That is true. But her ex boyfriends words concern me. Why were they there if they had no power to do anything? Sitting ducks. After this I expect a number to quit.
Were they not armed?
They were there because they were told to be there. And yes they were sitting ducks for the Washington, D.C. rifraf to abuse. And yes they had to stand there and take it.
And if you want some more yeses, Yes there won’t be nothing done about it. Like the bastard that shot up Fort Hood, this son of a bitch will die of old age . Bet on it.
> Why were they there if they had no power to do anything? <
They all should have been deputized as US Marshals. And I still haven’t seen a definitive answer to this question: Were these DC Guardsmen armed, or not?
And I mean locked and loaded. Not carrying around an empty rifle with - maybe - a magazine on their belt.
I wonder if all of the spitters were locals. Considering the demographics of DC....
They were there to free up law enforcement to go out and make arrests.
“Why were they there if they had no power to do anything?”
***********
This question should be put to Trump. Its a legitimate one to ask IMO.
https://time.com/7337294/national-guard-dc-court-ruling-shooting-crime-immigration-trump-explainer/
Some troops are armed with handguns or rifles. The military only allows troops to use force “as a last resort and solely in response to an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm,” according to the joint task force.
If a guardsman witnesses a felony in progress then they can interdict to save life and property. Any citizen can do that.