Army leaks plans - shoot civilians in civil unrest

[EMNofSeattle]

Yes but government made up of we the people should not be shooting upon we the people.

Well In some catastrophic event, such as lets say a giant west coast earthquake, supplies of food, clean water, gasoline, diesel, clothing, sanitary supplies, etc would be limited. looting someone's stores means they can die. if you wander down to a creek to get some water and some jackass goes and takes your anti biotics or your food, you could die. if granny is with you and unable to resist looters, and lets say she needs dialysis, and some jerkwad is siphoning gas out of the generator you need to provide her the power to stay alive, she can die. I fully and reasonably expect looters be arrested and prosecuted, and if that's not practical, then i fully expect the national guard to prosecute looters with deadly force. and if you take my gas out of my generator, or food out of my stores i see you do it you better be damn ready to kill me for it because I will shoot you to prevent you from taking my supplies in the event of a disaster.

So my question is, in a disaster, do i have the right to protect my stores from looters? and if yes, how come the national guard or law enforcement, as an extension of we the people and in extension of the rights we enjoy, cannot use deadly force to protect my stuff? dont loot my stuff and you wont have to worry about being shoot by anyone.... well at least most likely you wont. you can't expect anyone to make 100% perfect decisions in an a tough situation. Maybe Kent State could've been handled better, but with the tools and knowledge the guardsmen possessed at the time I believe deadly force was a justifiable decision. likewise, when the korean community was being overrun in 92 riots, maybe a better solution existed, but i dont second guess the use of force by the korean merchants in that case. detached reflection cannot be demanded in the face of an upraised knife. nor can inaction while people are looting valuable supplies be tolerated. if the word on the street is that looters are getting shot then maybe no one will loot.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Well In some catastrophic event, such as lets say a giant west coast earthquake, supplies of food, clean water, gasoline, diesel, clothing, sanitary supplies, etc would be limited. looting someone's stores means they can die. if you wander down to a creek to get some water and some jackass goes and takes your anti biotics or your food, you could die. if granny is with you and unable to resist looters, and lets say she needs dialysis, and some jerkwad is siphoning gas out of the generator you need to provide her the power to stay alive, she can die. I fully and reasonably expect looters be arrested and prosecuted, and if that's not practical, then i fully expect the national guard to prosecute looters with deadly force. and if you take my gas out of my generator, or food out of my stores i see you do it you better be damn ready to kill me for it because I will shoot you to prevent you from taking my supplies in the event of a disaster.

So my question is, in a disaster, do i have the right to protect my stores from looters? and if yes, how come the national guard or law enforcement, as an extension of we the people and in extension of the rights we enjoy, cannot use deadly force to protect my stuff? dont loot my stuff and you wont have to worry about being shoot by anyone.... well at least most likely you wont. you can't expect anyone to make 100% perfect decisions in an a tough situation. Maybe Kent State could've been handled better, but with the tools and knowledge the guardsmen possessed at the time I believe deadly force was a justifiable decision. likewise, when the korean community was being overrun in 92 riots, maybe a better solution existed, but i dont second guess the use of force by the korean merchants in that case. detached reflection cannot be demanded in the face of an upraised knife. nor can inaction while people are looting valuable supplies be tolerated. if the word on the street is that looters are getting shot then maybe no one will loot.

Too me the two things don't equate I am in full support of civilians defending their property. And agree with your examples.

Asking the government to be judge and jury on whats right in a time of disaster? They can't even get it right in a time of peace.

A civilian police force working with the community especially under an elected sheriff I would be a little more giving on, government military nope. They more than likely will confiscate the supplies you need for themselves.

 

[OC for ME]

i was wondering how many people became looters after they were shot?

Now THAT is a good question. The Big Easy popped into my head.....odd.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Too me the two things don't equate I am in full support of civilians defending their property. And agree with your examples.

Asking the government to be judge and jury on whats right in a time of disaster? They can't even get it right in a time of peace.

A civilian police force working with the community especially under an elected sheriff I would be a little more giving on, government military nope. They more than likely will confiscate the supplies you need for themselves.

It just depends. There's no possible way the Sheriff's office can maintain order in Kitsap County if the Sh*t hit the fan. We have a county Sheriff's officer with 120 sworn deputies, about 25 or so Reserve deputies, and maybe 15 citizens on patrol volunteers. There's 4 cities in the country, Bremerton with a population of 35,000 and a police force of 40 officers, Port Orchard (the county seat) with a police force of 24 officers and maybe 5 or so reserve officers, Poulsbo with about 20 officers, and Bainbridge island with about 30 or so. we're talking a total county population of 250,000 people with about 230 police officers (not counting state troopers or military police on the naval bases) total and assuming every officer, every reserve officer, and every non-sworn volunteer stays on duty in such an incident (when about 30% of NOPD deserted during Katrina) we still no where near enough people to maintain order during civil unrest. and while smaller settlements and unincorporated towns may band together with everyone armed and be able to keep order on a small scale, the majority of my county is going to hell in a handbasket if a huge disaster struck. My "community" is a 50-50 mix between white yuppy suburbia and small scale local farmers and organic produce co-ops, with everyone spread out. the community cannot effectively protect it self, everyone is on their own until someone brings order back, which is exactly what the National Guard is for. would my libertarian leanings be offended to see Afghanistan style convoys with humvees and stryker armored vehicles rolling down my street? of course! but my pragmatic leanings know that in a disaster scenario that's the most effective way to restore order so we could rebuild, and get the water flowing, and get fuel to the gas stations, and food to the shelves, and the sick to a hospital, and the criminals who preyed on the defensless to justice (whether that's court or hell they're sent to). I'm not really aware of much of anywhere where the local sheriff has the manpower without help of civilians to maintain order, and frankly I wouldn't count on my neighbors to be helping the sheriff maintian order. maybe in the smallers towns in Eastern WA the people as a collective would be more likely to help each other and keep society going and share supplies and the sheriff will take charge with the consent of the governed.... but in Suburbia, don't count on it, you're on your own until more cops from around the country and guardsmen come to restore order.

I want to note too that I'm not worried about gun confinscation in Kitsap County Washington. The reason guns were confiscated in Katrina was becuase the Guard was operating under the direction of NOPD (the local police force) who had always wanted to disarm citizens. My elected sheriff and state patrol district captain are not rabid anti-gunners. if a Wash State Patrolman or my local fire chief or Sheriff is the incident commander (which having local officials directing guardsmen when activated by the state is common practice) I find the idea that guard troops and deputies seizing guns door to door rather unlikely. Washington state also has a completely different tradition of civil liberties then does Louisiana.

Would I be worried about Active duty soldiers from Fort Lewis? a little bit, but I have a feeling federal forces would be massed up north out at Indian Island and Bangor where the nuclear sub bases and weapons depots are.
So really When it comes to it, I'm not all that worried about a disaster in our part of the country being used as a pretext to take away our rights. in this part of the country.

**Note I am talking to Sudden Valley Gunner regarding Washington State, If you live elsewhere, the arguments I just made may or may not apply or be accurate***

 

[davidmcbeth]

**Sigh** Next we will be discussing government vampires~~Where is Abe Lincoln vampire hunter when you need him...:banghead:

Direct to Video !!!! Wow ... its on netflix streaming ...

 

[davidmcbeth]

and the Boston massacre was also a justified act of self defense, John Adams even represented the British soldiers in court, they were tried in a colonial court by a jury of bostonians and aquitted

See? The system worked then. And it works now....hey-oh !!!!