5 ms·

I was very particular with my words. The outcome may not be agreeable but the Federal Government's military and rules of engagement are much more humane and nua

I was very particular with my words. The outcome may not be agreeable but the Federal Government's military and rules of engagement are much more humane and nuanced than anything any of the state's have ever legislated. I don't agree with the ideology supporting the wars, or processes behind the drone strikes. That doesn't undermine my argument. Secondly, you decided to link something completely out of context to the discussion of the state's well armed militias, which is the only thing I am referring to in the whole post.

pritambaral 8y ago
> Secondly, you decided to link something completely out of context to the discussion of the state's well armed militias, which is the only thing I am referring to in the whole post. You claimed "The States are exempt ... from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior" as an explanation for why the US Federal Government does not (or chooses to not) interfere with State militia. The lawsuit by the US DoJ against California's NN law demonstrates that your claim doesn't hold.
- gammateam 8y ago
  We're talking about the state's police departments, I just don't understand how you would expect recurring adjectives every single time just to avoid your "AHA I found a hole in his theory" filter. The Federal Government won't assume oversight of police departments if there is some form of due process.
  - Reelin 8y ago
    > exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior > won't assume oversight of police departments if there is some form of due process Those two statements (by you) are quite different. I'm inclined to agree with the second one, as I've never heard of a federal agency taking over a local police department before. However, I'm inclined to disagree with the first (depending on the precise definition of oversight, of course). As just one example, consider the DoJ investigation of the SPD a few years ago. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/12/16/spd_findletter_12-16-11.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/...
    - gammateam 8y ago
      I guess you are the third person to chime in on this. I've already clarified multiple times that I thought the subject, the narrow subject, was very clear. In a topic sentence that specifically mentions well armed militias, the subsequent statements were related to that. It was carefully worded to deal with whatever rebuttals to the wording alone that overly semantical programmers might come up with while keeping my point, and it failed. Also, yes, the federal government will assume administration of police departments if its FUBAR, local municipalities can even ask for it to happen, like San Francisco has done and received since 2016.
      - Reelin 8y ago
        > In a topic sentence that specifically mentions well armed militias, the subsequent statements were related to that. > The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. So this is referring only to "well armed militias", and we're defining that in such a way as to exclude any police forces? > We're talking about the state's police departments Ok, so "well armed militias" includes police departments then? > It was carefully worded to deal with ... overly semantical programmers The problem isn't overly semantic programmers, the problem is that you are contradicting yourself. To respond unambiguously only to your original comment then: > The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. This is quite debatable, and depends on the definition of "well armed militias" as well as how one goes about judging how humane the behavior of a given large institution is. I'm also not very clear on it's relevance to the larger topic of police militarization. > The States are ... exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior. This technically depends on the definition of "oversight", but I think that for any reasonable definition it is very obviously false. Historically the federal government has stepped in on numerous occasions, either when they felt they had explicit authority (ex interstate commerce clause, intellectual property, etc), or when they felt that states were violating the constitutional rights of their citizens (ex my previously linked DoJ investigation of the SPD). In any of these cases it did not generally matter what the state laws said, as the constitution very clearly preempts those.

pritambaral 8y ago

> Secondly, you decided to link something completely out of context to the discussion of the state's well armed militias, which is the only thing I am referring to in the whole post. You claimed "The States are exempt ... from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior" as an explanation for why the US Federal Government does not (or chooses to not) interfere with State militia. The lawsuit by the US DoJ against California's NN law demonstrates that your claim doesn't hold.

gammateam 8y ago
We're talking about the state's police departments, I just don't understand how you would expect recurring adjectives every single time just to avoid your "AHA I found a hole in his theory" filter. The Federal Government won't assume oversight of police departments if there is some form of due process.
- Reelin 8y ago
  > exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior > won't assume oversight of police departments if there is some form of due process Those two statements (by you) are quite different. I'm inclined to agree with the second one, as I've never heard of a federal agency taking over a local police department before. However, I'm inclined to disagree with the first (depending on the precise definition of oversight, of course). As just one example, consider the DoJ investigation of the SPD a few years ago. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/12/16/spd_findletter_12-16-11.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/...
  - gammateam 8y ago
    I guess you are the third person to chime in on this. I've already clarified multiple times that I thought the subject, the narrow subject, was very clear. In a topic sentence that specifically mentions well armed militias, the subsequent statements were related to that. It was carefully worded to deal with whatever rebuttals to the wording alone that overly semantical programmers might come up with while keeping my point, and it failed. Also, yes, the federal government will assume administration of police departments if its FUBAR, local municipalities can even ask for it to happen, like San Francisco has done and received since 2016.
    - Reelin 8y ago
      > In a topic sentence that specifically mentions well armed militias, the subsequent statements were related to that. > The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. So this is referring only to "well armed militias", and we're defining that in such a way as to exclude any police forces? > We're talking about the state's police departments Ok, so "well armed militias" includes police departments then? > It was carefully worded to deal with ... overly semantical programmers The problem isn't overly semantic programmers, the problem is that you are contradicting yourself. To respond unambiguously only to your original comment then: > The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. This is quite debatable, and depends on the definition of "well armed militias" as well as how one goes about judging how humane the behavior of a given large institution is. I'm also not very clear on it's relevance to the larger topic of police militarization. > The States are ... exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior. This technically depends on the definition of "oversight", but I think that for any reasonable definition it is very obviously false. Historically the federal government has stepped in on numerous occasions, either when they felt they had explicit authority (ex interstate commerce clause, intellectual property, etc), or when they felt that states were violating the constitutional rights of their citizens (ex my previously linked DoJ investigation of the SPD). In any of these cases it did not generally matter what the state laws said, as the constitution very clearly preempts those.