4 ms·

> DC is one of the highest murder rates in the country If by "highest" you mean nineteeth in this year's tally so far, then....I....guess? https://freedomfora

> DC is one of the highest murder rates in the country If by "highest" you mean nineteeth in this year's tally so far, then....I....guess? https://freedomforallamericans.org/highest-murders-in-us-by-city/ https://freedomforallamericans.org/highest-murders-in-us-by-... St. Louis, MO's rate was 69 per 100k and DC was 17 per 100k. St. Louis has a murder rate four times DC, yet curiosly no talk of deploying the FBI and national guard there.

marpstar 1y ago
Deployment of the National Guard within a state is at the discretion of that state's governor. DC is the only place the president has jurisdiction in this scenario.
- abeppu 1y ago
  ... except this president federalized and deployed the national guard in California only earlier this summer, over the objections of the state's governor, so is that rule still a rule?
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    He was able to provide a justification, however thin, which he presumably can't in the case of St Louis. Not that I disagree with the general sentiment. He's only doing this as a political stunt and St Louis wouldn't serve that purpose as well even if he could somehow swing it legally.
    - abeppu 1y ago
      I'm sure there are also federal buildings in St Louis; the justification from California works almost anywhere. But critically, the trial in which the legality of that action is considered is happening the week. Whether or not the action is judged to have been a constitutional violation ultimately doesn't matter; the administration did it, and even if the court rules against the administration, it will have been two months too slate. Effectively, the president has demonstrated he can federalize the national guard whether or not the governor consents for long enough to score whatever political/media points he's currently fixated on, and if the legal system stops him, he will have moved on to other issues. https://apnews.com/article/california-trump-national-guard-lawsuit-924491849641549828c4f52a41d54e6b https://apnews.com/article/california-trump-national-guard-l...
      - chrisco255 1y ago
        The President has been able to federalize the guard since 1792, see the Militia Act: https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/militia-act-of-1792 https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collect...
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe" Pretty sure that doesn't apply in LA in 2025.
  - chrisco255 1y ago
    There's exceptions to general rule, the national guard is ultimately a state-federal entity and the President can activate them to enforce federal law. Laws on this go all the way back to 1807. They've been federalized by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon without consent of the associated Governor.
- yareally 1y ago
  And apparently Los Angeles https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-los-angeles-immigration-raids-protests-8f668f3fbfd2a8b1f1408db840e9864d https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-los-angeles-immigr...
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    A judge ruled that deployment illegal. It's now winding its way through the appeals process.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > Deployment of the National Guard within a state is at the discretion of that state's governor. Legally, there are exceptions to that (primarily the Insurrection Act, though there are some deployments that are permitted within states on federal authority on other legal bases with tightly-constrained functions), and practically, the legal limits don't matter because response time off the courts is to slow for them to act as a meaningful brake. (E.g., the lawsuit filed the first court day after the order to mobilize the guard for LA just reached the trial stage this week.)
chrisco255 1y ago
I literally said "one of the highest" not the absolute highest. Being in a top 10 or 20 list on murder rates is not an achievement to strive for, but it absolutely places you in upper echelon of murder. DC has had 100 murders so far in 2025, just 12 shy of 2024 with 3.5 months to go: https://mpdc.dc.gov/dailycrime https://mpdc.dc.gov/dailycrime St. Louis situation is absolutely abysmal. 20 is way too high, 69 is way too high. These are 3rd world numbers that are absolutely inexcusable. And we're only talking about murders here, if you look into other violent crime data, it's also substantial for D.C. The FBI frequently gets involved in murder cases all over the country, there are field offices everywhere. States are significantly different things than the special federal District of Columbia. There, it is generally up to the Governor to deploy the national guard, although plenty of exceptions and precedents exist for the President to do so.

marpstar 1y ago

Deployment of the National Guard within a state is at the discretion of that state's governor. DC is the only place the president has jurisdiction in this scenario.

abeppu 1y ago
... except this president federalized and deployed the national guard in California only earlier this summer, over the objections of the state's governor, so is that rule still a rule?
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  He was able to provide a justification, however thin, which he presumably can't in the case of St Louis. Not that I disagree with the general sentiment. He's only doing this as a political stunt and St Louis wouldn't serve that purpose as well even if he could somehow swing it legally.
  - abeppu 1y ago
    I'm sure there are also federal buildings in St Louis; the justification from California works almost anywhere. But critically, the trial in which the legality of that action is considered is happening the week. Whether or not the action is judged to have been a constitutional violation ultimately doesn't matter; the administration did it, and even if the court rules against the administration, it will have been two months too slate. Effectively, the president has demonstrated he can federalize the national guard whether or not the governor consents for long enough to score whatever political/media points he's currently fixated on, and if the legal system stops him, he will have moved on to other issues. https://apnews.com/article/california-trump-national-guard-lawsuit-924491849641549828c4f52a41d54e6b https://apnews.com/article/california-trump-national-guard-l...
    - chrisco255 1y ago
      The President has been able to federalize the guard since 1792, see the Militia Act: https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/militia-act-of-1792 https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collect...
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe" Pretty sure that doesn't apply in LA in 2025.
- chrisco255 1y ago
  There's exceptions to general rule, the national guard is ultimately a state-federal entity and the President can activate them to enforce federal law. Laws on this go all the way back to 1807. They've been federalized by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon without consent of the associated Governor.
yareally 1y ago
And apparently Los Angeles https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-los-angeles-immigration-raids-protests-8f668f3fbfd2a8b1f1408db840e9864d https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-los-angeles-immigr...
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  A judge ruled that deployment illegal. It's now winding its way through the appeals process.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Deployment of the National Guard within a state is at the discretion of that state's governor. Legally, there are exceptions to that (primarily the Insurrection Act, though there are some deployments that are permitted within states on federal authority on other legal bases with tightly-constrained functions), and practically, the legal limits don't matter because response time off the courts is to slow for them to act as a meaningful brake. (E.g., the lawsuit filed the first court day after the order to mobilize the guard for LA just reached the trial stage this week.)

chrisco255 1y ago

I literally said "one of the highest" not the absolute highest. Being in a top 10 or 20 list on murder rates is not an achievement to strive for, but it absolutely places you in upper echelon of murder. DC has had 100 murders so far in 2025, just 12 shy of 2024 with 3.5 months to go: https://mpdc.dc.gov/dailycrime https://mpdc.dc.gov/dailycrime St. Louis situation is absolutely abysmal. 20 is way too high, 69 is way too high. These are 3rd world numbers that are absolutely inexcusable. And we're only talking about murders here, if you look into other violent crime data, it's also substantial for D.C. The FBI frequently gets involved in murder cases all over the country, there are field offices everywhere. States are significantly different things than the special federal District of Columbia. There, it is generally up to the Governor to deploy the national guard, although plenty of exceptions and precedents exist for the President to do so.