Question for the military folks - would you shoot?

[Werewolf]

If U.S. soldiers started invading U.S. households and harming Americans and their families, how long would it be until someone started targeting military families in retaliation? I mean, there's a bond between the US military and the US public . . . even people with no military service know someone - a parent, an uncle, a spouse - who served honorably. Break that bond by misusing the military against other Americans, and things would go into a downward spiral rather quickly.

You sir have a more positive feeling about the general public than I.

IMO 9,999 out 10,000 would open their doors and meekly comply. The one would just - well - die - alone - painted by the government and the media as a traitor, a criminal, a terrorist or insane. The other 9,999 would nod their heads in agreement and go on about their lives.

Now one might imagine that just the one in 10,000 is quite a few people in a nation of 300,000,000. One would be right. But those that fell into the 1 of 10,000 would be separated by both time and space, without benefit of organization and leadership.

If the day ever comes that confiscation is reality that's how it will be done - 1 at a time - more than likely turned in by a neighbor or friend - by groups of men who blindly follow the orders of those lawfully appointed above them (be they LEO's or the Military) because that's what those kind of men do. It's who they are.

There will always be men who by their nature willingly follow the orders of those above them. Those types gravitate into various professions the most common of which are the military and law enforcement. History abounds with examples of it. The US is not immune. Our day is coming...

 

[Old Dog]

Seems to me that it must be tough (and rather joyless) to go through life with such a bleak view of one's fellow citizens ...

by groups of men who blindly follow the orders of those lawfully appointed above them (be they LEO's or the Military) because that's what those kind of men do. It's who they are.

Don't presume to speak for me, or even for those with whom I have the pleasure to serve.

 

[DRZinn]

I don't think he meant (at least I hope he didn't) that all military and law enforcement blindly follow orders, but that those who are predisposed to blindly follow orders tend to end up in military or law enforcement.

 

[Sam]

Now that I'm retired what bothers me is having to resist youngsters who do not know better yet(and their Lieutenents).

Sam

 

[dpesec]

Old Dog

Yes, its sad, but it's most likely what would happen. Too many people refuse to get involved.
sorry.

 

[mercedesrules]

Let's drop this ridiculous charade that the police and military are "serving" the rest of us.

The state rules the private sector and the police and military enforce the state's rules through violence...or the threat of it.

 

[Werewolf]

Seems to me that it must be tough (and rather joyless) to go through life with such a bleak view of one's fellow citizens ...

My realistic view of my fellow citizens causes me no discomfort at all. How other people live their lives is their business not mine. To allow others to cause discomfort to one because others are different is foolish.

by groups of men who blindly follow the orders of those lawfully appointed above them (be they LEO's or the Military) because that's what those kind of men do. It's who they are.

Don't presume to speak for me, or even for those with whom I have the pleasure to serve.

I didn't presume to speak for you nor will I ever. I spoke from my own experience having served for 3 years in the Army and 10 in the Navy as an enlisted man. In both services it was rare for an enlisted person to question orders and when it was done, unless the NCO or Officer being questioned had the time to explain or was extremely enlightened the consequences to the enlisted man were never what would call positive.

Military forces and to a lesser extent law enforcement agencies are built on a foundation that demands that soldiers follow orders without question. Those that do not follow orders are weeded out when they are identified. For a force to work it cannot be otherwise.

Obedience to orders does not preclude initiative (which is a high priority in the US military). But failure to follow orders does preclude force effectiveness. It has been that way since cavemen fought the first human wars and it is that way now. It is why failure to obey a lawful order results in the most severe of consequences (especially in a combat environment).

The US military is exactly the same. The oath taken by enlisted persons is to "obey the orders of those lawfully appointed above them". It cannot be otherwise. Oh there's an out that we were taught about not having to obey an unlawful order but we were told we better be darn sure the order was unlawful and even if it was we'd have to face a court martial to prove it.

IMO 99 of 100 enlisted personell would follow what ever orders their NCO's and Officers give them. In the case of being ordered to confiscate firearms from civilians I really, really hope I'd be wrong but I sure wouldn't bet my life on it.

 

[RevDisk]

Let's drop this ridiculous charade that the police and military are "serving" the rest of us.

The state rules the private sector and the police and military enforce the state's rules through violence...or the threat of it.

Basically, yes. However, there are benefits from it. The police have their function. It may not be protecting you specifically, but they do have to deal with the bad guys. Every criminal they put away is one less on the street.

As for military, you're rather correct. The Founding Fathers deeply, deeply feared a standing army. They chucked a bunch of roadblocks in the way, and made sure that any possible federal standing army is under civvie leadership for a very good reason. It's rather annoying to have Congress telling the Army what weapons we're allowed to have, how many, etc etc. But it's a lot better than the alternative, which is a standing army that answers solely to the President.

Tis why the Second Amendment was created. We do not own firearms for sporting purposes, duck hunting, deer hunting, target shooting, trapshooting, etc. Those are all secondary purposes for RKBA. The primary reason is to protect one's rights from tyranny. Whether it's crooked cops (Battle of Athens), crooked politicians (the Brits), a standing Army (Civil War), etc.

The 2A is merely an insurance policy, not the first resorts. All American citizens are supposed to constantly keep the politicians in check with the voting box and the jury box. If the politicians pass a bad law, jury nullification.


On the other side of the line, us mil folks are supposed to enforce the Constitution. We swear our loyalty to that piece of paper above all other. Reality is a lot more complicated than that simple piece of paper, but it's the core of our mission. All NG soldiers swear a dual allegiance to the US Constitution, as well as the Constitution of their state. We're supposed to protect the US borders against any threat to the Constitution, which is a form of serving the population. If the politicians don't let us do so, that is YOUR fault as a voter.

Do cops swear loyalty to the Constitution of the US and/or their states as part of the process of getting a badge? I'm not a cop, hence why I don't know. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm actually curious. If not, why?


RevDisk
US Army, 1999-Present

 

[mercedesrules]

I think you said I was correct on both counts but with a qualification on the police.

However, there are benefits from it. The police have their function. It may not be protecting you specifically, but they do have to deal with the bad guys. Every criminal they put away is one less on the street.

I disagree. The rulers define "bad guy" and send the police out to arrest them. Only in a few cases do I usually agreee with the definition. In many, if not most cases, the police arrest persons who have harmed no one, and often confiscate private property.

 

[Bob41081]

Would you

Quote:
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.
__________________
Werewolf

That wasn't just for SlickWillie it is SOP for any Presidential visit to a city. It has been done in Houston for both President Bush I believe from Ellingtion AF Base to downtown--I 45 was shut down for hours. Iwas in D.C> in the 80's when some Govt official came by in a convoy, traffic was stopped for several blocks in each direction on the street they traveled on.

Bob

 

[peteyru]

tc66 what are you talking about warning shots in the military

prohibited .....

anyways I am active duty been through a number of hot regions across the globe ... some known and others well not so known .... I have been in for some time and your scenario .. well, its tough. Yes we are taught to follow orders, but that does not mean that we have no morals or regard for human life. Through my experiences I have learned you make the best decision you can while still understanding you are under orders. Sometimes men are told to kill other men for no reason, some do it while others choose not to. Some are charged while others are applauded.
Bottom line is if my team is in danger I shoot, if the situation does not call for deadly force than deadly force will not be used. I do not exploit nor take advantage of a set of BDU's and a license to kill .... others do. I have worked with both types. Both types have saved my ass on a number of occasions.

 

[IZHUMINTER]

Old Dog

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.

First, it's DoDD 5210.56, not .16

Second, it is intended to apply only to those personnel "regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties." They mean (primarily) MPs, certain intelligence personnel and protective service folks. A better definition can be found in the same directive, sections E1.1.2.1 through E1.1.2.5

Third, the Directive is clearly not intended to apply under the situation listed:

"2.3. Does not apply to DoD personnel engaged in military operations and subject to authorized rules of engagement [ROE], or assigned to duty in the following areas or situations, as defined by an Executive order or a DoD Directive:
2.3.1. In a combat zone in time of war.
2.3.2. In a designated hostile fire area when rules of engagement apply, or when the Combatant Commander issues operations orders setting forth different criteria.
2.3.3. Under the operational control of another Federal Agency carrying firearms in support of the mission, subject to the approval and requirements of both the Federal Agency and the DoD Component.
2.3.4. Civil disturbance mission area." (emphasis added)

So depending on what the ROE specified, warning shots could be forbidden, allowed or required. Speaking from personal experience, I've had ROE in just the last five years from each of the categories.

 

[Old Dog]

IZHUMINTER, thanks for calling my attention to my typo (.56 vice .16). I do, however, disagree with your interpretation. First, of the applicable DoD guidance (assuming a scenario -- the first one, protecting highways --of the order originally posited), paragraphs E2.1.2.3.2 and E2.1.2.3.5 do in fact apply: this would be a security detail protecting either assets involving national security or other utilities or infrastructure critical to public health or safety.

Now, if we're going to term the situation "military operations," designate a combat zone or there has in fact been an armed incursion against our country, yes, all bets are off and the ROE will change. And, by the way, the first scenario postulated said nothing about civil disturbance, so I don't believe that would apply. I won't quibble with you about your experience, but in mine, there's never been a situation where warning shots weren't specifically prohibited.