Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.

Have you ever applied for a grant? It's not exactly a quick turnaround kind of deal...

I literally manage law enforcement grants, some of which are actually for this kind of detail.

 d-usa wrote:

If you want to make this yet another instance of a topic that is all about "how things feel" instead of known facts, then just let me know and I will go ahead and bow out of the discussion.

[i]
No... my point really was why was the CRS really involved in the first place.

In other news... this doesn't bode well:
http://www.naacp.org/pages/convention

Man... seems odd to schedule this court case at around the same time as this convention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.

Have you ever applied for a grant? It's not exactly a quick turnaround kind of deal...

I literally manage law enforcement grants, some of which are actually for this kind of detail.

Well, question for you then... in your opinion, is this a legit use of the dept/fundings so close to TM's death, but so far away from actual court date?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

If you want to make this yet another instance of a topic that is all about "how things feel" instead of known facts, then just let me know and I will go ahead and bow out of the discussion.

[i]
No... my point really was why was the CRS really involved in the first place.

In other news... this doesn't bode well:
http://www.naacp.org/pages/convention

Man... seems odd to schedule this court case at around the same time as this convention.

The thinking was probably "this is going to happen with or without us, we should get a liaison in there to make sure things don't get out of hand."

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

If you want to make this yet another instance of a topic that is all about "how things feel" instead of known facts, then just let me know and I will go ahead and bow out of the discussion.

[i]
No... my point really was why was the CRS really involved in the first place.

In other news... this doesn't bode well:
http://www.naacp.org/pages/convention

Man... seems odd to schedule this court case at around the same time as this convention.

The thinking was probably "this is going to happen with or without us, we should get a liaison in there to make sure things don't get out of hand."

Fair enough... thanks.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.

Have you ever applied for a grant? It's not exactly a quick turnaround kind of deal...

I literally manage law enforcement grants, some of which are actually for this kind of detail.

I'm not questioning that a grant could be used for this kind of thing.

I'm questioning the speed of the grant process.

I admit that it's not LE, but I have been involved with a few Fire Department grants. And I don't think that they resulted in approval in less than 6 months, plus actual time it takes for money to be send your way, plus that money being converted into something that is actually useful.

Like fighting brush fires: The Government would send crews to help us for really big fires, and we could argue "couldn't they give us a bit of grant money instead". Which is true, they could have. We actually applied for a grant for a tanker/tender. We had to wait for the grant window to open, then 6 months for approval, then 4 months for the money to get to us, then spec out the truck for bids for 30 days, go through bids and vote on them (1 week), then 3 more months to have the truck build. So it took us almost a year and a half to do that with a grant. The government was actually able to send us physical help within a day.

I am sure that there are LE grants for things like that, but I was just guessing that it also takes a bit of time. I would be surprised if grant money would go through that quickly even if they applied on day 1 of the shooting.

The grant process is a time consuming biatch, that was really my only question on that.

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.

Have you ever applied for a grant? It's not exactly a quick turnaround kind of deal...

I literally manage law enforcement grants, some of which are actually for this kind of detail.

Well, question for you then... in your opinion, is this a legit use of the dept/fundings so close to TM's death, but so far away from actual court date?

Well, I don't know anything about the particular office that went down there, so I can't really speak to their mission.

But I can tell you that it would be fine for a variety of random federal grant programs which likely use similar rules. It has nothing to do with timing vs the trial, though. For a lot of grants you could just say "hey, there's this big protest coming up and we want to cooperate with them to make sure it goes smoothly and we can't pay for all those overtime hours". I'm betting that was the same justification used by this agency. They just said "the locals don't have the resources to handle this protest, so we're going to go down and liaison with the protesters to prevent violence."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.

Have you ever applied for a grant? It's not exactly a quick turnaround kind of deal...

I literally manage law enforcement grants, some of which are actually for this kind of detail.

I'm not questioning that a grant could be used for this kind of thing.

I'm questioning the speed of the grant process.

I admit that it's not LE, but I have been involved with a few Fire Department grants. And I don't think that they resulted in approval in less than 6 months, plus actual time it takes for money to be send your way, plus that money being converted into something that is actually useful.

Like fighting brush fires: The Government would send crews to help us for really big fires, and we could argue "couldn't they give us a bit of grant money instead". Which is true, they could have. We actually applied for a grant for a tanker/tender. We had to wait for the grant window to open, then 6 months for approval, then 4 months for the money to get to us, then spec out the truck for bids for 30 days, go through bids and vote on them (1 week), then 3 more months to have the truck build. So it took us almost a year and a half to do that with a grant. The government was actually able to send us physical help within a day.

I am sure that there are LE grants for things like that, but I was just guessing that it also takes a bit of time. I would be surprised if grant money would go through that quickly even if they applied on day 1 of the shooting.

The grant process is a time consuming biatch, that was really my only question on that.

You're talking about purchasing stuff, though. Purchasing always requires a lot of approval. Here we would be talking about a grant for X number of overtime hours AND it would be a special case where the agency calls and asks an administrator personally. You could turn a grant like that around in a week.

That would make a huge difference then, I'm used to snail grants so that influenced my statements obviously.

Thanks for the clarification.

When an engineer on the F35 program sneezes, it wastes more money than this does even if these guys spent all $2 grand on pez candy (and of course, we have no real idea what they actually did with it, not that I've seen). . I'm not arguing for a nirvana fallacy, poor use of taxpayer money is poor use but... priorities. I'm sure the outrage machine can find meatier fuel to run it.

Like this, for example - make sure you read through to the end of the story on page 2 for the likely outcome.

I guess that's the cost of lining defense contractor pockets "defending America", though.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
I literally manage law enforcement grants, some of which are actually for this kind of detail.

Out of curiosity is it common for grants to be submitted/approved for counselors and mediators to provide security, or step outside their mandate?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
I literally manage law enforcement grants, some of which are actually for this kind of detail.

Out of curiosity is it common for grants to be submitted/approved for counselors and mediators to provide security, or step outside their mandate?

Everything has different rules, but generally you are required to itemize the whole project in advance. It's not like you just get a blank check that says "for counselors". You would have filled out a budget that says "overtime for 1 counselor, 1 mediator and 3 security officers, X hours at Y/hour" and the approval would have been based on that.

That's assuming it was a federal program that covers all of those things. It has to fall into the scope of that particular type of money.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Everything has different rules, but generally you are required to itemize the whole project in advance. It's not like you just get a blank check that says "for counselors". You would have filled out a budget that says "overtime for 1 counselor, 1 mediator and 3 security officers, X hours at Y/hour" and the approval would have been based on that.

That's assuming it was a federal program that covers all of those things. It has to fall into the scope of that particular type of money.

That's where the difficulty comes in for me. Here we have a body who has a remit for dialogue, reducing community tension, and mediation (operating with very few staff) exceeding their remit and providing security - a function that should be left to local LEOs.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Everything has different rules, but generally you are required to itemize the whole project in advance. It's not like you just get a blank check that says "for counselors". You would have filled out a budget that says "overtime for 1 counselor, 1 mediator and 3 security officers, X hours at Y/hour" and the approval would have been based on that.

That's assuming it was a federal program that covers all of those things. It has to fall into the scope of that particular type of money.

That's where the difficulty comes in for me. Here we have a body who has a remit for dialogue, reducing community tension, and mediation (operating with very few staff) exceeding their remit and providing security - a function that should be left to local LEOs.

Well again, I have no idea what their exact mission and scope is, as I have no experience working with that office, but an awful lot of agencies who are not for police are still allowed to bring security for their guys.

And like I said, I would prefer they had done the whole thing through local contracts anyway.

That said, it's possible that they tried to get a local to do it, but couldn't find a department that was interested in doing it. You still have to find a local who will take your money to go in.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Well again, I have no idea what their exact mission and scope is, as I have no experience working with that office, but an awful lot of agencies who are not for police are still allowed to bring security for their guys.

And like I said, I would prefer they had done the whole thing through local contracts anyway.

That said, it's possible that they tried to get a local to do it, but couldn't find a department that was interested in doing it. You still have to find a local who will take your money to go in.

The problem isn't so much that they brought security for their guys - its that they are the security. Their remit from the first page;

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
But why are they providing security? That seems outside both their man power and their remit
http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/07/21/dojs-community-relations-service-expanding-its-mandate/
Even with their "expanding remit" they are supposed to "get into a room and get single or multilateral talks with parties who have opposition to one another, that they will develop some understanding". And they seem quite short staffed to provide security for these protests - "Today, a staff of 34 full-time employees man four field offices and 10 regional offices"

http://www.justice.gov/crs/

CRS is the only Federal agency dedicated to assist State and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.

CRS facilitates the development of viable, mutual understandings and agreements as alternatives to coercion, violence, or litigation. It also assists communities in developing local mechanisms, conducting training, and other proactive measures to prevent racial/ethnic tension and violent hate crimes committed on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. CRS does not take sides among disputing parties and, in promoting the principles and ideals of non-discrimination, applies skills that allow parties to come to their own agreement. In performing this mission, CRS deploys highly skilled professional conciliators, who are able to assist people of diverse backgrounds.

http://www.justice.gov/crs/mandate.htm

§ 2000g-1. Functions of Service

It shall be the function of the Service to provide assistance to communities and persons therein in resolving disputes, disagreements, or difficulties relating to discriminatory practices based on race, color, or national origin which impair the rights of persons in such communities under the Constitution or laws of the United States or which affect or may affect interstate commerce. The Service may offer its services in cases of such disputes, disagreements, or difficulties whenever, in its judgement, peaceful relations among the citizens of the community involved are threatened thereby, and it may offer its services either upon its own motion or upon the request of an appropriate State or local official or other interested person.

Providing security does not feature anywhere within their remit, making their actions prima facie ultra vires.

An office's mandate is a lot more complicated than a single paragraph mission. Dozens of different laws may have granted them little bits of authority here and there that aren't mentioned in their founding statute.

Considering that nobody here had even HEARD of this office until this story, I think we should tread carefully when talking about what their job is.

Those links concerning their mission, and the lawful authority they derive their powers from, came direct from their own homepage. The first link came from their Community Relations Service Director.

From the horse's mouth if you will.

Plus the money they spent was way too low to provide security for an entire protest, so I will argue that they likely were only providing security for their own staff and the immediate area of any talks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Those links concerning their mission, and the lawful authority they derive their powers from, came direct from their own homepage. The first link came from their Community Relations Service Director.

From the horse's mouth if you will.

Webpages provide a broad touchy feely explanation for laymen. They're not actually reliable for what you're using this to argue.

From the OP

A division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was deployed to Sanford, Florida in 2012 to provide assistance for anti-George Zimmerman protests, including a rally headlined by activist Al Sharpton, according to newly released documents. . .

CRS spent $674.14 between March 25-27 related to having been “deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.” CRS spent another $1,142.84 for the same purpose between March 25-28.

CRS spent $892.55 “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida” between March 30-April 1, and $751.60 “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”

Sharpton, who promoted the Tawana Brawley hoax in the 1980s and in 1995 led a protest against the “white interloper” owner of a Harlem clothing store that ended in a deadly shooting rampage at the store, was a featured speaker at the March 31 rally, called “The March for Trayvon Martin,” where he advocated for Zimmerman’s prosecution

Nowhere do they say that they were there to promote community relations, provide mediation, or reduce tension. Instead they were "to provide assistance" at a rally headlined by someone promoting a racial agenda. That is somewhat at odds with their stated goals and remit.

Well, secuirity no. If they were working the room in some manner to keep it calm then it was cool If they were helping support the march however, extremely uncool. There are constant death threats to Z and his family now.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Webpages provide a broad touchy feely explanation for laymen. They're not actually reliable for what you're using this to argue.

Then I eagerly await your rebuttal of my reading of their position from the information that they provide on their own site, including the law that granted them the powers that they exercise. Unless "The Community Relations Service (CRS) was established by Title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C 2000g et seq.)" does not grant them the following powers;

§ 2000g-1. Functions of Service

It shall be the function of the Service to provide assistance to communities and persons therein in resolving disputes, disagreements, or difficulties relating to discriminatory practices based on race, color, or national origin which impair the rights of persons in such communities under the Constitution or laws of the United States or which affect or may affect interstate commerce. The Service may offer its services in cases of such disputes, disagreements, or difficulties whenever, in its judgement, peaceful relations among the citizens of the community involved are threatened thereby, and it may offer its services either upon its own motion or upon the request of an appropriate State or local official or other interested person.
§ 2000g-2. Cooperation with other agencies; conciliation assistance in confidence and without publicity; information as confidential; restriction on performance of investigative or prosecution functions; violations and penalties

(a) The Service shall, whenever possible, in performing its functions, seek and utilize the cooperation of appropriate State or local, public, or private agencies.

(b) The activities of all officers and employees of the Service in providing conciliation assistance shall be conducted in confidence and without publicity, and the Service shall hold confidential any information acquired in the regular performance of its duties upon the understanding that it would be so held. No officer or employee of the Service shall engage in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions of any department or agency in any litigation arising out of a dispute in which he acted on behalf of the Service. Any officer or other employee of the Service, who shall make public in any manner whatever any information in violation of this subsection, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
From the OP

A division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was deployed to Sanford, Florida in 2012 to provide assistance for anti-George Zimmerman protests, including a rally headlined by activist Al Sharpton, according to newly released documents. . .

CRS spent $674.14 between March 25-27 related to having been “deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.” CRS spent another $1,142.84 for the same purpose between March 25-28.

CRS spent $892.55 “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida” between March 30-April 1, and $751.60 “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”

Sharpton, who promoted the Tawana Brawley hoax in the 1980s and in 1995 led a protest against the “white interloper” owner of a Harlem clothing store that ended in a deadly shooting rampage at the store, was a featured speaker at the March 31 rally, called “The March for Trayvon Martin,” where he advocated for Zimmerman’s prosecution

Nowhere do they say that they were there to promote community relations, provide mediation, or reduce tension. Instead they were "to provide assistance" at a rally headlined by someone promoting a racial agenda. That is somewhat at odds with their stated goals and remit.

The secondary source reporting 2 phrases from a document that we haven't read is conflicting with the vague and PR polished mission statement of the office we only just heard about?

Sorry if I'm not getting my pitchfork over this.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well, secuirity no. If they were working the room in some manner to keep it calm then it was cool If they were helping support the march however, extremely uncool.

That's my position too. If anything I'm concerned that an agency that is meant to reduce community tensions, act in an impartial manner, and promote understandings is undermining its over credibility and reducing its ability to discharge its actual duties by being involved with protests that have a racial leaning.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Webpages provide a broad touchy feely explanation for laymen. They're not actually reliable for what you're using this to argue.

Then I eagerly await your rebuttal of my reading of their position from the information that they provide on their own site, including the law that granted them the powers that they exercise. Unless "The Community Relations Service (CRS) was established by Title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C 2000g et seq.)" does not grant them the following powers;

§ 2000g-1. Functions of Service

It shall be the function of the Service to provide assistance to communities and persons therein in resolving disputes, disagreements, or difficulties relating to discriminatory practices based on race, color, or national origin which impair the rights of persons in such communities under the Constitution or laws of the United States or which affect or may affect interstate commerce. The Service may offer its services in cases of such disputes, disagreements, or difficulties whenever, in its judgement, peaceful relations among the citizens of the community involved are threatened thereby, and it may offer its services either upon its own motion or upon the request of an appropriate State or local official or other interested person.
§ 2000g-2. Cooperation with other agencies; conciliation assistance in confidence and without publicity; information as confidential; restriction on performance of investigative or prosecution functions; violations and penalties

(a) The Service shall, whenever possible, in performing its functions, seek and utilize the cooperation of appropriate State or local, public, or private agencies.

(b) The activities of all officers and employees of the Service in providing conciliation assistance shall be conducted in confidence and without publicity, and the Service shall hold confidential any information acquired in the regular performance of its duties upon the understanding that it would be so held. No officer or employee of the Service shall engage in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions of any department or agency in any litigation arising out of a dispute in which he acted on behalf of the Service. Any officer or other employee of the Service, who shall make public in any manner whatever any information in violation of this subsection, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year.

I'm sorry my actual understanding of how government works is getting in the way of your narrative. It seems clear that you're deadset on demonizing this whole thing despite not knowing what a single penny of that money was ACTUALLY spent on besides "assistance" and "support", which don't tell us anything.

I don't think it's possible to have a productive conversation about this with the paucity of actual primary sources that we're dealing with.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The secondary source reporting 2 phrases from a document that we haven't read is conflicting with the vague and PR polished mission statement of the office we only just heard about?

So shooting the messenger and not the message?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The secondary source reporting 2 phrases from a document that we haven't read is conflicting with the vague and PR polished mission statement of the office we only just heard about?

So shooting the messenger and not the message?

No. I'm saying that I don't know the message because the messenger quoted less than a paragraph.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, I read government documents all day. This is pretty typical language they're using. "support" and "assistance" are the most overused buzzwords in government. They actually tell us nothing about what the money was spent to do.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
I'm sorry my actual understanding of how government works is getting in the way of your narrative. It seems clear that you're deadset on demonizing this whole thing despite not knowing what a single penny of that money was ACTUALLY spent on besides "assistance" and "support", which don't tell us anything.

I don't think it's possible to have a productive conversation about this with the paucity of actual primary sources that we're dealing with.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't attempt to mischaracterise what I am saying, that sort of reply is what makes it difficult to have a productive conversation. I'd appreciate more insight from you and your "actual understanding" that there is not a prima facie argument that they have acted ultra vires.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Again, I read government documents all day.

Likewise, that was part of my previous employment also. [redacted]

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
I'm sorry my actual understanding of how government works is getting in the way of your narrative. It seems clear that you're deadset on demonizing this whole thing despite not knowing what a single penny of that money was ACTUALLY spent on besides "assistance" and "support", which don't tell us anything.

I don't think it's possible to have a productive conversation about this with the paucity of actual primary sources that we're dealing with.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't attempt to mischaracterise what I am saying, that sort of reply is what makes it difficult to have a productive conversation. I'd appreciate more insight from you and your "actual understanding" that there is not a prima facie argument that they have acted ultra vires.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Again, I read government documents all day.

Likewise, that was part of my previous employment also. The difference is that I don't talk down to people based on my employment history.

There isn't anything to point to that says "they can do this". What I'm saying is that the mission statement on their website and a couple paragraphs of statute are almost NEVER what actually dictates what an agency can do.

For instance, forestry officers are generally state law enforcement and can pull over cars and investigate crimes anywhere in the state. Most state's forestry pages don't say this, but they still have that power.

Most agencies' powers are defined broadly. If the law says that an agency makes lollipops, that might be defined further down in the statute as "making lollipops and supporting the making of lollipops through, but not limited to the following: Construction of lollipop factories, security for lollipop making staff, promotion of lollipop events, security considerations for lollipop events, etc etc". The basic paragraph explaining their purpose does not actually tell us what any of those phrases actually mean. Every law has definitions.

And further, even if that law says that thing, there still might be some OTHER law that they didn't feel like mentioning on their website (because government websites don't mention everything, just the basics), saying that the justice department can order them to xyz etc etc etc. This stuff is really complicated. There could be dozens of random bits of law or definitions on their original law giving them the authority to do certain things. And that's BEFORE you start talking about executive orders.

Some of my last post may have been more in anger than constructive. I'm sorry about that.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
There isn't anything to point to that says "they can do this". What I'm saying is that the mission statement on their website and a couple paragraphs of statute are almost NEVER what actually dictates what an agency can do.

For instance, forestry officers are generally state law enforcement and can pull over cars and investigate crimes anywhere in the state. Most state's forestry pages don't say this, but they still have that power.

Most agencies' powers are defined broadly. If the law says that an agency makes lollipops, that might be defined further down in the statute as "making lollipops and supporting the making of lollipops through, but not limited to the following: Construction of lollipop factories, security for lollipop making staff, promotion of lollipop events, security considerations for lollipop events, etc etc". The basic paragraph explaining their purpose does not actually tell us what any of those phrases actually mean. Every law has definitions.

And further, even if that law says that thing, there still might be some OTHER law that they didn't feel like mentioning on their website (because government websites don't mention everything, just the basics), saying that the justice department can order them to xyz etc etc etc. This stuff is really complicated. There could be dozens of random bits of law or definitions on their original law giving them the authority to do certain things. And that's BEFORE you start talking about executive orders.

And would that lollipop agency be providing support for dentists protesting against lollipops?

Seeing as that is the source of their power though it is a good indication as to the role that they play within the Federal government. And again, I would say that security should fall to local LEOs, not a group that has fewer than 50 full time employees who do not appear to be trained to provide security. For such a small organisation tasked with mediation and community interaction I do not see them having wide sweeping powers in other areas simply because they do not have adequate resources. If you can so me the contrary though I'd appreciate it

Fair point though about the executive orders, I hadn't considered that.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Some of my last post may have been more in anger than constructive. I'm sorry about that.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
There isn't anything to point to that says "they can do this". What I'm saying is that the mission statement on their website and a couple paragraphs of statute are almost NEVER what actually dictates what an agency can do.

For instance, forestry officers are generally state law enforcement and can pull over cars and investigate crimes anywhere in the state. Most state's forestry pages don't say this, but they still have that power.

Most agencies' powers are defined broadly. If the law says that an agency makes lollipops, that might be defined further down in the statute as "making lollipops and supporting the making of lollipops through, but not limited to the following: Construction of lollipop factories, security for lollipop making staff, promotion of lollipop events, security considerations for lollipop events, etc etc". The basic paragraph explaining their purpose does not actually tell us what any of those phrases actually mean. Every law has definitions.

And further, even if that law says that thing, there still might be some OTHER law that they didn't feel like mentioning on their website (because government websites don't mention everything, just the basics), saying that the justice department can order them to xyz etc etc etc. This stuff is really complicated. There could be dozens of random bits of law or definitions on their original law giving them the authority to do certain things. And that's BEFORE you start talking about executive orders.

And would that lollipop agency be providing support for dentists protesting against lollipops?

Seeing as that is the source of their power though it is a good indication as to the role that they play within the Federal government. And again, I would say that security should fall to local LEOs, not a group that has fewer than 50 full time employees who do not appear to be trained to provide security. For such a small organisation tasked with mediation and community interaction I do not see them having wide sweeping powers in other areas simply because they do not have adequate resources. If you can so me the contrary though I'd appreciate it

Fair point though about the executive orders, I hadn't considered that.

Well again, we don't know how the money was exactly spent. The security may not have been staff members. It could have been private contractors or even local cops. We can't actually tell because the story just talked about the money and didn't show us any actual expenditures.

It is really common though for an agency to have a particular mission, but also be allowed to hire security to protect that mission. If your employees are going into a potentially dangerous situation, you should be able to send some protection.

I work for an agency that provides healthcare to veterans. But burried within the laws that govern us is the authority for federal armed law enforcement officers that are part of the hospital. I am fairly certain that is not part of our "mandate"

NOAA has a law enforcement function as well.

If the weatherman can be a cop, then an agency that is part of the DOJ most likely has a law enforcement power somewhere.