I wasn't advocating removal of the local officials (though putting them on trial for violating civil rights, and removing them plus prison if convicted, needs to be on the table). But denying police protection to the innocent-but-politically-out is not in the range of choices local officials are entitled to make.

If they block my truck and start pounding on it I'm mashing the gas. Might as well stick their finger in the barrel of my 357 magnum...

I can't speak to FL laws, but in Texas it does. It even applies to your workplace or business. In Texas, fleeing doesn't necessarily undo stand your ground.

For example, if someone breaks in and tries to run off with stuff, you can pursue and use requisite force to recover.

Understood. However, knowing the intent and plain meaning, the criminals have ignored current law. So what’s to stop them from ignoring the redundant laws?

"I believe it's a controversy whether the governor can refuse a federal call-up."

It's political but not illegal. When Eisenhower went in to enforce desegregation at Selma, he couldn't use National Guard troops from Alabama because the governor refused. Same thing with the border kerfuffle. The President just has to call on units from other (politically-friendly) states.

"The reason I want federal forces involved..."

I agree that the entire system smacks not only of injustice but dereliction of duty by local elected officials. That isn't sufficient justification, however, to attempt to remove those officials from office using Federalized troops. Yes, its absolutely unfair to the citizens that their local officials are jackasses (double meaning there) but we have to look at the forest rather than the trees.

One of the huge erosions we've seen in the Constitution has arisen as States have seen their power usurped by the Federal government in nearly every arena. The entire purpose behind having States at all was to make politics local and applicable. The biggest problems facing our nation right now are nation-wide in nature - not local - and all revolve around too much power in the Federal Government. If we start using Federal authorities to remove objectionable local authorities rather than allow their own citizenry to do it, we might as well just end Federalism entirely and dissolve the States, eliminating the 50 individual petri dishes they represent and subjecting all of us to the same overly-broad rulemaking which gave us Common Core. IMHO, that's a cure worse than the disease.

I know that they are state militia, but I believe it's a controversy whether the governor can refuse a federal call-up. If it happened during riots, the President could always call up NG from other states and send them.

The reason I want federal forces involved is that in places like Portland and Minneapolis, the city councils, police chiefs, state prosecutors and governors are all in bed with the bad guys, so either the feds intervene or the victims have no option except to fight a gun battle against both the BLM thugs and the corrupt police who are protecting them. If civilians are put in that position, then government isn't doing its #1 job.

You might not know this, but the National Guard is anything but national. They are actually volunteer militias under the direct command of the State's Governor - not the President of the United State. If they are called upon for service, the Governor must assent to that request or they don't go. (Several governors refused to send their Guard units to the border when called upon by President Trump.)

I found this in reference to the Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Acts: https://www.thoughtco.com/posse-comit... One of the things it points out is that there are significant limits on what the National Guard may be used for.

Again, however, I have to ask: what is the impetus behind getting federal forces involved? I can point to a few instances where that only went bad, such as the Bundy Ranch standoff and the Malheur Reserve protest in which Lavoy Finicum was murdered. One could also add Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the incident with Elian Gonzalez. I'm not such a big one on playing with fire.

It's a job for the National Guard, and the law already provides for it, as well as some regulation about when it can be done (the Posse Comitatus Act, but also the Insurrection Act).

The Constitutional Convention did debate a provision that would have banned Congress from maintaining a standing army, but decided not to. Though in practice we did not have one during peacetime (beyond the National Guard) until after the Mexican War.

I understand the desire, but let's turn it around. Do you really want to enable the Federal Government to create, fund, and staff enforcement bureaus all over the country whose only purpose is to quell riots? Not only is that an overreach of authority IMHO but it also creates an opportunity for a less scrupulous Executive to use those forces as brown shirts/GRU/stazi/etc. I'm seeing enough red flags here to drive a charging bull crazy.

If you were run over by a protester, SYG would not apply.

YW. It`s probably the only action Jeb Bush ever took that was beneficial to the population, my guess is, he secretly regrets it.

I assert that the "privileges and immunities" guaranteed by the 14th include protection against violent crime. That's the cause for federal intervention.

And of course the best remedy is to never collect said taxes in the first place... ;)

I would actually argue exactly the opposite. The purpose of the Constitution was to leave State matters up to the States and let the people get what they vote for. The Federal Government could certainly be called upon to intervene if a State had an issue with another State, but beyond that, there is no enumerated power authorizing the Federal Government to intervene in local politics.

Now does that mean that the people in those jurisdictions are going to suffer? Probably. What we have to hope is that suffering brings calls for change which appear at the ballot box. Otherwise, the change will be a result of force from rioters and will get ugly.

Yeah... the drawback of SYG is that the guy using a crosswalk this way can use it on you -- even if the light has changed.

We need new laws to allow federal intervention because the cities and states where this is occurring have elected police chiefs and prosecutors whose policy is to just let rioters go if they belong to leftist groups. In many cases Soros paid for the prosecutors' campaigns.

This is why it's so important for Trump to be re-elected. The government taxes and gives it back to cities who go along with the federal government. We can't make them comply but the federal government sure can tax people and spend it in other places.

An Army vet, I carry my Mark I eyeball EVERYWHERE I go along with my 9mm. Unfortunately my wife has never learned situational awareness and thinks she has a bigger set of balls than she does. I will arm her.

One thing an active-duty military colonel responsible for our volunteer radio group told us is even more important (than carrying a sidearm for protection) is situational awareness. He emphasized that the "Mark I eyeball" is still the most valuable tool for keeping yourself safe. I know that since his little pep talk, I've become a lot more vigilant (most of the time) about watching where I'm going and what others around me are doing.

I worry about this issue with regard to my wife's commute to/from work as she has been very near rioters. She will be getting her Concealed Hand Gun License to protect her. Mobs, rioters, 87% protesters in Texas --we will not wait for the police. You are on notice. Do not block our streets. Do not interrupt our meals at restaurants. Do not attempt to burn down down our businesses. Do not tear down or disfigure our statues. Actions have consequences. This is not your parent's basement.

Thank you!

And all the "shell" corporations and foundations. He may have more than anyone on the planet.

Here is one list, but it may not be complete. https://www.diamondandsilk.com/comple...

They'll suffer for the bad policies anyway, now that Trump is refusing "anarchist cities" the money to rebuild infrastructure.

I was thinking right along these lines. These sad actors have very thin resumes ... a "sum of zeroes" and their raging toddler antics are their means of asserting their worth (which is very little).

I realize that if it comes down to the use of force, I will need to have the funds to legally defend myself. I have connections with a couple good attorneys and can fund my defense. I do not want it to come to that, so I have done what I can to stay out of the trouble zones. If the trouble comes into my quiet neighborhood, then force will be met with force and my attorney will be close at hand.

Yeah, I understand...