Re: the rules on the side: "Alt-Text for vision-impaired users in the post body or in the comments is highly encouraged. Just pretend you are describing a photo to someone on the phone."
Some instances have "alternate text" boxes that don't show up for everyone but allow screen readers to read it, but if not, just put it in the body. Or as a comment.
Can't name the incident, but this is an American Indian tribe vs police over a land dispute. I think it was about an oil pipeline crossing tribal lands.
This is Police? They have fucking machineguns on cars?! If the 2A people would have any brains, they would dismantle the police now, because that is what a malicious governments supression force looks like.
Not the full military, per say- National Guard is controlled by each State’s Governor, but can still be called on and used on the Federal level. This was a State level issue. Not always for “defensive” issues either, usually humanitarian, etc.
I’m not advocating one way or another on the WHY they are there, just pointing out that those armored vehicles are NOT police.
thank you for the insight. In my country Germany it is prohibited to use the military in the interior, except for relief in natural catastrophes. Unfortunately this is something where the right wing nut jobs love to "open the debate" every decade or so.
The national guard is normally used in disaster relief, like floods. But the Governor is like a tiny president, (sorta, kinda) and as such has some powers over the military force from their state (hand waving a lot here).
As such they can declare a protest or other interior event a "disaster" or public safety risk, and temporarily deploy national guard to support.
If I remember correctly, the guard have to abide by additional federal military rules, compared to state employees, so they are usually carefully used. and again I might be wrong but if the state deploys em, the state pays em,... Not the federal government
Accidental Renaissance
Oldest