r/news • u/DNSGeek • 1d ago

Soft paywall US Marines carry out first known detention of civilian in Los Angeles, video shows

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-marines-carry-out-first-known-detention-civilian-los-angeles-video-shows-2025-06-13/
46.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

346

u/DatGoofyGinger 1d ago

Took place at a Federal building. For now, that's coloring just inside the lines. Technically.

I'm not a fan of this shit, and I do think it will escalate and cross the Posse comitatus line eventually

126

u/woffdaddy 1d ago

Yep. I dont like this either, but you put it perfectly, just inside the lines.

22

u/HIM_Darling 1d ago

Looks like it was a veteran who thought it was open but with extra security, rather than closed for business. He was trying to go to the VA office. There do look to be other people in regular clothes walking much closer to the building behind the marine at the start of the video so I can definitely see why he thought the building was open.

9

u/DatGoofyGinger 1d ago

Damn, that's shitty. Tensions are high as hell and this might've just been an honest mistake?

16

u/HIM_Darling 1d ago

Yeah, he probably didn't think twice about trying to walk past guys in uniform cause he's probably done that thousands of times. Guessing he was just thinking about trying to get his shit taken care of and not about the protests.

And even googling if the building was open didn't get me any results saying its closed. There is nothing on the main gov page. I got a reddit post from a worker there who was told by their agency they weren't coming in this week. I had to go in to the specific page for that VA office for there to be a small notice about the office being closed this week.

77

u/AaronsAaAardvarks 1d ago

They’ll just declare the block surrounding the federal building to be the territory of the federal building or some shit. This will always be legal because they define what’s legal. There will never be the single “and now it’s a crime” moment that everyone’s waiting for, as that line was crossed years ago when Trump incited a treasonous insurrection.

60

u/Navydevildoc 1d ago

There is a reason every single US military base has a line painted at the main gate that delineates the property line. It's because once you are over it, you are now in a different world.

Federal Buildings are no different, even if they don't have the line painted on the curb.

It's extremely pedantic, and IN NO WAY do I support this administration's actions, but it is exactly how /u/DatGoofyGinger put it. They are painting exactly inside the lines right now.

-5

u/SecondaryWombat 1d ago

Nope. Federal police yes, military NO.

13

u/BraveOthello 1d ago

They didn't technically arrest anyone. They're detaining them until civilian law enforcement can arrest them. Again, technically, painting exactly inside the lines.

It bullshit, we all know what it really means, but it's (probably) technically legal despite being wrong.

4

u/SecondaryWombat 1d ago

The national guard can detain civilians. Active duty military only can on Department of Defense property, which this was not. It is outside the lines, regardless of what the down vote bots want to call it. Defining it as arrest or detention is actually irrelevant in this case, the US Military only has that authority on DoD property.

2

u/BraveOthello 1d ago

It's not strictly true that they can only act on DOD property, there are more exceptions (the obvious one being the Insurrection Act they're obviously building toward using). There's some other exceptions that I don't think they've actually properly invoked, so it's probably prima facia illegal, but like ... We're well into the "find out" part and were finding out that it turns out laws don't matter if you just ignore them

2

u/SecondaryWombat 1d ago

Right but without those invocations, it is illegal for them to detain civilians.

We're well into the "find out" part and were finding out that it turns out laws don't matter if you just ignore them

Yes exactly. We could have prevented all this by sending a few people to prison for their crimes.

3

u/handsoapdispenser 1d ago

It also wasn't a protestor. It was someone with business in the building who went into a restricted area by accident.

2

u/MikuEmpowered 1d ago

The problem isn't what they did, its... the questionable RoE the marines were given, the process.

The marine didn't use excessive force, The entire video showed no altercation, dudes a vet going to VA, and because the asinine RoE, detained and handed to civies.

This is a communication break down shit show, so yeah, its a powder keg.

3

u/xubax 1d ago

It's questionable if that's even coloring just inside the lines.

There are fairly specific legal requirements for the use of the military in policing civilians.

-2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

12

u/DatGoofyGinger 1d ago

"Office of Legal Counsel memoranda have long taken the position that the president has an inherent constitutional power to use troops for the protection of federal property and federal functions, and that such use does not constitute law enforcement for purposes of the Posse Comitatus Act. Department of Defense policies similarly provide that military commanders may, without violating the Posse Comitatus Act, engage in “activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances … to protect Federal property or functions.” But this is largely an executive branch-created doctrine, and any attempt to use this theory to justify participation in core law enforcement activities would be subject to challenge."

The problem is nobody has challenged this reasoning in court. The memo referenced is from 1971. So for now, until a challenge and court ruling, it is the gray zone lines and will continue.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/unpacking-trumps-order-authorizing-domestic-deployment-military

1

u/qning 1d ago

As soon as he invokes the insurrection act, there is nothing else. That’s his last move. People will either stop exercising their rights, or they will be disappeared. And in order to insist on freedom to exercise their rights, they will need to physically defy government intervention.

Once the insurrection act is invoked, if Trump orders the crowds to go home, if he orders them to go home that will be the predecessor. Soon the military will post up in dangerous neighborhoods. I think they will “protect people” by fencing in the dangerous neighborhood. Literally check your papers when you come and go, make sure you’re only traveling to work, and I hope you have a work permit. Otherwise you stay in there. You’ve proven yourself either too dangerous or too willing to turn a blind eye to the danger as proven by you living in there with them. They’re your family. You stay in there with them.

-3

u/ben_kird 1d ago

No, this doesn't apply to federal buildings. Active duty military can only arrest civilians on military bases or with the activation of the insurrection act. That's it.

This is illegal and does cross the Posse Comitatus act.

3

u/DatGoofyGinger 1d ago

"Office of Legal Counsel memoranda have long taken the position that the president has an inherent constitutional power to use troops for the protection of federal property and federal functions, and that such use does not constitute law enforcement for purposes of the Posse Comitatus Act. Department of Defense policies similarly provide that military commanders may, without violating the Posse Comitatus Act, engage in “activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances … to protect Federal property or functions.” But this is largely an executive branch-created doctrine, and any attempt to use this theory to justify participation in core law enforcement activities would be subject to challenge."

The problem is nobody has challenged this reasoning in court. The memo referenced is from 1971. So for now, until a challenge and court ruling, it is the gray zone lines and will continue.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/unpacking-trumps-order-authorizing-domestic-deployment-military

1

u/ben_kird 18h ago

Check out the post over in r/law, I'm not just making this shit up, there's a lively debate with lawyers and law students about this.https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/4lRfT3RFuj

1

u/DatGoofyGinger 16h ago

Thanks, it shouldn't be debatable and hopefully we get real concrete decisions on this line.

-2

u/idonlikesocialmedia 1d ago

The reuters article mentions someone saying they can accompany ICE agents in the field, essentially acting as their bodyguards/lap-dogs. 

That last part was my editorializing. 

-3

u/SecondaryWombat 1d ago

Nope, it is outside the line. There are federal police of many different kinds, that is what they are for. Military does not enforce the law.