michael thornton
Member
what would hitler do? or what did he do?
Why does a Civilian Police Officer have to save SOLDIERS on a military base????Who thought of that great idea that our Military be disarmed on bases?
- Thread starter .460V & XVR Magnum Man
- Start date
- Status
Here is my take on this discussion.
From another thread.
This entire conversation reminds me of one of the big reasons why I finally got out of the Army. Though I am proud of my service I eventually came to realize that I was a tool (which is the nature of military service) and therefore , ultimately, I was expendable because I was replaceable.
The military exsists to fight wars and wars are about the expenditure of resources. Soldiers are resources. You try to conserve those resources, but they are there to be used. I think that mentality might effect policies on many different things.
Private firearms with the troops is a possible threat to discipline. Therfore make it against regulations. Thirteen dead soldiers on a post in CONUS is a tragedy, but they can be replaced and probably already have been. Discipline is more important.
When I was in my teens and early twenties that way of looking at soldiers didn't bother me at all. But as I closed in on thirty I found myself disliking the idea of being considered expendable. I knew when that happened I was no longer cut out to be a soldier. So I returned to the civilian world.
It isn't stupidity or bureaucratic stupidity. It's a very different way of looking at things and the ability for a soldier to be able to defend him or herself against an active shooter dosen't outweigh the need to maintain good military discipline.
Now I think that sucks but so does war. the Army is about war fighting and that makes for some different way of thinking and acting.
From another thread.
This entire conversation reminds me of one of the big reasons why I finally got out of the Army. Though I am proud of my service I eventually came to realize that I was a tool (which is the nature of military service) and therefore , ultimately, I was expendable because I was replaceable.
The military exsists to fight wars and wars are about the expenditure of resources. Soldiers are resources. You try to conserve those resources, but they are there to be used. I think that mentality might effect policies on many different things.
Private firearms with the troops is a possible threat to discipline. Therfore make it against regulations. Thirteen dead soldiers on a post in CONUS is a tragedy, but they can be replaced and probably already have been. Discipline is more important.
When I was in my teens and early twenties that way of looking at soldiers didn't bother me at all. But as I closed in on thirty I found myself disliking the idea of being considered expendable. I knew when that happened I was no longer cut out to be a soldier. So I returned to the civilian world.
It isn't stupidity or bureaucratic stupidity. It's a very different way of looking at things and the ability for a soldier to be able to defend him or herself against an active shooter dosen't outweigh the need to maintain good military discipline.
Now I think that sucks but so does war. the Army is about war fighting and that makes for some different way of thinking and acting.
Mod10
US Veteran
Yeah, a lot of military facilities in Northern Virginia use armed Pinkerton guards. They were about one step above mall security in terms of quality and competence when I worked around them.
Mod10
US Veteran
So many Army posts these days are switching to a civilian police force. When I was at Fort Belvoir they were in a transition from all military police to a civilian "military police." The thinking was that all soldiers were needed in deployments and that all garrison duties would be handled by DOD civilians.
At Fort Knox they tried getting rid of all garrison military slots. The only ones that would be left were the Garrison commander and Sergeant Major. I don't know if that worked out or not.
At Fort Knox they tried getting rid of all garrison military slots. The only ones that would be left were the Garrison commander and Sergeant Major. I don't know if that worked out or not.
the officers that responded to the shooting were not "rent a cops". they are Dept of the Army Civilian Police Officers. as stated in earlier posts, many installitations now have DOA civilian police officers as the two front war we are fighting has taken away many of the military police(MPs) for a year at a time. many of these DOA officers are former MPs and are all highly trained officers as shown at fort hood. the senior sgt who took down the shooter is a retired army NCO. some army posts and other branches of the military also use contract personnel at gates for entry control now. they are not to be considered one step above a "mall cop" either. they are trained and cetified also. i have some friends that are both contract and DOA civilian police and personally take offense at some of the terms used here in earlier posts. i am sure most of those members never spent a day in the service of their country. lee
phenson
US Veteran
Another reason the leadership in the Army needs to step up and regain simple discipline. I didn't want to say this, but one of the biggest problems in the Army is officers won't police up their own. This guy should have been kicked out long berfore this happened, but instead, he was promoted. Same with NCO's, someone who is participating in gang acticity should be UCMJ'ed and then shown a chapter 13 discharge on the way back to the block. We don't do it, because it is easier to be PC.
Bassamatic
US Veteran
This is correct. Back in the 60's we never had weapons, especially loaded, unless we were on the range. We did a lot of drilling with our M14 but they were unloaded and they were checked back in at the end of the day.
MP's were everywhere with a sidearm. Never knew what they carried but I guess I just assumed it was a .45.
The Civilian Police/Guard elements release soldiers (particularly MPs) for deployment.
The Major works for someone-and that superior is responsible for that Major's actions-on and off duty-7/24. The Major will be Court Martialed-the court will be comprised of Field Grade Officers. These guys will probably be old war dogs.
The military is very good at policing its own-and contrary to one writer-I never, and I know my son has never-considered soldiers as being "expendable". As an Infantry leader I always thought of my troops as family. My objective was to get the job done-and bring everyone home-same goes for my son (an Airborne Artillery Commander).
The Major is a terrorist-he's toast.
The Major works for someone-and that superior is responsible for that Major's actions-on and off duty-7/24. The Major will be Court Martialed-the court will be comprised of Field Grade Officers. These guys will probably be old war dogs.
The military is very good at policing its own-and contrary to one writer-I never, and I know my son has never-considered soldiers as being "expendable". As an Infantry leader I always thought of my troops as family. My objective was to get the job done-and bring everyone home-same goes for my son (an Airborne Artillery Commander).
The Major is a terrorist-he's toast.
armsmaster270
US Veteran
I prefer to call him a Traitor.
ChuckS1
US Veteran
I don't how the Convening Authority's going to find an unbiased board for that court-martial. It's going to be pretty tough. That being said, though, I'm sure the defense will go for the insanity defense.
The problem with this guy is that he's a doctor. The medical professionals have their own personnel system and promotion criteria which is different from the rest of the Army. It's easy to see how he got promoted and explains why he's only a major after all this time, especially in light of his medical specialty. Don't assume that the same rules apply for doctors like they do for the run of the mill officers because they don't.
The problem with this guy is that he's a doctor. The medical professionals have their own personnel system and promotion criteria which is different from the rest of the Army. It's easy to see how he got promoted and explains why he's only a major after all this time, especially in light of his medical specialty. Don't assume that the same rules apply for doctors like they do for the run of the mill officers because they don't.
GatorFarmer
Member
Blaming a variety of relatively contemporary Presidents for the situation is strange. Sidearms have been restricted since at least WW2. The last time that they apparently weren't was in the early days of the North Africa campaign. Numerous accounts exist of soldiers going on leave armed and shooting up French towns ala the Wild West. After that, even in WW2, things were tightened up. At least one USAAF unit, I think it was the 5th but I'm going from memory, even collected all the sidearms from the pilots and forbid them flying with them since they'd led to too many problems - accidents and suicides, combined with a fear that pilots were more likely to be shot rather than captured if armed with a pistol.
In the last few years, the military has further been cautious about privately owned weapons, particularly in the Army because of an increase in suicides among young enlisted males. (Men usually either shoot or hang themselves as a method of suicide.) The military doctors even ask whether there is a gun in the house on certain forms when you get a check up or take your kids in.
On the bases I've been on, if there aren't armed military personnel doing security, it's Federal Police. I haven't seen private guards, though some installations do have Wackenhut, et al.
In the Navy, security isn't a choice assignment, and they're often short handed, so sometimes other people are pulled in to do security. Outsid of certain infantry and MP assignments, few people in the military spend much time handling weapons.
In theory there's supposed to be a plan for a mass shooting and an ability to respond. Marine and Navy bases at least have this in place. Those places with something important (nukes, the President's helicopters, etc) have additional security and more people armed.
There are people who can authorize an individual to be armed on base. Usually this is the base commander, but the head of security for a Navy installation can also do it.
If you work for certain governmental agencies, you used to be able to carry on base, but that was tightened up after a GAO audit showed that you could walk into the Pentagon and waltz through security with a holstered pistol and Xeroxed credentials (the WSJ covered the story). That was during the Clinton years, and after that embarassment, things were tightened up a bit.
In the last few years, the military has further been cautious about privately owned weapons, particularly in the Army because of an increase in suicides among young enlisted males. (Men usually either shoot or hang themselves as a method of suicide.) The military doctors even ask whether there is a gun in the house on certain forms when you get a check up or take your kids in.
On the bases I've been on, if there aren't armed military personnel doing security, it's Federal Police. I haven't seen private guards, though some installations do have Wackenhut, et al.
In the Navy, security isn't a choice assignment, and they're often short handed, so sometimes other people are pulled in to do security. Outsid of certain infantry and MP assignments, few people in the military spend much time handling weapons.
In theory there's supposed to be a plan for a mass shooting and an ability to respond. Marine and Navy bases at least have this in place. Those places with something important (nukes, the President's helicopters, etc) have additional security and more people armed.
There are people who can authorize an individual to be armed on base. Usually this is the base commander, but the head of security for a Navy installation can also do it.
If you work for certain governmental agencies, you used to be able to carry on base, but that was tightened up after a GAO audit showed that you could walk into the Pentagon and waltz through security with a holstered pistol and Xeroxed credentials (the WSJ covered the story). That was during the Clinton years, and after that embarassment, things were tightened up a bit.
Excellent post, GF. Quite informative...
Whilst working, I was on or near military bases (Boston, NYC, and DC) on a regular basis. Then (up to 2005), if in uniform there was almost never a problem/issue. In mufti and on duty I always carried. Off duty, I usually secured my weapon. For example, I spent a considerable amount of time at the USNA in Annapolis. I never carried there.
Be safe.
Whilst working, I was on or near military bases (Boston, NYC, and DC) on a regular basis. Then (up to 2005), if in uniform there was almost never a problem/issue. In mufti and on duty I always carried. Off duty, I usually secured my weapon. For example, I spent a considerable amount of time at the USNA in Annapolis. I never carried there.
Be safe.
If the mission calls for it then soldiers are expended. And since warfare is organized violence (i.e. deadly and violent) that means soldiers are expended sometimes in the activity known as warfare.
A military leader who can't order his/her troops into missions that might cause their destruction isn't going to be a very effective commander.In the long run that commander might cause even more deaths and destruction. I'm not saying they are indifferent or brutal (though military history is full of those commanders and more than a few have been celebrated), but they can't be too sentimental about their people. If they can't do that then it's time to hang up the uniform.
I remember back in basic training (summer 1986 Ft. Leonard Wood) a drill sergeant telling us (privates) that if no other way exsists to see if it's all clear to de-mask then our commander/NCO/leader will probably order us to take off our mask. Why? Because as E-1's and E-2's and E-3's we were (and they still are) low man on the totem pole and most expendable.
The mission always comes first and foremost. Sure take care of the troops because you think of them as family if that works for you. But why all the intense focus on troops morale, ensuring they are physically fit, well equipped and highly trained? Is it because it makes everyone feel so good about themselves and their respective military branch? No. It's about keeping the troops healthy and happy so they're in top condition when it comes time to go to war and accomplish the mission. Wartime or combat missions usually mean dead troops. It's a fact. Healthy troops fight better. But some of them will die eventually. Just look at our casulty lists from the past eight years.
I spent fourteen years in the Army and I come from a long tradition of military service in both peace and war.I'm proud of my service and those who are currently serving. However lets's not gloss over the military and what it exsists for with sentimental feelings and wording.
The mission comes first. Troops are cared for and looked after because they are weapons and tools. But ultimately they are weapon and tools and if necessary they are expended.
If you look up by my name you'll see that I'm now a cop. It really isn't any different in law enforcement either. I think we just need to be honest.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,213
- Reaction score
- 6,669
My experience with Guard Duty was that it was regarded as pretty much as a pro forma thing and was not taken seriously. Putting troops on guard duty with weapons they had never fired and hadn't zeroed, only 3 rounds of ammunition-if that- as often as not there were no communications. The troops were more concerned with getting back to their rack to get some shuteye,the only good thing about Guard Duty was outside of Vietnam, if you were in a unit that went by the Book, if it was on a weeknight you had the next day off-if they went by the book. In many cases the weapons were locked in a rack in the guard room, the troops had a "billy club" made from an old broom handle-if that -and the attitude was, you have a problem, you call the Sergeant of the Guard, he calls the OD who calls the MPs. And in my day (1967-1971) a lot of the MPs weren't that good, getting them through OJT and not MP School. The higher ups figured take a soldier, put a white hat and an arm band on him, POOF!-an instant MP.
I will say again what I have said elsewhere, in Today's Army small arms are seen as a nuisance, the firearms enthusiast is considered a "nut".
I will say again what I have said elsewhere, in Today's Army small arms are seen as a nuisance, the firearms enthusiast is considered a "nut".
Last edited:
armsmaster270
US Veteran
I gotta take exception to that
www.armsmaster.net - The Armsmaster 270
http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com/evaluations&etc.
And most of the time I or my men were on guard duty we did have ammo in our weapons. On PCS missions the standard loadout was 3 magazines of Black Talon .45acp. All of our weapons were issued to individual troops and not used by other persons.
Last edited:
ChuckS1
US Veteran
Twenty years in the Army and the only time I ever carried a loaded .45 was back in 1977 and 1978 when I was a staff duty officer in Boeblingen, FRG, and that was a holdover from the race riots the Army experienced a few years before. Combat units that had ammunition uploaded in tanks, APCs, etc usually had motor pool guards with ammunition, as did the ASPs.
At least for the combat service support units, small arms training was always the bare minimum. Remember the incident with the maintenance company at the start of the 1991 Gulf War with PFC Jessica Lynch? Perfect example of the lack of emphasis the Army put on combat skills for combat service support units back then. Hopefully it's changed for those units now.
At least for the combat service support units, small arms training was always the bare minimum. Remember the incident with the maintenance company at the start of the 1991 Gulf War with PFC Jessica Lynch? Perfect example of the lack of emphasis the Army put on combat skills for combat service support units back then. Hopefully it's changed for those units now.
Last edited:
Mac!Gettothechoppa'!
Member
The officer who responded deserves a medal of valor for her bravery and taking hits to stop the mainiac, and should be honored. But this brings up the question as to why did she have to be there on a Military Base full of soldiers? If they were armed this would have been a whole different story, no trial would be necessary. It makes no sense that these men and women will deploy to Iraq, Afganistan or wherever, but on their own base go unarmed. Armed forces??? Anybody have any idea why?
It was President George Bush who made up that law.
Guess agian it was Slick willy aka Bill Clinton that made that one happen....
Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection."
ChuckS1
US Veteran
Well, old post dragged up from the depths. But, just to correct you, it wasn't a Bush decision. In my 20 years in the Army, starting in 1977 until I retired, other than deployments to combat zones, the Army has always locked up small arms in company arms rooms. Double locks on the arms room doors and locked in racks. Unless your duty position authorized the use of deadly force, like MPS, for example, soldiers are not walking around post carrying small arms and ammo.
- Status
