Update: One male deputy and one female deputy were ambushed as they sat in their patrol vehicle. Both sustained multiple gunshot wounds and are in critical condition. They are both currently undergoing surgery. The suspect is still at large.
BREAKING: Two LASD Transit Security Bureau deputies have been shot at the Compton PAX station. I’m told by LASD that both were shot in the head by a male who got off a bus, then fled. Both hospitalized, Sheriff Villanueva at hospital now. @FOXLA
UPDATE: LASD sources tell me both deputies were in their vehicle when they were both shot in the head and that this was a “straight ambush”. LASD working on suspect info. @FOXLA
I have just been sent surveillance video of the shooting and can confirm it is 100% an ambush. Man slowly creeps up to the vehicle like he’s stalking it, fires shots through the window, then flees the scene. I will not post any of the video until given approval to do so. @FOXLA
Originally Posted by Donger:
You are saying that federal help must be requested by, say, the governor of said state? I read that Bush 41 deployed federal assets to LA during the riots there at the request of the California governor.
The federal government can enforce federal law anywhere. But if you want them to put down riots that fall short of insurrection, that responsibility (and authority) lies with the states. [Reply]
Originally Posted by patteeu:
The federal government can enforce federal law anywhere. But if you want them to put down riots that fall short of insurrection, that responsibility (and authority) lies with the states.
So this isn't applicable?
`Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law
`The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--
`(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
`(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'.[6] [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
So this isn't applicable?
`Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law
`The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--
`(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
`(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'.[6]
The President can always make the argument that an insurrection is taking place (over the objection of state authorities), but why would he do that at this point? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
No one ever said this.
The racial element of this is completely on one side - those who started it.
Black people have been weaponized by BLM. While non-white cops are less likely to be victims, it doesn't take a genious to figure out which race they're more likely to attack.
Racial violence is wrong and anyone that participates in that or advocates for that should be punished.
I suppose your internet world exposes you to to worst stories. Maybe, you can consider that not everybody is as bad as the ones you go looking for on the internet. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jettio:
Racial violence is wrong and anyone that participates in that or advocates for that should be punished.
I suppose your internet world exposes you to to worst stories. Maybe, you can consider that not everybody is as bad as the ones you go looking for on the internet.
Originally Posted by patteeu:
The President can always make the argument that an insurrection is taking place (over the objection of state authorities), but why would he do that at this point?
The above isn't limited to insurrection, unless I'm reading it incorrectly. It includes "domestic violence, unlawful combination." [Reply]