This is not good - Army in Alabama - Merged

Wagonman · March 18, 2009, 02:03 PM

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/ar...x?RsrcID=45206
While I am a huge supporter of Police having latitude to do our job.

This is what the opposing viewpoints to mine are worried about and I get it.

mnhntr · March 18, 2009, 02:24 PM

the link is no good

Wagonman · March 18, 2009, 02:32 PM

I will try to fix

I have tried three times in different ways to link article.

It is an article from CNS linked on Drudge about the Troops sent into Alabama town after murder spree.

Maybe, someone smarter than me can help, or I can cut and paste.

grymster2007 · March 18, 2009, 02:47 PM

How 'bout this?

call me smart if you like!

**Mike Irwin** · March 18, 2009, 02:56 PM

I wonder if they came in on black helicopters, considering what Ft. Rucker is.

mnhntr · March 18, 2009, 04:19 PM

Some MP commander wanted to play cop.

Glenn E. Meyer · March 18, 2009, 04:39 PM

Let's say there is a big base. Like where I live. Across from the big base, a nutso starts shooting up the kindergarten. But he is just a good ol' American nutso and not a terrorist.

The MPs see this. The local law is a bit away.

Should the MPs do anything, carrying official US Armed Forces firearms?

If they do, does it mean the Army is coming for my guns at a later time?

Dust Monkey · March 18, 2009, 04:58 PM

Have no text or article yet. Just heard it on Glen Beck. US Army, NOT national guard, military police on patrol in the Alabama town that recently had the shooting spree. Beck had photos and redponses from the AL Gov, who knew nothing about it, the Army, who was investigating the issue, and the White House who declined to comment.

Any members here know, heard of or have any info to support this?

OuTcAsT · March 18, 2009, 05:09 PM

Quote:

he is just a good ol' American nutso and not a terrorist.

I doubt if this could be easily ascertained in just a brief moment.

Quote:

The MPs see this. The local law is a bit away.

Should the MPs do anything, carrying official US Armed Forces firearms?

They may not have the legal responsibility, but they would have a Moral responsibility, just as a CCW holder would, IMHO.

Quote:

If they do, does it mean the Army is coming for my guns at a later time?

This is a question that we all ask every day, why would this incident make that more or less likely?

I think the "devil" will be in the details.

dm1333 · March 18, 2009, 05:21 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

My answer is simple. No. Send medics, send a chaplain, send a CISM but the Military Police do not belong there. Does it mean that the army is coming for your guns later? No to that one too. If anything, send the Coast Guard (of which I am a member) because we are federal LE and are exempted from Posse Comitatus.

I'm wearing two flame suits for this thread.

hogdogs · March 18, 2009, 05:25 PM

http://www.wtvynews4.com/news/headlines/41432687.html

Quote:

SAMSON, Ala. (AP) - The Army has launched an inquiry into the use of soldiers from Fort Rucker in the town of Samson after the south Alabama shooting massacre.

The Army confirmed Wednesday that 22 military police and an officer were sent to Samson after the mass slaying of 10 people last week. The town's tiny police force and county officers were stretched to the limit after the shootings.

Some have questioned why Army troops were sent to Samson, suggesting the move was a possible violation of federal law.

An Army spokesman says officials with the Army Training and Doctrine Command are trying to determine what happened. Among the questions is why the troops were sent to Samson and what they did while there.

Dust Monkey · March 18, 2009, 05:27 PM

Thanks. Slippery slope here.

Glenn E. Meyer · March 18, 2009, 05:34 PM

If a Piper cub starts flying over town, dropping home made grenades and flying down the highways with a person in the passenger's seat with a NFA legal full auto hosing down the SUVs - should the myraid F-16s around here blow him up.

Or should we wait till we call Obama? Or should all of us with ARs, try to shoot him down and spew rounds over the city.

I'm having a hard time with a constitution/legal issue getting my shorts in a wad over the initial report.

As far as precedent for them taking my guns - that surfaces here all the time. MOUT - has generated lots of conspiracy conjecture.

Glenn E. Meyer · March 18, 2009, 05:43 PM

I merged two similar threads.

hogdogs · March 18, 2009, 05:55 PM

I think the state guard is who should shoot down the piper cub! But I heard of no such attack. I also heard of no rioting and the tv station I posted link to is the one I watch most every night!
The us army is BOUND not to be used against the citizens of the USofA...
Brent

dm1333 · March 18, 2009, 05:56 PM

Glenn E. Meyer,

I don't see anybody here getting worked up about this right now but it is a matter to be concerned about. We are talking about a real issue here, that may have far reaching implications. As far as I can see YOU are the only guy bringing up the Army seizing guns or Red Dawn type scenarios. Are you trying to get us tin foil hat guys all spun up?

Heck, I can't even say TFH over on THR.us now, ya gotta leave us something here!

flippycat · March 18, 2009, 07:03 PM

Why draw lines in the sand if no one follows them?

Those universal fit police vests could fit any of the department of public works guys, citizens, bus drivers or anyone just standing there in the rural town they were trying to traffic control. Directing traffic does not take skilled armed forces.

Sending in US troops to aid a private sector matter when there is laws written against it, unless a few special circumstances apply (which seem to be not enacted in this case) is well.... simply put... breaking the law.

If we as citizens are micro managed daily by laws we need to follow, why should US soilders on US soil not be bound by them as well?

Because this is not the normal routine in America as we the public know, there presence could almost be constituted as Inducing Panic.

"Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm."

Yeah its a stretch I realize this, but so many times laws are broken by free thinkers thinking they are doing the right thing to "Aid" a situation.

Did it make the situation more manageable? Sounds like it did, but that still does not make it right if there is laws against it.

Maybe, just maybe the hero's of this country who now have to answer for these crimes if any are deemed "committed" will work with public outrage to over turn them? Because it was after all done for a worthy cause. Maybe just maybe people will realize this gross micro management we all face daily is just a little out of control now.

azredhawk44 · March 18, 2009, 07:52 PM

Wow... I LOVE a good black helicopter thread and can sling conspiracy with the best of 'em... but you guys need to take a chill pill.

First off, these MP's and army boys weren't armed. They were wearing duty gear but no rifles or sidearms, from what I have heard.

Secondly: How is this any different than a soldier in transit on a civilian plane, who decides to subdue an unruly passenger or kill a terrorist intent on taking or destroying the aircraft? Or a military convoy that comes across a demonstration of criminal force that is swamping the capacities of law enforcement?

The old west is filled with examples of the cavalry coming in to augment civilian forces, or even civilian forces augmenting the armed forces.

Posse Comitatus is a wonderful doctrine, but it does not subjugate the right of Americans (yes, servicemen are Americans) to correct wrongs they encounter, at peril of their freedom or honor if done incorrectly.

I personally commend these men for their decision. All they did was some traffic direction in order to free up law enforcement resources for response to the scenes of shooting. They didn't deploy as soldiers or as law enforcers... they deployed as well regulated men responding to an infrastructure problem.

armsmaster270 · March 18, 2009, 08:07 PM

Military members that get involved with civilian situations without the proper buttons being pushed ie the Gov requesting aid or the prez sending troops they will be punished. A military member cannot be deputized without orders from on high.

flippycat · March 18, 2009, 08:11 PM

Not too hard to really tell just from the picture, but those look like sidearms to me?

dm1333 · March 18, 2009, 09:15 PM

Quote:

First off, these MP's and army boys weren't armed. They were wearing duty gear but no rifles or sidearms, from what I have heard.

Secondly: How is this any different than a soldier in transit on a civilian plane, who decides to subdue an unruly passenger or kill a terrorist intent on taking or destroying the aircraft? Or a military convoy that comes across a demonstration of criminal force that is swamping the capacities of law enforcement?

Hearing that they are unarmed is not the same as knowing they are unarmed. This is different from a soldier coming across the scene of the crime because somebody obviously sent them. Do you think they just decided to go out and do a good deed? Lastly, there are plenty of other law enforcement agencies who could have, and should have been called first.

I don't see a conspiracy with black helicopters and blue helmeted soldiers here but I do see something very wrong. I'm also viewing it from the standpoint of being on active duty and having federal LE authority. I'd really like to know how those soldiers ended up there without any other agencies being called, the ICS system being activated, etc.

http://vlex.com/vid/cooperation-poli...sions-19228500

The link goes to 14 USC 141, which was specifically written to allow USCG interaction with other agencies that request our assistance. I see no such mention of any one requesting Army assistance and know of no US Code that even allows the Army to assist in a situation like this. I don't pretend to be an expert on federal law, maybe somebody here can provide some more insight onto whether there is any code allowing the Army to render the same type of assistance when martial law has not been declared or the state governor is not requesting their assistance?

Wagonman · March 18, 2009, 10:11 PM

I don't see the Black helicopters either. I am just getting the word out about a POSSIBLE problem. There is nothing wrong with ringing the bell and keeping the PTB honest.

highrolls · March 18, 2009, 11:31 PM

flippycat, I do not know if the original photo you used was clear enough to tell whether or not the military folks are wearing yellow bands that clearly say "police"? Just looking at the photo you posted suggests this is so. If so, and if they are regular army, this is really bad.

I have done a lot of research into the Posse Comitatus stuff. The 1878 Act was a mandantory part of putting the Union back together after the Civil War. It came from the southern states as a result of the "jack-booted" occupation of the south by the Union Army for about twelve years, which followed immediately after Sherman "burned" his way to the Gulf coast to force the south to reject any idea of further resistance. There were a lot of bad, bitter things, not the least of which was the hard feelings of the southerners even extended to the Ford theater assassination of President Lincoln.

That photo screams of something we have rarely ever seen. (By rarely, not even during both World Wars was it violated.) The original Act also contains mandatory penalties for violation. My military training covered this as well. I suspect all officers and senior NCO's of the military would react the way I have to that photo. It makes me feel that big things that are not good are coming, really a stomach sick feeling. The training comes from the professional service staff schools. If none of the guys in that photo had any concern about what they were doing, then professional military training has failed them or their superiors in the worst possible way.

Glenn E. Meyer:

"Should the MPs do anything, carrying official US Armed Forces firearms?"

Doing so violates one of the main glues of the Union, thus is equivalent to a constitutional crisis. The way you stated the question is a good one to explain how a mistake could be made, but the penalty will hit for sure I think.

"If they do, does it mean the Army is coming for my guns at a later time?"

Different issue and different constitutional crisis.

Maybe this will help with the second question.

Oath Keepers

http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com/

HiBC · March 19, 2009, 02:08 AM

I understand it was an unusual,stressful situation.A PD with a staff of 5 was overwhelmed and asked for help securing a crime scene

There is a problem,as has been mentioned,and discretionary exceptions to Posse Comitatus are a problem.

A serious investigation is going on,we will see what happens.

Comes down to it,the oath is to the Constitution,against all enemies,foriegn and domestic.

I want our military,if asked to take arms against US citizens,to say"Oh,no.We do not do that"

Dust Monkey · March 19, 2009, 03:44 AM

Damn. If the 5 man dept needed help, why Army MPs? Did the Alabama State Police have too much going on. Something stinks here. Bad, bad precedent. I hope we get some answers and not some dog and pony show of an explanation.

March 18, 2009, 02:03 PM	#1
Wagonman Senior Member Join Date: September 11, 2008 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,014	This is not good - Army in Alabama - Merged http://cnsnews.com/public/content/ar...x?RsrcID=45206 While I am a huge supporter of Police having latitude to do our job. This is what the opposing viewpoints to mine are worried about and I get it. Last edited by Wagonman; March 18, 2009 at 02:37 PM.

March 18, 2009, 02:32 PM	#3
Wagonman Senior Member Join Date: September 11, 2008 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,014	I will try to fix I have tried three times in different ways to link article. It is an article from CNS linked on Drudge about the Troops sent into Alabama town after murder spree. Maybe, someone smarter than me can help, or I can cut and paste. Last edited by Wagonman; March 18, 2009 at 02:40 PM.

March 18, 2009, 02:47 PM	#4
grymster2007 Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa Posts: 2,203	How 'bout this? call me smart if you like! __________________ grym

March 18, 2009, 02:56 PM	#5
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,381	I wonder if they came in on black helicopters, considering what Ft. Rucker is. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 18, 2009, 04:39 PM	#7
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Let's say there is a big base. Like where I live. Across from the big base, a nutso starts shooting up the kindergarten. But he is just a good ol' American nutso and not a terrorist. The MPs see this. The local law is a bit away. Should the MPs do anything, carrying official US Armed Forces firearms? If they do, does it mean the Army is coming for my guns at a later time? __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

March 18, 2009, 02:24 PM	#2
mnhntr Senior Member Join Date: April 9, 2008 Posts: 972	the link is no good

March 18, 2009, 04:19 PM	#6
mnhntr Senior Member Join Date: April 9, 2008 Posts: 972	Some MP commander wanted to play cop.

March 18, 2009, 04:58 PM	#8
Dust Monkey Senior Member Join Date: April 24, 2007 Posts: 723	Army Military Police patrols Alabama town Have no text or article yet. Just heard it on Glen Beck. US Army, NOT national guard, military police on patrol in the Alabama town that recently had the shooting spree. Beck had photos and redponses from the AL Gov, who knew nothing about it, the Army, who was investigating the issue, and the White House who declined to comment. Any members here know, heard of or have any info to support this? __________________ Civilian Date: 14 Century 1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law. If you are not subject to the UCMJ, you are a Civilian. I don't care one bit what updated dictionaries say. Last edited by Dust Monkey; March 18, 2009 at 05:19 PM.

March 18, 2009, 05:21 PM	#10
dm1333 Senior Member Join Date: March 20, 2005 Posts: 401	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act My answer is simple. No. Send medics, send a chaplain, send a CISM but the Military Police do not belong there. Does it mean that the army is coming for your guns later? No to that one too. If anything, send the Coast Guard (of which I am a member) because we are federal LE and are exempted from Posse Comitatus. I'm wearing two flame suits for this thread.

March 18, 2009, 05:27 PM	#12
Dust Monkey Senior Member Join Date: April 24, 2007 Posts: 723	Thanks. Slippery slope here. __________________ Civilian Date: 14 Century 1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law. If you are not subject to the UCMJ, you are a Civilian. I don't care one bit what updated dictionaries say.

March 18, 2009, 05:34 PM	#13
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	If a Piper cub starts flying over town, dropping home made grenades and flying down the highways with a person in the passenger's seat with a NFA legal full auto hosing down the SUVs - should the myraid F-16s around here blow him up. Or should we wait till we call Obama? Or should all of us with ARs, try to shoot him down and spew rounds over the city. I'm having a hard time with a constitution/legal issue getting my shorts in a wad over the initial report. As far as precedent for them taking my guns - that surfaces here all the time. MOUT - has generated lots of conspiracy conjecture. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

March 18, 2009, 05:43 PM	#14
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	I merged two similar threads. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

March 18, 2009, 05:55 PM	#15
hogdogs Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 31, 2007 Location: Western Florida panhandle Posts: 11,069	I think the state guard is who should shoot down the piper cub! But I heard of no such attack. I also heard of no rioting and the tv station I posted link to is the one I watch most every night! The us army is BOUND not to be used against the citizens of the USofA... Brent

March 18, 2009, 05:56 PM	#16
dm1333 Senior Member Join Date: March 20, 2005 Posts: 401	Glenn E. Meyer, I don't see anybody here getting worked up about this right now but it is a matter to be concerned about. We are talking about a real issue here, that may have far reaching implications. As far as I can see YOU are the only guy bringing up the Army seizing guns or Red Dawn type scenarios. Are you trying to get us tin foil hat guys all spun up? Heck, I can't even say TFH over on THR.us now, ya gotta leave us something here!

March 18, 2009, 07:03 PM	#17
flippycat Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2009 Location: Hamilton, Ohio Posts: 213	Why draw lines in the sand if no one follows them? Those universal fit police vests could fit any of the department of public works guys, citizens, bus drivers or anyone just standing there in the rural town they were trying to traffic control. Directing traffic does not take skilled armed forces. Sending in US troops to aid a private sector matter when there is laws written against it, unless a few special circumstances apply (which seem to be not enacted in this case) is well.... simply put... breaking the law. If we as citizens are micro managed daily by laws we need to follow, why should US soilders on US soil not be bound by them as well? Because this is not the normal routine in America as we the public know, there presence could almost be constituted as Inducing Panic. "Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm." Yeah its a stretch I realize this, but so many times laws are broken by free thinkers thinking they are doing the right thing to "Aid" a situation. Did it make the situation more manageable? Sounds like it did, but that still does not make it right if there is laws against it. Maybe, just maybe the hero's of this country who now have to answer for these crimes if any are deemed "committed" will work with public outrage to over turn them? Because it was after all done for a worthy cause. Maybe just maybe people will realize this gross micro management we all face daily is just a little out of control now. __________________ Basics VS Marlboros both will kill you one just tastes better Ohios Firearm Classifieds profirearm.com

March 18, 2009, 07:52 PM	#18
azredhawk44 Junior member Join Date: September 28, 2005 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 6,465	Wow... I LOVE a good black helicopter thread and can sling conspiracy with the best of 'em... but you guys need to take a chill pill. First off, these MP's and army boys weren't armed. They were wearing duty gear but no rifles or sidearms, from what I have heard. Secondly: How is this any different than a soldier in transit on a civilian plane, who decides to subdue an unruly passenger or kill a terrorist intent on taking or destroying the aircraft? Or a military convoy that comes across a demonstration of criminal force that is swamping the capacities of law enforcement? The old west is filled with examples of the cavalry coming in to augment civilian forces, or even civilian forces augmenting the armed forces. Posse Comitatus is a wonderful doctrine, but it does not subjugate the right of Americans (yes, servicemen are Americans) to correct wrongs they encounter, at peril of their freedom or honor if done incorrectly. I personally commend these men for their decision. All they did was some traffic direction in order to free up law enforcement resources for response to the scenes of shooting. They didn't deploy as soldiers or as law enforcers... they deployed as well regulated men responding to an infrastructure problem.

March 18, 2009, 08:07 PM	#19
armsmaster270 Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2008 Location: California Posts: 1,951	Military members that get involved with civilian situations without the proper buttons being pushed ie the Gov requesting aid or the prez sending troops they will be punished. A military member cannot be deputized without orders from on high. __________________ http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/f...aster270/Guns/ Retired LE, M.P., Sr. M.P. Investigator F.B.I. Trained Rangemaster/Firearms Instructor & Armorer, Presently Forensic Document Examiner for D.H.S.

March 18, 2009, 08:11 PM	#20
flippycat Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2009 Location: Hamilton, Ohio Posts: 213	Not too hard to really tell just from the picture, but those look like sidearms to me? __________________ Basics VS Marlboros both will kill you one just tastes better Ohios Firearm Classifieds profirearm.com

March 18, 2009, 10:11 PM	#22
Wagonman Senior Member Join Date: September 11, 2008 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,014	I don't see the Black helicopters either. I am just getting the word out about a POSSIBLE problem. There is nothing wrong with ringing the bell and keeping the PTB honest.

March 18, 2009, 11:31 PM	#23
highrolls Senior Member Join Date: January 20, 2009 Location: already given Posts: 115	flippycat, I do not know if the original photo you used was clear enough to tell whether or not the military folks are wearing yellow bands that clearly say "police"? Just looking at the photo you posted suggests this is so. If so, and if they are regular army, this is really bad. I have done a lot of research into the Posse Comitatus stuff. The 1878 Act was a mandantory part of putting the Union back together after the Civil War. It came from the southern states as a result of the "jack-booted" occupation of the south by the Union Army for about twelve years, which followed immediately after Sherman "burned" his way to the Gulf coast to force the south to reject any idea of further resistance. There were a lot of bad, bitter things, not the least of which was the hard feelings of the southerners even extended to the Ford theater assassination of President Lincoln. That photo screams of something we have rarely ever seen. (By rarely, not even during both World Wars was it violated.) The original Act also contains mandatory penalties for violation. My military training covered this as well. I suspect all officers and senior NCO's of the military would react the way I have to that photo. It makes me feel that big things that are not good are coming, really a stomach sick feeling. The training comes from the professional service staff schools. If none of the guys in that photo had any concern about what they were doing, then professional military training has failed them or their superiors in the worst possible way. Glenn E. Meyer: "Should the MPs do anything, carrying official US Armed Forces firearms?" Doing so violates one of the main glues of the Union, thus is equivalent to a constitutional crisis. The way you stated the question is a good one to explain how a mistake could be made, but the penalty will hit for sure I think. "If they do, does it mean the Army is coming for my guns at a later time?" Different issue and different constitutional crisis. Maybe this will help with the second question. Oath Keepers http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com/

March 19, 2009, 02:08 AM	#24
HiBC Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2006 Posts: 8,283	I understand it was an unusual,stressful situation.A PD with a staff of 5 was overwhelmed and asked for help securing a crime scene There is a problem,as has been mentioned,and discretionary exceptions to Posse Comitatus are a problem. A serious investigation is going on,we will see what happens. Comes down to it,the oath is to the Constitution,against all enemies,foriegn and domestic. I want our military,if asked to take arms against US citizens,to say"Oh,no.We do not do that"

March 19, 2009, 03:44 AM	#25
Dust Monkey Senior Member Join Date: April 24, 2007 Posts: 723	Damn. If the 5 man dept needed help, why Army MPs? Did the Alabama State Police have too much going on. Something stinks here. Bad, bad precedent. I hope we get some answers and not some dog and pony show of an explanation. __________________ Civilian Date: 14 Century 1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law. If you are not subject to the UCMJ, you are a Civilian. I don't care one bit what updated dictionaries say.