President Trump announced a ban on trans-gendered troops in the military this morning:
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump abruptly declared a ban Wednesday on transgender troops serving anywhere in the U.S. military, catching the Pentagon flat-footed and unable to explain what it called Trump’s “guidance.” His proclamation, on Twitter rather than any formal announcement, drew bipartisan denunciations and threw currently serving transgender soldiers into limbo.
“Please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,” the commander in chief tweeted.
I have multiple reactions:
- How many transgendered folks do we have serving? And then in combat roles?
- This is what happens when you support ‘your guy’ governing by fiat.
- This is horrible policy.
- Given that no one was talking about this as of yesterday – what conversation is Trump trying to change?
I honestly don’t think Trump cares whether someone is gay or trans. I’d bet his companies are comparable to others when it comes to the demographics of his employees. No – I think this announcement is meant to shore up a base he thinks he might be losing or he’s changing the dialogue.
Some people have been asking why Officer Noor hasn’t been forced to issue a statement or agree to be interviewed about the circumstances surrounding his fatal shooting of Ms. Ruszczyk.
My answer is this: Because.
Because he is a citizen of the United States and is protected by the Fifth Amendment:
“Any lawyer that would recommend to him that he should give a statement to the BCA should be disbarred,” said Joe Friedberg, a Minneapolis defense attorney who’s not involved in the case. “Nobody should ever speak to law enforcement when they’re the subject of a criminal investigation.”
I would add that you should never speak to law enforcement. Period. Ever.
By now I am sure that you have heard of the woman shot by police in Minneapolis. The tragedy is drawing national attention because, let’s face it, the race of the officer and the victim is reversed from the more common narrative AND the fact that the victim is a woman only adds to the optics.
You would have to be in a coma not to be aware of the conversation regarding the shooting of black men by police forces across America. The narrative is that cops are killing black men indiscriminately and “getting away” with it. Most recently is the case regarding Philando Castile, in the Minneapolis-metro area, and the cop that shot him.
In the case involving this young woman, I’ll take the stance that I’ve taken with other such cases. Wait until the investigation is concluded. And, as in other cases, I have questions. Such as:
- Why would Ms. Ruszczyk walk over 100 yards to speak to officers, with their lights off and dark, if she suspected a violent crime was being committed?
- Why would Ms. Ruszcyzk, after having called 911 twice, not change into clothes? She was wearing her pajamas.
- Why would the cop in the passenger seat have his weapon drawn INSIDE the car?
- Why would she have taken her fiance’s name before they were married?
- Why would a 22 year old man refer to his father’s soon to be wife as ‘my mom’?
- Why would you, given that the cops are investigating a violent crime, allow yourself to approach a police vehicle by surprise?
- Why, after ALL of this time, were the body cams not turned on?
The whole thing doesn’t make sense to me. Which, I suppose, is not surprising when things go so wrong so fast.
In the end, as always, I hope that justice is done here. The tragedy that is the death of this young woman is horrible enough. To wrongfully convict, if indeed not guilty, or to allow to walk, if indeed guilty, would only compound that tragedy.