Definitely not, although the ideological bias of the military does not necessarily have to remain conservative forever, especially if an effort is made to make it more left-wing, which is something all banana republic leaders make sure they do before ordering the military to put down their political opponents.
Or they use the current tactic, which is to just arm your supporters with baseball bats and have them break up anti-government protests. Then you don’t need the military.
Yeah, why is that, still? Seems kinda archaic. Heading a modern law-enforcement agency is supposed to be an apolitical, administrative job with no public-policy discretion. City police chiefs only answer to the (elected) city government, and can be fired by it; why should county sheriffs answer to the voters and have an independent electoral mandate?
Heck, some towns elect coroners.
My own view is that executives shouldn’t be elected. Only legislatures. Executives carry out the law. That should be apolitical. So if we’re going to elect Presidents, governors, and mayors, why not elect sheriffs?
Nitpick: In some limited circumstances, it can be crime to encourage people to commit crimes. See The Accused and the RL case it’s based on.
If it had actually been done, and any of those women had died, the protestors probably would be liable under the felony-murder rule and the LEOs certainly would not be.
Now, now, you’re both right; see the Pew Political Typology 2011 and compare the “Staunch Conservatives” (the Tea Party’s base) with the “Main Street Republicans.”
I want to change things pretty radically, but I’m not going to overthrow the government to do it, because I recognize,as do all conservatives, that we need the rule of law to get what we want.
The only way we’d take up arms is if the government chucked the rule of law in favor of the executive’s whims.
Dammit, I was only 2 days away from retirement when this thread was started.
The answer is in the term ‘popular uprising’ as in supported by a majority of the populace. The Bundy event had not reached that level yet, but there were enough people involved that proceeding with enforcement would have been a government disaster, so they decided to withdraw and seek a different solution.
At what point a similar refusal would become a shooting thing is problematic. Depends upon the support for the issue. I do not believe that law enforcement, either federal or local, are prepared to fire upon its citizens.
So you have a point of confrontation, a point of decision, and a point of action or withdrawal.
And this usually results in an endless siege situation, waiting the situation out, negotiations, and usually a peaceful outcome.
But if the situation cannot be resolved by a swat type team, and there is a high likelihood of armed rebellion, the law enforcement agencies will pull out.
Most banana-republic leaders are RW, y’know. See what happened to Manuel Zelaya in Honduras.
Because sheriffs aren’t that kind of executive; their writ is supposed to be limited to law-enforcement, not general political leadership and policymaking for the community.
What violent felony were they committing? (Assuming that the Felony Murder law in that jurisdiction requires that, most do).
I’d say the Oath Keepers counts, and so does Sheriff Mack’s Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.
you’re right. I made the point sloppily. Which was that banana republic leaders always make sure to mold the military in their ideological image.
There is some room for political leadership. Nick Navarro down here in Broward County certainly acted the part, although that’s not a very good argument FOR electing sheriffs. Like most elected leaders, he had no worries about rule of law, only what he thought would make him popular.
A better and better-known example would be Sheriff Arpaio.
How’s that? What felony would the protesters have been committing?
What??
This is in Nevada, yes? Under NRS 200.030(1)(b), felony murder is defined as a murder “Committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of sexual assault, kidnapping, arson, robbery, burglary, invasion of the home, sexual abuse of a child, sexual molestation of a child under the age of 14 years or child abuse.”
Which predicate felony do you contend applies here?
On reflection, probably none – that is, a sufficiently clever and audacious DOJ lawyer might be able to come up with some federal felony charge to shoehorn/bootstrap into a predicate (especially if someone on Bundy’s side shot first, an eventuality the BLM was determined to avoid), but it probably would not suffice under state law.
Good thing too, I suppose, or else the surviving Kent State protesters might have gone down for felony murder just because some of them threw rocks first.
What constitutes insurrection? Does it require actual acts of violence, or does the threat of violence suffice?
There were no shots fired in the Bundy circus. But there was certainly the threat of violence, and even photos of at least one (or two?) protesters aiming guns. The BLM backed down, arguably under the threat of violence.
Does that constitute insurrection?
Isn’t there also some law, or court decision, forbidding “confronting the government” (or is that just a synonym for insurrection)? Was that happening here?
And, if any of those hypothetical female human shields had been killed, would felony murder apply because there was an insurrection in progress? Yes, the law that Bricker cited doesn’t mention insurrection as a predicate. But might not any court have interpreted the law to extend to any sufficiently violent felony (for whatever value of “sufficient” the court sees fit) as a predicate to felony murder?
We haven’t heard the last of this case yet.
That money thing or perhaps because they have devoted their entire adult lives to protecting the rule of law, our government and the public at large.