| Author | Post |
|---|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 962 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 6th, 2009 07:17 pm |
|
I have no problem if they are off duty, and in civilian cloaths, with thier own weapons
giving aid to local police. It is the fact they were in uniform, and using military
equipment that breaks the law.
If the gunmen is dead, then what is the needed rush to gather evidence?
You aren't going to try him on anything, death is an affirmative defence for
all crimes except suicide, and they haven't tried one of those in the last two
centuries to my knowledge.
I would like to know why the state police, FBI, and homeland security refused
to render aid. Making the request to Rucker seem like a good idea at the time.
As for the punishment, I would not argue if the persons who asked for the help,
and the SS officer who ordered the troops out were held to pay the government
for the full costs of the troop deployment.
This would make them think twice about doing it again.
I do not blame the troops as it is case law that illegal orders must be obeyed,
clnton v M. Nue, (courtmartialed for refusing an illegal order)
|
CJ
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | VT, AK |
| Posts: | 60 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 03:50 pm |
|
SlackwareRobert wrote: I have no problem if they are off duty, and in civilian cloaths, with thier own weapons
giving aid to local police. It is the fact they were in uniform, and using military
equipment that breaks the law.
If the gunmen is dead, then what is the needed rush to gather evidence?
You aren't going to try him on anything, death is an affirmative defence for
all crimes except suicide, and they haven't tried one of those in the last two
centuries to my knowledge.
I would like to know why the state police, FBI, and homeland security refused
to render aid. Making the request to Rucker seem like a good idea at the time.
As for the punishment, I would not argue if the persons who asked for the help,
and the SS officer who ordered the troops out were held to pay the government
for the full costs of the troop deployment.
This would make them think twice about doing it again.
I do not blame the troops as it is case law that illegal orders must be obeyed,
clnton v M. Nue, (courtmartialed for refusing an illegal order)
You got it wrong. Illegal orders must not be obeyed. Yes that may mean a court martial (which in theory would not find you guilty on the basis of it being illegal) but it'd be far worse for you to obey an unlawful order and get in trouble for that. Following orders is not a defense...
|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 962 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 04:29 pm |
|
CJ wrote: SlackwareRobert wrote:You got it wrong. Illegal orders must not be obeyed. Yes that may mean a court martial (which in theory would not find you guilty on the basis of it being illegal) but it'd be far worse for you to obey an unlawful order and get in trouble for that. Following orders is not a defense...
But theory doesn't help when you go to jail either way.
Mr Nue refused an ilegal order, begged them to find a legal justification, was
court martialed for not removing his uniform. They refused to address that it
was illegal because they would have to let him off if they did. Just the order
was given and he refused to obey it period.
4 years latter, mp's followed orders and were court martialed for removing uniforms
under orders.
So troops are screwed either way, but leo are not subject to the political
UCMJ system and therefore should be held to a higher standard for following
illegal orders. But that doesn't mean I will loose any sleep if the commanders
who issue the orders go down for it.
The simple way to stop this from happening is to enforce the local laws,
if the troops have assault weapons in a civilian capacity, then they better
have the tax stamps and permits for them just like anyone else needs to.
|
the wheeelman
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | South Louisiana |
| Posts: | 108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 10:49 pm |
|
SlackwareRobert wrote: if the troops have assault weapons in a civilian capacity, then they better
have the tax stamps and permits for them just like anyone else needs to.
You do not need a tax stamp for a non-regulated weapon. An assault weapon by definition is not illegal to own if you can legally own a gun. I think you are refering to automatic weapons.
It seems even our own community is confused as to what "types" of guns are illegal. It's just this type of propaganda that is smeared all over the media. We need to make a strong effort to be clear on the different types of weapons which are legal to own whithout special permits, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
Last edited on Tue Apr 7th, 2009 10:52 pm by the wheeelman
|
kurtmax_0
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Auburn, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 778 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 02:26 am |
|
| Permits aren't needed for NFA weapons in AL.
|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 962 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 06:07 pm |
|
I have never seen an M-16 that wasn't an assault weapon,
and you need the fed stamp for them.
Did the army start makeing off base models for situations like this?
If so then it goes to show they are trying to break the spirit and letter of the law.
|
the wheeelman
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | South Louisiana |
| Posts: | 108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 10:58 pm |
|
| I was just refering to your reference of assault weapons. An assault rifle does not need a Tax Stamp, only full auto rifles. You also referenced them helping out off-duty, and if there were just plain clothes lending a hand they wouldn't have their military weapons with them.
|
Daddyo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | Moody, AL |
| Posts: | 205 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 9th, 2009 02:12 am |
|
the wheeelman wrote: SlackwareRobert wrote: if the troops have assault weapons in a civilian capacity, then they better
have the tax stamps and permits for them just like anyone else needs to.
You do not need a tax stamp for a non-regulated weapon. An assault weapon by definition is not illegal to own if you can legally own a gun. I think you are refering to automatic weapons.
It seems even our own community is confused as to what "types" of guns are illegal. It's just this type of propaganda that is smeared all over the media. We need to make a strong effort to be clear on the different types of weapons which are legal to own whithout special permits, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
Well, that definition sure has changed since the last time I looked at it.
I guess we'll all have to do a better job of keeping up with the fluid nature of the English language. This time last year there were numerous posts annd comments deriding the media for incorrectly labeling a military looking semi-auto as an assault weapon and going to great pains in explaining how a rifle must have a full auto or burst mode to be properly considered an assault weapon.
|
Daddyo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | Moody, AL |
| Posts: | 205 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 02:20 am |
|
Update on this thread and some good news.
Apparently the army agreed that sending the troops was a violation of Posse Commitatus.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BEHA3O0&show_article=1&catnum=1
|
riverrat10k
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Bon Air, Va |
| Posts: | 394 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 03:53 am |
|
| Good news indeed, but little punishment for the offender. Hopefully, this is a rouge action , then , and not policy.
|
turbodog
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 01:01 pm |
|
The report references military response during Hurricane Katrina.
There are still Military Police working in a law enforcement role in New Orleans, in conjunction with NOPD.
|
Jared
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 01:25 pm |
|
Citizen wrote:
So much for "consent of the governed" when they were being misled by the very name of the party advocating the new constitution. Which by the way did NOT have a Bill of Rights. That only came along after lots of fuss was raised.
(Sorry if some of this information turns your understanding on its head. It may not be soothing, but it is sooth.)
I honestly have no idea how anyone could possibly believe in the "consent of the governed" in the first place. It is 100% nonsense. No one alive ever consented to this, even if you were alive, what if you didn't consent. People like to claim the social contract but if everyone else forces you to do something, that is not consent.
This would be like saying you have four neighbors, 3 out of the four neighbors force you out of your home, by the logic of the social contract people, you just consented to being forced out of your house.
What's next, someone being raped by 5 people consented to it because the 5 people wanted to rape them.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 08:04 pm |
|
Apparently... 'Posse Comitatus' is not addressed in MP school or OCS. 'I thought... 'based on...' is not good enough. I'm sure there an Army FM or AR Reg that details who, what, where, when 'n why and the usual 'Command Instructions' or whatever the Army calls 'em that detail the same locally. I suspect some Dudly Doorite type around 0-3/0-4 grade thought they could polish their 'civic actions' apple.
Surprisingly... no senior NCO had the sand to tell 'em it was an illegal order. (Or didn't know in the first place... The Army's fulla them.) This wasn't a Command level decision... but 'Command' is responsible for the actions of their Officers nonetheless. I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall at that 'Office Hours' session. Somebody's fitrep is gonna look like crap after that one. 'Prob'ly get a permanent 'punative letter' as well. Whoever they are should be lookin' for gainful employment, 'cause thay ain't gonna stay in the Army after this.
Last edited on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 08:05 pm by Sonora Rebel
|
McX
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 11:57 am |
|
| Hmmm, I saw the heading title to this thread discussion and thought of Kent State.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 02:36 pm |
|
McX wrote: Hmmm, I saw the heading title to this thread discussion and thought of Kent State.
That was the Ohio National Guard, not the Army. Guard mobilized under Title 18 USC (by the respective Governor) have police powers. Federal Mobilization under Title 10 USC (by the President) do not. Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids that.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 03:19 pm |
|
SlackwareRobert wrote: I have no problem if they are off duty, and in civilian cloaths, with thier own weapons
giving aid to local police. It is the fact they were in uniform, and using military
equipment that breaks the law.
If the gunmen is dead, then what is the needed rush to gather evidence?
You aren't going to try him on anything, death is an affirmative defence for
all crimes except suicide, and they haven't tried one of those in the last two
centuries to my knowledge.
I would like to know why the state police, FBI, and homeland security refused
to render aid. Making the request to Rucker seem like a good idea at the time.
As for the punishment, I would not argue if the persons who asked for the help,
and the SS officer who ordered the troops out were held to pay the government
for the full costs of the troop deployment.
This would make them think twice about doing it again.
I do not blame the troops as it is case law that illegal orders must be obeyed,
clnton v M. Nue, (courtmartialed for refusing an illegal order)
Military personnel may volunteer 'off duty' for pretty much anything (EMT, Vol Fireman etc) but not 'under military orders as a unit in Police Duties under Federal arms. No one is obligated to follow an illegal order from anyone or any political entity. The oath is sworn to defend the Constitution. 'Off Duty' is not the same for military as it is for civilians... even Police. I don't know the particulars of what Nue did... or didn't do. 'Something about wearing his uniform at a protest or something? No... 'can't do that.
Off duty military personnel cannot wander about with 'issue' firearms of any sort in CONUS or most anywhere else 'cept in combat zones... and even that is not always authorized. All weapons are issued with a custody card or record of some sort... in that they are organizational material from the unit Armory or issuing activity holding ultimate custody of the arms. You non-miliary folks really shouldn't write stuff you have only 'media' knowledge about. The UCMJ is pretty clear as to what is an 'offense' or not and all the services are buried under layers of DoD and individual service regs/instructions from Pentagon level HQ down to individual units of a few hundred people 'n a whole bunch of Command layers in between.
You people bandy about 'Courts Martial' like it was the only solution. There's NJP... Non-Judicial Punishment... by authority of the unit CO who can (and does) do that, at Office Hours (Army/Air Force) and Captains Mast (Navy/Marine Corps/Coast Guard). This is the most common form of 'adjudication'. There's 3 levels of CourtsMartial: Summary, Special and General. Adjudication by a 'Court' is not automatic. 'Depends upon the severity of the crime or infraction.
Stuff like this tends to convince me that 6 years compulsory military service is still a good idea.
|
McX
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 12:09 am |
|
| 10-4 Sonora Rebel. Like the flag. Got one. Either way, it may be a sign of things to come: So bad the military has to help. Another sign of OC/CC needed in our society.
|
rob99vmi04
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 09:01 pm |
|
SlackwareRobert wrote: I have never seen an M-16 that wasn't an assault weapon,
and you need the fed stamp for them.
Did the army start makeing off base models for situations like this?
If so then it goes to show they are trying to break the spirit and letter of the law.
M-16's are not by definition Assault Weapons they fall into the assault rifle catagory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting in both fully automatic and semi automatic modes). Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies, having largely superseded or supplemented larger and more powerful battle rifles such as the M14, FN FAL and the Heckler & Koch G3. Examples of assault rifles include the M16 rifle, AK family, G36, FN FNC, and the Steyr AUG.
Definition
The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used synonymous with assault. The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[1] to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle that served to popularize the concept.
The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles that share designs with assault rifles such as the AR-15 (which the M-16 rifle is based on) are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons (such as the M249 SAW) or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.
The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.
The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."[5]
vs. Assault Weapons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
An assault weapon is a political [1] term referring to any of a broad category of firearms including military-style semiautomatic rifles derived from assault rifles, some pistols, and some shotguns. Assault weapons are often similar in appearance to military firearms, but are capable of firing only once each time the trigger is pulled.
There are a variety of different statutory definitions of assault weapon in local, state, and federal laws in the United States that define them by a set of characteristics they possess. Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[2] Very generally speaking, a semi-automatic firearm is defined by these laws as an assault weapon if it has both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a flash suppressor.
Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term assault weapon should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate as part of the arguments of gun politics in the United States.
Modern usage
The term assault weapon might be derived from confusion with the term assault rifle, itself a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr, literally "storm-rifle".
|
McX
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 01:39 pm |
|
| probably should arm the firemen. They get to go into bad parts of town, every now and again, you hear of them getting shot at while doing their jobs.
|
kurtmax_0
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Auburn, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 778 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 02:27 pm |
|
Yep. Assault-rifle is a political term just as much as assault weapon, although assault rifle has been applied fairly consistently ever since its coinage.
Hitler went through a crazy renaming stage in 43-44ish period to try and improve morale, one of the weapons already designated as MP44 was renamed to StG44. You can actually find samples of MP44s that have been 'stamped over' as StG44s.
The Gewehr 43 was also renamed the Karabiner 43 around the same time period (in the same order, actually, iirc).
|
Current time is 12:27 am | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
