My first responder son and the riots in LA

[Knight]

Ludicrous. Paying the protesters how much? Minimum wage?

Maybe GP44 is confusing paid protestor with paid activists


Do activists get paid?
AI Overview
Yes, some activists are paid for their work, while others volunteer their time. Paid activists can work for non-profit organizations, as community organizers, or in other roles related to social change. Salaries for paid activist roles vary, with some earning modest salaries and others potentially earning higher incomes depending on their experience, skills, and the specific organization they work for.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Volunteer Activists:
Many individuals dedicate their time and energy to activism without receiving financial compensation. They may be motivated by personal beliefs, a desire to contribute to a cause, or a sense of social responsibility.
Paid Activist Roles:
Nonprofit Organizations: Many non-profits employ individuals to work on various social and political issues, such as human rights, environmental protection, or social justice.
Community Organizers: These individuals work to mobilize and empower communities to address local issues and advocate for change. They may be employed by non-profits, government agencies, or other organizations.
Other Paid Positions: Activism can be integrated into various professions, such as legal work, journalism, or policy analysis, where individuals can advocate for change within their specific field.
Salary Variations:
Salaries for paid activist roles can range from modest to more substantial, depending on factors like experience, the size and type of organization, and the specific responsibilities of the role.
For example, ZipRecruiter reports an average hourly pay of $15.50 for political activists in the US, with variations based on location and experience.
ZipRecruiter also lists various paid activist jobs, including positions like team leads, public outreach coordinators, and fundraisers, with salaries ranging from $108,500 to $208,000 per year.
Factors Influencing Pay:
Skills and Experience: Higher levels of experience and specialized skills can lead to higher salaries.
Organization Type: Non-profits may offer lower salaries compared to government agencies or larger organizations.
Specific Role: Certain positions, like fundraising or advocacy, may have different salary structures than others.
In essence, activism can be a paid profession for some, while others choose to dedicate their time and efforts as volunteers. The financial aspect of activism is dependent on the specific opportunities available and the choices individuals make about how they contribute to social change.

Political is one option & this L A protest turned riot seems to me to fit political.

 

[StarSong]

@Knight
Thank you for posting this. Yes, professional organizers, attorneys and other support personnel are (and should be) paid. They arrange for permits, communicate with people who've signed up on their websites, explain demonstrators' rights (including what's not ok), arrange speakers, provide signage artwork options, and strongly advise people to remain calm, listen to police, and not engage with counter-protestors.

I was on a one hour zoom call with No Kings Thursday, and know whereof I speak.

The AI response doesn't mention paying people to walk with signs.

 

[VaughanJB]

So, some people loot and destroy property only because the military was called in? I think some will do this regardless.

I never suggested that. However, do you not believe an action will encourage a reaction? If there was a burglary on your street, would you think it reasonable for the military to block both ends of the street and prevent people from leaving their homes at night?

It's an escalation. A provocation. A move that puts the Federal government in a position of control because of local action, and state's concerns.

 

[Tom52]

I never suggested that. However, do you not believe an action will encourage a reaction? If there was a burglary on your street, would you think it reasonable for the military to block both ends of the street and prevent people from leaving their homes at night?

It's an escalation. A provocation. A move that puts the Federal government in a position of control because of local action, and state's concerns.

IMHO your analogy is not applicable. What is happening is a group of criminals or agitators use a large protest as a venue to cause destruction and create havoc. Property damage and theft on such a large scale is not acceptable. If state and/or local officials are unwilling or unable to handle the situation something needs to be done to protect property and hopefully identify the criminal elements. It is these criminals that have escalated and provoked the situation. It is the actions of these criminals that have caused the reaction.

 

[StarSong]

IMHO your analogy is not applicable. What is happening is a group of criminals or agitators use a large protest as a venue to cause destruction and create havoc. Property damage and theft on such a large scale is not acceptable. If state and/or local officials are unwilling or unable to handle the situation something needs to be done to protect property and hopefully identify the criminal elements. It is these criminals that have escalated and provoked the situation. It is the actions of these criminals that have caused the reaction.

The property destruction in Los Angeles was actually relatively minor (contained to five blocks) and much overblown by some media outlets.

Local law enforcement is more specifically trained to quell civil disturbances than the National Guard, never mind the Marines (who are intended for war). The federal government deployment (over the wishes of California's governor) of 4000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines was such massive overkill that it helped inspire a huge national outcry.

 

[Knight]

he federal government deployment (over the wishes of California's governor) of 4000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines was such massive overkill that it helped inspire a huge national outcry.

The time line if taken into account & the proactive use of troops rather than reactive somehow is left out of the scenario by the same media that covered up [ no need to explain]. There is plenty of photo and video evidence showcasing the violent unrest in Los Angeles — everything from cars set ablaze to rioters hurling chunks of concrete at law enforcement officers and their vehicles.

An unlawful assembly was declared within hours of when the violence first broke out back on June 6 — more than a week ago, when the rioters and arsonists initially clashed with federal officers. City law enforcement officials deployed tear gas and other crowd control methods that evening in an attempt to disperse the mob. Not long afterward, Los Angeles issued a citywide tactical alert, alerting the city’s officers of an all-hands event. Note that all of this occurred before President Trump had called up the National Guard. In the early morning of June 8, after two days of escalation, the first National Guard troops arrived on the scene. Trump later called in the U.S. Marines to protect federal properties, which had already been attacked and vandalized.

For me it's better to have a president willing to take action to protect lives & property than allow what took place creating the need.

 

[VaughanJB]

IMHO your analogy is not applicable. What is happening is a group of criminals or agitators use a large protest as a venue to cause destruction and create havoc. Property damage and theft on such a large scale is not acceptable. If state and/or local officials are unwilling or unable to handle the situation something needs to be done to protect property and hopefully identify the criminal elements. It is these criminals that have escalated and provoked the situation. It is the actions of these criminals that have caused the reaction.

What does "If state and/or local officials are unwilling or unable to handle the situation something needs to be done to protect property" mean? They were doing something. And the state was perfectly able to request assistance, if they felt they needed it. There is a process to these things.

Regardless, Marines should never be used to control the populace. These are highly trained people ready for combat, told to act against the citizens of the US. it's not right, and certainly should not be done casually.

 

[VaughanJB]

The time line if taken into account & the proactive use of troops rather than reactive somehow is left out of the scenario by the same media that covered up [ no need to explain].

If "the proactive use of troops" against US citizens doesn't bring a chill to your spine, then I don't know what to say.

I just watched a video about the forthcoming World Cup (soccer) in the US. This is a global event. The government have said they will be having immigration officials entering the games, and asking fans to prove they entered the country legally. That is, stopping strangers and demanding their authorization.

Now, some will say - well, if they're not here legally, so be it. But I wish they would remember that the being stopped for no reason other than the color of someones skin, or the language they speak, is being normalized, is abhorrent. Once you open this door, it'll soon drag you into its control. For every wall to keep people out, it's keeping you and yours in.

 

[Pepper]

You show great understanding of this incredible situation, @VaughanJB

 

[Knight]

If "the proactive use of troops" against US citizens doesn't bring a chill to your spine, then I don't know what to say.

The proactive use if you look at the time line was & is about protecting citizens & property . As for the video what government source are you referring to & the web site where this factual info is found.
I guess the property damage & injury to the L A police that occurred before protection of the people doing their jobs is not important to you.

As I posted I'll take proactive every time as opposed to reactive.

 

[VaughanJB]

The proactive use if you look at the time line was & is about protecting citizens & property . As for the video what government source are you referring to & the web site where this factual info is found.
I guess the property damage & injury to the L A police that occurred before protection of the people doing their jobs is not important to you.

As I posted I'll take proactive every time as opposed to reactive.

You are totally ignoring the purely political reasons of why US Marines were sent against your fellow Americans. It's not about protecting property and citizens, there were many other options for that. Apparently you can't even imagine why I'd feel as I do, so you've sadly made assumptions and insinuations which are fallacious. As such, I'm pretty sure you and I can't discuss the topic further, I don't think you care for an alternative opinion in this case.

We'll agree to disagree, but please no more assumptions.

 

[Fritz]

@Ronni how is your son doing?

 

[Knight]

You are totally ignoring the purely political reasons of why US Marines were sent against your fellow Americans.

What part of use of the marines to protect federal employees & federal property do you not understand. The videos if you pay attention are about the L A police force not the U S marines. Not trying to convince anyone that law & order should prevail. Not surprising that an area with a high concentration of ILLEGAL immigrants not wanting to be sent back to where they came from would protest.

U.S. military troops deployed to Los Angeles can temporarily detain individuals until law enforcement arrives, but cannot arrest or search them, Major General Scott Sherman clarified. The 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines are tasked with protecting federal personnel during operations. Marines will not carry live ammunition in their rifles.

So easy to confuse the fact that detaining is O K when the media hypes the stories to fit the narratives of "fear" I'm sure if I were in America illegally I'd fear being sent back to then try to come back legally.

 

[Elsie]

What part of use of the marines to protect federal employees & federal property do you not understand. The videos if you pay attention are about the L A police force not the U S marines. Not trying to convince anyone that law & order should prevail. Not surprising that an area with a high concentration of ILLEGAL immigrants not wanting to be sent back to where they came from would protest.

U.S. military troops deployed to Los Angeles can temporarily detain individuals until law enforcement arrives, but cannot arrest or search them, Major General Scott Sherman clarified. The 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines are tasked with protecting federal personnel during operations. Marines will not carry live ammunition in their rifles.

So easy to confuse the fact that detaining is O K when the media hypes the stories to fit the narratives of "fear" I'm sure if I were in America illegally I'd fear being sent back to then try to come back legally.

YOUR eyes are wide open, Knight.

 

[VaughanJB]

What part of use of the marines to protect federal employees & federal property do you not understand. The videos if you pay attention are about the L A police force not the U S marines. Not trying to convince anyone that law & order should prevail. Not surprising that an area with a high concentration of ILLEGAL immigrants not wanting to be sent back to where they came from would protest.

U.S. military troops deployed to Los Angeles can temporarily detain individuals until law enforcement arrives, but cannot arrest or search them, Major General Scott Sherman clarified. The 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines are tasked with protecting federal personnel during operations. Marines will not carry live ammunition in their rifles.

So easy to confuse the fact that detaining is O K when the media hypes the stories to fit the narratives of "fear" I'm sure if I were in America illegally I'd fear being sent back to then try to come back legally.

Again, you are making assumptions. There are many videos out there, and we all know US Marines were sent to control US citizens.

Your comment on immigration tells the truth here. You support what's going on with illegal immigrants, and whatever it takes to do it is okay. You're upset people protested. But the thing is, not everyone protesting were illegals.

Also, the idea that US Marines can detain US citizens doesn't seem to phase you at all. Fair enough, I accept we have a very different opinion.

That you mention "media hypes", while swallowing most of it hook line and sinker is and repeating it back is..... telling.

Honestly, I don't think you're making any effort to understand an opposing view. Instead it's the same tired assumptions - I mean, I couldn't possibly care about law and order, right?

Which is why there is zero worth in you and I debating this topic. You just don't get it, and worse don't want to (I mean, how difficult would it have been to ASK my opinion rather than slap a label on me?) I accept we see this very differently. It's best left at that, since the only way a discussion between you and I could go, is downwards. I'll save the board from that and will no longer directly reply to you in this thread.

 

[Been There]

What does "If state and/or local officials are unwilling or unable to handle the situation something needs to be done to protect property" mean? They were doing something. And the state was perfectly able to request assistance, if they felt they needed it. There is a process to these things.

Regardless, Marines should never be used to control the populace. These are highly trained people ready for combat, told to act against the citizens of the US. it's not right, and certainly should not be done casually.

The Marines in LA are only there to protect Federal property per Title 10. Unless congress gives the Marines more power, they are not permitted to act in the way that law enforcement does. No right to search and seizure or arrests. But as any other citizen has the right, they are able to protect themselves.

 

[ohioboy]

No right to search and seizure or arrests.

A detention of temporary restraint is a Seizure.

 

[VaughanJB]

The Marines in LA are only there to protect Federal property per Title 10. Unless congress gives the Marines more power, they are not permitted to act in the way that law enforcement does. No right to search and seizure or arrests. But as any other citizen has the right, they are able to protect themselves.

US Marines should not be there. They should not be used against US citizens. There is no excuse for it, despite the number of excuses some want to make. You are, I believe, ushering in a precedent where the US military is used to control the populace. It's not right, imo. That doesn't even touch in the obvious political role in the decision to send them.

 

[Been There]

US Marines should not be there. They should not be used against US citizens. There is no excuse for it, despite the number of excuses some want to make. You are, I believe, ushering in a precedent where the US military is used to control the populace. It's not right, imo. That doesn't even touch in the obvious political role in the decision to send them.

The Marines aren’t being used against any citizen. That’s not their intent for being where they are. If you remember what happened 5 years ago, when Federal property and court houses were burned, the government does have a right to protect their property. They are also there to protect Federal employees. The Posse Comitatus Act limits their role in civilian law enforcement.

 

[VaughanJB]

The Marines aren’t being used against any citizen. That’s not their intent for being where they are. If you remember what happened 5 years ago, when Federal property and court houses were burned, the government does have a right to protect their property. They are also there to protect Federal employees. The Posse Comitatus Act limits their role in civilian law enforcement.

That's a thin line of semantics, imo. Of course they're being used against citizenry. This was not the only option that could have been used. And I don't recall the marines being called into the January 6th 2021 riots. Perhaps they should have been called in en masse. These are US Marines!

But then, we can trust the Marines, I guess, despite one-third of the 200 active and retired military participants arrested for their role in the Capitol attack were Marines.

I'm going to leave this discussion entirely now. I appreciate my views are in the minority, and that's all good. We're ushering in a world where dictators will get their way, as long as we can train the populace sufficiently. We used to have respect for all sides of the political spectrum, but not today, sadly.

I enjoy the forum, and I don't want that enjoyment tainted by reading some of the comments made in here.

Peace!

 

[Knight]

Again, you are making assumptions. There are many videos out there, and we all know US Marines were sent to control US citizens.

No they were sent to protect lives & property, that has been clearly established.
The media hasn't identified the nationality of those arrested. Your post seems to say you honestly believe the people attacking the federal employees are ALL U S citizens. Or is it you making assumptions?

 

[Knight]

The Marines in LA are only there to protect Federal property per Title 10. Unless congress gives the Marines more power, they are not permitted to act in the way that law enforcement does. No right to search and seizure or arrests. But as any other citizen has the right, they are able to protect themselves.

They do have the right to detain until law enforcement can come to deal with the cause of detainment. Kind of hard to imagine marines not reacting to detain someone that might have physically attacked them in some way. There is a lot of media coverage about marines detaining American citizens. The problem as I see it. People like VaughanJB opposed to maintaining law & order & protecting lives & property don't understand the difference detaining & arresting.

 

[Been There]

That's a thin line of semantics, imo. Of course they're being used against citizenry. This was not the only option that could have been used. And I don't recall the marines being called into the January 6th 2021 riots. Perhaps they should have been called in en masse. These are US Marines!

But then, we can trust the Marines, I guess, despite one-third of the 200 active and retired military participants arrested for their role in the Capitol attack were Marines.

I'm going to leave this discussion entirely now. I appreciate my views are in the minority, and that's all good. We're ushering in a world where dictators will get their way, as long as we can train the populace sufficiently. We used to have respect for all sides of the political spectrum, but not today, sadly.

I enjoy the forum, and I don't want that enjoyment tainted by reading some of the comments made in here.

Peace!

I agree that you should leave this discussion. You are talking like a politician. I, on the other hand, debate while taking a neutral stand. It shouldn't be about politics. I can't understand why LA decided to defend the illegals that are criminals and not allow ICE to do their job. They should be allowed to grab all illegals that have a criminal record. No one said a damn word when Obama also deported illegals.

 

[Teacher Terry]

What does "If state and/or local officials are unwilling or unable to handle the situation something needs to be done to protect property" mean? They were doing something. And the state was perfectly able to request assistance, if they felt they needed it. There is a process to these things.

Regardless, Marines should never be used to control the populace. These are highly trained people ready for combat, told to act against the citizens of the US. it's not right, and certainly should not be done casually.

You are absolutely correct!! If allowed to continue it will be the end of our country as we know it.

 

[ohioboy]

You are absolutely correct!! If allowed to continue it will be the end of our country as we know it.

This Country is already doomed. Almost 40 Trillion in debt. No way out, too far gone.