• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marine Says Oakland Used Crowd Control Methods That Are Prohibited In War Zones

Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,911
Reaction score
58,418
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Marine Says Oakland Used Crowd Control Methods That Are Prohibited In War Zones

As the events that led to Oakland protester Scott Olsen's head injury continue to unfold and investigations begin, we thought it important to offer some perspective. This comment is from a former Marine with special operations in crowd control.
He points out that shooting canisters such as those that likely hit Scott Olsen is prohibited under rules of engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Before gas goes into a crowd shield bearers have to be making no progress moving a crowd or crowd must be assaulting the line. Not with sticks and stones but a no bull**** assault. 3 warnings must be given to the crowd in a manner they can hear that force is about to be used. Shield bearers take a knee and CS gas is released in grenade form first to fog out your lines because you have gas masks. You then kick the canisters along in front of your lines. Projectile gas is not used except for longer ranged engagement or trying to steer the crowd ( by steering a crowd I mean firing gas to block a street off ). You also have shotguns with beanbags and various less than lethal rounds for your launchers. These are the rules for a WARZONE!!
Click to expand...

But thats ok because the OWS people are commies and deserve whats coming to them.
 
More sensationalist garbage.
 
I think this marine makes a very good point.......the ROE's established by BO are BS.
 
If the cops were bombing those turds with willy peter or machine gunning them with explosive bullets he might have a point
 
Jesus Christ! There is something screwed up with America when people start saying that brutality is not brutal enough unless people start dying.
 
megaprogman said:
Marine Says Oakland Used Crowd Control Methods That Are Prohibited In War Zones

But thats ok because the OWS people are commies and deserve whats coming to them.
Click to expand...

From your link:

The Military manual states:
…have a duty to collect and care for the wounded. Prioritize treatment according to injuries. Make NO treatment distinction based on nationality. All soldiers, enemy or friendly, must be treated the same.
Click to expand...

Not really germaine to your post's intent, but this is a real surprise. I can pretty much guarantee I'm not going to be treating enemy and friendly the same.

As to your post, **** happens. Accidents happen. This anonymous source says one aims for range and not at people's heads. So. Range requires an arc. I don't for a New York Minute think this copper aimed at someone's head intentionally. If you think so, then you're into conspiracies. We have got to give "our own" the benefit of the doubt. Period.
 
CriticalThought said:
Jesus Christ! There is something screwed up with America when people start saying that brutality is not brutal enough unless people start dying.
Click to expand...
MaggieD said:
That's not what anyone's saying. Only you.
Click to expand...
and TD
TurtleDude said:
If the cops were bombing those turds with willy peter or machine gunning them with explosive bullets he might have a point
Click to expand...
willy pete__I - Google Searcht does make one wonder why the treatment of American citizens is not as protected as the treatment of foreigners. At first glance, it would seem that American citizens would be worthy of better treatment.
But, I am sure there's a very good reason for being an advocate of the USG treating its citizens harshly. Just for thelife of me, I don't know what it is.
 
conservativeguy said:
I think this marine makes a very good point.......the ROE's established by BO are BS.
Click to expand...

ROE is not established by El Presidente.

ROE is irrelevant.
RUF ( rules of the use of force) are pertinent.

while I understand the Marine's point ( and disagree with him on a few details where he is wrong.. like smoking out you own lines during civil disturbance operations)).. the larger problem is one of basing the reaction of Law Enforcement while utilizing an improper standard.
he is using "wartime" RUF ( btw, there is no difference between wartime and peacetime RUF in civil disturbance operations...it's a false distinction) to gauge the reaction of civilian law enforcement.
what he does not mention is the the military bars use of force ( in civil disturbance operations) on unarmed civilians.
civilian law enforcement are not bound by military regulations or guidelines... they are authorized, by law, to utilize force against unarmed civilians.
this is a very important distinction between military and civilian law enforcement.... one that the junior Marine in question should know, if ,indeed ,he is properly trained in civil disturbance operations ( which I have my doubts of )

civilians law enforcement is also not under guidance of military techniques pertaining to the employment of force ...to say that the military utilized 40mm in one fashion is one thing, to say the police are bound to use the same technique is false.

Military crowd control guideline and techniques are outlined, in boring detail, in FM 3-19.15 ( Civil Disturbance Operations manual)
( the Marine Corps utilizes the Army manual for guidance and training)
 
MaggieD said:
From your link:



Not really germaine to your post's intent, but this is a real surprise. I can pretty much guarantee I'm not going to be treating enemy and friendly the same.

As to your post, **** happens. Accidents happen. This anonymous source says one aims for range and not at people's heads. So. Range requires an arc. I don't for a New York Minute think this copper aimed at someone's head intentionally. If you think so, then you're into conspiracies. We have got to give "our own" the benefit of the doubt. Period.
Click to expand...

well, it would be nice if they actually stated which "military manual" they were gleaning this information from... but i can attest that it's not in the civil disturbance operations manual.
 
TurtleDude said:
If the cops were bombing those turds with willy peter or machine gunning them with explosive bullets he might have a point
Click to expand...

So only going a little overboard is ok, it's not until it is mass murder that you will object?
 
Thrilla said:
ROE is not established by El Presidente.

ROE is irrelevant.
RUF ( rules of the use of force) are pertinent.
Click to expand...

Send a letter to the marine in the OP and tell him to get his story correct.

I am laughing at your comment regarding the President having no input in the ROE's.
 
conservativeguy said:
Send a letter to the marine in the OP and tell him to get his story correct.

I am laughing at your comment regarding the President having no input in the ROE's.
Click to expand...

He did not say "no input", he said "not established by".
 
conservativeguy said:
Send a letter to the marine in the OP and tell him to get his story correct.

I am laughing at your comment regarding the President having no input in the ROE's.
Click to expand...

my 24 years as a Marine tells me that I don't give a ratf*ck what you laugh at.

if i sent a letter to this Marine.. it won't be to tell him he is wrong on anything.. it will be to congratulate him on taking an interest in civics and to thank him for exercising the very rights both me and him have served to protect.

if i give him any advice at all .. it would be advising him to quit being a sissy, rub some dirt on his wounds, and to get back in the fight.... and maybe to duck the next time projectiles start flying.
 
TurtleDude said:
If the cops were bombing those turds with willy peter or machine gunning them with explosive bullets he might have a point
Click to expand...

I think your reaction exemplifies the fear that begins to take root in the "them that has" class. You know, it's like saying, "we should just kill those worthless handjobs." You know, put the fear of God in them and they'll stop. The enforcers for the 1% could find themselves outnumbered, don't you think?
 
Thrilla said:
my 24 years as a Marine tells me that I don't give a ratf*ck what you laugh at.

if i sent a letter to this Marine.. it won't be to tell him he is wrong on anything.. it will be to congratulate him on taking an interest in civics and to thank him for exercising the very rights both me and him have served to protect.

if i give him any advice at all .. it would be advising him to quit being a sissy, rub some dirt on his wounds, and to get back in the fight.... and maybe to duck the next time projectiles start flying.
Click to expand...

Whatever else we may agree or disagree on, I sincerely appreciate your 24 years of service in the Marines. Thank you.
 
Thrilla said:
ROE is not established by El Presidente.

ROE is irrelevant.
RUF ( rules of the use of force) are pertinent.

while I understand the Marine's point ( and disagree with him on a few details where he is wrong.. like smoking out you own lines during civil disturbance operations)).. the larger problem is one of basing the reaction of Law Enforcement while utilizing an improper standard.
he is using "wartime" RUF ( btw, there is no difference between wartime and peacetime RUF in civil disturbance operations...it's a false distinction) to gauge the reaction of civilian law enforcement.
what he does not mention is the the military bars use of force ( in civil disturbance operations) on unarmed civilians.
civilian law enforcement are not bound by military regulations or guidelines... they are authorized, by law, to utilize force against unarmed civilians.
this is a very important distinction between military and civilian law enforcement.... one that the junior Marine in question should know, if ,indeed ,he is properly trained in civil disturbance operations ( which I have my doubts of )

civilians law enforcement is also not under guidance of military techniques pertaining to the employment of force ...to say that the military utilized 40mm in one fashion is one thing, to say the police are bound to use the same technique is false.

Military crowd control guideline and techniques are outlined, in boring detail, in FM 3-19.15 ( Civil Disturbance Operations manual)
( the Marine Corps utilizes the Army manual for guidance and training)
Click to expand...

That's not the point. Nobody is saying military rules are actually applicable here. What we're suggesting is that maybe applying more force to our own civilians than we are willing to apply to civilians in other countries is ****ed up.
 
megaprogman said:
Marine Says Oakland Used Crowd Control Methods That Are Prohibited In War Zones



But thats ok because the OWS people are commies and deserve whats coming to them.
Click to expand...

1) I thought there were administrative rules against military personnel participating in political protests while in uniform. Does anyone have any insight on that?

2) Police are humans just like the rest of us. They get twitchy and nervous, makes mistakes and overreact just like everyone else. It's really a high-stress job, and when you combine that stress with a volatile situation w/ demonstrators, and a lack of experience with regard to riot/crowd control tactics, **** just happens sometimes.
 
megaprogman said:
But thats ok because the OWS people are commies and deserve whats coming to them.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it's more like our Congressmen and Senators get more cutbacks for pouring money into the Pentagon than they do for ensuring our police forces are able to spend money on the proper training they need for such situations.
 
MaggieD said:
Not really germaine to your post's intent, but this is a real surprise. I can pretty much guarantee I'm not going to be treating enemy and friendly the same.
Click to expand...

The reason why the U.S. Army prioritizes providing medical care based on the seriousness of the injury as opposed to the nationality of the soldier is to help ensure that the formal militaries we go to war with do the same for our soldiers. After all, we don't want to lose good soldiers and officers to die of a sucking chest wound on the battleground where a medic from the enemy side can help him, but that medic chooses not to because he's busy helping a soldier from his own side dealing with a hangnail.

Remember - in warfare, the servicemen you're at war with will treat you with the same respect, dignity, and care that you treat their servicemen. So if you act too cold-blooded to the other side don't be surprised when they act the same way to your own side.

Just wanted to point out the Army's reasoning for stating that. I'm sure that there are members of our military who can go into finer detail on that point.
 
StillBallin75 said:
2) Police are humans just like the rest of us. They get twitchy and nervous, makes mistakes and overreact just like everyone else. It's really a high-stress job, and when you combine that stress with a volatile situation w/ demonstrators, and a lack of experience with regard to riot/crowd control tactics, **** just happens sometimes.
Click to expand...

While that is a good reason, it is not a good excuse.
 
Deuce said:
That's not the point. Nobody is saying military rules are actually applicable here. What we're suggesting is that maybe applying more force to our own civilians than we are willing to apply to civilians in other countries is ****ed up.
Click to expand...

The military standards for civil disturbance are the same at home as they are abroad.
Law enforcement has no standards for overseas civil disturbances... they have no jurisdiction.
....so you are still stuck with critiquing local law enforcement actions/reactions by military standards that are not applicable.

there are many similarities of the scalable reactions between military and law enforcement... but the major difference is at what point each reaches the culmination of force employed.
law enforcement doesn't have the depth of force that the military does, so it's imperative to their mission that the force they utilize early is enough to quell the protest.

IOW, the military is nicer to begin with.. and that's because there is no limit to what they are mission capable of
the Police are a bit meaner to begin with.. because are limited as to what they are mission capable of.

cops can bring in guns for direct fire missions if the sh*t hits the fan... the military can bring it all.. close air support, snipers, direct small arms fire, indirect fire ( artillery), area denial weapons ( big ass bombs) etc etc etc.

all this lends to differing doctrines... the military can afford to allow a protest to ramp up in severity, as it has that contingency covered.
law enforcement cannot allow a protest to ramp up in severity because they don't have the option to cover that contingency.
... and that's why they( law enforcement) employ force earlier than the military would.
 
MaggieD said:
From your link:



Not really germaine to your post's intent, but this is a real surprise. I can pretty much guarantee I'm not going to be treating enemy and friendly the same.

As to your post, **** happens. Accidents happen. This anonymous source says one aims for range and not at people's heads. So. Range requires an arc. I don't for a New York Minute think this copper aimed at someone's head intentionally. If you think so, then you're into conspiracies. We have got to give "our own" the benefit of the doubt. Period.
Click to expand...
The wounded man was 10 feet away. The arc would have had to be twenty feet high.
 
Military and police have very different mission statements. Police enforce the rule of law. Military kill enemy combatants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom