Army Manual Outlines Plan To Kill Rioters, Demonstrators In America

Ummmm...... I dont think anyone wants to go against our military.

It would be foolish.

Also, if you did have to go against our military, then you were doing something wrong.

A few of those wrongs would be...... Trying to steal food, water, or supplies they were charged to protect FOR the civilian population from hoodlums, thugs, gangsters and just bad people. You know the people who dont wanna recieve an equal amount of these things as everyone else. Well if you are one of them then go right ahead and go against the military.

People, the military would not be kicking in your doors. They would be protecting supplies and trying to ensure an infrastruster is available FOR the people to survive.

But, if you feel your trap shooting is enough training to go against the military and survive go right ahead.

You would more than likely run away from them. If you were smart you would.

reply to post by yourmaker


They better be.

The document, which is dated 2006

OH, so Bush wasn't such a great American was he?

reply to post by fleabit


Crowd Control is a CIVIL Matter , Armed U.S. Troops on the Streets of America is Verboten ! This Manual is Fiction IMO......

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by fleabit

 

Crowd Control is a CIVIL Matter , Armed U.S. Troops on the Streets of America is Verboten ! This Manual is Fiction IMO......

The NSA intercepting and recording emails from US citizens in the USA is also Verboten. But it happens and is now S.O.P.

reply to post by mbkennel


So where do American Citizens Draw the Line on this Unconstitutional Behavior ? Write your Congressman in Protest ?.........LOL , I Think Not !

It's sort of a worst case training manual. Actually, it's not even a training manual. It's an online correspondence course that soldiers take when they need promotion points!

I've held back in commenting on this thread because I know anything I say will mostly fall on deaf, or angry ears.

Thanks partly to Alex Jones for that.

One needs only to read on in this course to see what sort of care would be taken in these scenarios. I know some of you see "Warning shots will not be fired" and turn a blind eye to the rest of it, but read on.

A few people have tried to point out that this outlines escalation of force procedures (warning shots typically are one of five or six different steps in de-escalating a situation) that can be compared to current law enforcement standards. It's essentially the same as you see now around the country. There will be so many other warnings that the risk which comes with warning shots isn't worth it.

So what could you expect to see?

Armed soldiers (that's a given, right?), vehicles, warning signs, cones, concertina wire, bullhorns, LRAD, leaflets, pen flares, hand-held flares, tear gas, shouting, honking, shoving, and then finally after dozens of nonlethal tools are expended and soldiers are still presented with immediate deadly threat... See where I'm going with this?

So why are warning shots excluded when they are used overseas? The answer is simple: A civil disturbance implies there are many people around. Warning shots may lead to innocent bystanders being hit. That's all there is to it. The Army has many tools at it's disposal to provide plenty of warning.

I am baffled by the reaction and outrage shown by some members to this thread, truly speechless. The Civilian vs Military talk is downright childish and both sides should be ashamed of themselves for stooping to such levels.

!@#$... If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask.

Of course soldiers are involved in riots. What do you think they do when rioters show up at the gates to protest a war, or something else? So yes, officially we were on the edge of our base, but we interacted / had to face angry civilians. Training is still needed.

Two Military Police I know (one former one being my father) have stated to me that MPs, when stateside, (not combat deployed) and doing either routine patrol, or even riot control are extremely limited in using their firearms.

They boiled it down this:

1. If you are removing the weapon from your holster it is ONLY to institute deadly force, that threshold has been crossed and you will fire the weapon and you are firing to kill.

2. Removing the weapon from the holster (and presumably discharging the weapon) will result in about a 4 foot high stack of paperwork. Civilian police typically have far more latitude using their sidearms then MPs.

Few civillians (there are some, but not many) realize that most of what they see/know of LEOs, Military Personnel, and firearms use in generals comes from hollywood, and most of that is far from accurate.

When it comes to shooting there are no warning shots (to dangerous to bystanders), and there is no "shooting to wound" or "shooting the weapon out of someones hand".. PURE Hollywood. You only fire when the ROE allow and/or the threshold to employ deadly force has been crossed. And when you do shoot you aim center mass.

This thread is greatly blown out of proportion.

I don't like the idea of "martial law" more then anyone else. But depending on the disaster/civil disturbance, order does have to be restored at some point. Lives, and, property protected, along with potential food and supplies.

I am not saying I would agree or even go along with said events, depending on the catalyst and how the situation unfolds. But to arbitraily rail against police and national guard civil duties during a crisis is just as ignorant.