I more meant that… like, no, it just doesn’t fit with any definition I’ve seen of a military occupation.

Military occupation, also called belligerent occupation or simply occupation, is temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power’s military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside the legal boundaries of that ruling power’s own sovereign territory.

An invasion, attack, terror campaign or etc. are all better fitting descriptions IMHO - a military occupation is a fairly well defined concept and one that just does not fit what is currently happening in Minneapolis. For casual use I can understand why someone would use it, but if I were writing an article about this I wouldn’t want to imply that I personally think this fits the definition if that’s not the case.