Just to clear this up for those who may have run across this, I’d like to put this out there.

It’s wrong for police to kill citizens in the street for minor offenses that they deem to be “threatening”.

It’s wrong for a citizen to threaten police with physical violence.

I think what is going on in Ferguson, is the result of two wrong things meeting in the middle. At it’s core the issue of Mike Brown and Darren Wilson has not been resolved. The facts are still being withheld and as I’ve stated before IMHO, that is what has caused all of this mess.

No one can argue that the state of policing in this country has not gotten out of control. There are many good officers out there, but it seems the overwhelming majority of departments have developed an “us against them” mentality. I don’t have to read about it, I see it all around.

Having said that, if people are going to burn down a city because of conjecture and assumption with no facts to back them up, then they have to expect a law enforcement response. That’s not to say they should expect a military response, which is what brings me to this post.

I think Tanks and teargas are not a proper response to water bottles or name calling. It seems to me the National Guard has no place in policing this supposedly free country. This is where parts of the law get a bit hazy.

1.The Posse Comitatus Act

Passed in 1879 after the civil war, this act was passed outlawing the military from policing duties…..

The text of the relevant legislation is as follows:

18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Also notable is the following provision within Title 10 of the United States Code (which concerns generally the organization and regulation of the armed forces and Department of Defense):

10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

2.The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007

After the legislative insanity that followed 9-11, George Bush signed this bit into law effectively ending the above act which is one of the reasons why I’ll never call myself a Republican…..

The President may employ the armed forces… to… restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition… the President determines that… domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order… or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such… a condition… so hinders the execution of the laws… 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… or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In 2008 this change was thankfully repealed in it’s entirety.

3.The National Guard

This is the hazy part. It can be argued that the Guard is not only part of the federal armed services, but also under the command of the state government as a state militia. This dual role could make the Governors use of them lawful if it were not for the next item……

4. State of Emergency in Missouri

The meat of my post is this. For the second time in four months, Gov Jay Nixon of Missouri has declared a “state of emergency” and called on the guard for the situation in Ferguson. One could argue that the first time in August was a legitimate use of the “militia” in response to the actual events that had already transpired in Ferguson with the looting and burning and such.

I’m no fan of Jamilah Nasheed for sure, but the Senator from Missouri has called this last declaration “unconstitutional” and I have to say that I agree as per the letter of the law. As defined in Section 44.010 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri or RSMo, this is the text……

(6) “Emergency”, any state of emergency declared by proclamation by the governor, or by resolution of the legislature pursuant to sections 44.010 to 44.130 upon the actual occurrence of a natural or man-made disaster of major proportions within this state when the safety and welfare of the inhabitants of this state are jeopardized;

At issue here are the use of the words “actual occurrence“. I would be quite happy if someone could tell me what “actual occurrence” Mr. Nixon is referring to in his November 17th, 2014 executive order.

Between the executive order, the federal involvement, Al Sharpton, the mis-reporting of the media in general, the delay in the grand jury, and every opportunistic activist on the planet,  it seems to me that all of this unrest may not be an accident.

(The recent developments with the KKK in the police and FBI finding “evidence” of the Black Panthers buying pipe bombs seems just classic false flag material to me…..)

Can we please just have the facts here, then move forward from there? Everyone knows the problems we face so lets stop stoking the coals and deal with them already.