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

reply to post by jackinthebox


The member you are referring to hasn't tried to imply some cloak and dagger background to add weight to their arguments though- merely general military background of 15yrs.

reply to post by jackinthebox


The expectations of the guard force are much higher as the sensitivity of what is being guarded goes up. If you're guarding a nuke, or a spy plane, etc.. you're gonna be expected to offer a significantly different amount of vigilance, than if you're guarding concertina wire and pallets. If you are outnumbered, or face a force of overwhelming superiority of firepower, and you're guarding Class IV, you'll probably break contact, and call for a QRF on the radio, rather than worrying about your First General Order. My point is that during your briefing of ROE/special instructions, things like that will be covered, and if you've pulled duty, you know that.

reply to post by COOL HAND

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

I have already stated my general backround on this thread and elsewhere on ATS.

I concur through personal experience:

Class IV, if I remember correctly was lumber, trash bags, stuff like that. Shoot, I don't remember even arming our soldiers guarding Class IV. For something that insignificant, the level of force authorized would be (literally) just your presence. If your physical presence didn't prevent/deter said looters/vandals there was no authorization for any kind of force. Our only recourse was to call the MP's if on post and if off, the local fuzz.

On the other hand, one time we were alerted (don't remember the exact year, but this was when the South Koreans captured a few DPRK SF guys way south of the boarder and a few mini subs washed up and/or were caught in fishing nets) and had palletized ammo, weapons and millions of dollars of equipment at the docks in a short amount of time. We were issued weapons and a basic combat load (210 of 5.56mm). Our orders were very clear: if there was an attempt at vandalizing or stealing equipment: call for reinforcements. If some crazy, insane nut attempted to steal weapons and/or ammunition, and didn’t heed warnings: then deadly force could be used. In addition, if threatened with bodily harm or deadly force over the other equipment, deadly force could be used in response.

The difference in the two scenarios is the value of what we were guarding. Clearly, lumber, nails, some food, maybe a bunch of toilet paper (not kidding) and other, various, non-valuable items are not and were not worth a human life. However, multi-million dollar aircraft, sensitive equipment (goggles, GSE, etc), grenades, machine guns, thousands of pounds of ammunition, etc require a different level of security. Meaning; these are items you don’t want loose or destroyed.

Let me be clear: it was no secret that if someone was quick on the trigger, you were going to jail. The idea that one of us would have shot one of own citizens for fun or without extreme provocation was unthinkable.

This maybe hard to understand but when they hand you ammo, you pucker factor goes way up. It's not a liberating experience; I felt no "power". Quite the contrary, it's a heavy, heavy responsibility that neither I, nor my soldiers took lightly. Our focus was on denying access from the get-go, not baiting someone in to be shot. Think gigantic lights, signs barring entry, roving guards, etc.

On the other hand, someone stupid enough to threaten a professional solider with bodily injury is asking for more trouble than they want.


[edit on 20-2-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by BlueRaja

The member you are referring to hasn't tried to imply some cloak and dagger background to add weight to their arguments though- merely general military background of 15yrs.

Talk about trying to add weight to their argument. That's where this whole little irrelevant squabble got started. YOU, trying to imply that your experience was unique and more pertinent than anyone elses.

YOU said:

You've obviously had no experience at military guard duty...I've been downrange, and seen how things work. You haven't.

YOU have made these claims. Now the onus is on YOU to back up your statements, or to admit that you have made erroneous and presumptive statements in a futile attempt to posture yourself as the singular authority in this discussion.

reply to post by BlueRaja


See, now we're getting somewhere. You have provided detailed and fruitful material which can be discussed further. I will return shortly...

reply to post by BlueRaja


I concur that what you have stated here is true. That if you are allowed to fall back, you will. I am not trying make a ridiculous argument that soldiers want to shoot civilians over a stack of pallets, or even at all.

What I am arguing, is that if you are ordered to stand fast, you will use deadly force if necessary to carry out that order, even if you are not fully aware of all the aspects in the situation. Some liberal media cameraman might get footage of you shooting at a mob of civilians, and claim they were fired upon all over a stack of pallets, when in reality, it was the position itself that was of value. That determination is not made by the soldier, but by the superior(s) managing the event.

In a domestic situation, what the police deal with on a daily basis, is that there are no "classes" to determine use of force. How many people have been killed in high-speed chases, all because someone had a suspended license? It's all or nothing. And this is one of the greatest dangers regarding martial law. Soldiers are not cops.



[edit on 2/20/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


The point I was making, is that a soldier will know what they are guarding, and briefed on the particulars. I've never pulled guard duty, where I didn't get briefed on what it was, or how important it was to protect.

reply to post by jackinthebox


The only weight I was adding was that I've been in 15yrs, not what I do/have done. I wasn't trying to be mysterious or imply that the nature of my work gave me some special insight.

reply to post by BlueRaja

The point I was making, is that a soldier will know what they are guarding, and briefed on the particulars. I've never pulled guard duty, where I didn't get briefed on what it was, or how important it was to protect.

I agree that this is true in most cases. The one exception I can think of that might happen right now, is when guarding classified materials. It is quite possible to guard something that you are not allowed to see. But even in those cases, I agree that you would be briefed on the level of force you are expected to use if challenged.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by jackinthebox

 

The only weight I was adding was that I've been in 15yrs, not what I do/have done. I wasn't trying to be mysterious or imply that the nature of my work gave me some special insight.

When you say something like this...

You've obviously had no experience at military guard duty...I've been downrange, and seen how things work. You haven't.

...your intention is clear. This was not about adding weight to your argument with your own experience, but trying to validate your argument through personal attacks.

So now I repeat... the onus is on YOU to back up your statements, or to admit that you have made erroneous and presumptive statements in a futile attempt to posture yourself as the singular authority in this discussion.

I will accept a simple apology.

I was a member of this board a few years ago but eventually got fed up with some of the assinine comments and left. Reading this post however made me want to reply.

The O.P. original thought was a good one but unfortunately became sidetracked by some people's need to ridicule the military, primarily because of people who never wore the uniform trying to answer a question that really never applied to them.

I was born, raised and served in the military. In fact my father is buried in Arlington, so when I hear people denigrate his or any veterans service to this country I become somewhat upset.

I will try to answer the question that was posed. NO. I would not shoot an unarmed civilian if I had been ordered to. The reason for this is because I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States as well as it's elected leaders. This being said, my primary obligation was to the Constitution.

As far as ex military working as bouncers, unfortunately alot of lower enlisted have no other definable skillset when they leave the military. I became a bouncer when I got out only because ti was the only employment I could find at that age.

Most people in the military do not join it so they can go on a power trip, but join out of a sense of duty or for college or because the have a young family and no other way to provide for them.

It is the people whose daddy paid for their college and never had to work for anything that choose not to understand what that might mean.

As far as Kent State, try bringing up something like that happening in the last thirty years. It is people like you that were the impetus for what happened there, and the sad thing is, is that you would be the reason for it happening now.

Regardless of what we all like to think, there is a difference between legal rights and moral rights. By this I mean; If you never served, you may have a legal right to protest the military but you do not have the moral right to do so.

reply to post by capgrup


I too was raised in a military family, and my brother is at Camp Anaconda at this moment. This is why I believe it is important for ALL Americans to start paying attention to the direction this country is headed in. The core values that the military has fought and died to protect, have been stripped away.

This is not about protesting the military, it is about poor leadership.

I have come to the conclusion that the real question is not whether or not our cops and or military would shoot civilians, but whether or not they would get shot by those civilians.

New Orleans shows that not only would our military, private mercenary force, and cops, piss on the constitution, but gladly kill American civilians.

These are the questions you must ask yourself.

Would you do what it took if faced with an overwhelming force of jack booted thugs with body armor and machine guns?

Do you even have the equipment that could enable you to make a stand?

If you are worried about this situation, and are like me and trust not in thine government, take your life into your own hands.

The AK-47 is a great equalizer. It is really not that hard to get military grade body armor either.

I will not stand by to be stripped of my "freedom", and constitutional rights, I'd rather die.

I do admit that the powers that be are attempting to ascert more and more control over us and stripping our rights ( Habeas Corpus) and god knows what else.

I do fear this government, it's arrogance, incompetence, downright stupidity. It is because of it's stupidity that they will not be able to suceed.

I have been out of the military for some time but I have to believe that these men and women are still being taught what is right and wrong. There are thousands of officers and N.C.O's in the military who still remember and live their lives based on their oath and obligation. It is because they have fought for the liberty of our country as well as others that I believe they would never let that happen.

If it did,but it won't, I have a few weapons that would do some damage, but a M1A2 and a 120mm main gun would pretty much negate any chance I had.

Besides, the administration will change in 11 months and nothing can be worse than the one we have now.

reply to post by capgrup

Besides, the administration will change in 11 months and nothing can be worse than the one we have now.

Except maybe the Democrats turning the United States into the middle state of the North American Union.

Both the Republicans and Democrats are behind that. I am an Independent. Besides, it is the corporations writing the legislation and Bush really loves that.

reply to post by capgrup


It can get a whole heck of a lot worse than it is now. When I look outside my window, nothing is on fire, and I don't currently hear any gunfire. We are doing ok right now. Like jackinthebox said, if we end op the middle state of the north american union, there will certainly be a lot of pain suffering and misery.

Originally posted by jackinthebox

When you say something like this...

You've obviously had no experience at military guard duty...I've been downrange, and seen how things work. You haven't.

...your intention is clear. This was not about adding weight to your argument with your own experience, but trying to validate your argument through personal attacks.

So now I repeat... the onus is on YOU to back up your statements, or to admit that you have made erroneous and presumptive statements in a futile attempt to posture yourself as the singular authority in this discussion.

I will accept a simple apology.

Are you asking me to prove how long I've been in service? Again, I was not trying to use my MOS as an authoritative source, but rather my general military background. Seeing as how you've agreed with my assertions about what a guard force is briefed prior to assuming duty, can you see how I might have taken acception to your earlier assertions? If I have said anything that is inaccurate about your background or experience, I stand corrected.

reply to post by BlueRaja

Are you asking me to prove how long I've been in service?

No. That is entirely your choice what you choose to share, which you have done.

I take exception to your claiming to know what my experiences have been, with these phrases...

You've obviously had no experience at military guard duty...I've been downrange, and seen how things work. You haven't.

You know nothing about what I have done. Unless you can substantiate the phrases above, I believe an apology would be in order.