts generally allow the use of nonlethal force in such circumstances. Yet, like most people, I was shocked by the image of an individual being hit in the head with a projectile from the courthouse across the street. Such excessive use of force can occur in any operation but it is important for us to determine if there is a pattern of such conduct. Any broad injunctive relief would require more than a few incidents. It would require a pattern of clearly excessive conduct.
I still believe that a massive deployment of troops would be a mistake. Under our system of federalism, state and local officials have the primary responsibility to address crime in the streets. There is ample reason to criticize the actions, or lack of action, from majors in Seattle, Portland, and Chicago. However, they are the elected officials given this authority by their voters. Moreover, marching into these cities with large federal forces would inflame the situation and would not likely impact actual crime through cities like Chicago.
Jonathan Turley
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
109 visitors
The law is clearly on the President's side despite what a few radical progressive mayors tell us.
The President played it perfectly. He waited just long enough for Americans to get a good dose of progressive rule.
Seems Chicagoians and their leaders have given up on controlling the violence and just let them kill each other. They really don't give a shit.
That is a fair assessment.
They just don't care. Anyone disagree?
Yeah, they don't care until it shows up on their doorstep and then hell hath no fury like them ....
Turley is Trumpster lite, and he has often leapt to Trump's defense on various matters, and in the process damaged his own reputation. Nonetheless I dont see this particular article as being all that favorable to Trump. It kind of reveals Trump's sending federal officers to cities like Chicago to be a publicity stunt. The number (150) of federal officers would be a drop in the bucket if the intention is to effect crime in inner city neighborhoods. Trump just wants to say he did something that his base wants.
I see, so the Professor's explanation of the law can be completely discarded?
It kind of reveals Trump's sending federal officers to cities like Chicago to be a publicity stunt.
Gee, I thought the President was in a tight spot. He could either play politics and stand by as the violent arm of the progressive movement terrorized America's big cities OR he could restore law and order. He apparently took the high ground and did the latter.
The number (150) of federal officers would be a drop in the bucket if the intention is to effect crime in inner city neighborhoods.
According to the " Acting Homeland Security Secretary" Chad Wolf: "The officers are arresting “anarchists” who vandalize federal property."
Which would mean that Federal agents haven't tried to interfere with local police. So far, at least in the shit hole of Portland, Oregon, they are simply protecting Federal property.
15 people shot at a funeral yesterday.
How in the hell is helping a “drop in the bucket” a bad thing? How many people are killed wrongly by police each year? A “drop in the bucket” in Chicago Would save a hell of a lot more people than are killed wrongly by police nationwide.
Ironically, At the very time that Chicago's progressive mayor was saying “We don’t need federal agents without insignia taking people off the street and holding them, I think, unlawfully.”
411 murders in Chicago this year. It's only July. The Chicago Sun Times maintains the grizzly record.
And keep in mind, that is without the violent protests. The mayor should have been run out of town, but apparently Chicagoans are OK with the carnage!
Did you read the article?
It's about the President's legal authority to restore law and order in violent cities. Chicago is under consideration for a good dose of law & order!
I think democrats don't feel they are sacrificing anything. They take the Black vote as a given!
Is it the word that has been overused to the point of becoming meaningless?
Then he should have the balls to declare Martial Law in those so called violent cities. Why deploy mercenaries without declaring ML. Let's really scare the shit out of those secular-progressive-liberal-commie-pinko-hippie-pot smoking- thugs
I think he has done it perfectly thus far. Federal agents were sent into Portland not military personnel. You know if it was up to me it would be Guradsmen with live bullets.
Federal agents all on the payroll of Eric Prince and whatever he's calling his mercenary outfit these days
thumped out trump brown shirts
Really?
How about you providing a link?
[DELETED]
[DELETED]
The brown shirts are those thugs the progressive mayors are coddling. If you doubt that, just ask the people who have to live there.
Damn! I missed that part.
[DELETED]
I didn't know you were pen pals with people in Chicago? Is that how you know how people in Chicago feel?
I read
Here try it:
I would flag you for that insulting remark but since this is your group, you call the shots like you did above.
But what the hell...I haven't reached 20 tickets in a month yet. Let's break my record, shall we, Vic?
Nothing says freedom like the government putting their foot down and stomping on people that do not behave the way they think they should.
That's right.
But what the hell...I haven't reached 20 tickets in a month yet.
It's been that long?
Let's break my record, shall we, Vic?
It's your'e call
Rioting is a federal offense
Protesting is a freedom.
Only when a person "travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent to" riot or incite a riot. Otherwise it's a state charge.
I think I woke up in China this morning....hence the name
Oh is that when it happened?
"What is happening in Portland right now — and I say this as somebody who’s seen war in other countries — it’s as close up to the line as you can get to actual war without live rounds. It’s really hard for me to see how things go much further without people dying."
You misread. I've never received 20 tickets in one month. I want to break my own record. [DELETED]
So the police are not suppose to work for us?
You seem to have no problem with police brutality or attacking protesters.
Blocking traffic? Oh boo hoo. I guess all of my rights go out the window when a parade goes by....
And the shit roaming the streets are covered under that law
Are you going to deny that it has only gotten worse with the feds arrival?
The crowds have only grown.
It has gotten better. Every one of those thugs that is arrested and PROSECUTED is a positive
The crowds have only grown.
Oh really? Show us the crowd totals for the 52 nights.
I see, the New York Times knows, but doesn't tell how it knows, nor does it reveal any numbers.
That article also claims that the rabble is determined to stay. We shall see how that works out.
right there with ya...
burn / loot / destroy someone's property / business? shoot on sight.
those are my standing orders courtesy of the second amendment and my states constitution.
The best thing Trump can do is let the mayors come begging for help when the violence continues to escalate in places like Portland and Chicago
Lightfoot is totally incompetent when it comes to doing what is best for the majority of the citizens of Chicago.
Yeah, I think Trump should keep hands off so the voters have a good long look at how Democrat control of cities and towns will turn out if Biden gets elected.
I don't want that. It's a choice of soundbites, and the libs don't really care which one he picks, because they are going to use either one against him.
1. If he sends the feds in, he's overreaching, abusing his power, and showing what a fascist he is.
2. If he doesn't send anyone, then he is fiddling while Rome burns.
I'd rather him choose door number 2. To hell with them. They're gonna bitch either way.
Is what he is planning to do violate the Posse Comitatus Act?
I may have gotten a little loose with my language. Candidly, I've not heard exactly what he is "planning."
So, to answer the question, I'd first have to know exactly what he is planning. Second, I'd need to see if what he is planning falls into a case or circumstance expressly authorized by Congress for the use of the Army or air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws.
Regardless, if I had a vote, my vote would be for him to quit even discussing any ongoings in states and cities where the governors and mayors have claimed they don't need help.
It is the President's duty to protect federal employees and property by whatever means necessary.
Yeah but they are still whining about it like the TDS ridden little turds they are.
For the most part, the restraint on display by law enforcement the last few months, local or federal, has been extraordinary.
Absolutely extraordinary. Hats off to all law enforcement that has stood fast as some no account shitbird shouts, spits and throws shit at them. The job you are doing is appreciated by most of us.
Thanks!
The progressives and Democrats have shown they repeatedly and overwhelmingly that they support the rights of violent anarchists in their cites...
over the rights and safety of the majority of their peace loving citizens.
Yep, and hopefully that translates in November.
If it doesn't, they deserve what they get.
Yep, them Mom's are such a scary group.....s/
I guess you haven't heard about the dads with leaf blowers
If they are snowflakes, then what is it with all this rightwing fear?
This must be like going to Columbia in the late 60's organizing, agitating and trying to tear down decency!
Listen closely: It only takes a determined few to stop the revolution!
I'm not quite as gracious as the "Great Generation."
oh yeah. I would love some decency of the 50's and 60's.
Maybe we could go back to segregation and separate water fountains.
Love it!!!!
So waiting for the government to tell you to attack other countrymen?
Do you also have the theme song, have gun will travel in your mind?
If only you knew it
Maybe we could go back to segregation and separate water fountains.
That was your democratic party, don't complain now
Just pointing out the fallacy of some Utopian bygone era.
Your'e not pointing out anything. You are acting out all you can do short of joining the violent protests. Letting off a little steam.
They even passed laws for it.
And some are ignoring the reasons for the protests to begin with. Would rather have the status quo. Would rather fight against it instead of finding a solution.
I thought it was cool
People had a right to protest if they believed what happened to Floyd was common place. People have a right to their opinion and to protest. Whatever the reason was has no relation to the level of random violence and destruction we now see. BTW the media lied to us all the way. Progressive mayors took a side, which was wrong but not nearly as wrong as putting protests above the safety of their people.
Would rather have the status quo.
You see, the status quo is a matter of perception.
Would rather fight against it instead of finding a solution.
A solution to what, exactly?
Speaking of cool, what happened to the three Comrades?
Another Revolution has vanished like melting snow!
The media tells a story depending on their own prejudice.
I can see protests on some outlets that show peaceful people being attacked and gassed.
Then I can turn on fox and it is all doom and gloom and people getting killed walking down the street.
There can be a thousand protesters and it only takes one agitator to start chaos. For that I would not blame the whole of the protest.
Really?
There were 11 of us. But somebody bitched to Perrie and she made us go back to our regular names. We could have defied her...but this is not the United States and she owns the joint. So out of respect for our Resident Adviser and that we all love her, we did as we were told.
I guess the bitchers were pissed because they didn't think of it first
Ya Really, unless you want to tell us how one cop killing somebody that he knew is common for the police.
Good luck with that. You'll be preaching to the choir!
Do you feel the need to act as a gang?
But somebody bitched to Perrie and she made us go back to our regular names.
I don't know who he/she was but I believe Iv'e demonstrated how to deal with a mob.
So out of respect for our Resident Adviser and that we all love her, we did as we were told.
I love her too, sometimes more than others.
I guess the bitchers were pissed because they didn't think of it first
I doubt it, but your guess is as good as mine.
If you think it is only about one person then you haven't been paying attention.
[deleted] you might actually smile and have some fun once in awhile
They can't when they are constantly told the Liberal hordes are out to destroy society....
I floated the idea of matching shoelaces but shipping was delayed.
It was the bitter taste medicine that we copiously handing out. We got the desired effect
So you're the complainer. I kinda knew it, but wanted to see if you would admit it
I really don't see that, Vic. You never tell your comrades to lay off of her when they swarm her. Some of your comrades have absolutely no respect for her, and you know it well
Nah....I'm right. Now it will never happen on your side. We designed it, beta tested it, it was deemed not appropriate, so we trashed the whole campaign.
Now...please have the last word. I really have nothing more to say to you.
Sometimes I enjoy acting like a third grader...especially when the School Marm has to get out his purple pen and start writing us all bad report cards.
Iv'e been paying close attention.
Actually Perrie saved you and your friends from embarrassment while cleaning up the site. You do know that she claims 2,000 non-member visitors every day an she probably didn't want them to think she had opened an internet day care............................
And...back to ignore...
Perfect description of the average Newstalkers defense of Donald Trump and trumpism.
You're right, Jim. Perri did save our asses from embarassment
Nope, sorry. I never saw them before an hour or so ago, but you believe what you must.
I really don't see that, Vic. You never tell your comrades to lay off of her when they swarm her.
Iv'e never seen anyone swarm her. Point it out to me when you see it because I don't want that either.
Some of your comrades have absolutely no respect for her, and you know it well
First, "comrades" would not apply to any of my friends. They are all descent men and women. I've met some good people here on NT and even on NV. BTW, I don't know anyone who doesn't respect Perrie. I wonder if she knows that?
Nah....I'm right.
That would call for a celebration.
Now it will never happen on your side. We designed it, beta tested it, it was deemed not appropriate, so we trashed the whole campaign.
That you didn't realize that it was inappropriate speaks volumes.
Now...please have the last word.
Gee thanks.
I really have nothing more to say to you.
This is to you
He can, but except to protect Federal property it should be left to the local government and let people complain to local government
Agreed but if they refuse help from the Fed, all bets are off for getting help from the Fed for fixing the damage done. They want to let rioters trash their cities? That's 100% on them and not the rest of the country.
Yes, any President has the authority to deploy military forces within the United States to protect the Union. States do not have the authority to expel Federal law enforcement or military personnel. That was tried in the 1860s. The Confederacy will never rise again in the United States; that question has been settled.
Any President has the authority to declare martial law when local or state governments engage in or fail to quell an insurgency or insurrection that threatens the Union. There is only one United States; there isn't a confederation of states. The first Civil War ended that debate with unequivocal finality.
Academic legal scholars can try to twist and pervert law to justify insurrection but that legal debate has been settled. There is only one United States and the Federal government has jurisdiction anywhere within the United States to protect the Union against insurgency and insurrection. Attacking a Federal courthouse isn't any different than South Carolina militias firing on Fort Sumter. When local and state governments allow that act of insurrection then those governments are complicit in the insurrection. Mayor Lori Lightfoot making Confederate arguments about state and local rights have no legal standing; the Confederacy will never rise again.
The same political party has once again discovered the 10th amendment! Suddenly, the same people who once fancied the idea of the federal government transforming the US are talking about powers reserved for the states!
Yes, that has been a continuing problem created by Jacksonian politics which views the Constitution as a document of convenience. The states claimed the right to rebel. But the Constitution delegates power to the Federal government use military force to subdue insurrection. And the Federal government used that delegated power to assert authority over rebellion. There isn't anything to debate; the issue has been settled.
So it has.
Though some can't resist trying to defy this President
She just gave in!
This one statement is a prime example of what the Democrat Party has become.
Bashing our troops as if they would terrorize anyone.
Politics at any cost.
It isn't our troops terrorizing your city dumbass.
I'll bet many Chicagoans are praying for some Federal help. There are many families already grieving.
Well they could get off their behinds and at least try and have her removed. They voted her in.
I do feel for those who did not and the grieving families.
That sentiment is about all those who are trapped in Chicago's inner city neighborhoods have left.
I wonder if Jefferson Davis said something like that?
Things didn't work out so well for him.
I would expect an apology from her directly to our troops.
What's really interesting is what Lincoln had to say ( about a second term ) as the Civil War dragged on: " That August he told a friend, “You think I don’t know I am going to be beaten, but I do and unless some great change takes place, badly beaten.”
It seems an awful lot can happen on the way to the next election.
Trumps actions are not an accident.
It will happen like this.
Federal "law enforcement" will appear in riot gear in a city with a Democratic mayor and a Democratic governor.
"Federal law enforcement" will be asked to leave. They will refuse.
Governor will send in the national guard to remove them.
Trump will then "nationalize" the state's national guard and order them to help the "Federal law enforcement" - I don't know - "round up bad nasty thugs and not be gentle about it" or something like that.
Test one - if they follow the order it will be tough for them when they go back home to their day jobs.
If they refuse the order it will be classified as "rebellion" and Trump will legally invoke the Insurrection Act; then send in the US Army in opposition to the National Guard.
Trump will order the Army to fire on the National Guard if they resist.
Test two - if they follow the order the "Great Experiment" as Tocqueville called it, is over and we will have a Trump dictatorship for life passed down to all of his relatives.
If they refuse the order - the "Great Experiment" , is over and we will have Military rule with Trump and his family perhaps perpetually vacationing in Russia.
So sure - get all pumped up over the idea of "law an order" Trump showing those nasty blue state liberals who's boss - but it will not end well for the country.
You should consider writing screen plays for Hollywood.........................
You have quite the imagination.
As with JFK Nationalizing Alabama's National Guard, the Guard will follow the chain of command. (Executive Order 11111)
Democrat mayors/governors will again accept the inevitable.
Sounds a bit like a Tom Clancy book i read years ago ..... Clear and Present Nonsense .....
I found an article in the Chicago Tribune that summarized the violence, some of the underlying causes of violence and efforts (or lack thereof) to eradicate the violence in Chicago since the 1950s.
It seems there was some success between 2000 and 2009 before everything went to Hell again when the effective programs were dismantled under Rahm Emanuel's leadership. Also, for some strange reason that I don't understand, funds were diverted from impoverished Chicago neighborhoods while Obama was president (according to the article linked below).
Anyhow, by 2010 there were elected Democrats in Chicago that were requesting military intervention in Chicago.
Is there a way to disband gangs without police and/or military intervention?
How many more people must die before our society finds effective programs to deal with violence throughout our country? Do we counsel the violent men/women or prosecute them? Do we bribe them with money to quit harming others?
Is violence an issue that has no real solution?
btw, Obama said protestors who use violence are committing criminal acts and should be prosecuted. So why are some people making this a left/right issue? Is it gain political power at the expense of more lives?
Because, as in the Baltimore riots, Police stand down orders where issued by Democrat Mayors.
The same as we see currently.
Just let it burn, let them get their feelings and frustrations out.
Regardless of what Obama said the violent protesters where not being arrested due to the policies of Democrat Mayors.
ss violence an issue that has no real solution?
It's really up to the community.. Some of the poorest areas of the country have little violent crime. But as long as a community refuses to cooperate to stop crime and votes for politicians who work to keep violent criminals on the street (the New York-Chicago model) crime will continue to flourish. It's the fear of getting caught that keeps crime down. Once that fear is taken away, it's open season.
I googled that. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Criminal minds (like all others) are not created equal.
Personally, I have known criminals that dreaded the possibility of getting caught but the fear didn't deter their criminal activities....even after some of their cohorts were caught and sent to prison. It was only after enough of their network was caught that they had to find other sources of revenue....even legal employment in order to pay their bills.
Chicago has tens of thousands of gang members, who often use their "strength" to protect drug territories. Very few if any other American cities have as many gangs as Chicago, and they fight over drug turf and other "business" and revenge related issues. The great majority of the murders in Chicago are in some way gang related. It has next to nothing to do with partisan politics.
Sounds very similar to conditions in Mexico, doesn't it?
It does when whichever party in power is being denounced for their actions (or inaction) to address the ongoing issue.
Violence, among our species, is well documented throughout our entire recorded history. I really am not optimistic that it can be eradicated, but it can be lessened if we work together to address it logically instead of emotionally.
Unfortunately, this is a case where size does not matter. It is whether the criminal(s) have gained a foothold in terrorizing the community. A great example is Ken McElroy. Ken literally got by with stealing and terrorizing people in a small rural community (Skidmore, MO) for years.
The community finally had to take matters into their own hands because local law enforcement and the judicial system kept turning Ken loose to keep on terrorizing them.
and there is a book titled "In Broad Daylight" that gives a glimpse into the story from the victims' perspectives.
Obviously your'e talking to the comrades!
It is whether the criminal(s) have gained a foothold in terrorizing the community.
YES!
The community finally had to take matters into their own hands because local law enforcement and the judicial system kept turning Ken loose to keep on terrorizing them.
It's like school teachers who see bullying and ignore it. Why do these officials wait until everything is way out of hand?
Whenever a person, male or female, takes a stand of any kind against an aggressor, they are putting their life in jeopardy. It takes a lot of courage, or a complete lack of self-preservation to stand up to a child bully because the most likely result is that a person will then be bullied by their parents and parents' social networks.
We, as a society, have to unite on a zero tolerance for violence in our schools, our workplace and our leisure activities if we sincerely want change.
If our society glorifies violence as an answer and/or as acceptable entertainment, then we are definitely sending mixed messages to people looking for any excuse to justify their unacceptable behavior -- behavior that may be hardwired or a result of injury to the brain.
Part of that would mean that schools have the right and obligation to expel violent disruptive students!
If isolated incident, then probably not. If ongoing issue, the student should be sent to an alternative school with counselors to help them cope with the issues causing the behavior. If it is hardwired, then recognizing this at an early age may be the most humane outcome for the student and society.
I have read recent articles where teachers are demanding more funding for more school counselors. At one time, I probably wouldn't have understood. These days, I believe that school counselors are a necessity.
I do not advocate mistreating the mentally ill or criminally insane. I do advocate for funding and treatment when possible to allow them to remain in society. If they are a danger to themselves and/or others, then I wholly support funding to develop facilities that allow them as much freedom as humanely possible, but are still secure.
I recommend it. I read it when it was initially published. I made the mistake of lending it to my brother-in-law and never got it back. I recently purchased the latest edition, but haven't reread it yet. It is on my to do list for winter.
You're welcome.
My (ex)husband had lived & worked on a ranch in the area in the early 70s. He never met Ken, but had heard of him. I met some of the locals in the mid and late 80s when I accompanied my (ex)husband on yearly visits to a friend he had worked with. I know from a casual comment that one of the men had been in Skidmore the day of the execution, but no details were given and I did not want to know details anymore than the man wanted to discuss it. That was one of the most uneasiest moments of my life. This was before the book was published and there were still people demanding "justice" for Ken. As a stranger to the community, I felt safer not knowing anything other than what was public knowledge.
I don't think they covered it up , they simply wouldn't talk or give statements , they didn't try and hide a body , and everyone basically said they all knew it was eventually coming , who were the authorities suppose to charge if they didn't have any solid leads? the whole town?
Mark,
I side wholeheartedly with the people who were forced into a situation because law enforcement did not protect them. No one should have to be subjected to this type of abuse. I never met one person who was proud of the action the community was forced into taking to protect themselves and their loved ones. They seemed to be very united in their pain...which is probably why none of them would testify. I believe they attempted to tell their side and were judged very harshly as if it was their fault. It was national and international victim blaming.
Our legal system must be overhauled to protect the victims instead of the abusers. The defense must not be allowed to portray the perpetrators as the victims. This is what a narcissist does most successfully. If we don't start dealing effectively with violence, we are going to be a nation filled with citizens suffering from PTSD as if we had been involved in a declared war.
Most states have some kind of law recognizing federal officers as "peace officers" or law enforcement officers" and declaring them to have authority to arrest violators of the law (not just federal law). There are different details, of course, but the general notion that federal officers can't ever arrest anyone without local permission is just not true.
FINALLY:
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot joined police officials Wednesday to plead for assistance from the public a day after gunfire erupted outside a funeral home that left 15 people injured, and a separate incident in which a 3-year-old girl was shot in the head -- this after rejecting the Trump administration's plan to send federal agents to help combat increasing crime in the city.
A visibly frustrated Lightfoot condemned both incidents as the city grapples with a surge in gun violence that has seen dozens of shootings on an almost daily basis.
She asked for public support not for federal troops!
It's a start.
Maybe if ensuring she isn't bothered by protesters at home isn't a priority the police could actually police the war zone.
It's Sad Chicago's leaders are more concerned with "orange man bad" than actually protecting the lives of its' citizens.
That's exactly what it is!
Here is what's coming
"Homeland Security Investigations agents were also being sent to Chicago to “support other law enforcement,” a Homeland Security official confirmed without elaborating on their role."
Will the disruption in illegal drug trafficking cause more violence in Chicago as gangs lose a source of their revenue?
What is the Chicago mayor's and local law enforcement's role in ending drug trafficking in their city? Does the federal government have a role in combatting the drug trade throughout the US in order to end a source of violence and needless death?
another article about international drug trafficking.
Should the US expect rising violence because criminals are experiencing difficulties in their revenue stream and fighting their rivals to procure product?
it is fun watching trump use the apparatus built to contain us against them.
absolutely priceless