Posted on 05/21/2024 1:21:55 PM PDT by JoSixChip
I wish to God that there was an alternative to Microsoft...which I despise.
They are so damned slow that you think you completed a post and it looks as though you didn’t.
They make me sick, some entrepeneur should have the money and guts to put it out of business.
Thanks for the follow-up!!
Maybe Ron will write about it in the next book he’ll publish right before running for President again.
What do neverTrumpers have to do with me or with the post you’re replying to? Or is it that you just can’t stand to see a positive factcheck about DeSantis without railing against it?
Indeed. FDLE was probably ‘detailed’ to provide access/area control coverage for the raid and not fully involved in the first confrontation is my guess. That doesn’t mean they were specifically notified of use-of-force against the President.
Democrat party and DeSantis: If you cannot win honestly then kill your opponent.
The raid was bullshxt. That being said, anytime a person of high interest like an former president , senator etc is raided in any state by federal law enforcement like the FBI the state govermment is notified so DeSantis knowing of the raid in advance is nothing new. Local law enforcement is also notified and often helps. That’s reality.
Did you expect DeSantis to call Trump and say “Hey you’re going to be raised by the FBI this morning.”
As for deadly force.. there were SS officers protecting Trump, they were armed. They were given a heads up just before the raid as to not be a threat.
Sirens, FBI, cops show up at Trump’s MAL. There’s the possibility of numerous Trump supporters showing up. You can bet the majority didn’t want to be there. Florida is a constitutional carry state. There’s a threat to law enforcement. Law enforcement was not there to potentially assassinate Trump. That is total bullshxt. The use of deadly force is authorized in the event law enforcement faces a potential threat. It’s SOP.
The law:
§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.
(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:
(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).
(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.
(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.
(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.
1 These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm.
(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:
(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.
(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.
So that’s law and tactics.
The raid should have never happened, Trump did nothing wrong and yes this is lawfare. I’m not not arguing that. The Laura Loomer take was bullshxt.
FYI the particular law cited (I picked one of many) depends on circumstances for federal agents and varies from state to state for local law enforcement.
There’s tons of info..
It’s clear they were hoping for some sort of resistance for which they could justify use of force, and were hoping Trump would show up.
THEY WERE NOT IDENTIFIED AS FBI either, they were wearing the fedsurrectionist uniform of khakis. Again, hoping to start a firefight.
It used to be affordable in Florida. It is no longer affordable. I’ve lived here for eight years and I see the difference. Ron DeSantis abandoned us and went with the deep state.
“Can you provide a citation of a sheriff disarming in FBI raid?“
The law as far as I know. This has been discussed on here befor. G. Gordon used to talk about it. A Sheriff can make the check their weapons at his office when they are acting in the county. A Sheriff can put his own men on the enforcement the fbi is there to do. An elected Sheriff has a tremendous amount of power in a county if he cares to use it.
I’m just asking for one example.
Loomer was excellent on this morning’s ‘War Room’.
Loomer is a kook. Stop falling for her crap. This claim is over a year old and comes from a satire site. It has nothing to do with the document release today. The screen capture that Loomer posed comes from here:
DeSantis Had Advance Knowledge of Mar-a-Lago Raid; Texted With AG Garland
It's from a BS Substack, not court documents.
“I’m just asking for one example.“
Go look it up if you want an example . Do your own research. Why you think it’s important I don’t know. What does it have to do with the possibility that a sheriff COULD do it? Do you doubt that? If so why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.