Question for the military folks - would you shoot?

[Control Group]

I know there's a pretty high concentration of current- or ex-military folks on THR, so I'm hoping you can help me answer a question that came up a while back between a friend of mine and myself. When we were talking about it, the conversation was limited to the Interstate system, but it's essentially the same question as gun confiscation. Anyway, here it is.

Say the government were to declare an emergency, and seize control of the Interstate system for exclusive military use. Say you're stationed as a guard on an onramp, with orders to fire on any civilian or civilian vehicle that approaches within some distance, say a couple hundred feet. These orders are legal, insofar as they have appropriately come down the chain of command. A civilian vehicle comes within the defined range, despite appropriate warnings. Would you fire on the vehicle? In your opinion, would your fellow soldiers?

Similarly, say the government were to declare a certain weapon or class of weapons illegal to possess, and demand immediate confiscation from those who own them. You're part of a house-to-house effort to seize all of them, under orders to use whatever means necessary to accomplish your mission. Again, assume these orders are legal, insofar as they have appropriately come down the chain of command. A civilian, known to be in possession of a weapon to be confiscated, barricades himself in his house well enough that it will require significant, possibly lethal, force to get into the building, though he is not an overt threat (he's not actually pointing a rifle at you). Would you use whatever force necessary to get into the house, potentially killing the civilian? In your opinion, would your fellow soldiers?

As I mentioned we were only specifically discussing the former question, but, for the record, I maintained that your average soldier would, in fact, fire on the vehicle, assuming only that the orders were legal as stated. My friend insisted that they wouldn't. Neither of us, though, has ever been in the military, so our opinions aren't really what you might call "qualified." Now that I've got the opportunity to ask several people with qualified opinions, I'm very curious to hear them.

 

[mrhuckins]

Without question I would fire on the vehicle as ordered to do so, under the senario you outlined. I can't however, envision how such a senario would happen.

 

[Control Group]

Well, granted, it's beyond unlikely. But we were in college pulling an all-nighter to finish up our Systems Analysis & Design project, and this was an unofficial sort of study break. Reality didn't enter into it so much.

In any event, thanks for the input.

 

[SnWnMe]

Cops do this already don't they?

I am sworn to obey the orders of those appointed over me so it places me in a bind.

However, I will not shoot Americans. I am their SERVICEMAN after all (well, there goes the FITREP ).

Now if your group of civilians don't speak English...

 

[MudPuppy]

As a former infantry soldier (and a teenager at the time):

Yes, I would do as ordered. The soldiers I served with, in my opinion, would have also.

(Older and no longer wear a uniform, not so much.)

 

[TC66]

Under the scenerio yes I would shoot. One thing to also remember is you must first give a warning shot. If they ignored the warning then they have a problem.

Now if I was in Iraq right now I would have a problem with the warning shots with as many car bombs as have been blowing up or as many insurgent attacks as have been carried out. I think I would shoot first to kill to protect then worry about the lack of a warning shot later.

Served 8 years in the Army got our as an E-6. I believe all in my squad would have followed orders too.

 

[centac]

I'm not military, but from my minimal studies of military management systems it is apparent that immediate obedience to lawful orders is the only way a military unit can survive, both figuratively and literally. The line troops are not privy to policy and strategy decisions, nor do they need to be. Their job is to carry out lawful orders, not analyze them.

I understand the example is hypothetical, but extremely far-fetched. Ya shoulda kept to studyin' And to think I was distracted by girls.....

 

[Old Dog]

May I direct your attention to:

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
20 Stat. L., 145
10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375
Sec. 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel:

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

18 U.S.C. 1385

Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Note: The only exemption has to do with nuclear materials (18 U.S.C. 831 (e)


I find it difficult to believe that military personnel would ever be authorized by Congress to participate in any efforts to confiscate weapons from the populace ... Now, assuming (under the circumstances you've outlined) that Congress has either overturned the Posse Comitatus Act or otherwise authorized direct participation of military personnel in an operation to secure the highways, the orders to shoot violators would be lawful -- the answers would be yes. What other answer could you possibly expect? Be advised: we are already guarding our bases and our assets (aircraft, ships, weapons, ordnance) -- and deadly force IS authorized in the case of any intruders -- be they U.S. citizens or terrorists.

One thing to also remember is you must first give a warning shot. If they ignored the warning then they have a problem.

Sorry, but no; we are (at a minimum) annually forced to review the deadly force doctrine, and there's no such thing as a "warning shot," in fact, the use of a warning shot is normally specifically proscribed.

 

[Werewolf]

Actually the scenario is not all that far fetched.

The original purpose for interstate highways was to insure the ability to rapidly move the military across the US.

I believe that that purpose is still enshrined in the highway system and the funds provided to the states to maintain them.

A scenario where the entire system is co-opted by the Feds is unlikely but a scenario where part of the system is taken is not.

In fact I experienced a scenario similar to that postulated. It occured in Oklahoma City in 1995. President Clinton made a trip to our town after the bombing. While he was here I-40 (from Tinker to the downtown area and parts of I-35 were closed to all traffic. Every entrance ramp had either a city policeman or OK Highway Patrol guarding it.

I was unaware of this when my family and I headed out to a theatre on the North side of town. I noticed that the entrance I normally used to get on I-40 was blocked by a Del City policeman and car. When I asked what was going on I was told to turn around and find another route. The policeman was far from polite about it. He didn't mention that the President was using that route (actually he'd used it about an hour prior).

Kinda ticked me off but it took only a few seconds to realize what was going on and knowing how sensitive some LEO's were when it came to El Presidente I did as ordered without any backtalk.

I still get pissed to this day about that. Shutting down two main traffic routes thru a major city for over 3 hours for El Presidente? Something's just not right about that.

 

[MudPuppy]

A similar situation would be the national guard using deadly force against looters in post disaster situations.

Any examples of those NG folks using deadly force in recent times?

 

[TC66]

Sorry, but no; we are (at a minimum) annually forced to review the deadly force doctrine, and there's no such thing as a "warning shot," in fact, the use of a warning shot is normally specifically proscribed.

Well lets see. I was on East German Border Patrol for several years and a warning shot was a must. Someone trying to cross the border and East German guards shoot at them we are required to try to position ourselves between the East German guards and the person escaping. If they guard continued to shoot he was shooting at us and then we had to give a warning shot. If they fired more we were then and only then allowed to defend ourselves.

I also guarded the Basic Load of ammunition for our unit many times and we were required to give a warning shot to anyone who tried to enter the BLSA.

My unit was also assigned to guard the yearly supply of munitions coming into Germany while it was being off loaded to rail cars for delivery to multiple destinations and once again we were required to give at least one warning shot.

Not sure were you got your info on warning shots it may have changed since I got out in 93 but A warning shot was required.

 

[Libertyteeth]

I hope it never comes to either scenario, especially door-to-door gun confiscation, but also including widespread "homeland security" roadblocks. It would be in violation of the Second Amendment, and the Posse Comitatus act, and if that is repealed, that is just one more sign that our government has turned against we the people.

Military posters seem to sometimes think that if the order comes down, they will just do it because they are expected to follow orders, and resistance will be insignificant. I suspect that they would do well to watch their backs, lots of folks have long-range "sniper rifles" capable of accurate fire well beyond the range of .223s. It seems to me that there are at least a few million Americans who are pretty well fed up with the growing police state tyranny. It is best to think about the consequences of these things in advance.

You don't really want to be enforcers for the coming martial law dictatorship, do you?

 

[Old Dog]

Not sure were you got your info on warning shots it may have changed since I got out in 93 but A warning shot was required.

From DoD Directive 5210.16 (1 Nov 01), which is the guidance on use of deadly force all military personnel carrying firearms and involved in law enforcement, security duty or personal protection must abide by.
E2.1.6.1. Warning shots are prohibited.
E2.1.6.2. When a firearm is discharged, it will be fired with the intent of rendering the person(s) at whom it is dischrged incapable of continuing the activity or course of behavior prompting the individual to shoot.

 

[444]

Once upon a time, I was a member of the National Guard and sometime in the mid 80s a portion of our detachment was called up and we manned an armored vehicle with an M60 machine gun on top of it. It was parked at a truck stop during a nationwide truck strike.
I have no idea what we were supposed to be doing and we didn't have any ammo.
But, if we did have ammo and my squad leader told me to hose down a car, I would have done it instantly and with out question. I don't know if I would now, but I am no longer in any kind of military organization.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Sometimes, silence is significant.

For example, no .mil person has said " I would shoot a citizen in conjunction with house to house confiscation of arms".

 

[DRZinn]

In the first scenario:

As a rifleman, probably. The situation (hypothetically) would justify that response. As a squad leader, maybe. Depends on the situation.

In the second scenario: Absolutely not. Violating the rights of American citizens was never in my job description.

 

[Old Fud]

A Few Good Men

Jack Nickelson had it right on the money.

Soldiers obey orders or they and their comrads die!

It's been that way for many thousands of years, and it is that way today.

Fud

 

[DRZinn]

Those of you who speak of obeying orders:

In the gun confiscation scenario too?

 

[tuna]

To answer the first question - yes. Especially since there were ample warnings prior to the vehicle coming into the area.

To answer the second question - NO. My oath of enlistment(s) have all said the same thing "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic..." It would be failure to obey the Constitution by following an order to discard it without due process. And if the military WAS doing house to house searches, I think that things had gotten VERY BAD for the US.

"Any examples of those NG folks using deadly force in recent times?"

Every day now, just not in the US . Prior to the war on terror, we had multiple opportunities to put airstrikes against the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo.

 

[RevDisk]

Say the government were to declare an emergency, and seize control of the Interstate system for exclusive military use. Say you're stationed as a guard on an onramp, with orders to fire on any civilian or civilian vehicle that approaches within some distance, say a couple hundred feet. These orders are legal, insofar as they have appropriately come down the chain of command. A civilian vehicle comes within the defined range, despite appropriate warnings. Would you fire on the vehicle? In your opinion, would your fellow soldiers?

Nope. Constitutional right to free travel means that it'd be illegal, unless there was a really big reason. (Massive bio weapon attack, invasion, etc) Any of my fellow soldiers that shoot American citizens without thinking...

If I knew there were no enemy forces in the area... (ie, we're not being invaded) There would be signs with big words saying "SPIKE STRIPES AHEAD" and there WOULD be spike stripes there. Or some other improvised means of absolutely stopping a vehicle. I'd also make it as difficult as possible to drive around said spike stripes. If they tried to ram me, I'd shoot. Otherwise, nope.

If they drove around my immediate area, and got on the highway, I also wouldn't shoot. From your wording, it sounds like I am guarding that on-ramp, not the highway itself. It's all in how you word 'em orders.

Similarly, say the government were to declare a certain weapon or class of weapons illegal to possess, and demand immediate confiscation from those who own them. You're part of a house-to-house effort to seize all of them, under orders to use whatever means necessary to accomplish your mission. Again, assume these orders are legal, insofar as they have appropriately come down the chain of command. A civilian, known to be in possession of a weapon to be confiscated, barricades himself in his house well enough that it will require significant, possibly lethal, force to get into the building, though he is not an overt threat (he's not actually pointing a rifle at you). Would you use whatever force necessary to get into the house, potentially killing the civilian? In your opinion, would your fellow soldiers?

What would I do in such a situation? I walk off with my squad. We sit down, break out cigarettes and cards. We come back at the end of the day and truthfully tell our officers that we did not find any firearms.

Said orders are illegal. Illegal search and seizure.

If civvies want to barricade themselves into a house, fine by me. I'd ask real nicely if they want to hand over those guns. If they said "no", I'd nod and walk away. I did all I could legally do to get those evil, evil guns.

If my follow soldiers are threatening to shoot a civvie to illegally steal said weapons, I'd stop said soldiers. Self-defense of a third party. Said "soldiers" were enemies of my country and my Constitution, just happening to be domestic ones instead of foreign ones. They would be a clear and present danger to other soldiers, US citizens and our country.

I'd make sure they were never in a position to become enemies of the US. Any soldiers under my command would never follow out such orders.

As I mentioned we were only specifically discussing the former question, but, for the record, I maintained that your average soldier would, in fact, fire on the vehicle, assuming only that the orders were legal as stated. My friend insisted that they wouldn't. Neither of us, though, has ever been in the military, so our opinions aren't really what you might call "qualified." Now that I've got the opportunity to ask several people with qualified opinions, I'm very curious to hear them.

None of the situations you described were legal, barring further information. Presented with JUST those facts and nothing else, illegal orders. Most soldiers would not fire either, unless they were being actively attacked. If the car tried to ram us or if the guy holed up in the building was firing at us, we would return fire. Otherwise, nope. So say our Rules of Engagement also.

 

[444]

One thing that has been mentioned is that following orders is essential in a military or quasi military organization. Often times, the situation is such that even if they were so inclined, there is no time for a meeting, no time to explain the reason for an order, no time to take a vote etc. Part of the reason for following orders is that you have some faith in those in command that they are doing the right thing. You do not have ALL the information. You may not be able to see the big picture. But, you have faith that the people who are telling you what to do have that information.
When people don't follow orders, they don't have that faith.
This isn't something you probably would think about. It is just how it works. I think most would agree that if you came to the conclusion that your superiors were rogue or they were crazy or they were going off half cocked you would no longer follow their orders.
In the first senario you give, you don't give the reason the interstates are shut down. Odds are, if this really happened everyone would know why, but let's say we don't. As soldiers, we have to accept the fact that there is a good reason for it. We personally don't have the information but we don't need it: our job is not to make these decisions. The people have been informed that they are not to drive on the interstate. If someone does it anyway, we have to assume that they are up to no good and carry out our orders.
In the second senario, no. I would openly defy their orders and if nessessary face the consequenses. I would also consider desertion.

 

[Control Group]

In the first senario you give, you don't give the reason the interstates are shut down

As a quick comment, you're right, I don't; that's intentionally part of the scenario. The point of contention between my friend and I was precisely what the soldier would do given those orders on their own merits. Introducing obvious or known factors justifying the orders changes the question completely, just like saying the orders were not necessarily properly received does.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for their input. I'd comment more, but I'm pressed for time - hopefully later this evening I can get back, since some interesting points have been raised.

 

[mercedesrules]

Police and soldiers are humans with families, bills, mortgages, pensions, etc. They have made this decision already by joining such a group. I think most would obey their superiors rather than lose their jobs and benefits.

 

[ETCss Phil McCrackin]

Hey Old Dog, where are you in Kitsap? I am a Submariner at NSB Bangor.

 

[dpesec]

Old Dog

Well yes and no. There was talk awhile back about using the Air Force and Army to stop the drug trade. Also, remember the USAF now has a protocol to shoot down airlines with the proper authorization.

This could force the exact situation described.

Honestly, I don't know what I would have done, I'm just thankful that I would never have been in the place. The only time I ever had a weapon was when I qualified.