Marines being mobilized in response to LA protests

Legal basis and Posse Comitatus

• Strong focus on whether the deployment of Marines violates the Posse Comitatus Act.
• Several comments clarify Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act; instead federal forces (Guard + Marines) are framed as “Title 10” support to protect federal personnel and property.
• A cited law professor argues they cannot lawfully perform ordinary law enforcement under Title 10, only force protection and logistics; anything more risks violating Posse Comitatus.
• Others note presidents can federalize the National Guard without a governor’s consent, but using active‑duty Marines against civilians is seen as crossing a new line.

Authoritarian slide and historical parallels

• Many see this as a deliberate test of limits and a “salami tactic” toward competitive authoritarianism, referencing Orbán, Erdoğan, Project 2025, and Trump’s past rhetoric about shooting protesters.
• Kent State, Tiananmen, Little Rock desegregation, 1992 LA riots, and Andor’s “Ghorman massacre” are invoked as analogues.
• Some believe the administration wants a bloody incident to rally its base and justify martial law; others call that reading speculative but concede precedents are being set.

Military vs police roles

• Debate over whether Marines are inherently “trained to kill” and unsuited for crowd control, versus veterans saying modern rules of engagement and de‑escalation are often stricter than local police.
• Anecdotes from prior deployments (Katrina, 1992 LA, foreign occupations) illustrate both professionalism and risks of miscommunication and overreaction.
• Concern centers on optics and normalization: once troops appear on US streets for domestic politics, future presidents of any party can reuse that tool.

Protests, riots, and violence

• Conflicting descriptions: some on-the-ground voices insist protests are geographically small and “largely peaceful,” with rock‑throwing following tear gas.
• Others cite local news of Molotov cocktails, rocks, fireworks, freeway blockages, shattered windows, looting, arson, and assaults on officers.
• Disagreement over whether local law enforcement is overwhelmed or handling it; whether Newsom is responsibly resisting federal overreach or neglecting public order.

Immigration, due process, and targeting

• Sharp split between “enforcing existing law” versus “authoritarian roundups.”
• Critics emphasize alleged due‑process violations, deportations of legal residents or visa holders, and theatrical raids (e.g., Home Depot, school graduations) designed for TV optics and to inflame communities.
• Others stress the burden of high unauthorized immigration and defend ICE operations while opposing militarization.
• Widespread frustration that employers of undocumented workers face minimal penalties; proposals include aggressive employer fines and universal E‑Verify.

Broader political and cultural threads

• Recurrent themes: weaponized polarization, media spectacle, and US institutions failing to check executive power.
• Some argue violent protest and property destruction are tactically self‑defeating and hand Trump an easy “law and order” narrative; others say state violence and lawbreaking by government came first.
• Meta‑discussion about HN becoming politicized and the difficulty of distinguishing fact from narrative in real time.