Re: Los Angeles Has Surrendered

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 08:47:48 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 05:12:50 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
 

On Jun 11, 2025 at 9:38:54 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
 

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
 

How weird is it that one of the main Dem criticisms of Trump on Jan6 is that
he refused to call in the national guard to put down the insurrection and how
that makes him culpable for what the rioters did. But now that he *has*
called
in the national guard to put down an insurrection, those same Dems say it's
needlessly provocative and only makes the situation worse.

 

Which is it? Is calling the national guard appropriate to stop a riot or
inappropriate? Pick a lane, lefties.

 
Washington D.C. is a federal enclave. The mayor is not the equivalent of
a governor and does not have command of a National Guard unit. Whenever
they need the Guard, they make the request to the president.
 
That's not the case in California.

 
Regardless, the Dem position was that the riot at the Capitol was serious
enough to warrant deploying the guard. If *that* riot was serious enough, then
this one certainly is, so calling in the guard would be appropriate and if the
governor and mayor won't, then it's falls to the president to do so.

 
1) It's very clear that what was going on in Los Angeles is hyper
localized.

>
And the Jan6 riot wasn't? It literally was contained to one city block. You
can't get more localized than that.
>
As for L.A, don't be ridiculous. Violence has broken out from downtown to
Paramount to Compton and all the way up in Duarte.
>
Between the two, it was Jan6 that was by far the most hyper-localized and
yet that was the one for which the Dems were united in insisting that the
Guard should have been mobilized.

Um I know you understand the difference between random businesses
being attacked and an attack on the nation's capitol. Of course people
would be calling for as much enforcement as possible to protect the
capitol.

The reason given for not calling in the national guard was
that there was no reason to do so, which was confirmed by the mayor,
the governor and people on location.

>
The LAPD chief said on camera that his officers were overwhelmed and needed
help until he got a call from the mayor and was taken to the woodshed. Then
suddenly he claimed not to need help at all.

Did that happen before or after the national guard entered the city?
Also what happened to the idea that ICE gives local law enforcement a
warning that they will be operating in the city. So that they could
prepare for the likely protests.

I wouldn't trust Karen Bass to manage an emergency if she was last person
on earth. Through a mixture of incompetence and gross negligence she stood
by and let the city burn in January and she's standing by and allowing
criminals to run free now. Of course she said the Guard wasn't necessary.

I can't comment on that as I have zero idea of how capable she is.

As a Castro-loving revolutionary, violent leftist uprising is what she
admires. She's not complaining that ICE "didn't give her a heads-up", she's
complaining that ICE is enforcing the law at all. She doesn't believe
America should enforce its borders or even have them in the first place.
Plus she won't support anything that Trump does out of sheer reflex.
>

It's ICE coming in without
notifying authorities so they could be prepared, and then Trump
sending in the federalized national guard that amped up the situation.

>
I guess we can add shawn to the list of people who bizarrely think we
shouldn't send police to enforce the law because it might upset the
criminals.

Don't be an idiot. You know full well that's not what I said.
Notifying local law enforcement of ICE's upcoming actions allows them
to be better prepared ahead of time instead of having to respond on
the fly to any conflicts that occur.
 

Sending them in without any support. No food, housing or monetary support.

>
Which is exactly what would have happened on Jan6 also, had Trump done what
the Dems demanded and called in the Guard. There would have been no
logistical support in place, yet the Dems have been unshakable in their
claim that Trump's failure to mobilize the Guard made him responsible for
the mob's actions that day.

Though let's be clear that in that case it seems likely the National
Guard would have been deployed for at most a few days since the
majority of the people involved did not live in the area.

Are Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass just as responsible for *this* mob's
actions for their failure to mobilize the Guard?

I'm not in a position to tell if there was a need for the Guard or if
the crowd control could have been left to the local law enforcement.
Certainly the rules say Newsom gets to make the call on whether the
Guard gets called out. So it should have been left to his discretion
as Governor and then he would suffer the consequences if things went
sideways.