But again, that’s not the law (the executive order here). They can’t go enforce things not the law. It’s not like there are armed folks running around that street making exigent circumstances. Why do you feel the need to defend something obviously indefensible?

Edit: just to be clear, given all the huff and puff by police of needing riot gear, armored trucks, giant guns, I haven’t seen any report in Minneapolis of any armed protestors or any cops coming under fire. But that doesn’t stop the cops from shooting (less than lethal) rounds.

Reasonable police orders have to follow the law - the police cannot and should not be allowed to enforce things that are not the law. Of course, there's a presumption that they're in the right when they shoot you after you ignore an illegal order, and apparently you agree with that. Good luck with your freedoms.

Where? Do you have a link? Let’s assume that’s true, that a crime was committed across the country. Does that give this group of law enforcement to shoot ltl rounds at unarmed people on private property and in compliance with the law? I don’t understand your reasoning.

I disagree with the parent poster, but a Federal Protective Service member was killed last night in Oakland: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-officer-killed-in-shoot...

I did read that they're unsure whether it was related to the protests though.

One police officer was shot at in Minneapolis (14th and Lake if anyone’s local). They missed and were quickly taken down. The weapon was recovered.

Wow, thanks for posting. That’s really unfortunate and I hope they find who murdered the guard.

> I did read that they're unsure whether it was related to the protests though.

Yes, but there's little doubt that the riots are cover.

That’s where you missed it: it is not reasonable to give unlawful orders, it is not reasonable to order someone on private property to go inside. They can request folks to go inside. They cannot order it until their powers are elevated by law. Might doesn’t make right.

I agree; but it is possible to have a lawful order to control someone on private property. An example was the Boston bombing manhunt where police were doing door to door searches because there was a specific, articulated threat in a defined geographic area (note, I don’t know that’s the real legal test, but I’m sure it considers factors like that).

What you're calling for is the suspension of the rule of law.

No crisis justifies this unless you're willing to throw the whole thing out permanently. If you have a problem with a lack of police powers to compel house arrest without cause or to search without permission or warrant, write a new Constitutional amendment and get it passed.

That is a possibility, and one I think you need in a complex society. If police have a real threat of harm coming from inside a private home, they might need to enter the home before they can get a valid warrant. The problem is, police—-by doing the things in this video and though mistreatment of minorities—-are losing credibility (if they had any). Society needs to hold bad actors in police accountable so that we can be protected when they’re actually needed.

So your argument is that "different situations are different situations?" That is a solid justification for any action in this situation!

No, I was arguing against the parent comment. In this situation there were no exigent circumstances and so no expansion of what the law enforcement can do. I wanted to clarify that in special circumstances it is possible for a LE to order someone to move inside their house. You need consequences for this bad action so that the police have credibility to use the action in the proper situation.

- There isn't a riot happening there

- shooting people on their porch is the cause of chaos and confrontation you claim police are trying to prevent

- fuck those guys

They were either going to or coming from a riot area.

Their responsibility is to make sure the riot doesn't spread and stop the riot. They can't do that effectively if they have to wade through a massive crowd of onlookers appearing wherever they go. Bad actors easily mix in to situations like this and make the situation extremely dangerous for everyone. If someone doesn't respond to direct commands in such an emergency, they're going to be seen as potential bad actors.

It's totally reasonable to demand that people stay inside their houses while the police are securing the area.

If it was reasonable, it would encoded into the law. It is not for the police to create new laws on the spot, and even if it were, the use of force to enforce it is not reasonable.

Proportionate force is justifiable in an emergency, and we'll see if it is really "against the law" for police to demand that people get inside temporarily.

My guess? Absolutely NOTHING will happen to those police that paintballed the porch gawkers after very clearly telling them to go inside.

Having seen what happened in Baltimore in 2015 and now Philly, I am terrified of the idea of a city going up in flames when a riot gets out of control. It's been too close the times that I've seen it personally. Historically, it has been far worse.

You are absolutely right that none of them will get in trouble. That’s kind of the point of all of this.

The irony, how everyone was howling a out infringements of rights (free speech etc) when youtube banned some right-wing conspiracy theorists, but as soon as we see the most blatant major infringements of rights (shooting at people who have every right to be where they are on their own propert) and the same people find all sorts of ways to make excuses why it's OK.

What's next? Saying that George Floyd was clearly at fault because he was trying to breath, where clearly the officer didn't want him to, so the officers actions were justified?!