Is there any military or police members here who can answer this question?

reply to post by BlueRaja

What you want is for someone to give you the answer that you want to hear, so you can then say- see I knew it.

Who are you to presume to know what I want? All I want is the truth, and for people like you to admit the truth. Would you shoot a civilian if ordered to do so?

That was a nice cherry picked example of a man being shot for stealing food.

You asked for an example, I gave you one. Now go do your own research into police corruption, brutality, and the current state of affairs in this country. You might learn something from it.

You've obviously had no experience at military guard duty to make the assertion that no matter what is being guarded, that soldiers will die or kill to protect it. If what is being guarded doesn't warrant lethal force, then soldiers will use non-lethal force, and if that doesn't work, will call for assistance. They won't resort to dying in place or killing though.

You obviously have no idea what my experince is.

Who gets to determine what warrants the use of lethal force? The soldier, or their CO?

Are you suggesting that a soldier will abandon their post rather than shoot someone? (As you should well know, calling for assistance may not be practical in a fluid, fast-changing situation.)

Your assertion that soldiers are being executed downrange, is asinine. It's awfully convenient to say X is happening- I don't have any proof, but they'd cover it up, so it must be happening. That's some BS logic. I've been downrange, and seen how things work. You haven't.

Again, you foolishly presume to know where I have been and what I have done.

I did not say it must be happening. I merely pointed out that there are certain questionable cases where this may have happened. I am more concerned about what will happen in the very near future if martial law is declared nationwide.

And as far as cover-ups go, there are plenty of cases where soldiers were left hung out to dry to cover up for the mistakes of their superiors. The torture at Abu Ghraib was not done by a few bad apples on the night shift.

Please refrain from lecturing me without one iota of background to back up your severely uninformed opinions.

Please refrain from presuming to know anything about my backround, as you have done repeatedly, in a childish attempt to present yourself as an authority on the subject.

As for Saddam relenting- that's horsepucky.

The bio-weapons lab was horsepucky. When the UN showed up there, they concluded that the German source who refused to speak with Americans, the Iraqi former employee, had fabricated the entire story.

[edit on 2/19/0808 by jackinthebox]

jackinthebox - why don't you enlighten us all on your background? You keep telling people that they don't know your background so how can they judge...well, share then. What is your background?

reply to post by White Chapel

jackinthebox - why don't you enlighten us all on your background? You keep telling people that they don't know your background so how can they judge...well, share then. What is your background?

Try sticking to the topic. Baiting and personal attacks are against ATS policy. Portions of my backround are not to be discussed with anyone, much less on a public forum.

reply to post by BlueRaja


I think you need to study a bit more on Hitler.

It isn't their intentions, but what people believe the intentions to be.


Reichstag was blamed on the Communists. They used this event to gain control of the political seats. This was also a launch point for removing rights and liberties.

This guy was TIME's Man of the Year in 1938.

Hitler went on to gain their support by convincing most Germans he was their savior from the economic Depression, communism, the "Judeo-Bolsheviks," and the Versailles Treaty, along with other "undesirable" minorities

scary if you read it all



The concerns stated in this thread are valid. our economy is faltering, we also demonize communism, the "Islamo-Fascists", ignore the United Nations Charter (treaty), along with those pesky 'Muslims'.

(for the record, I can see the difference between a few extremists and a whole religion. If not, we would have to consider all Catholics child molesters, or all Christians militant extremists as well)


What I feel is that some people want to be aware and prevent such a thing as this kind of history repeating itself. Following orders can seem right when your information is not unbiased. The parallels are closer than most people would care to admit, and understandably so.



We just have to hope that our citizens, our troops, our public servants, our agencies can be more aware and protect this nation from big mistakes and people who have become deluded with power and corrupted ideals.

Drunk with power and driving the country is not a good combination.

I know good people in many organizations, it is the bad ones I also know of that scare the yellow water out of me.



As far as directly on topic, I cannot comment other than if I was serving in any branch, I am highly independent and will not follow corrupt orders, and if I felt something was fishy, I would request more information or could not follow orders in good conscious. This is why my father who served in Vietnam suggested very strongly that I never serve for fear of me being discharged for being insubordinate.

However, he feels there is no way it can get as bad as the worst fears. There may be some idiots out there, but there are too many people that can think and act for themselves for it to be a worst case martial law situation. Too many people with families.


This however, doesn't discount a non-U.S. (or hired groups/mercenary) force controlling the U.S. populace ... which brings up another question.

At what point does a military unit or branch break off of orders to come back and defend the people against a corrupt government's ordered occupation?

Will the military pay attention and act accordingly, and how bad must it be before a general decides that his CIC has gone off the deep end, that the people in the three branches are bonkers and action must be taken for the good of the nation, the people, and defend the constitution from domestic enemies/terrorists?


Just out of curiosity in a hypothetical, slightly plausible situation.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Long Lance

 

My problem is with folks who like to cherry pick stories that support their agendas/fears, and then try to claim that such behaviors happen regularly in all parts of the country and in every police department. It's just like folks who try to say we need more gun control, and cite the few instances where a wacko used a gun, whilst ignoring the thousands of incidents where guns were used in a positive way to prevent crime.

capitalizing on individual transgressions (single cop tazing the heck out of people) would be slightly similar, this video essentially shows an premediated violation of people and their rights on an orgnaized scale, which makes quite a difference. chain of command was used to perpetrate the act, the entire system is therefore corrupt.


recording and obviously filing videotapes 'for future use' makes it even clearer that this is a top-down problem and its widespread introduction all around the country is of course overwhelming proof that this is really the case.

i see that you did not dispute the fact, which is good, because last time i checked i did not advocate a knee-jerk reaction. i hope you'll agree that the whole incident has to be investigated, the culprits found and dealt with.

all who participated should leave the police force, even if that meant paying them a tidy sum for compensation, because de-sensitized people are high-interest capital to totalitarian minded people. yes they do exist and imho, they are advancing at a frightening pace.


PS: if you regard averting degeneration into a totalitarian society an agenda, so be it. i can't deny that i hope that warning people will be enough to accomplish that, but i'm of course sceptical.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by White Chapel

 

jackinthebox - why don't you enlighten us all on your background? You keep telling people that they don't know your background so how can they judge...well, share then. What is your background?

Try sticking to the topic. Baiting and personal attacks are against ATS policy. Portions of my backround are not to be discussed with anyone, much less on a public forum.

it is not a bait or a personal attack, it is relevant to the discussion because you keep referencing it when people make statements. Without some sort of clarification here, I'm just going to assume your a 13 year old with too much time on his hands.

reply to post by Long Lance


I don't, nor will I ever defend police abusing their powers, so I hope I haven't come across as having expressed that view. What I don't believe is that every policeman in every police department is a jack booted thug, just waiting to oppress the lowly civilian populace. There are some jerks who were probably beat up in school and have a chip on their shoulder, and now that they have a badge, are trying to make up for it, but I believe them to be in the distinct minority.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by White Chapel

 

jackinthebox - why don't you enlighten us all on your background? You keep telling people that they don't know your background so how can they judge...well, share then. What is your background?

Try sticking to the topic. Baiting and personal attacks are against ATS policy. Portions of my backround are not to be discussed with anyone, much less on a public forum.

Are there any portions of your background that you can discuss, or are you a former covert operator suffering from regret? Nothing I've claimed as a subject matter authority requires me to claim plausible deniability due to the sensitive nature of my background.

reply to post by jimbo999


Late responding, apologies:

Yes, in PLDC.

An example: "SGT, kill everyone in that town". That's an unlawful order, and I would be bound to disobey it. Another example: "SGT, search the town, find the sniper and eliminate the threat". See the difference? How would I disobey? I would immediately appeal to a higher authority, say the Battalion Commander.

Never specifically trained in martial law scenarios.

Yes, I am very aware of Kent State. Grossly under-trained National Guardsmen and incompetent leadership coupled with a drunk, violent and destructive mob. The insinuation is that the protesters were flower-power children who were innocently gunned down by jack-booted thugs.

Hardly (taken from your own source):

When the National Guard arrived in town that evening, a large demonstration was already under way on the campus, and the campus Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) building (which had been boarded up and scheduled for demolition[citation needed]) was burning. The arsonists were never apprehended and no one was injured in the fire. More than a thousand protesters surrounded the building and cheered the building's burning. While attempting to extinguish the fire, several Kent firemen and police officers were hit with rocks and other objects by those standing near the fire. More than one fire engine company had to be called in because protesters carried the fire hose into the Commons and slashed it.[8][9][10] A call for assistance went out and at 10:00 p.m., the National Guard entered the campus for the first time, setting up camp directly on campus. There were many arrests made, tear gas was used, and at least one student was wounded with a bayonet.[11]

Some more:

Fearing that the situation might escalate into another violent protest, Companies A and C, 1/145th Infantry and Troop G of the 2/107th Armored Cavalry, Ohio ARNG, the units on the campus grounds, attempted to disperse the students. The legality of the dispersal was later debated at a subsequent wrongful death and injury trial. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that authorities did indeed have the right to disperse the crowd.

Things start to get ugly:

Just before noon, the Guard returned and again ordered the crowd to disperse. When they refused, the Guard used tear gas. Because of wind, the tear gas had little effect in dispersing the crowd, and some began a second rock attack with chants of "Pigs off campus!" The students threw the tear gas canisters back at the National Guardsmen. The only protection the soldiers had were their steel helmets. They had no body armor or face shields, although they had put on gas masks upon first using tear gas.

Eventually the Guardsmen prevailed but appeared to be confused as to what to do next. They pointed thier weapons at the students once or twice, huddled some more then.....

At this point, at 12:22 PM,[1] a number of guardsmen at the top of the hill abruptly turned and fired their M1 Garand semi-automatic military rifles into the students.

I think one really important fact is the alleged ordering of the shooting. At this point, the proof is supposidly on a tape, hidden from the public, pending recording onto a CD for public consumption. Why hasn't the owner of said tape just come forward and released it? Most likely because the tape doesn't prove that claim, or even come close to it.

It's important to note that the Guardsmen of the 70's have nothing in common with the Guardsmen of today, in so far as training, professionalism and capabilities are concerned.

EDIT: forgot one of your questions:
What's a domestic enemy? Say, a mob of armed thugs demanding a violent overthrow of the government, storming < insert state capital here >. Or, if it's easier for you to wrap your heard around something more "politically correct" like a group of skin heads mobilizing in a coordinated way and attempting to assassinate < insert important figure here >.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Who am I to presume? It can be seen plainly that if you don't get the response you want, you dismiss it. It's not a yes or no question with regards to shooting people, if you don't give the context. If the people are endangering me, my buddies, other civilians, trying to steal weapons, classified materials, blow things up, etc....then yes, I wouldn't have an issue with taking them out. If the question is would you shoot someone standing in line with a sign, or trying to eat, then absolutely not.

The example you provided of the man being shot for stealing food gave no other background info on the circumstances. On it's own, it does sound a bit messed up. There may be a lot more to the story we don't know though, so I can't ignore that in my opinion formulation.

When you assume guard duty in the military, you receive a briefing on your duties and rules of engagement. If you're not guarding something that warrants lethal force, you will not use lethal force for other than self defense. Your special instructions cover contingencies, should they occur. If need be you'd call for assistance, but it's not expected that you would die for something that you're not authorized lethal force to protect.

As for assuming that soldiers have been executed- could you be specific? Are you talking about Pat Tillman? If so, that was fratericide, not an execution. If you're talking about the murder of other soldiers, then that's murder, not an execution. Your opinion if not based on something tangible is not evidence. I've provided examples of why it's preposterous to make such assertions(i.e. the soldiers who have been charged with murder downrange, are still alive. Would it make sense that lesser offenses would warrant swifter and harsher punishment- it's just not logical). Secondly, having been downrange, I know what sorts of punishments are given for given out. You may get UCMJ(non-judicial or Court Martial), but you're not going to be executed if you're not responsible for the unlawful taking of life, or giving away top secret information, and things of that severity.

reply to post by White Chapel

it is not a bait or a personal attack, it is relevant to the discussion because you keep referencing it when people make statements. Without some sort of clarification here, I'm just going to assume your a 13 year old with too much time on his hands.

The only mention of my backround in the most recent posts here have been directed toward member(s) who attempt to use their background, without being specific about it, in an attempt to posture themselves as the singular authority on the subject.

The specifics of my backround are irrelevant and will not be provided, other than to say that I am qualified to answer the question posed by the OP.

If you choose to act like a thirteen year-old, so be it, presume what you wish.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
The specifics of my backround are irrelevant and will not be provided, other than to say that I am qualified to answer the question posed by the OP.

Wouldn't that make the specifics of your "backround" relevant?

Anyone can say they are qualified, but can they prove it?

[edit on 20/2/08 by COOL HAND]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Jackinabox, I don't care what your background is, that is your business. Just commenting on the two videos you included on the first page of this thread. The first one with the fat cop and his go-cart of a police car, I would have done the same thing he did to those spoiled brats mouthing off. The second video was creepy, felt bad for the lady and she should sue. Point is, there are good and bad people everywhere. A good police/soldier would not shoot to kill his own citizens and would not obey an idiotic order such as that. I would like to think that there are more good people in the world but I may be wrong.

One last thing, if I was one of those kids in the first video I would take off and run. There is no way that fluffy wonder of a cop would have caught me. Those kids should have taken off and run in different directions, kids are lame these days.

reply to post by BlueRaja

Who am I to presume? It can be seen plainly that if you don't get the response you want, you dismiss it.

I fail to see where I have dismissed anything. To the contrary, I have chosen to participate in this debate on a point-by-point basis.

It's not a yes or no question with regards to shooting people, if you don't give the context. If the people are endangering me, my buddies, other civilians, trying to steal weapons, classified materials, blow things up, etc....then yes, I wouldn't have an issue with taking them out. If the question is would you shoot someone standing in line with a sign, or trying to eat, then absolutely not.

I agree that context is certainly a factor.

What if you were guarding a food-storage facility, and a mob of hungry people came to steal from it? Being outnumbered and in uniform would certainly put you in danger. Would you shoot, or abandon your post? Now I realize that this has not happened in the US, but the possibility is there. I can tell you now, that I would, without question, fire my weapon with deadly accuracy. And that is why I choose to no longer put myself in a position to have to do that.

The example you provided of the man being shot for stealing food gave no other background info on the circumstances. On it's own, it does sound a bit messed up. There may be a lot more to the story we don't know though, so I can't ignore that in my opinion formulation.

I don't see how any other backround information would legitimize the shooting-death of a man armed only with a stolen steak.

You asked for "one example" so I provided it. Would you agree that the police often shoot and kill unarmed assailants, and people who commit crimes out of desperation? There are various crimes committed by people with little means, in their brazen attempts at survival, which result in their death at the hands of law-enforcement. If the common welfare was provided for, there would be a drastic decrease in crime across the board, making this topic far less relevant.

The issue is not one example or another, it is the overall picture. That picture clearly shows an increasingly violent rift between the civilian population, and those who are meant to protect it. Particularly with the police at the moment domestically, but with the military for certain in case of martial law.

I will return to respond further very soon...

[edit on 2/20/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 2/20/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Long Lance

 

There are some jerks who were probably beat up in school and have a chip on their shoulder, and now that they have a badge, are trying to make up for it, but I believe them to be in the distinct minority.

if you're standing there and get the order to push them back, you ahve the choice to either disobey and be fired the next day, with the prospect of never ever getting a job in the security sector, net even as a rent-a-cop, or, well, advance into the crowd.

it's all harmless on the surface, pepper spray is annoying but what the heck, i guess most cops will have personal experience with it and won't call it a 'chemical weapon', paintball bullets give people bruises and a minor irriitation.

thoughts of hitting someone in the eye might cross people's minds and they will even take care and avoid shooting high, but in the end, there is a risk, albeit a slight one which is taken for nothing.

edition.cnn.com...

i don't want to attach blame, but enforcing your won will, or worse yet, someone elses, 'just because' is dangerous all by itself, no matter how minor the issue at hand, it's the underlying, unconditional submission which is enforced in such cases is detrimental to both, (involuntary) perpetrators and victims, so there are no winners on the scene, only behind it. desensitation is something anybody can suffer from, it's partially inevitable i think, but physical violence is a much stronger drug, so to speak, so people who had to go through the experience should never be subjected to it again, because none really knows where an individual's breaking point is.

[edit on 20.2.2008 by Long Lance]

reply to post by COOL HAND

Wouldn't that make the specifics of your "backround" relevant?
Anyone can say they are qualified, but can they prove it?

Fine. No one on this thread should say anything further until they have posted their entire record, certifications, and identifications.

You go first.

reply to post by BlueRaja

When you assume guard duty in the military, you receive a briefing on your duties and rules of engagement. If you're not guarding something that warrants lethal force, you will not use lethal force for other than self defense. Your special instructions cover contingencies, should they occur. If need be you'd call for assistance, but it's not expected that you would die for something that you're not authorized lethal force to protect.

I am aware of briefings and ROE. They can be quite thorough indeed, I do not dispute this. On the other hand, if you are ordered to hold your position, the use of deadly force is inherent to that responsiblity. Unless you abandon your post, or are properly relieved.

As for assuming that soldiers have been executed- could you be specific? Are you talking about Pat Tillman? If so, that was fratericide, not an execution.

I admit, I am not very familiar with the Tillman case, that was brought up by another member. My point is, that the line between fratericide and a legitimate execution is very thin. I honestly don't see this as an immediately pressing issue at the moment, I am more concerned about where this line would be drawn in the case of a domestic insurrection.

reply to post by jitombe

The first one with the fat cop and his go-cart of a police car, I would have done the same thing he did to those spoiled brats mouthing off.

And this would make you a bad community servant. I can't believe this dude let those get such a rise out of him. What a chump. I'd hate to see him in a life-and-death situation, where his judgement was critical.

Furthermore, there is another video floating around now of that same cop destroying the private property of a tax-paying citizen and running him out of a public park. So, this oinker was not just having a bad day.

The second video was creepy, felt bad for the lady and she should sue. Point is, there are good and bad people everywhere.

The problem is the increase of incidents like these. They are not isolated incidents at all. They happen all the time, and to varying degrees. There are indeed still good cops out there, but I fear the balance of power has shifted them into the minority now. And even good cops look the other way. Where does that leave the citizens?

One last thing, if I was one of those kids in the first video I would take off and run. There is no way that fluffy wonder of a cop would have caught me. Those kids should have taken off and run in different directions, kids are lame these days.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Fine. No one on this thread should say anything further until they have posted their entire record, certifications, and identifications.

You go first.

No one is asking for your entire record, just your "backround"

Course there is no shame in admitting there is nothing to it.

As for me, I have already had my credentials verified here.