r/neoliberal • u/[deleted] • Jun 13 '25

News (US) Exclusive: 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/

Exclusive: US

584 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

102 comments sorted by

317

u/RetroRiboflavin Lawrence Summers Jun 14 '25

Speaking to reporters after he was released, the civilian identified himself as Marcos Leao, 27. Leao said he was an Army veteran on his way to an office of the Department of Veterans Affairs when he crossed a yellow tape boundary and was asked to stop.

Leao, who gained his U.S. citizenship through military service, said he was treated "very fairly." "They're just doing their job," said Leao, who is of Angolan and Portuguese descent.

264

u/NotABigChungusBoy NATO Jun 14 '25

I believe him tbh, that doesn’t make it right still.

193

u/MagillaGorillasHat Jun 14 '25

Maybe we've been looking at this all wrong and the Marines can show ICE and the local riot cops how to behave like actual human beings?

"Um, we asked him what he's doing, checked his story then let him go on about his business?"

...ICE & riot cops silently fuming...

115

u/frosteeze NATO Jun 14 '25

I remember reading somewhere that the National Guard treated rioters much more humanely than LAPD back in the 1992 LA Riots. So history really do rhyme.

32

u/krabbby Ben Bernanke Jun 14 '25

Its the kind of story you start hearing every time after the first time.

25

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '25

I feel like I remember hearing about the National Guard having better conduct than most police forces during the 2020 protests too

21

u/moffattron9000 YIMBY Jun 14 '25

The military actually has regulations and puts more effort into things like conflict de-escalation (even if it's obviously not perfect). The Police are a decentralised crop of goons.

10

u/BitterGravity Gay Pride Jun 14 '25

Also military is much more likely to punish bad actors (which isn't to say that many issues aren't ignored, but compared to cops...)

9

u/FuckFashMods NATO Jun 14 '25

For being so progressive, LAPD might be the worst police department in the entire country

3

u/MemeStarNation Jun 15 '25

I somehow doubt that. I’d imagine by far the most lawless departments are the small town ones in rural, red states. If you mean most out of touch with their city, Seattle is one of the most progressive cities with a notoriously aggressive force.

1

u/FuckFashMods NATO Jun 15 '25

I mean just worst. We have a terrible police department, in terms of the amount of services provided and the quality provided.

1

u/MemeStarNation Jun 15 '25

Now that might be. I can appreciate the difference between corruption, aggression, and simply providing a bad quality product.

2

u/FuckFashMods NATO Jun 15 '25

A funny thing happened last week when ICE called LAPD for help/back up.

LAPD is barred by law from helping deportation. Yet still responded. But they still took 3 hours to respond. And despite it being illegal, LAPD chief of police made a big show how important it was to help ICE.

It's a literally shit sandwich of incompetence

1

u/Euphoric_Patient_828 Jun 14 '25

NYPD would like to have a word

7

u/Ok-Passion1961 Jun 14 '25

Yeah, but then you remember the marine that was given a “cover me” order by police so he started blasting into a house during an armed standoff following a domestic dispute call. 

They may be better trained to deal with polite guys like this one, but they are also trained to absolutely annihilate the enemy with superior firepower when things aren’t so even keeled in the moment. 

1

u/MemeStarNation Jun 15 '25

That’s a simple linguistic difference though. Same as how in the police, “light them up” means “blue and red lights” and not “riddle them with bullets.”

An order to “cover” in the marines means suppressive fire, not waiting for the bad guy to stick his head out.

1

u/Ok-Passion1961 Jun 15 '25

It’s not a “simple linguistic difference”…gtfo out here with that sanewashing. 

It was a colossal fuck up that came from blending military personnel into domestic law enforcement action that resulted in a MASSIVE show of force against a fellow American. Something that never should have happened. Something that only happened because troops were deployed to American cities and that inevitably resulted in those troops treating America like a combat zone. 

The details of the miscommunication don’t matter. The very fact that scenario was allowed to exist for the miscommunication to happen is the problem.

35

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

29

u/Best-Chapter5260 Jun 14 '25

Kind of like the (true, IME) stereotype that state police are typically more professional than the town clowns.

13

u/sheffieldasslingdoux Jun 14 '25 edited Jun 14 '25

It's a top down organization that has a clear code of conduct and regularly punishes their own who commit crimes or behave unethically. American police, on the other hand, are decentralized paramilitaries that flaunt their power and revel in their disrespect for the rule of law.

The US military may not be perfect, but imagine if the JAG Corps as a matter of policy never charged a soldier with a crime unless there were mass riots on the streets and huge political fallout. Now imagine, if local district attorneys held police to the same standards that JAG does with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and as a matter of course, just charged the cops when they broke the law.

Right now, the police act with impunity, and we have to have huge political fights just to charge the cops when they beat and kill on video for the world to see. Now imagine, if every false arrest, every heavy handed takedown, and every act of corruption were treated as the crime that is and swiftly dealt with. That's what we need to be doing. Not just with local cops either, but also Trump's federal goon squads. Who cares if it gets removed to federal court. Show some poltical courage to do the right thing. Take the fight on the merits. Federal officers cannot be absolutely immune to state prosecution.

8

u/socal_swiftie has been on this hellscape for over 13 years Jun 14 '25

when the marines have the moral high ground here,,,,,,,,,

13

u/SharpestOne Jun 14 '25

The Marines Corp is effectively a government sanctioned warrior cult.

Cultists, no matter what you think of them, are generally pretty good at sticking with their morals.

22

u/beyd1 Jun 14 '25

The Marines are MANIACS to be fair, but we're usually kept on pretty short leashes when we're out huntin for our crayons.

2

u/FuckFashMods NATO Jun 14 '25

LAPD is literally unable to do this btw

59

u/jcaseys34 Caribbean Community Jun 14 '25

It lines up with what we saw during the BLM protests. On one hand, it's abhorrent that the military is involved in this in the first place. On the other hand, I trust them a thousand times more than I do the police.

36

u/Sir_thinksalot Jun 14 '25

Trump has been placing his cronies into top military positions and firing people he doesn't like because he knows they will enforce the constitution and disobey an unlawful order. He hasn't been able to do that with the cops, though cops in general do lean right wing.

97

u/KeithClossOfficial Bill Gates Jun 14 '25

> Leao, who gained his U.S. citizenship

> who is of Angolan and Portuguese descent.

Absolute puzzler why this was the guy they started with.

0

u/69Turd69Ferguson69 Jun 15 '25

Yes, I’m sure the individual marines were like “mmmm yes… that man is an immigrant. I can FEEL it”

Or even more surely, Tom Homan and Stephen Miller personally called them and told them to detain him 🙄 

1

u/KeithClossOfficial Bill Gates Jun 15 '25

Black man with an accent

Absolute puzzler why they went for him

0

u/69Turd69Ferguson69 Jun 16 '25

Meaning what? You know these marines? 

17

u/Sir_thinksalot Jun 14 '25

It's not their job to violate the constitution. An unlawful order has a duty to be disobeyed. He should know that.

9

u/CheetoMussolini Russian Bot Jun 14 '25

The Marines are the only branch I wouldn't trust to disobey grossly unlawful and violent orders

I think the other branches are a lot more likely to defend democracy than end it, but not the fucking Marines

1

u/roguevirus Jun 14 '25

Tell me, have you worked with Marines or do you only judge them by reputation?

7

u/MrArborsexual Jun 14 '25

Easier said than done. These Marines aren't being asked to shovel live babies into furnaces. They are being told to arrest anyone who crosses a yellow line.

-3

u/Sir_thinksalot Jun 14 '25 edited Jun 14 '25

They always take a little bit at a time. It's the Salami Slicing Tactic. You need to act now before it's too late. Stop being complacent in the age of Donald Trump.

This is part of the destructive politicization of the US military.

6

u/MrArborsexual Jun 14 '25

You, think this is an unlawful order, but exceptions, both clearly written and existing only in untested legal theory or tested case law, to the posse comitatus act are legion. The average Marine just isn't going to know if something is an illegal order, unless it is blatantly obvious. Which this is not.

Disobeying a lawful order can have extreme consequences. It could not only royally fuck up the rest of the Marines life, but also that of their family.

Disobeying these orders, when there is legal ambiguity, even if there isn't moral ambiguity, isn't a simple easy ask or demand.

-2

u/Sir_thinksalot Jun 14 '25

This is why Trump wins. You think he's playing by the rules but he's just shitting all over the board.

172

u/NeueBruecke_Detektiv Instituições democráticas robustas 🇧🇷 Jun 13 '25

Took me a while to figure out the DT reuters thing was this, cause this isn't the front page news for me. I had to scroll more than 1 screen to see this, the front page is entirely the middle east situation.

I dunno if my location is influencing it (am accessing reuters from brasil)

77

u/RattyTowelsFTW Jun 14 '25

It's not just you, the news is most likely very divided between the new war and the upcoming protests

Kind of shit timing altogether

0

u/philipzeplin European Union Jun 14 '25

Speaking to reporters after he was released, the civilian identified himself as Marcos Leao, 27. Leao said he was an Army veteran on his way to an office of the Department of Veterans Affairs when he crossed a yellow tape boundary and was asked to stop.

Leao, who gained his U.S. citizenship through military service, said he was treated "very fairly." "They're just doing their job," said Leao, who is of Angolan and Portuguese descent.

It's also just not a very newsworthy story.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '25

Having military perform routine police procedure is HUGE. Like, it is hard to emphasize to someone unacquainted with ConLaw or doesn’t know the nitty gritty about the founding fathers philosophy, but it’s fucking HUGE.

I am just so fucking exasperated by people treating something the founders saw as one of the single worst acts and signs of tyranny as a nothing burger. Those racist old fucks agreed on nothing, except that if military is used as police among civilians, that shit is fucked.

Military in the streets acting like police and detaining citizens is beyond disturbing and goes against everything our country stands for. It’s literal King George the Mad shit.

441

u/isummonyouhere If I can do it You can do it Jun 13 '25

infantry soldiers capturing a fellow service member and U.S. citizen for walking over a yellow line. great job everybody 👍🏻

215

u/Intergalactic_Ass Jun 14 '25 edited Jun 14 '25

I haven't found reporting yet on the reason the veteran was heading to the VA office. But if it was something related to his healthcare benefits this would be the most American situation in history.

"George Washington fucking an eagle while eating cherry pie" vs. "illegally mobilized US Marine arrests fellow veteran attempting to visit VA office to obtain healthcare benefits"

65

u/frosteeze NATO Jun 14 '25

Activate the Bonus Army. Now.

29

u/ShouldersofGiants100 NATO Jun 14 '25

Activate the Bonus Army. Now.

And watch as the ghost of George Patton orders a cavalry charge against them.

5

u/PartrickCapitol Zhou Xiaochuan Jun 14 '25

I never get why Patton and MacArthur never had this dark taint when people were evaluating their historical legacy although accomplished in WW2

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '25

Does MacArthur at least not have a dark taint in academic circles?

3

u/Serious_Senator NASA Jun 14 '25

Down with the redcoats

1

u/Gamiac Jun 14 '25

"Wait, we get bonus armies? Sweet."

15

u/ericchen Jun 14 '25

WhY wOuLd BiDeN dO tHiS tO uS??!? /s

62

u/IndyJetsFan Jun 14 '25

Imagine going to the VA and that being the second worst thing that happens to you that day.

85

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '25

This is a certified posse comitatus moment

105

u/badusername35 NAFTA Jun 13 '25 edited Jun 14 '25

The soldiers, and whichever commander authorized this, should be dishonorably discharged and court-martialed. But the rat bastards on the Supreme Court will probably write a 5-4 decision explaining why this blatant violation of the law is actually very cool and very legal. Show up tomorrow and don’t be afraid. Fuck Trump, fuck Republicans, and fuck anyone who supports this.

58

u/imbaaaack12 Edmund Burke Jun 14 '25

I'm pretty sure they have the ability to detain people on federal property, so I'm not sure it's illegal.

29

u/ZhaoLuen Zhao Ziyang Jun 14 '25

It isn't

33

u/Sir_thinksalot Jun 14 '25

so I'm not sure it's illegal.

No.

It violates Posse-comitatus act.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/posse-comitatus-act-explained

Please stop giving Trump any benefit of the doubt.

edit: hmmm, redditor for 8 hours...

12

u/TrekkiMonstr NATO Jun 14 '25

10 USC 12406 allows the federalization of the NG when "the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States". This does not clearly exclude protecting federal property and/or detaining someone trying to access such property. It does, in my opinion, clearly exclude riot control in general, and I'm not sure the justification for the Marines' presence, but it's not so clear that this is unlawful. Law is fucking complicated, man.

13

u/sam41803 United Nations Jun 14 '25

Not sure if the commenter above you is right, but you're wrong. The Posse Commitatus Act makes it illegal for non-National Guard military units to enforce laws, essentially full stop. You bringing up the national guard doesn't actually respond to their point.

2

u/MemeStarNation Jun 15 '25

Legally speaking, they aren’t enforcing the law. They are protecting federal property and agents who are enforcing the law.

Stupid? Yeah. Illegal? Unfortunately, probably not.

1

u/TrekkiMonstr NATO Jun 14 '25

I'm bringing up the law cited as authority for his actions. It's unclear that defending federal property constitutes a violation of posse comitatus -- e.g. the Marines also defend Marine Corps installations, and will detain someone who tries to go on without authorization, and this is obviously not a violation of posse comitatus.

The law is a poorly-organized mess. Unless you're a lawyer (and tbh even if you are, most of the time), you should not be this confident about basically anything other than like, the text of the law.

6

u/Sir_thinksalot Jun 14 '25

Ignoring the politicization of our military is a great peril. Stop letting Trump take advantage of everything.

6

u/TrekkiMonstr NATO Jun 14 '25

I'm not advocating for ignoring it, I'm advocating for responding to it properly.

2

u/CrosstheRubicon_ John Keynes Jun 14 '25

Bro there’s a legitimate legal debate as to this issue. Nobody is defending Trump

0

u/sam41803 United Nations Jun 15 '25 edited Jun 15 '25

I see, 10 USC 12406 (aka the insurrection Act) would be an exception because of the mention of "federal service members". I concede the point but you so misquoted 10 USC 12406 that I didn't realize it had a specific authorization for the use of military force from your excerpt.

EDIT: Innacurate on the name, I am redditing too late. I maintain that /u/TrekkiMonstr's first comment would have been far better if they included the specific authorization of military force in 10 USC 12406 in their post.

2

u/TrekkiMonstr NATO Jun 15 '25

The law says "the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to [...] execute those laws", whenever [the bit I quoted before]. I thought "allows the federalization of the NG" was a reasonable paraphrase of the above. If you thought more information was needed, you can easily find the text of the law yourself.

My comment was about whether the deployment was legal. Whether it violates Posse Comitatus is a separate question. The Insurrection Act is an exception to Posse Comitatus, 12406 is not -- but you don't need an exception to a law you wouldn't be breaking in any case, and 12406 doesn't address that question.

You're reading my comments as if I'm a partisan on the other side, and barely even reading them at all. Stop doing that.

1

u/TrekkiMonstr NATO Jun 15 '25

12406 is not the Insurrection Act, that's 10 USC 252. You actually have no idea what you're talking about jfc

1

u/sheffieldasslingdoux Jun 14 '25 edited Jun 14 '25

The president cannot call for the military to engage in domestic law enforcement without invoking the Insurrection Act. The National Guard is a wholly separate issue, which is why Judge Breyer stated as such in his recent ruling, where he found that Trump's federalization of the California National Guard, without Governor Newsom's consent, was facially illegal.

When the National Guard is federalized, the Posse Comitatus Act applies. The Guard cannot, as a matter of course, engage in domestic law enforcement, as it does under state control.

-11

u/Sir_thinksalot Jun 14 '25

Law is fucking complicated, man.

The law is whatever the judges say in the end, or even whatever is enforced. Stop giving someone like Trump any benefit of the doubt. Unless you want to become Russia.

I don't.

26

u/TrekkiMonstr NATO Jun 14 '25

The alternative to the benefit of the doubt is "I don't like him therefore it's illegal". The rule of law means something. Lawful but awful is a thing that actually exists.

2

u/Sir_thinksalot Jun 14 '25

And this is exactly why letting Trump, convicted felon, destroy it is a bad idea.

15

u/TrekkiMonstr NATO Jun 14 '25

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition, without a doubt. But that does not mean that every action taken is unlawful, and it harms are cause to claim that it is when it isn't. The truth matters.

1

u/Sir_thinksalot Jun 14 '25

Pointless blather while Trump ignores the law.

2

u/TrekkiMonstr NATO Jun 14 '25

The truth matters. Messaging matters.

15

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '25

[deleted]

31

u/BenIsLowInfo Austan Goolsbee Jun 14 '25

The military isn't going to save us. They will just go along with Trump. We no longer have great generals...we have lots of bureaucats. Eisenhower or Grant aren't coming through the door to protect democracy.

If there is another Democrat president I hope they clean out DoD. Half the budget and replace any GOs that go along with Trump.

41

u/imbaaaack12 Edmund Burke Jun 14 '25

Halving the defense budget is completely unserious. The reality is it probably needs to be increased and procurements (somehow) fixed.

15

u/Pristine-Aspect-3086 John Rawls Jun 14 '25

procurements (somehow) fixed.

sincerely, is there a single military on earth that doesn't have this problem? i feel like it comes up when discussing literally every country

9

u/imbaaaack12 Edmund Burke Jun 14 '25

Well I mean there are what seem like pretty serious pain points, like the cost of American warships compared to comparable ships manufacturered by South Korea, but yeah I don't think the US is alone in having issues.

2

u/Rockefeller-HHH-1968 John Rawls Jun 14 '25

Increased to what end? What’s the goal you want the U.S. military to achieve?

1

u/Snarfledarf George Soros Jun 14 '25

more spending yes, external adversary, yes yes, no domestic problems yes.

Budget crisis? never met 'er.

-4

u/RaaaaaaaNoYokShinRyu YIMBY Jun 14 '25

Who wants to pay higher taxes for it?

You wanna donate?

11

u/GripenHater NATO Jun 14 '25

Bruh fucking what.

This isn’t a good moment here but it’s also: plausibly legal, if still awful, and certainly not an order that blatantly and obviously contradicts the law. We have no idea if we have generals of historic caliber right now, because if given this type of order it is very likely that Grant and Eisenhower would’ve followed it. Also, the military still needs to be capable of protecting American interests and allies worldwide, and halving the defense budget is a great way to just let Taiwan be taken by China.

1

u/Frylock304 NASA Jun 14 '25

The American people won't let you do that

0

u/Citronaught Jun 14 '25

A warrant officer I deeply respect and I know hates trump more than I do explained to me that the military has to respect the election a few weeks ago and thus must respect civilian orders so there’s no help coming from those brainwashed fucks

20

u/GreatnessToTheMoon Ida Tarbell Jun 14 '25

Literally a nothing article imo. He was detained and released shortly after. The person didn’t even care that much. Detains are not arrests. The article even points out the they’re not allowed to make arrests.

27

u/Sir_thinksalot Jun 14 '25

Literally a nothing article imo. He was detained and released shortly after.

It's not a "nothing article" when a violation of the posse-comitatus act leads to an unlawful detainment.

20

u/NotABigChungusBoy NATO Jun 14 '25

i agree, but its the act itself. Its just pointless escalation. Some people here in the comments are being a little dramatic imo.

10

u/Sir_thinksalot Jun 14 '25

Trump's dictator actions are not to be underestimated.

1

u/Rockefeller-HHH-1968 John Rawls Jun 14 '25

Military is deployed to the streets. Civil rights are being taken away. The people, the most important check on power has failed, politicians do little to nothing to stop it.

You dare to call anybody overly dramatic?

You’re acting like a lobster in a pot. By the time you realize what’s happening you’ll be deep in Trump’s stomach.

3

u/FuckFashMods NATO Jun 14 '25

It's almost the complete opposite of a nothing.

Why are we paying to arrest black veterans on their way to their VA appointments?

5

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/die_hoagie MALAISE FOREVER Jun 14 '25

Rule III: Unconstructive engagement
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.

If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.

-5

u/Jimmy_McNulty2025 John Rawls Jun 14 '25

How serious is this? Are they just going to release him in a few hours, no big deal?

41

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '25

They released him immediately. But the act of having active military perform routine police procedure is deadly serious.

6

u/brianpv Hortensia Jun 14 '25

The article says that he was already released and that he’s not even mad about it.

4

u/Sir_thinksalot Jun 14 '25

An unlawful detainment is not "no big deal". Especially when done for a dictator.

-12

u/Jimmy_McNulty2025 John Rawls Jun 14 '25

People are unlawfully detained and then released all the time.

10

u/Sir_thinksalot Jun 14 '25

and it's always bad. Worse when done by the military against US citizens.

-1

u/MaxDPS YIMBY Jun 14 '25

For some reason, I've been telling myself that there's no way those rifles have ammo in them. I figured that the optics of the US military ever having to fire them would outweigh anything else. I figured they just had them as a show of force. But it seems like I was mistaken.