they perceive you to be a threat and fleeing the scene
Anyone authorized to carry a gun in the US: sheriff, postal inspector, cops, FBI, DOD personnel etc, cannot shoot at you just for running away. You have to pose an imminent threat of violence.
This is long long standing law.
There's a contradiction in your reply
On the one hand you think this change is a big big deal.
On the other you think it doesn't matter because they are already doing it
Seems Gateway settled with Ruby Freeman
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/note-editor-legal-update/
Georgia officials concluded that there was no widespread voter fraud by election workers who counted ballots at the State Farm Arena in November 2020. The results of this investigation indicate that Ruby Freeman and Wandrea ‘Shaye’ Moss did not engage in ballot fraud or criminal misconduct while working at State Farm Arena on election night. A legal matter with this news organization and the two election workers has been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties through a fair and reasonable settlement.
Oregon went blue before California did.
Oregon has voted Democrat since 1988. The first time vote by mail was used in a presidential election was 2000.
Mississippi used to be blue too, it was the method of voting that flipped them
This has been Oregon politics for like ever.
Are you in eastern Oregon by any chance?
Eastern Oregon The nonmetro population of Eastern Oregon in 2022 was 376,230, which was 8.87% of the state's population. The largest city in Eastern Oregon is Hermiston, with a population of 20,322.
Oregon's population In 2022, Oregon's population was 4,240,137. The majority of Oregon's population is concentrated in the Willamette Valley, which includes Portland, the state's largest city.
Are we against Studio 54 now?
Where do you think Trump used to listen to YMCA?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4678910/Trump-boring-infamously-wild-Studio-54-parties.html
This is the most important part of what you quote. This is not a new authorization.
Such use of force must be in accordance with DoDD 5210.56, potentially as further restricted based on the specifics of the requested support.
This directive
DOD DIRECTIVE 5210.56 ARMING AND THE USE OF FORCE
Is about restrictions on when DOD personnel can carry weapons and use force. It is not new. It was in force all through the Trump Administration.
So this updated document says this must be in accordance with existing directives, law and policy.
Note the use of further restricted.
You also point to Page 13: 3.3 a c:
This is also a restriction.
The whole document is about when DOD intelligence departments can assist civil authorities and under what rules.
DOD DIRECTIVE 5240.01 DOD INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENCE-RELATED ACTIVITIES AND DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE COMPONENT ASSISTANCE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER CIVIL AUTHORITIES
It lays out some activities where a "DOD COMPONENT HEAD" can authorize assistance.
For example, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Lieutenant General Jeffrey A. Kruse can authorize assistance in certain instances.
However, in the section you cite, that authorization is taken away. When there is potential for lethality, General Kruse and other component heads cannot authorize assistance. This is a restriction. It must go up to the Secretary of Defense.
Reading the actual document just now.
And there's no such authorization.
This hearing was in Sept. 5.member panel. 1 vote to definitely overturn ...another seemed close
I suspect they will reduce the number rather than toss everything
https://www.youtube.com/live/mSTNVe-yqpM?si=dkZQGEO2tP6uQaXb
What news site is this? Citizen Free Press? Are they pretending to be a real news organization? Because this happened in September and that seems like something a news organizations would know.
They should also know this case didn't involve a conviction because it was a civil lawsuit.
That's why no one in the mainstream media covered it yesterday, because it happened on September 26rh
https://www.youtube.com/live/mSTNVe-yqpM?si=dkZQGEO2tP6uQaXb
Again this document is not granting anything. Nothing significant happened with regards to authorization to kill with this document.
This document just covers permissions to assist other US agencies or civil agencies. And in these certain cases it limits who can authorize it.
There's literally nothing about authorization of force here that didn't exist a month ago or didn't exist under Donald Trump's presidency.
My original statement is still correct. It's about correctly reading the document and understanding the original context.