JUST-IN: Local Police Are Refusing to Help Secure Trump’s Inauguration

Multiple local police departments from areas surrounding Washington, DC will reportedly refuse to assist with security for Trump’s inauguration on Monday as the swearing-in ceremony has been moved indoors.
The Gateway Pundit reported earlier that President Trump announced his ceremony will be held inside the Capitol Rotunda, citing cold weather. However, there have also been concerns about Trump’s safety following the two recent assassination attempts.

Local police refusing to help comes after the Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith announced last week that "nearly 4,000 officers from across the United States who were generous enough to raise their hands and commit their time to assist the Metropolitan Police Department" during inaugural events.

However, several agencies in nearby Maryland, including Montgomery, Howard, and Queen Anne's County police, have reportedly said they will not be assisting.


More

JUST-IN: Local Police Are Refusing to Help Secure Trump's Inauguration | The Gateway Pundit | by Jordan Conradson

As Trump's inauguration shifts indoors, tensions rise with local police declining to assist. This article reveals the implications for security and access for attendees amidst a contentious political landscape.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Baby Yoda]

Have to say, I am worried about security for the event.



That report exposed over 150 extremist organizations behind the anti-Israel protests being witnessed across America. Most of these groups suggest the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attacks against Israel were morally and legally justifiable, according to Mauro.

Mauro admits to being "apprehensive" about what's being planned among the groups attending the presidential Inauguration Day. "Could the 'We Fight Back' campaign stir up something more than a mere protest?" he asks. "Will there be violence? Could that violence turn deadly?"

No matter how much preparation takes place to prevent bad things from happening, Mauro warns, "there's always a security gap."

 

[Tall Timbers]

Hopefully a lot of those organizations along with antifa get shut down with any members who've committed crimes imprisoned.

 

[Tall Timbers]

However, several agencies in nearby Maryland, including Montgomery, Howard, and Queen Anne's County police, have reportedly said they will not be assisting.

Any individual officers who refuse to assist are probably worthless DEI hires to begin with. Any departments that refuse to assist should be put on a list for not receiving Federal funds, now or in the future.

 

[KMendel]

Ummmm........... the way I read it, the officers did not refuse to cover the inauguration...........they were simply standing down as they
were no longer needed as the swearing in is now being held indoors. The police chief in DC thanked them for being willing to serve,
but they were just no longer needed.

 

[Tall Timbers]

Ummmm........... the way I read it, the officers did not refuse to cover the inauguration...........they were simply standing down as they
were no longer needed as the swearing in is now being held indoors. The police chief in DC thanked them for being willing to serve,
but they were just no longer needed.

I hope that's the case. So, we may have a lying article title...

 

[KMendel]

Oh, my goodness, we have to be so careful about what we read now, because there are more lies than truth out there!! We need to look further and vet everything before we jump on bandwagons.

 

[LightOfMyLife]

It is suppose to be really cold outside that is why it is being moved inside. He should be protected no matter where he is. No excuses!

 

[1LoverofGod]

More details on why Maryland Police cannot provide local Police protection​

​

​

EXCLUSIVE: Maryland Police ‘Unable To Assist’ With Inauguration Security Due To ‘Use Of Force’ Policy​

Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) cited recent changes in Maryland’s use-of-force policy for why multiple law enforcement agencies were reported as being unable to assist with security for the 2025 presidential inauguration ceremonies.

“Due to differences in the interpretation of Maryland’s recent legislation on Use of Force compared to the District of Columbia’s Use of Force policies, some Maryland agencies are unable to assist MPD directly for the inauguration. However, many of these agencies are contributing to the event’s security efforts through agreements with the United States Capitol Police,” Washington, D.C. police told The Daily Caller in a statement.

Maryland state legislators passed new restrictions on police use-of-force and repealed the nation’s first Police Bill of Rights in April 2021 following the May 25, 2020 death of George Floyd. The sweeping police reform bill stipulates force can be used only to prevent “an imminent threat of physical injury” to a person or to “effectuate a legitimate law enforcement objective.” It also upgraded the standard for using force from “reasonable” to “necessary and proportional.”


More

EXCLUSIVE: Maryland Police ‘Unable To Assist’ With Inauguration Security Due To ‘Use Of Force’ Policy

The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C. says recent changes in Maryland's use-of-force policy render them unable to assist with the inauguration.

dailycaller.com

 

[1LoverofGod]

More details on why Maryland Police cannot provide local Police protection​

​

​

EXCLUSIVE: Maryland Police ‘Unable To Assist’ With Inauguration Security Due To ‘Use Of Force’ Policy​

Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) cited recent changes in Maryland’s use-of-force policy for why multiple law enforcement agencies were reported as being unable to assist with security for the 2025 presidential inauguration ceremonies.

“Due to differences in the interpretation of Maryland’s recent legislation on Use of Force compared to the District of Columbia’s Use of Force policies, some Maryland agencies are unable to assist MPD directly for the inauguration. However, many of these agencies are contributing to the event’s security efforts through agreements with the United States Capitol Police,” Washington, D.C. police told The Daily Caller in a statement.

Maryland state legislators passed new restrictions on police use-of-force and repealed the nation’s first Police Bill of Rights in April 2021 following the May 25, 2020 death of George Floyd. The sweeping police reform bill stipulates force can be used only to prevent “an imminent threat of physical injury” to a person or to “effectuate a legitimate law enforcement objective.” It also upgraded the standard for using force from “reasonable” to “necessary and proportional.”


More

EXCLUSIVE: Maryland Police ‘Unable To Assist’ With Inauguration Security Due To ‘Use Of Force’ Policy

The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C. says recent changes in Maryland's use-of-force policy render them unable to assist with the inauguration.

dailycaller.com

This same exact law is in California. The same guidelines for the use of force.
What boggles my mind over this restrictive use of force by local law enforcement is that as I am posting this I remembered when our DOJ authorized the use of force by the military when "the military" "in any situation in which it is reasonably foreseeable that providing the requested assistance may involve the use of force that is likely to result in lethal force, including death or serious bodily injury.”
So, what's the difference? The military is authorized to use deadly force if the military deems a "foreseeable threat" which is saying that an actual threat is in progress but just foreseeing the possibility of a threat allows the military to use force.
That doesn't make sense.
But then what makes sense from Any Democrat run State or City? SMH

For reference to what I just said.......

Biden-Harris admin approves military use of lethal force on US citizens: Report​

Videos/Pic: Biden-Harris admin approves military use of lethal force on US citizens: Report

The Biden-Harris admin's latest DoD directive is accused of authorizing the U.S. military to use lethal force against American citizens.

americanmilitarynews.com

 

[Hol]

From the article:
“Following significant pushback on social media, the Pentagon denied accusations that lethal force could be used on U.S. citizens. In a Thursday statement to The Associated Press, Pentagon spokeswoman Sue Gough said, “The policies concerning the use of force by DOD addressed in DoDD 5240.01 are not new, and do not authorize the DOD to use lethal force against U.S. citizens or people located inside the United States, contrary to rumors and rhetoric circulating on social media.”

 

[1LoverofGod]

This same exact law is in California. The same guidelines for the use of force.
What boggles my mind over this restrictive use of force by local law enforcement is that as I am posting this I remembered when our DOJ authorized the use of force by the military when "the military" "in any situation in which it is reasonably foreseeable that providing the requested assistance may involve the use of force that is likely to result in lethal force, including death or serious bodily injury.”
So, what's the difference? The military is authorized to use deadly force if the military deems a "foreseeable threat" which is saying that an actual threat is in progress but just foreseeing the possibility of a threat allows the military to use force.
That doesn't make sense.
But then what makes sense from Any Democrat run State or City? SMH

For reference to what I just said.......

Biden-Harris admin approves military use of lethal force on US citizens: Report​

Videos/Pic: Biden-Harris admin approves military use of lethal force on US citizens: Report

The Biden-Harris admin's latest DoD directive is accused of authorizing the U.S. military to use lethal force against American citizens.

americanmilitarynews.com

The military is authorized to use deadly force if the military deems a "foreseeable threat" which is saying that an actual threat is in progress but just foreseeing the possibility of a threat allows the military to use force.

Above is a quoted portion out of my last post that has an error and by the time I noticed it's too late to edit.
Auto correct strikes again.
It was supposed to read as

deems a "foreseeable threat" which is saying that an actual threat isn't in progress but just foreseeing the possibility of a threat

 

[1LoverofGod]

From the article:
“Following significant pushback on social media, the Pentagon denied accusations that lethal force could be used on U.S. citizens. In a Thursday statement to The Associated Press, Pentagon spokeswoman Sue Gough said, “The policies concerning the use of force by DOD addressed in DoDD 5240.01 are not new, and do not authorize the DOD to use lethal force against U.S. citizens or people located inside the United States, contrary to rumors and rhetoric circulating on social media.”

Hard to know who to believe with so many bad actors that were appointed by the Biden administration as officials in government including the military and we've been lied to so much over the past four years it's hard to really know.
Example, The entire Covid/Vax was a lie as officials repeatedly denied what they called conspiracy theories and turned out they lied.
I don't trust the current military leadership to tell the truth.

 

[Eric Nicholas]

If the Lord ordains the time, it's going to be four years to remember methinks. I'm reinforcing my straps and buckles as we speak, whether this story is true or not.

 

[1LoverofGod]

If the Lord ordains the time, it's going to be four years to remember methinks. I'm reinforcing my straps and buckles as we speak, whether this story is true or not.

Just a little American history review on the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and why it was enshrined in the US Constitution....

Main points:

The right to keep and bear arms for self-preservation may vest in the individual, but it also secures a collective resistance against large-scale threats to liberty. The founding generation well understood that people who lack the means to defend and enforce their rights are not, in any meaningful sense, free. For centuries, ruling monarchs had often disarmed the general population and then employed professional armies or loyal “select” militias to impose their tyrannical rule on a defenseless people.

the Founders immediately sought to safeguard the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” in their new nation. Their foresight to guarantee a well-armed citizenry continues, even today, to ensure the “security of a free state.”

The Origins of the Second Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” —BILL OF RIGHTS

www.heritage.org

 

[Baby Yoda]

Isn't my state just grand.

 

[Tall Timbers]

ns or people located inside the United States, contrary to rumors and rhetoric circulating on social media.”

So when we're invaded we can't use lethal force against invaders.

I knew that our active military can't be lawfully used against citizens but should be able to be used with up to and including full lethality against non-citizens here illegally and/or enemy combatants.