usarak soldier shot and killed in anchorage alaska

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Revolver Ocelot

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Messages
1,470
Since I have been a soldier under the usarak command I have been unable to carry a weapon due to an unfortunate "lawful order" stating soldiers carrying deadly weapons poses a threat to usarak command.

Just recently a soldier has been killed due to this. In the past soldiers have voiced complaint of this due to the fact people would start fights with them knowing full well the extent to which we would be able to defend ourselves and now a soldier is dead. It has been said the person who shot this soldier picked his target knowing he was military and subsequently would not be armed.

I have been informed that due to this inicident the current policy letter prohibiting us from carrying will be changed, but I have yet to confirm this, as soon as I can I will post further info.

more to follow...

UPDATE

The concealed carry rights for usarak soldiers has been reinstated!

link: http://www.usarak.army.mil/policies/PUBS-ACROBAT/USARAK_Policies/CGCOFS POLICY STATEMENT 18.pdf

Even more surprising is president obama is the one who forced the command to change it.
 
Last edited:
Ocelot, it's more complicated than that, and you know it, if you haven't taken the time to learn why that ban was put in place, don't complain, because your brothers screwed it up for you (AND THEY DID)

rather, talk to those who can change the policy and hope to hell that the AF doesn't squash it.
But I doubt it, unless the NEW CG is willing to change the policy
as the stuff you linked is OVER 2 YEARS OLD

On the other hand, you could just practice avoidance...

Oh, and on that case, the guy is in jail now, the finished they trial a month or two ago, and it wasn't that he was a soldier, rather that he intervened in the situation, that go him killed, and even then, I doubt a CCW could have changed it much, PLEASE learn the facts.
http://www.adn.com/2008/12/01/608370/shooting-victim-was-army-mp.html your link for the opinon blog

http://www.adn.com/2011/02/11/1697548/man-sentenced-to-80-years-for.html
here, he has seen his day in court.
 
Last edited:
I had been informed a soldier was shot in anchorage in the past 2 weeks and my chain of command informed me that a change was in progress to reinstate our right to carry.

my mistake in not checking the links date prior to posting but if you know of a link to either incident that had the law revoked or reinstated please due post.

I'm not complaining, I accepted that I could not carry when I got here 6 months ago I have every reason to be glad if it is reinstated however.
 
and it wasn't that he was a soldier, rather that he intervened in the situation
Click to expand...

The recent incident I am reffering to was supposedly because he was a soldier, I'm not reffering to the incident that caused the ban to be instated in the first place.

aside from ccw permit holders being expected to intervene in such a situation and somehow him being in the army puts him in the wrong, I do believe the gang related shootings occured on post did they not (I could be wrong I'll have to read up later) in which case they were wrong from the get go, I still don't believe the actions of 10 should affect ever soldier in alaska. Most soldiers atleast try to do the right thing, but if you feel soldiers should not carry I suppose that is just your opinion.
 
WOW. I never knew about this, and think it's pretty stupid. Even more stupid is that the command regards concealed weapons as an inherent safety risk. Hopefully he'll retire soon. Strangely, when he commanded I Corps at Ft. Lewis he said nothing about concealed weapons there. Being in Alaska, I would just OC everywhere I went. It has since been rescinded, but not because the Generals have gotten any smarter.

http://www.usarak.army.mil/policies/PUBS-ACROBAT/USARAK_Policies/CGCOFS POLICY STATEMENT 18.pdf
 
Most commanders don't trust their soldiers. Or rather, they trust MOST of them, they even know the ones they CAN'T trust, but they can't get rid of them. They have to have policies directed towards controlling the weakest link. They can't put out a policy that says; "Everyone except Private Manson, LT Bundy, and SGT Dahmer may carry off duty."

And even if YOUR commander trusts you, HIS commander doesn't. SOMEONE up your chain will have the policy, and your boss won't have the weight to do anything about it.
 
Yeah, but in the course of 6 months there were the above 8 incidents, some were actually between soldiered, and a number of other stupidity, I was in, at Ft. Richardson at the time, and really it sucked, but what is the CO supposed to do when DA is breathing down their neck... stupid and reactionary, but...
Oh, and I think most of it happened in Fairbanks. So yeah, it sucks, and policy changes with the Generals

And from your expectations, you seem more excitement than experience.
 
BTW, the Commanding General's order only prohibited CONCEALED carry. OPEN carry is legal in Alaska and is not prohibited by the Commanding General's order.
 
I understand the commander's problem. That many incidents creates a headache for everyone. I still think it was a very poor decision and shows poor leadership. Certainly after the first two or three they could have had every reason to give subsequent offenders the maximum punishment and make examples of them. They could have also only restricted those who were high risk, as long as they did their homework about it. They took the easy way out.
 
huh? who told you that?
Click to expand...

just my opinion I suppose though I have found many that agree, if you carry a weapon to defend yourself be willing to help those that can't.

BTW, the Commanding General's order only prohibited CONCEALED carry. OPEN carry is legal in Alaska and is not prohibited by the Commanding General's order.
Click to expand...

I do recall they defined it as tranportation of a deadly weapon on ones person is unlawful. but in anycase I found the new memorandum revoking the policy saying we can't carry.

Shadow7D, I see your point but the way this was handled is like saying there is gang violence among the civilian population in your state so they take away concealed carry rights for the whole state, letting the actions of the few dictated how you handle the many is not good leadership.

On a positive note I have found the memorandum stating our concealed carry rights are to be reinstated, I posted the link on the op.
 
Shadow 7D said:
Ocelot
You will go to prison for a long time
http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akst...Section335.htm

look at section B
You can defend others IF:
they are a CHILD
they are a FAMILY MEMBER
they are a Peace Office acting within the scope of their duty

It's called SELF-Defense for a reason.
Click to expand...

Umm, you might want to read just a little bit further in Alaska law, my friend:

http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter81/Section340.htm
AS 11.81.340. Justification: Use of Force in Defense of a Third Person.

A person is justified in using force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend a third person when, under the circumstances as the person claiming defense of another reasonably believes them to be, the third person would be justified under AS 11.81.330 or 11.81.335 in using that degree of force for self-defense.
Click to expand...
 
That is absolutely right navylt, and on top of that some variation of the safe harbor clause (which varies from state to state) will usually fill in the gaps.
 
moron was shooting in the air , not at anyone. call the cops stay safe and don't play cop especially after drinking. in this case his mp training mighta have made him feel obligated to do something.
 
moron was shooting in the air , not at anyone. call the cops stay safe and don't play cop especially after drinking. in this case his mp training mighta have made him feel obligated to do something.
Click to expand...

yeah he probablly should have but he was an mp and he was doing what he atleast thought was the right thing to do. I just don't understand why they took away carry rights on account of the (I'm told that was the last straw before they pulled them) fact he didn't even have a weapon on him.
 
NO ocelot, that is BAD POOP
He was disarmed BECAUSE of the policy
It was put into effect in late 05 or early 06, like I said
I WAS IN, AND STATIONED AT FT. RICH AT THE TIME
So, I got to get 'This is the new policy' briefing.

The policy happened LONG before the incident with the MP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Joining the Military could mean loosing your right to Carry
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
leadcounsel
L
F
  • Locked
Army General bans OFF BASE concealed carry in Alaska
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
7K
Art Eatman
A
2
  • Locked
Soldiers Urged To Use Armor
Replies
16
Views
877
tater_salad
T
J
  • Locked
British soldiers killed for intrusive arms searches?
Replies
17
Views
821
mattd
M
2
  • Locked
For Instructions On How To Lose War, Consult Flow Chart
Replies
0
Views
383
280PLUS
2
Back
Top