|
OK. My point in asking the previous question is this: The Houston city laws and ordinances are different in some cases than Dallas, however if Houston were to come to Dallas to help, they would be asked to follow the rules and regulations of Dallas city law, not Houston.
The similarity that I am trying to address here is that when the Military is called in to assist local law enforcement, as in Louisiana for Katrina, they are ordered by the government to follow the laws of the local police. They are there to ASSIST, not take over. I know this because one of my good friends who was called up to help in the aftermath was one such unit. The rules were that you policed the city, not patrolled it as a military unit. They still had to follow the rules and regulations set forth by the local N.O. Police Department. Therefore it was NOT martial law by the military, it was a curfue and local police martial law set forth by the governor and mayor. There IS a difference. Martial law can be declared by a governor without using military presence to do so, but if military HAS a presence there and are ordered to follow the laws of local police, then they are NOT commiting military martial law. I hope I have explained this right. This special unit that is in place training for the need is NOT actively on patrol, so it is NOT commiting martial law.
__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison
|