A hypothetical event on one side does not, in any way, excuse the very real excesses that have occurred on the other side. I just saw a video of a military medical helicopter used as a weapon to brush back unarmed civilians, flying so low as to bend, and even break, tree branches.
Of course not. I’m simply interested in your thoughts on what you would do in that situation.
That would depend on the reason the unarmed populace was rushing the White House.
How would you know? How could you find out?
I don’t think the current protests and/or riots rise to the status of a war by any reasonable standard.
Let’s take a scenario that American troops might be facing in the next week or so. They’ve been deployed in an American city with regular infantry weapons. They observe a crowd of people breaking store windows and stealing goods from the store. They do not observe any threat to people, including themselves.
What do you feel their orders should be?
-
Stand by unless they observe people in danger.
-
Act to arrest people and take them into custody.
-
Shoot to break up the crowd and stop the property crimes that are occurring.
What are their Rules of Engagement?
Assist the police in arresting. If the police are completely incapable or aren’t doing anything due to local political orders then arrest.
What a great way to get your ass gassed for interfering. :rolleyes:
I’m curious what power you think the military has to arrest people. When I was in the Air Force, do you think I could just arrest people? What lawful orders do you think I could have received that would enable me to just arrest people?
Depending on the circumstances and the orders, it could be quite properly any of the 3.
When there is an out of control mob (and I cannot believe I have to tell a former prison guard this) it rarely remains limited to property crimes. You start seeing assaults, violence, sexual violence, arson.
But come on shooting at a crowd is one thing. Shooting a few round in the air to scare and disperse people is another. The former would be a very extreme situation (though in an era of general lawlessness, one that might be reached fairly quickly), the other much more of a regular occurrence.
What kind of an ignorant statement is that? If a looting mob is attacking a hospital? Or a school? A chruch? Or group of offices? Or the warehouses in the docks?
I know you are all labouring under some sort of American exceptionalism, that somehow American mobs are different and peace-loving, but in a time when a breakdown of law and order, rioters and mobs are uncontrollable, despite the best intentions of the organisers. That is true anywhere, no matter what the rioters nationality.
The article is not long. Secondly, the Coast Guard could do it. Which would be sort of funny to see.
I feel this would run into practical problems. Our troops are not trained for police work and they don’t have the proper equipment or facilities for it.
You had the power to arrest a person when you saw a public offense committed or attempted in your presence or the person arrested committed a felony, although not in your presence or when a felony had been committed, and you had reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
Of course the guy/gal flipping burgers at the nearest McDonalds also had that power, its called citizens arrest.
Most military arrests in the course of law enforcement are just that, citizens arrests, and like citizens, they are supposed to hand over the arrested person to the police as soon as possible.
No it doesn’t. It’s illegal to consciously target non-threatening civilians, regardless of whether you think it’s routinely done out of convenience.
Now… are civilian collateral casualties always criminal? No, of course not, otherwise it wouldn’t be possible to bomb a munitions factory or anything that had been intentionally surrounded by human shields.
Can soldiers fire on unarmed civilians who are advancing toward their position with apparently hostile intent? Yes, there is an obligation for the force to protect itself. This is a murky area where there’s the most potential for abuse.
But no, you can’t specifically target unarmed civilians who aren’t threatening anybody or situated around a military target. That’s a crime.
What matters are the laws of warfare, which are taught to every US recruit during induction training. It’s clear you’ve never served and never been trained in this law, so you should probably sit this one out.
Kent State - Students were fired upon and killed. No soldier refused to fire. There was no accountability afterward.
Is your position that they were RIGHT to shoot unarmed college kid? Is it your position that the federal government was RIGHT to drop charges?
My post is a response to the OP:
Kent State answers the question - US troops will fire on unarmed civilians
Dropping charges in the Kent case confirms that it is Government policy
It’s history, not a value judgement on my part.
I’d say so.
What’s interesting though is the OP title’s claim thayt it WOULD bne refused.
In fact, I am certain it would not. If ordered to shoot unarmed civilians, almost all U.S. soldiers will obey. I know it’s nice to fantasize that they’d collectively say “No sir, that’s an illegal order.” Sadly it’s not so.
And, yet, our police forces are increasingly being equipped with military materials, almost as if they are expected to be more like soldiers and less like policemen…