Okay, How? Part II

The editors of the Washington Post are outraged over President Trump’s behavior:

Mr. Trump’s dog whistles and bullhorn blasts help ensure that police will remain unaccountable — rarely indicted when they kill unarmed people; frequently cleared when they are disciplined; often reinstated when they are fired for misconduct. They suggest there will be no change in racial profiling or unjustified officer-involved killings. Having torn up his predecessor’s blueprint, Mr. Trump now has nothing to offer — no prescriptions, no healing and no vision beyond a status quo many Americans abhor. In reality, his slogans and impulses signal a disrespect for law, and path away from order.

Okay, I get it. The editors don’t like Trump and think his approach is counter-productive. New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, Spokane, and many American cities experienced looting and destruction again last night. What do they propose?

I also think that President Trump is over-estimating his authority under the Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Acts. In short, there’s little he can do legally unless asked for help by the legislature of a state or the state’s governor if the legislature is unable to act.

16 comments… add one
  • GreyShambler Link

    My take is that this is not new. If anything, police are less punitive, less violent, more accountable than they were in the past.
    Trump says law ,order, and the police must be respected regardless.
    Black celebrities, who are equivalent to Black leaders, Governors, Mayors, the public at large, all agree that no. One deadly overstep by the police is so unacceptable, we will not only have lawsuits, we will have anarchy.
    De-fund the police. Think that one through.
    If the appropriate policy is to take away their weapons and issue them whistles, I’m game. I’m hiding out right now anyway. Let’s try that.

  • jan Link

    The Washington Post is totally out of the loop regarding the most immediate concerns facing the public at large. Their selective editorial bull horn only chastises what they decry as unchecked racial disparities. But they appear blind, tone deaf, even uninterested to comment on and condemn the criminal behavior terrorizing cities, in tandem with the ineffectiveness of law enforcement trying to curtail the overwhelming numbers of those rioting.

    IMO, the politicization of intertwined tragedies- the unjust death of a black man followed by the ruthless razing of businesses – has produced a confusing stalemate in how to satisfactorily address such destructive urban turmoil. As a result police departments are being told to stand down, driving owners to protect their own storefronts. Looters who are arrested are immediately released to resume looting. The Jagged divide between federal and state ways of problem solving is growing, making it difficult to work together. Caught in between these dysfunctional governmental dynamics are people flailing around in the midst of uncontrolled violence.

    A friend of ours recently called saying, “We’re all on our own. You can’t count on the police.” He has loaded a gun, something not used in many years. Others are resorting to guns as well, in lieu of the insanity being perpetuated all around them. There simply is no end in sight to daily mayhem, as feckless government officials sit on their ideological laurels while once safe havens are burned and destroyed.

  • PD Shaw Link

    I believe the Insurrection Act allows the President to send federal troops without the request of the states. This Act was the basis of of the post-hoc justification for the Civil War in the Prize Cases. Grover Cleveland sent federal troops to Chicago to quell the Pulman Strike over the Illinois governor’s repeated objections. Grant, Eisenhower and Kennedy used federal troops to protect civil rights without state request.

    I’m not arguing for this, but it seems like a prudential matter. Also, the military apparently has a body of regulations concerning how it would implement any of the dozen or so statutes that could trigger it being deployed domestically. Those would suggest what it would do.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    Grant, Eisenhower and Kennedy could do so because there was enough of a consensus at the Federal Level (President, Congress, Judiciary) for troop deployment.

    There is no consensus today. I am half afraid Governors / Mayors / Police Chiefs would announce (with approbation from members of Congress and possibly judges) a “sanctuary” or “passive non-cooperation” policy if the military were deployed….

    And what would happen then?

    There are things that are legal possible but not politically viable.

  • PD:

    This would appear to be the relevant part of the Insurrection Act:

    Section 251. Federal aid for State governments

    Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

    At least to my eye that doesn’t seem to apply in this case.

  • steve Link

    “One deadly overstep by the police is so unacceptable”

    Its not just one instance. There are many, with this and the Arbery case just being the most recent, and it is more than killings. I went back and read over Fryer’s work again after citing the Nature study which showed why there are problems with his methodology. What Fryer also showed is that there were significantly higher levels of force used against black people even when they were totally compliant. So if a group of white people did exactly what the police said they were much less likely to have force applied than a group of black people behaving the same way. Note that this was a study based upon police self reporting and it is pretty likely that police under reported their own bad behaviors.


  • GreyShambler Link
  • GreyShambler Link

    I believe that.
    My wife and I were discussing whether George Floyd just appeared to the officers like he could take it. He has a very robust appearance. He could pass for 28.

  • PD Shaw Link

    @Dave, that’s Section 251, which is about aiding state governments; the subsequent sections have different, independent grounds:

    252 (Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority)
    253 (Interference with State and Federal law)

    252 was the section referenced in 50s and 60s civil rights cases. Andrew McCarthy appears to be arguing Trump has the power under Section 253.

  • jan Link

    Steve, you often seem so determined to malign, find objections to studies that don’t align with your own POV, or insert a negative critique which is more hypothetical (questioning the veracity of police self reporting), while being steadfast to links you post as being the end-all-be-all in truth.

  • GreyShambler Link
  • jan Link

    A man dressed in military fatigues was arrested in the early morning here in LA. He was heavily armed. His intentions are unknown, but presumably they were not good ones. It seems to be open season now for anyone wishing to realize any untoward impulses they, heretofore, have refrained from expressing.

    Also, lending more credibility to how premeditated and well organized these riots are, there are what’s being called “Ghost cars,” parking in the middle of the street in an area being targeted by rioters. They are unlicensed and carrying bricks, rocks that are handed out to people to throw at windows.

  • steve Link

    “Steve, you often seem so determined to malign, find objections to studies that don’t align with your own POV, or insert a negative critique which is more hypothetical (questioning the veracity of police self reporting)”

    I read a lot, and reading studies looking for strengths and weaknesses in them is part of my professional responsibility. I think the difference between us is that you dont actually read the studies, you just believe what people say about them, or it often appears you aren interested in any kind of evidence. So you wouldnt actually know what Fryer said in his study. You wont be aware that there are studies showing that police harm black people more often and other studies saying maybe they dont. You wont have the curiosity to wonder why that might be and just assume the studies you believe, even if you didnt read them, must be correct. If you were curious you could push yourself to see if anyone tried to resolve the seeming difference. Someone did.

    I keep saying no one study is definitive. So if you have other evidence offer it, but then dont be surprised if I actually read it and tell you why I think it is wrong or correct. What I mostly find is that no one actually reads the studies they cite and they dont say what they think they say.


  • Guarneri Link

    “I think the difference between us is that you dont actually read the studies, you just believe what people say about them, or it often appears you aren interested in any kind of evidence.”

    Spare us the bullshit. The Imperial College paper was a doozy. Evidence my ass.

  • steve Link

    You read it?LOL I know how you and jan decide what you believe.



  • Guarneri Link

    I read it. Probably 3 times. Start to finish. And, heh, understand it. Being all engineringy and all that…..

    That’s why I know you are full of shit. And since you didn’t know I read it you probably figured you could bullshit your way through this.

    Stop beclowning yourself, steve. I have, and obviously Jan has, a nose for a bullshitter from a mile away.

Leave a Comment