Hello and welcome to MSFC. We are a small and close knitted community who specialises in modding the game Star Trek Armada 2 and the Fleet Operations modification, however we have an open field for discussing a number of topics including movies, real life events and everything in-between.
Being such a close community, we do have some restrictions, including all users required to be registered before being able to post as well as all members requiring to have participated in the community for sometime before being able to download our modding files to name the main ones. This is done for both the protection of our members and to encourage new members to get involved with the community. We also require all new registrations to first be authorised by an Administrator and to also have an active and confirmed email account.
We have a policy of fairness and a non harassment environment, with the staff quick to act on the rare occasion of when this policy is breached. Feel free to register and join our community.
trust me that you really do want to retain Habeas Corpus at all cost
Civ's in the US and be grateful you have
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits members of the Army from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.
The statute prohibits Army and Air Force personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive, not by the Act itself. The Coast Guard, under the Department of Homeland Security, is exempt from the Act.
I think that, rather than taking the "use the Army on them" idea literally, it should be better interpreted as "there need to be much sterner consequences for these people". Getting the Army to shoot them all is just the extreme/ultimate example of an idea which, at less extreme levels, is entirely reasonable. Most of these people will be simply let off, or the courts will be at least very lenient... That needs to stop. Their benefits need to be cut (completely), prisons need to be made MUCH less cushy, and these people need to be punished, not mollycoddled.
I think that, rather than taking the "use the Army on them" idea literally, it should be better interpreted as "there need to be much sterner consequences for these people". Getting the Army to shoot them all is just the extreme/ultimate example of an idea which, at less extreme levels, is entirely reasonable. Most of these people will be simply let off, or the courts will be at least very lenient... That needs to stop. Their benefits need to be cut (completely), prisons need to be made MUCH less cushy, and these people need to be punished, not mollycoddled.
Amen. Problem is, it'll never happen. Too many bleeding heart liberals bleating about human rights. Which is why a burglar can sue people if he cuts his leg on a kitchen knife breaking in through the kitchen window. Society is broken
I do not intend to clash with you again. I only repeated what I've heard here and hoped that you will fill in the missing links in the story. I really can't see what was so provocative in what I've wrote...
What got me riled is that you posted "an innocent man" was shot. I then tried to tell yo that this man was not innocent - he was an armed drug dealing gang member who was resisting arrest. You then posted again stating "shot for no reason" - why? Do you just choose to ignore my posts? This is what irritated me.
See the flag on the left there? Yes, it's Norwegian... however, I am British, I have lived in Norway for three yeas but I was born and raised in Edinburgh, I go back to the UK a lot and I have close friends in the affected areas of the UK (Manchester, London...) so I have a keen personal interest in this. That's all...
That said, I do not want to cause any (further) incidents and so I shall apologise if I came across as hostile.
Someone said use the Army on these people? Soldiers on civilians? Has it really come to this? What a horrible idea! Can order be restored by 'using the Army on them'? Yes. At the price of irrevocably sundering the trust people have in the military. In the USA, it is a fact the only part of the Federal Government people generally trust are the uniformed services. I would suspect this true in most Western countries. Using the British Army to quell the riots in London, while being emotionally satisfying, is a terrible idea. Soldiers are not policemen. They are not trained or equipped for such duties. When you tell a policeman to subdue a perpetrator, he arrests him and uses only the physical force needed, if it is needed, to capture and detain the perpetrator. He is a member of the community he polices. for a good reason. Gives him a vested interest in providing for the continued good and well being of said Community. When you tell a soldier to subdue a perpetrator, he is probably thinking about an air strike, followed by an artillery barrage. Only afterwards, under the cover of a smoke screen would a direct assault on the potential positions of the perpetrator be conducted. I suppose this comes from people wanting things back to normal right frakkin' now! I can fully understand the anger and frustration such events have caused throughout the UK.
But if we call out the Army to restore order this time? It will be even easier to do so the next. And the justification will be far simpler. And so on, and so on, and so on. Until we have Seal Team Six summarily executing a juvenile for jaywalking. Carried to it extreme logical conclusion this could occur. And what if the soldiers patrolling the streets of Tottenham are from Lancashire? Their first loyalties will be to their mates, not the citizens they are supposed to be protecting. All of the "Civs" will be seen as part of the problem. And if my troopers have a problem, then the Civs better give their souls to God. Because their butts belong to me. And if I have to lie to cover up what really happened, then I'll do whatever I must to protect my mates first. Besides, they're only Civs. Lazy useless louts who won't find a job and can't do anything but take from the Gov't. Before you say, "Yeah, that's right!", remember it is you he's looking at over the sights of his SLR, people.
I can see where you are going with this TF - the Armed forces are not trained for this sort of situation. They could be equipped quite easily - the Police have a shortage of men, but Im sure equipment wise they have enough to go round...
I also know that the mentality of the average squaddie is a little different from the mentality of the average copper - The police tend to be more pragmatic in their approach and try to secure a peaceful arrest / outcome - I guess the squaddies would bust heads and then ask the questions afterward...
trust me that you really do want to retain Habeas Corpus at all cost
Civ's in the US and be grateful you have
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits members of the Army from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.
The statute prohibits Army and Air Force personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive, not by the Act itself. The Coast Guard, under the Department of Homeland Security, is exempt from the Act.
This is probably why, as TF says above, that the armed forces are trusted in the US - by federal law they are powerless to do anything (in a situation like the one we face in the UK). And since they have not been called upon to do police work or maintain civil order in living memory, they are not seen as the "enemy" by the US public.
That said - I do think the army could have it's uses in a situation where you have armed groups roaming around a city looking to cause as much damage as possible.
My proposal; use the army to secure high - value / high risk locations. They should be static, armed with non - lethal weapons (baton rounds, tear gas, water cannons) and tasked with creating a perimeter through which the rioters cannot pass. This then frees up the police to be pro - active. They can go on the offensive, to break up the groups before they are large / drunk / brave enough to cause trouble. They can patrol neighborhoods (this will make a big difference in making the people trapped in their houses feel safer) and they can arrest and investigate the growing case - book from the earlier riots. Simple(s).
I think that, rather than taking the "use the Army on them" idea literally, it should be better interpreted as "there need to be much sterner consequences for these people". Getting the Army to shoot them all is just the extreme/ultimate example of an idea which, at less extreme levels, is entirely reasonable. Most of these people will be simply let off, or the courts will be at least very lenient... That needs to stop. Their benefits need to be cut (completely), prisons need to be made MUCH less cushy, and these people need to be punished, not mollycoddled.
Indeed - the shooting is not even an option. That sort of violence of the state on the people has no place in the civilized world.
I have seen the sentence handed out to some of the individuals involved and I am disgusted. A £60 fine and a slap on the wrists is not a deterrent, it is a joke. Although I am a little more heartened to read that certain local authorities have threatened to evict looters and rioters who are found guilty.
Actually, there may be one, unintentional as it would be.
Humans are sadly hard coded for violence, deny it as you might, even the most peaceful ones can "snap", or can be desensitized to the point that it truly doesn't matter.
To repress and restrain an entire public as in the UK could cause something
similar to a "snap" in people, on a far larger scale, causing massive problems.
Some may think its not restraining, but pistols being illegal, knives with blades over 4 inches illegal, and no outlets for these things?
(A game may not be so much of an outlet as many people make them out to be)There MUST be an outlet for such things, its true that many people have
themselves mastered to a high degree, but for those that do not practice
logic or zen or some martial form, the buildup can be tremendous, if subconscious and unseen.
As for suggestions on what this outlet may be...I'm at a loss, but events
they could participate in that are dangerous and violent would be a release valve, per se. Wavers and forms would be required for both participants and observers obviously. Some of you may see this as vulgar and inhumane, but if these people choose to join into said event, they sign their lives into the balance, and as such become entertainment for the rest who choose to watch said event.
I'm seriously sorry if this post was off topic, but I for one believe it true in relation to politics and government and societies that have such an issue.
Bro - I like you, I really do, but I am finding it very hard to get on board with the sentiment in your post here...
It is suppressing and restraining on the part of the UK government on the UK people because they are by law not allowed to own firearms of certain type and caliber and also they they cannot own a blade over four inches...?
OK - firstly, blades over four inches are legal to own in the UK - how long do you think the average kitchen knife or bread knife is? You can even buy a sword if you so wish. It is illegal to carry said weapon in public. Let me ask you, what possible use would the average man on the street have for a blade over four inches anyway? Or even a blade under four inches? You can bet your bottom dollar it isn't gardening or car repair... Such weapons are used by thugs, muggers, rapists and gang members. The law allows the police to stop and search and if weapons like that are found, confiscate the weapons and if need be, prosecute the person who had them. This is a good thing.
Pistols - what possible use would a person have for a pistol? Defense? From who? No one else has these weapons either (gun crime is as rare as rocking horse teeth in the UK - can you say that about eh USA?) Target shooting? Fine, but why would you have it on you in public then? Hunting? Anyone who knows anything about hunting will tell you that a pistol is too inaccurate at the ranges you are shooting from while hunting to be of any use as a hunting weapon.
Mark Duggan was carrying a pistol (either a real pistol or a replica illegally modified to fire live ammo) when the police tried to arrest him. Would he have died if he was unarmed? No one can say for sure, but his chances of living might have been better...
As for having a release for not being allowed to own such things... Air-soft, clay pigeon shooting and paint balling...
Also, on the topic of pistols and their illegality in the UK - I suggest you wikipedia the Dunblaine shootings. It should explain it to you.
It really is not my intent to cause bad feeling here folks (Iashar, you shouldn't worry about upsetting people with that post either - it was relevant and valid as is yours and everyone else's opinion) - I believe that through debate we grow to respect others viewpoints and we learn. I really do not want to get this thread locked and I am sorry if anyone takes offense at what I am posting.
DJ, placing the Army anywhere in the area is bad. Water cannons and riot batons are not part of the usual training for soldiers. Because as Robert E. Lee once said. The raison d'etre for any army is to break things and kill people. Takes a long time to train someone in crowd control and anti-riot techniques. Under stress a soldier will always revert to his training. And by training soldiers are taught to kill. I do not believe anyone involved in this really wants the streets of London running red with British blood. Even if it is just a bunch of Chavs, and Dolists. Who will it be the next time Tommy Atkins is called from barracks to bust some heads?
My viewpoint on this is that of a former soldier and combat leader. Very hard indeed to restrain the troops after one of their own has been smacked on the head with a rock or bottle by someone in a crowd. And we're not too picky about putting the boot in to everyone in reach to ensure there is no second rock tossed at us. Further, if you smack of mine with a rock, I am going to rip your arm off at the shoulder and club you to death with it. And not give much thought at all until afterwards about who may be watching. Because this is how I have been trained. And under any stressful situation I am going to revert back to that training. "The Army can neutralize the rioters." To a soldier 'neutraize' means place the target in a situation where he can do no more damage to my people as quickly as possible. So we stop with the euphemisms and double speak and poltical correctness and call it what it really is. Killing. The ending of another Human's life. I took any oath to defend my fellow Americans. Not kill them because they have broken the law by smashing some storefronts and looting a plasma TV or two. If a politician over here had asked me to shoot citizens who were looting and rioting, I would have loaded my weapon, taken off the safety, handed it to them and said, "Okay. But you go first. I wanna see how you do it so I can get it right. You have to show me how to shoot people I took an oath to defend." Does anyone in the UK truly want or need British Army soldiers looking at British subjects the same way they looked at indigenous Afghanis in Helmand province? I think the answer to this should be obvious.
As to leniency, no this is not the answer either. These people have broken the law. There should be consequences for this. Throwing them out of public housing and cutting off their Welfare cheques is a start. How about dropping them from the NHS system as well? Denying their families any school assistance other than the most basic required by law. Revoking permanently their driving privileges. Not allowing them to purchase or use a pass for the Underground. They have shown by their own actions they have no respect for the rest of the people around them. They have acted like the laws don't apply to them so they should be denied any of the good things which the same law(and an overly large tax burden placed upon their fellow subjects) provides.
DJ, placing the Army anywhere in the area is bad. Water cannons and riot batons are not part of the usual training for soldiers. Because as Robert E. Lee once said. The raison d'etre for any army is to break things and kill people. Takes a long time to train someone in crowd control and anti-riot techniques. Under stress a soldier will always revert to his training. And by training soldiers are taught to kill. I do not believe anyone involved in this really wants the streets of London running red with British blood. Even if it is just a bunch of Chavs, and Dolists. Who will it be the next time Tommy Atkins is called from barracks to bust some heads?
I agree - the army are trained to kill and break stuff - crowd control is not taught in basic (or any other training that I know of in the armed forces) - of course I cannot disagree with you on this point. I also understand your concern - anything that happens once makes it more likely that the same thing will happen again. However, this violence on the streets of the UK is almost completely unprecedented too.
My viewpoint on this is that of a former soldier and combat leader. Very hard indeed to restrain the troops after one of their own has been smacked on the head with a rock or bottle by someone in a crowd. And we're not too picky about putting the boot in to everyone in reach to ensure there is no second rock tossed at us. Further, if you smack of mine with a rock, I am going to rip your arm off at the shoulder and club you to death with it. And not give much thought at all until afterwards about who may be watching. Because this is how I have been trained. And under any stressful situation I am going to revert back to that training. "The Army can neutralize the rioters." To a soldier 'neutraize' means place the target in a situation where he can do no more damage to my people as quickly as possible. So we stop with the euphemisms and double speak and poltical correctness and call it what it really is. Killing. The ending of another Human's life. I took any oath to defend my fellow Americans. Not kill them because they have broken the law by smashing some storefronts and looting a plasma TV or two. If a politician over here had asked me to shoot citizens who were looting and rioting, I would have loaded my weapon, taken off the safety, handed it to them and said, "Okay. But you go first. I wanna see how you do it so I can get it right. You have to show me how to shoot people I took an oath to defend." Does anyone in the UK truly want or need British Army soldiers looking at British subjects the same way they looked at indigenous Afghanis in Helmand province? I think the answer to this should be obvious.
Again, I agree; to a soldier, "neutralize" means something different than to a policeman. However, I never said that the army should be armed with lethal weapons. Yes, I know that rubber bullets can kill, and that if you hit a guy the right (wrong) way / enough times with a baton, he ain't getting up again, period, and that killing someone with your bare hands is required reading in the army training manual - but no one is asking the army to shoot people. Deadly force should not be used.
As to leniency, no this is not the answer either. These people have broken the law. There should be consequences for this. Throwing them out of public housing and cutting off their Welfare cheques is a start. How about dropping them from the NHS system as well? Denying their families any school assistance other than the most basic required by law. Revoking permanently their driving privileges. Not allowing them to purchase or use a pass for the Underground. They have shown by their own actions they have no respect for the rest of the people around them. They have acted like the laws don't apply to them so they should be denied any of the good things which the same law(and an overly large tax burden placed upon their fellow subjects) provides.
This is the best thing I have read this decade. I agree completely, if they do not want to act like a part of responsible society, then they should be cast out. Why should we pay for their social security if they are only going to throw it all back in our faces? Bravo TF, Bravo.
The rioters and looters should be made to face the consequences of their actions. If that consequence is a baton over the head or a size 12 combat boot in the face, so be it. However, as you say above, why not cast them out from society?
Society for years now has been changing. People no longer need to take the blame for their own actions. "Help me, I'm 450 lbs - advertising made me eat all the food - its not my fault, pity me and then give me health care for the conditions I have due to being obese..." or "I didn't mean to kill those people, society made me do it - the media, TV, movies and video games - pity me as a victim of society then stick me in a mental institution for life...") It actually makes me angry.
I agree take away their privileges, there needs to be severe consequences to their actions. As DJR said a £60 fine and a slap on the wrists is no way to punish them, throw them in the slammer for 5 years or something, or remove their privileges like public housing, welfare and drive licences is the very least that should be done. Also a wall of shame which is publicly posted wouldn't hurt either.
Western culture (talking the majority here) has no real concept of consequences to ones actions. It's like they walk around with absolute no common sense or with half a brain. There are so few in our world that actually thinks before they speak or act. I am of the opinion that if I had the money I and Kat would move out of the country and live off the land and as such has limited contact with the public. It's the safest way to live now days, revet back to a life style not much unlike our ancestors had in like the 1800's.
See the flag on the left there? Yes, it's Norwegian... however, I am British, I have lived in Norway for three yeas but I was born and raised in Edinburgh, I go back to the UK a lot and I have close friends in the affected areas of the UK (Manchester, London...) so I have a keen personal interest in this. That's all...
I only originate from England, never been there but my father was born there and I do have family over there although I don't really talk with them. However I do have a sense of home over there. I watch a lot of those UK home shows. So I too have a personal interest in this.
Pistols - what possible use would a person have for a pistol? Defense? From who? No one else has these weapons either (gun crime is as rare as rocking horse teeth in the UK - can you say that about eh USA?) Target shooting? Fine, but why would you have it on you in public then? Hunting? Anyone who knows anything about hunting will tell you that a pistol is too inaccurate at the ranges you are shooting from while hunting to be of any use as a hunting weapon.
I agree guns have no position in our societies and communities. In the hands of law enforcement and the military are the only place they have and with the former only in the most dire situations.
Or even look at the Hobart Port_Arthur Massacre which I have linked for everyone, which lead to guns being outlawed in Australia. Something I think all countries need to do, they have no place in society and nothing anyone will say will ever deter me from this opinion. They are nothing but trouble to remove the need for guns is to remove them altogether from society. They should be as illegal as killing and drugs.
DJ, placing the Army anywhere in the area is bad. Water cannons and riot batons are not part of the usual training for soldiers. Because as Robert E. Lee once said. The raison d'etre for any army is to break things and kill people. Takes a long time to train someone in crowd control and anti-riot techniques. Under stress a soldier will always revert to his training. And by training soldiers are taught to kill. I do not believe anyone involved in this really wants the streets of London running red with British blood. Even if it is just a bunch of Chavs, and Dolists. Who will it be the next time Tommy Atkins is called from barracks to bust some heads?
My viewpoint on this is that of a former soldier and combat leader. Very hard indeed to restrain the troops after one of their own has been smacked on the head with a rock or bottle by someone in a crowd. And we're not too picky about putting the boot in to everyone in reach to ensure there is no second rock tossed at us. Further, if you smack of mine with a rock, I am going to rip your arm off at the shoulder and club you to death with it. And not give much thought at all until afterwards about who may be watching. Because this is how I have been trained. And under any stressful situation I am going to revert back to that training. "The Army can neutralize the rioters." To a soldier 'neutraize' means place the target in a situation where he can do no more damage to my people as quickly as possible. So we stop with the euphemisms and double speak and poltical correctness and call it what it really is. Killing. The ending of another Human's life. I took any oath to defend my fellow Americans. Not kill them because they have broken the law by smashing some storefronts and looting a plasma TV or two. If a politician over here had asked me to shoot citizens who were looting and rioting, I would have loaded my weapon, taken off the safety, handed it to them and said, "Okay. But you go first. I wanna see how you do it so I can get it right. You have to show me how to shoot people I took an oath to defend." Does anyone in the UK truly want or need British Army soldiers looking at British subjects the same way they looked at indigenous Afghanis in Helmand province? I think the answer to this should be obvious.
As to leniency, no this is not the answer either. These people have broken the law. There should be consequences for this. Throwing them out of public housing and cutting off their Welfare cheques is a start. How about dropping them from the NHS system as well? Denying their families any school assistance other than the most basic required by law. Revoking permanently their driving privileges. Not allowing them to purchase or use a pass for the Underground. They have shown by their own actions they have no respect for the rest of the people around them. They have acted like the laws don't apply to them so they should be denied any of the good things which the same law(and an overly large tax burden placed upon their fellow subjects) provides.
My viewpoint on this is that of a Officer and Commander. Yes this should be a last resort not the second of even third I mean last even then I would not use normal troops. As Thunder said Soldiers are not train to deal with this kind of mission, but there are soldiers that are that being the MPs (Army) and Security force (Airforce) but even these are not your normal police officers they are first and for most soldiers Who's Motto " Of The Troops And For The Troops!" Should tell you a lot about them they are and the operate a lot different than Civ cops. In that they are trained to police trained killers and there tactic are more force full.
On the subject of gun legality, outlawing firearms in the US would only work if both Canada and Mexico outlawed them as well and all three nations effectively enforced that law. Since Mexico currently has serious issues with gangs and police have a rather high turnover rate there, I don't see that happening any time soon.
The reason I think that Canada and Mexico would both have to be on board is because we can't effectively patrol our land borders with them without deploying the National Guard. You can seriously drive from Washington State up into Canada and there isn't a checkpoint or even a vacant police cruiser on the side of the road, just a sign that says "Welcome to Canada."
Add to that were ""U.S.A."" a gun culture and the legal and political will power is simple not there.. It would take a Constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment. and would more than like lead to a 2nd Civil war
