Jump to content

Why doesn't the military handle large riots


Recommended Posts

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 :)

 

 

Edited by Tenryuu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well in the U.S. they could use the national guard but the military proper is not aloud to be deployed in the U.S.

"Prepare yourselves, the bells have tolled! Shelter your weak, your young and your old! Each of you shall pay the final sum! Cry for mercy; the reckoning has come!"

Twitch - - - Twitter

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the United States military can be and has been used in extreme cases (e.g. 1992 LA riots), under the authority of the Insurrection Act (Posse Comitatus says the military can't enforce laws except where the Constitution or act of Congress authorizes it, such as in the Insurrection Act; this was used in 1992, and before that in some civil rights cases where the state government refused to abide by federal court order). The reason it's reserved for the most extreme cases is that the government of a democratic state should not be enforcing its rule by making people fear the government. Even when the military is called in (when the situation literally cannot be controlled by civilian law enforcement), their job is to provide a presence and assist law enforcement, not to treat it like they're fighting an opposing army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the United States military can be and has been used in extreme cases (e.g. 1992 LA riots), under the authority of the Insurrection Act (Posse Comitatus says the military can't enforce laws except where the Constitution or act of Congress authorizes it, such as in the Insurrection Act; this was used in 1992, and before that in some civil rights cases where the state government refused to abide by federal court order). The reason it's reserved for the most extreme cases is that the government of a democratic state should not be enforcing its rule by making people fear the government. Even when the military is called in (when the situation literally cannot be controlled by civilian law enforcement), their job is to provide a presence and assist law enforcement, not to treat it like they're fighting an opposing army.

i like the idea of more power the better :), have you seen this rioters they literally want to kill police they should be treated like an opposing army.

Edited by Tenryuu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i know its illigal in the US.

 

Technically, military deployment in major situations and large riots is not illegal. While there is a lot of violent protest in Ferguson, most of that has subsided now since the Missouri Highway Patrol has taken over command and security of the protests. The National Guard has been used in major situations such as the 1992 Riots, this is not a large enough violent protest for the Guard to step in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the UK, the military regularly assists the police with their duties; every time a suspicious device or package is found, soldiers from the Royal Logistic Corps get called in to dispose of the device and make the area safe. The only place I don't think this happens in London, I think the Met has their own EOD team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In rural areas of the United States, the Military does the same thing. In smaller towns around Alabama for example, Army EOD is requested to destroy various homemade explosives. Another example is that Military Police can detain anyone as needed when the situation dictates, but does not have police powers and has to hand off any detainees to local law enforcement as soon as possible.

But, back in the sixties, the 101st Airborne was called to secure a few schools in Alabama (odd state) to allow racial segregation to end when the civil rights act was passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Para's are trained in riot control and Public Order control since they were the main force to be deployed to Northern Ireland where riots were common place.

 

The riots in London in 2010 was a good example of where The Para's could have been legitimately used- since beat officers were being posted to riot situations- there's a part in that documentary where BTP officers are forced to deal with an increasingly violent crowd even though none of them had the correct gear, or as far as I'm aware any kind of PO training.

 

However, UK police have the ability to call in other forces resources when a National or Regional Emergency is declared. This negates the need for any kind of military involvement since they would gain the numbers needed to bring the situation under control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :)

 

 

 

Many contruies have similar system, when government falled and police cant control citizens any more, then army is mobilized. But unfortunately as we can see too many countries abused army power on humans.

 

And I must say, when watched this video I was sad. Some people throw everythink in to police officers, destroying and stealing without any emotions and restraint.

 

Cheers

Edited by BlueAngel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if I look at the riots in Ferguson and the force the police use I'd say that is pretty close to the military. Also because the police are using old military weapons. And I highly critizise use of such weapons. Nobody there needs automatic rifles to controll a crowd.

 

When the military takes over police duties you cross a line. You ignore the separation of powers. Using the military against your own people is a typical sign of a police/military state. Look at all the countries in the world who use their military or highly armed police forces to suppress their people - every military junta in the world does exactly that. From Egypt to Myanmar to China.

 

We are lucky to live in a place where we have democracy, where neither the people of a country nor the government must be afraid of each other. To be absolutely direct: I think it is absolutely STUPID to even wish that the military would handle such conflicts. Some demonstrations are not only legal but also necessary to make something important happen - if you deploy the military you would cut freedom of speech because people have to be afraid to be shot.

 

You see all the crises in the world - everywhere where the military takes over policing duties freedom "dies" (a little pathetic, I know). In Ukraine, people protested against their corrupt regime - had they deployed the military the situation would have gotten out of control, and I personally don't want another huge war in Europe.

 

Also the US really need to reduce their arms build-up for the police. You're slowly turning into an orwellian nightmare. Paranoia since 9/11 has gotten the better of the US' governments and they definitely need to go back a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As stated in a few comments up there have been times where the US military has been called in to enforce the law; the 1992 LA Riots and during Hurricane Katrina in 2005 are some of the most well known situations. However, the issue with that is the military is not trained to deal with rioting and enforcing laws. Even the military police are not trained on local laws, they are trained on the military law so having the military act as a police force even for a temporary amount of time is not as effective as you might think because they do not fully know the law. Of course they go through some small amount of training before they are deployed but this is not nearly enough time to teach a military how to act as a police force.

 

These issues were evident during Hurricane Katrina when national guard soldiers would unintentionally interfere with police investigations by illegally detaining and searching people. Of course their intentions were to assist the police in catching criminals and securing the area however those criminal cases were now invalid due to illegal detainment and searches. This has also been an issue in Iraq and Afghanistan where are military is now faced with new challenges where we started out fighting conventional forces and now we have moved to fighting unconventional forces as well as having to assist in policing the country because the local military and/or police forces are either non-existent or very ineffective. Remember the military's primary purpose is to protect the US and US interests from foreign threats not internal security.


Well if I look at the riots in Ferguson and the force the police use I'd say that is pretty close to the military. Also because the police are using old military weapons. And I highly critizise use of such weapons. Nobody there needs automatic rifles to controll a crowd.

 

 

Also the US really need to reduce their arms build-up for the police. You're slowly turning into an orwellian nightmare. Paranoia since 9/11 has gotten the better of the US' governments and they definitely need to go back a bit.

 

I would have to disagree with you on this. I will give you a little history lesson in law enforcement and hopefully that will give you some more insight as too why law enforcement agencies are becoming increasingly armed.

 

1980: In Norco, CA sheriff's deputies responding to a bank robbery in progress came under fire from 5 suspects armed with AR-15s and HK-93sassault rifles as well as homemade explosive devices killing one sheriff's deputy.

1986: The Miami FBI shootout where the suspects carried a Ruger Mini 14 assault rifle and 12 gauge shotgun shot 5 FBI agents, killing 2 of them.

1997: The North Hollywood shootout where two bank robbers armed with several different assault rifles with high capacity drum magazines and were illegally modified to shoot full auto, as well as shotguns and handguns wearing full body armor were involved in a shootout that lasted approximately 30 minutes. LAPD officers were only armed with handguns and shotguns that were not effective against the suspects and had to call for the SWAT team and borrow weapons from a local gun store in order to match the suspects fire power.

2009: In March 4 Oakland PD officers were shot and killed by a rape suspect armed with an SKS rifle and handgun. In April 3 Pittsburgh PD officers were killed by a suspect armed with an AK-47 style assault rifle.

 

These are only a handful of incidents, the list is even longer than this. The entire reason police carry what they do and drive big armored vehicles is because the criminals have them as well. Before 1997 LAPD officers were issued only a 9mm handgun and 12 gauge shotgun, almost immediately following the North Hollywood shootout the LAPD bought surplus M16s from the US military to issue to patrol officers and many other agencies around the nation followed suit. So you can see that police are only carrying these weapons in order to keep up with what more and more criminals are carrying these days.

 

I find it wrong that the same politicians who are now talking about how we need to "demilitarize our law enforcement" are the same politicians who oppose all gun control laws in the US. Basically they are saying that it is ok for citizens to arm themselves with small arsenals but the moment law enforcement officers carry the exact same weapons it is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :)

 

 

 

posse comitatus that's why

sig.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would have to disagree with you on this. I will give you a little history lesson in law enforcement and hopefully that will give you some more insight as too why law enforcement agencies are becoming increasingly armed.

 

1980: In Norco, CA sheriff's deputies responding to a bank robbery in progress came under fire from 5 suspects armed with AR-15s and HK-93sassault rifles as well as homemade explosive devices killing one sheriff's deputy.

1986: The Miami FBI shootout where the suspects carried a Ruger Mini 14 assault rifle and 12 gauge shotgun shot 5 FBI agents, killing 2 of them.

1997: The North Hollywood shootout where two bank robbers armed with several different assault rifles with high capacity drum magazines and were illegally modified to shoot full auto, as well as shotguns and handguns wearing full body armor were involved in a shootout that lasted approximately 30 minutes. LAPD officers were only armed with handguns and shotguns that were not effective against the suspects and had to call for the SWAT team and borrow weapons from a local gun store in order to match the suspects fire power.

2009: In March 4 Oakland PD officers were shot and killed by a rape suspect armed with an SKS rifle and handgun. In April 3 Pittsburgh PD officers were killed by a suspect armed with an AK-47 style assault rifle.

 

These are only a handful of incidents, the list is even longer than this. The entire reason police carry what they do and drive big armored vehicles is because the criminals have them as well. Before 1997 LAPD officers were issued only a 9mm handgun and 12 gauge shotgun, almost immediately following the North Hollywood shootout the LAPD bought surplus M16s from the US military to issue to patrol officers and many other agencies around the nation followed suit. So you can see that police are only carrying these weapons in order to keep up with what more and more criminals are carrying these days.

 

I find it wrong that the same politicians who are now talking about how we need to "demilitarize our law enforcement" are the same politicians who oppose all gun control laws in the US. Basically they are saying that it is ok for citizens to arm themselves with small arsenals but the moment law enforcement officers carry the exact same weapons it is wrong.

 

Of course you're right there - demanding demilitarization and at the same time opposing stricter gun control laws is hypocritical.

But what I really meant was even little police stations with extremely low crime rates in some rural area who buy armored cars and automatic rifles. I understand why police in big cities needs some bigger weapons but that - I don't understand.

And of course there are shootouts with military grade weapons - but that's what SWAT is for. If the normal police can't handle a callout they gotta call in the heavily armed backup.

An example: Lower-Austria, Austria, 2013 - A man escapes the police when they wanted to arrest him for several reasons. He then flees back to his home, shooting 2 police officers dead on his way there with an STG 77 (Austrian military rifle). When he arrives at his home (farm house) he shoots one more officer and one paramedic driving on scene with his SSG 69 (austrian sniper rifle). While he wasn't even legally allowed to own these weapons, he owned them and he killed police officers and one paramedic. Still: COBRA (austrian SWAT) was called on scene to assist - they sieged the farm house until they decided to go in - they found him dead in a huge arsenal of weapons (suicide).

 

We also have these examples over here - still our police doesn't get any more than a Glock 17 - because if they need heavier weapons they call COBRA. Same goes for switzerland and they've got lower gun control laws than austria (basically every swiss man who was in the military takes his weapon home with him). So they don't need that huge arsenal of weapons either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you're right there - demanding demilitarization and at the same time opposing stricter gun control laws is hypocritical.

But what I really meant was even little police stations with extremely low crime rates in some rural area who buy armored cars and automatic rifles. I understand why police in big cities needs some bigger weapons but that - I don't understand.

And of course there are shootouts with military grade weapons - but that's what SWAT is for. If the normal police can't handle a callout they gotta call in the heavily armed backup.

An example: Lower-Austria, Austria, 2013 - A man escapes the police when they wanted to arrest him for several reasons. He then flees back to his home, shooting 2 police officers dead on his way there with an STG 77 (Austrian military rifle). When he arrives at his home (farm house) he shoots one more officer and one paramedic driving on scene with his SSG 69 (austrian sniper rifle). While he wasn't even legally allowed to own these weapons, he owned them and he killed police officers and one paramedic. Still: COBRA (austrian SWAT) was called on scene to assist - they sieged the farm house until they decided to go in - they found him dead in a huge arsenal of weapons (suicide).

 

We also have these examples over here - still our police doesn't get any more than a Glock 17 - because if they need heavier weapons they call COBRA. Same goes for switzerland and they've got lower gun control laws than austria (basically every swiss man who was in the military takes his weapon home with him). So they don't need that huge arsenal of weapons either.

Some valid points, however there are several issues with that.

 

One: the cultural is just very different in the U.S., the time I have spent in Austria, Switzerland, and now Germany I have noticed a lot less violent crime. I am not sure if people are just raised better in these parts of the world or what it is but I believe the culture here in Europe is completely different. The attitudes Europeans have is the complete opposite of the people in the U.S.

 

Two: Unfortunately police don't get to choose where incidents like these happen. Sure, most days that small American town in the middle of Kansas might be quiet and the worst call the police receive is for a loose cow in the road. What happens when that isn't the case though? Or look at a place such as Alaska where your backup might be hours or days away. And I would say that there are a lot of agencies that don't have as much military gear as the media makes them out to have. Of course the media will focus on a handful of agencies that are equipped with high grade military equipment however there are twice as many agencies that have little to no military grade equipment.

 

A good example would be the county that I lived in back in the states. In my county we had a mostly suburban and urban west side of the county with a very rural east side of the county. Our sheriff's office was a medium sized agency and did have an armored truck and our SWAT team had a decent collection of "toys". However, our agency didn't have the funding to have a 24 hour SWAT team so the SWAT members were regular cops who had other duties and were just on call when something happened. That meant that if you need the SWAT team you were going to have to wait awhile for them to get together and roll out. Now if I'm a deputy on the east side of my county where my closest backup is at least 15 mins away and SWAT is probably an hour out at best I am going to want something that will match what the suspect has until more units arrive. Now imagine what it is like for a small town in the middle of nowhere that doesn't have this equipment and has to wait for a state police SWAT team to respond. You got a bank robbery in that small town or a hostage situation and you are waiting for the state police SWAT team to respond from god knows where in the state that could be several hours of waiting in which the suspect can injure or kill people.

 

And keep in mind that the distance can be much greater than it is in most European countries. The entire country of Austria is about the size of the state of South Carolina in the US (Austria being about 83,700 sq km in total area and S.C. being about 82,900 sq km) so the distances are much greater.

Edited by l3ubba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...