my personal opinion i like to see tanks, APC's heli's, jets <- A-10's, F-15's, F-16's, etc and such soaring through the skies fully loaded to destroy iunno why i just wanna see that happen to rioters don't ask me why i just do it looks like i would be an interesting sight to see

There is pretty much nothing that would be less appropriate for any government (except militaristic dictatorships) than opening up on rioters with the intent to slaughter as many as possible. To put it in context, if a country is doing that (putting down riots in the middle of a city with grossly excessive force), armed rebellion is an appropriate response, as is a military intervention by other countries. What you're describing is not a legitimate form of law enforcement. It is a government in open war against its citizens. There is no other reason to be launching airstrikes - it's not an attempt to keep order ("restore order in this city" is, again, a classic infantry task, which cannot be achieved by any other combat arm of the military),it's an attempt to kill rioters, who, again, are not an army, nor are they in open rebellion against the government (against an organized large-scale revolt, *then* use of larger degrees of force can be warranted [provided that the revolt was not sparked by said grossly excessive force; if it was, the government should relinquish power and submit to criminal trial for their actions]).

Riots are not rebellions, there is no command structure which can surrender when defeated; rioters are not soldiers, who accept the risk of being killed in the course of a war (including in unprovoked attacks against them, because them's the rules in wars); rioters are civilians, who are committing non-capital crimes, and the majority of whom are not directly trying to kill people. You appear to have gotten the general law-enforcement mandate of "minimum necessary force" confused with the dictator's policy of "kill 'em all".

Nobody there needs automatic rifles to controll a crowd.

Correct. However, you may need an automatic rifle when there have been shots fired in there area throughout the day, including another OIS where a man pointed a gun at an officer. You do need an automatic rifle when you have situations and things like this:

for example the 2010 riots in britain that lasted for 5 days why no military action i would like to see some troops with APC's and actual Military helo's and such fully armed to the teeth. I mean wouldn't that make people run scared at the fact that they could possibly get killed, of course the live fire would be used under VERY uncontrollable situations and i mean VERY so mainly rubber bullets and such first :)

 

 

 

 

After watching this im stunned that the police did not deploy any aggressive tactics such as tear gas or the rubber bullets or the military to control the situation. The police were clearly outnumbered and unprepared for the civil unrest that transpired. If they had flexed their muscle in the beginning of the riots and were able to gain control of the situation the rioting probably would have not spread and they would have deterred future riots. 

 

Now of course the media and the rights activists are going to criticize the police for their use of force but what about the citizens actions???? The level of violence and disregard for the police was shocking. These people had no connection with the incident and yet they feel it necessary to take out their frustration on their own people and neighborhoods and  officers who really had nothing to do with it either. The stability of nation was as risk if they police didn't contain the unrest and i believe they should have used more force to do so. 

 

But they didn't do that they merely stood there while being battered and assaulted and watched their city being damaged and looted. So of course they were criticized for not acting quickly and aggressively to stop the riots. So what the hell are the police supposed to do????

 

The government didn't want to spend the money on more police and equipment but i find it hard to believe that unrest on that scale was even allowed to transpire in a large and modern city such as London with  all its cameras and large police force. But think of all the damage that the riots caused not only to property but to the people and the relationship between the police and the public. The public has lost their faith in the police because they weren't there when they needed them to be the most. 

 

So the government has to respond to riots how they see fit because you dont have time to second guess yourself when so much is at stake, so i support the actions of the officers in Ferguson their actions prevented the riots from escalating and spreading. Now i dont belive the military should ever be deployed against its own citizens unless the police have lost all control and are forced to retreat. Because this becomes a national threat the government could be toppled and we all know what happens then.....  

my personal opinion i like to see tanks, APC's heli's, jets <- A-10's, F-15's, F-16's, etc and such soaring through the skies fully loaded to destroy iunno why i just wanna see that happen to rioters don't ask me why i just do it looks like i would be an interesting sight to see

That's just excessive force. Even in the biggest riots, the Air Force would definitely NOT be called. That's a horrible idea.

Is it funny and ironic that active duty military personnel's job is not to protect citizens of the US? Their job is to defend the Constitution of the US. So unless riots are posing to overthrow the government or groups with terrorist like tactics, the military won't be used. Unless the president explicitly orders it which is rare.

The National Guard on the other hand could get involved. But it would need to be a situation where there is a serious threat to the state or local government or to where the police are not able to protect citizens.

Is it funny and ironic that active duty military personnel's job is not to protect citizens of the US? Their job is to defend the Constitution of the US. So unless riots are posing to overthrow the government or groups with terrorist like tactics, the military won't be used. Unless the president explicitly orders it which is rare.

The National Guard on the other hand could get involved. But it would need to be a situation where there is a serious threat to the state or local government or to where the police are not able to protect citizens.

I can't think of any case where federal military has been used for riots in modern history, it is always National Guard units. A small amount of federal military troops were used during hurricane Katrina however that was not a riot, that was a natural disaster on a huge scale. Even those deployments were small compared to the amount of NG units used. Approximately 59,000 NG soldiers were deployed from various states across the U.S. while only about 16,000 Active duty and Reserve soldiers were deployed.

Edited August 17, 201411 yr by l3ubba

I can't think of any case where federal military has been used for riots in modern history, it is always National Guard units. A small amount of federal military troops were used during hurricane Katrina however that was not a riot, that was a natural disaster on a huge scale. Even those deployments were small compared to the amount of NG units used. Approximately 59,000 NG soldiers were deployed from various states across the U.S. while only about 16,000 Active duty and Reserve soldiers were deployed.

From Wikipedia on the Rodney King Riots:

 

On the fourth day, 2,000 7th Infantry Division soldiers, along with 1,500 Marines from 1st Marine Division, arrived to reinforce the California Army National Guard soldiers already in the city. This federal force took twenty-four hours to deploy to Huntington Park, about the same time it took for the California Army National Guard soldiers. This brought total troop strength associated with the effort to stop the breakdown in civil order to 13,500. U.S. military forces directly supported Los Angeles Police officers in restoring order and had a major effect of first containing, then stopping the violence.^[44] 

In the United States, the Police does have the option to request that the National Guard be called in. The United States Military isn't allowed to be deployed on US soil. If I was ever to be deployed somewhere in the United States, I'd rather decline and go to jail. I absolutely refuse to fire on American citizens, especially if it's a cause that I agree with. However, this would primarily be a show of force. I doubt that an APC or an AH-64 would be needed for a riot. What's the APC going to do, blindly fire into the crowd with live rounds? It would go from a riot, to a large scale massacre. Armored vehicles rolling down a street has never softened a riot situation, it's only made it worse. 

Hey Spike, do you mind defusing this bomb for me? No but in all seriousness the military would probably be deployed in an extreme act of terror on us ground, although then again the guard would handle that.

Hey Spike, do you mind defusing this bomb for me? No but in all seriousness the military would probably be deployed in an extreme act of terror on us ground, although then again the guard would handle that.

 

Bomb defusal is not a law enforcement task; Posse Comitatus doesn't apply to it.

*quote*

From Wikipedia on the Rodney King Riots:

*quote*

Federal troops have been deployed a few times since the end of WWII: 1992 was the most recent, but they were also used in 1989 in the Virgin Islands (like 1992, by request of the local government), and were used *without* the approval of the state government between 1957 and 1963 to enforce desegregation (i.e. not because civil unrest was beyond what the state could handle itself, but because states were refusing to obey federal law - US marshals were also used for similar purposes, but in some instances they instead called in the army).

I can't think of any case where federal military has been used for riots in modern history, it is always National Guard units. A small amount of federal military troops were used during hurricane Katrina however that was not a riot, that was a natural disaster on a huge scale. Even those deployments were small compared to the amount of NG units used. Approximately 59,000 NG soldiers were deployed from various states across the U.S. while only about 16,000 Active duty and Reserve soldiers were deployed.

They're rarely used. Unless something like the Aryan nation decides to arm up and takes the fighting to the streets all across the nation, federal LE agencies would be used. I wouldn't hesitate to drop a US citizen if he posed a direct threat to the Constitution or the president.

 

Bomb defusal is not a law enforcement task; Posse Comitatus doesn't apply to it.

I was referring to CriminalKillaz's Member title and picture, its a flashpoint thing. And actually bomb defusal is a law enforcement task - I know for a fact that some teams of NYPD's ESU have members that are bomb savvy if you will. A long while back I met a guy that was basically a pyrotechnics specialist. Either way, i wasnt saying anything related to this thread when I mentioned bomb defusal, again it was kind of an inside joke..Anyway..........The weather   

 

Bomb defusal is not a law enforcement task; Posse Comitatus doesn't apply to it.

Federal troops have been deployed a few times since the end of WWII: 1992 was the most recent, but they were also used in 1989 in the Virgin Islands (like 1992, by request of the local government), and were used *without* the approval of the state government between 1957 and 1963 to enforce desegregation (i.e. not because civil unrest was beyond what the state could handle itself, but because states were refusing to obey federal law - US marshals were also used for similar purposes, but in some instances they instead called in the army).

Actually iiKonrad is correct. Law enforcement does deal with bombs.

I was referring to CriminalKillaz's Member title and picture, its a flashpoint thing. And actually bomb defusal is a law enforcement task - I know for a fact that some teams of NYPD's ESU have members that are bomb savvy if you will. A long while back I met a guy that was basically a pyrotechnics specialist. Either way, i wasnt saying anything related to this thread when I mentioned bomb defusal, again it was kind of an inside joke..Anyway..........The weather

 

 

Actually iiKonrad is correct. Law enforcement does deal with bombs.

There is a profound difference between "thing law enforcement sometimes does" and "law enforcement task". For instance, the NYPD handles many technical rescue jobs, and yet they are not law enforcement tasks. Bomb defusal is likewise not a law enforcement task - it does not involve enforcing laws or assisting in any sort of criminal investigation, is purely technical in nature, and involves no (legal) authority whatsoever being given to the bomb tech [although it *is* rather stupid to refuse to listen to one]; if a bomb tech happens to be a police officer, they have authority as a police officer, but that's not related to their duties as a bomb tech. There is no need for a bomb tech to be legally allowed to order anyone but his subordinates around, and for military EOD assisting the civilian government, the military has *no* authority to provide scene control and has to ask civilian police to provide it.

 

 

There is a profound difference between "thing law enforcement sometimes does" and "law enforcement task". For instance, the NYPD handles many technical rescue jobs, and yet they are not law enforcement tasks. Bomb defusal is likewise not a law enforcement task - it does not involve enforcing laws or assisting in any sort of criminal investigation, is purely technical in nature, and involves no (legal) authority whatsoever being given to the bomb tech [although it *is* rather stupid to refuse to listen to one]; if a bomb tech happens to be a police officer, they have authority as a police officer, but that's not related to their duties as a bomb tech. There is no need for a bomb tech to be legally allowed to order anyone but his subordinates around, and for military EOD assisting the civilian government, the military has *no* authority to provide scene control and has to ask civilian police to provide it.

On a special team, SWAT, ESU, SRU, SERT, whatever it may be - Each member of the team has there role. They use teamwork, and individual knowledge to work great as a team. Most "special teams" may look for people with helpful abilities that could save lives in the line of duty. Also are you claming that law enforcement only enforces laws and assists in criminal investigations? Do you even know what SWAT teams do? Also, some swat teams TEACH their officers how to defuse basic "bombs", and further learning can be learned in special classes for whatever the price may be. Boston's swat team for example, everyone who joins learns a small amount about defusal and technical things, if they would like to learn more - They can pay for classes and in return obviously get paid more. Also, to be honest whether its legal or not...The military can do whatever they want, they can tell police what to do...Whats gone happen, they get fired? Ha.  Also not sure why we are having this conversation..Again I was referring to a TV show....but yeah..

On a special team, SWAT, ESU, SRU, SERT, whatever it may be - Each member of the team has there role. They use teamwork, and individual knowledge to work great as a team. Most "special teams" may look for people with helpful abilities that could save lives in the line of duty. Also are you claming that law enforcement only enforces laws and assists in criminal investigations? Do you even know what SWAT teams do? Also, some swat teams TEACH their officers how to defuse basic "bombs", and further learning can be learned in special classes for whatever the price may be. Boston's swat team for example, everyone who joins learns a small amount about defusal and technical things, if they would like to learn more - They can pay for classes and in return obviously get paid more. Also, to be honest whether its legal or not...The military can do whatever they want, they can tell police what to do...Whats gone happen, they get fired? Ha.  Also not sure why we are having this conversation..Again I was referring to a TV show....but yeah..

I'm claiming that enforcing laws and performing criminal investigations is literally what "law enforcement tasks" are. Police do many things which are not law enforcement. The military cannot issue orders to civilians in the US off of a military installation, unless the President has invoked the Insurrection Act or in a very few other cases explicitly given by US law. Any member of the US military who attempts to force a civilian to do something off a military post (i.e. acting as law enforcement) faces court-martial. Are you claiming that "law enforcement task" is "whatever police do"? Because that's a fairly useless definition of the term in a conversation about roles of various parts of the government.

Don't think I've seen anyone point out yet but the National Guard by all technical means is the military.  The Posse Comitatus Act primarily states that National guard in their own state (as in any deployment of national guard for in-nation things can only be a deployment of national guard from the state they are being deployed to).
 
As for the other examples used, such as during Katrina, the army and marine deployments were mainly deployed for assistance in the actual disaster efforts themselves as far as I recall, similar to those from the USACE, not so much actual riot/policing/etc which were handled by Louisiana National Guard soldiers.  As an example, someone I personally know that was an army medic was also deployed temporarily in New Orleans to help with medical things.
 
Thing with the 'general' military is during disasters of any sort, whether terrorist or natural, such as even during 9/11, when you do see general army/marine/etc deployments to such areas it's usually comprised up mainly of specialized personnel, such as medics, perhaps soldiers who were once firefighters, EMT's, ©ERT trained, or soldiers trained in the military under such things, etc, who can help with rescue efforts in collapsed structures, potential hasmat situations, and so on.
 
Doing so gives them more people to work with and doesn't require emergency services from the areas around the disaster to send in their personnel/equipment and potentially leave those areas vulnerable.
 
Just because you see news reports that go like "hey the marines were deployed to New Orleans" or such, doesn't mean they're there and enforcing the law, because they can't and people would get in trouble (it has happened already as you can see on the wikipedia page I linked), it generally means they're probably there in a support role for rescue and engineering purposes if anything, all Posse Comitatus Act states on that is that military who are not state-located National Guard cannot be deployed in the US in an enforcement role for state laws.

Edited August 18, 201411 yr by Synapt

It wouldn't turn out well for the rebel police officers. While they have military style equipment they do not have everything the military has. Despite what the media says the police do not have tanks (they have APC which are completely different from tanks, people are just too stupid to know the difference). There are also no law enforcement agencies in the U.S. with anti-air capabilities (other than the Secret Service) so our air power would make quick work of that. However, this is the most ridiculous scenario I've ever heard of so I wouldn't be too concerned about it.

HOLD UP lets change the scenario what if all the police forces in the states turned on its citizens and the president called upon the military to shoot and kill all the opposing police forces who have turned against america and its citizens and massacring its citizens fully armed in MRAPS, APC's etc and the military was called in to kill the police what kind kind of sight would that be i know it would be interesting.

 

Realistically we'd still probably only send in the national guard.  Ignoring the hilarious improbability of every single city and state police force all trying to coup against the government, counting all city and state police, while they would outnumber our national guard numbers by around 250k, that is assuming every single officer, part time, full time, big city, boondocks, etc, would all turn at the exact same time, all across the US, they still would not have the military equipment, training and assets of the 500~ thousand national guard who could be airdropped around easily.

 

It wouldn't turn out well for the rebel police officers. While they have military style equipment they do not have everything the military has. Despite what the media says the police do not have tanks (they have APC which are completely different from tanks, people are just too stupid to know the difference). There are also no law enforcement agencies in the U.S. with anti-air capabilities (other than the Secret Service) so our air power would make quick work of that. However, this is the most ridiculous scenario I've ever heard of so I wouldn't be too concerned about it.

 

Technically even the APC's that the city/state police forces get are broken down military ones usually, any actual offensive equipment is usually taken off of them.

HOLD UP lets change the scenario what if all the police forces in the states turned on its citizens and the president called upon the military to shoot and kill all the opposing police forces who have turned against america and its citizens and massacring its citizens fully armed in MRAPS, APC's etc and the military was called in to kill the police what kind kind of sight would that be i know it would be interesting.

Is the scenario all cops in the US turning psychopathic at once, or is it some sort of coup? How do police (who are split into many, many different departments) unite for a coup? Or why do they all turn psychopathic? Is there some reason this affects civilian police but not the military (who really are much more likely to organize in a coup, because there's a more centralized command structure)? Have you really thought about the details of this scenario at all, or do you just love thinking about the army getting called in to slaughter people who are in no way able to resist it?

Interesting tidbt; 

The active military is highly involved in situations outside of a military installation. I routinely help LEOs from police departments and federal agencies in their tasks. I restrain, detain, issue orders/citations to US and even foreign citizens. However the difference being that I'm not acting as a member of the US military, I'm acting as an LEO from whomever I'm helping. Same thing when there are doctors, medics, firefighters, etc actively helping in society. That's the difference. There are almost never "combat groups" deployed in the US to help.The only military who are deployed in the US to help are service oriented like what I just listed.