> US military force needs to take control of the department

This is martial law. Los Angeles doesn't need martial law. What you're describing is the DoJ's job.

No idea of how it works in US Police, but over here a cop would rarely raise a finger, or testify against another cop, save for exceptional cases, and evidence often isn't enough. That otherwise wonderful thing called esprit de corps went clearly too far, becoming in some circles more akin to Mafia's code of silence. That's why might be worth leaving out other cops.

That's referred to as the "blue wall of silence" in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence

> might be worth leaving out other cops

DoJ aren’t cops. (FBI are cops.)

The OIG, ATF, DEA, Marshal Service, and the FBI all agencies within the DoJ, though the FBI has always had signfiicant levels of autonomy within the DoJ compared to the others

Sure, but when one says DoJ it doesn’t refer to the FBI or DEA. (At least in no lawmaking circles I’ve been party to.)

The status quo is also martial law. Bringing in the Army is an extreme plan and probably a bad idea, but some guys in suits flying in from D.C. to give a powerpoint about police accountability will absolutely not solve this either.

The Posse Comitatus Act bars federal military forces from participating in civilian law enforcement (except in unusual circumstances that don't apply here). And the military doesn't even have the skills to root out police corruption; it's just not their job.

The appropriate response would be for the county or state government to request assistance from the California Highway Patrol and/or Department of Justice.

The military does have experience in overthrowing existing governments and setting up all-new civilian governments (including police). Perhaps they should try that in LA.

I can’t tell if you’re serious or simply trolling here. The blunt instrument required to overthrow a government is not at all the same tool required to ensure public safety, not to mention the rooting out corruption. Radically different functions, radically different training, and radically different day to day skills required.

You're right about the instruments being different, but I'm just pointing out that the US military has, in the past, set up all-new civilian governments in places after bluntly overthrowing the existing governments. In some cases it ended up working out rather well, certainly better than what was there before. So it is absolutely possible, as proven by experience, to use a military power to conquer a place, and then set up a better, democratic, civilian government. Even better, all the places where the military has done this (except Afghanistan) now have much better governments than LA. (Even Afghanistan was better until its government fell because it couldn't defend itself.)