It's A Small World After All
My first reaction upon hearing that the governer of Louisiana had ordered the National Guard to shoot to kill looters, was "good."
Then I got over myself. James Joyner runs down only a few of the ways in which this is a very, very bad idea: there's a little thing called the Constitution; posse comitatus; the right to trial by jury and the presumption of innocence; and so on. Not to mention the "Jean Valjean" effect, in which it is impossible to tell whether that guy over there is after bread, water, and blood pressure meds for his mother or just a scumbag. One needs helping and the other arguably needs shooting, but since when do the scumbags wear big helpful signs reading "I Need Shooting?"
Civil society exists in order to save us from our worst and most destructive impulses, indeed it exists to channel those impulses where necessary into places where they can do the least harm. I sincerely hope that the Gulf Coast does not descend into Congolese style (or Haitian style, or what have you) anarchy. The Republic is strong, but it's not bulletproof.
on
| § 6
§ 6 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
I'm in the National Guard and
I'm in the National Guard and would have to question the legality of an order to shoot looters on sight.
I believe an order to detain looters with loose rules of engagement would be legal - shooting those that resisted arrest and / or pulled a weapon on us.
Also: the “shoot to kill thing” thing is a stupid phrase used by Hollywood and politicians. Soldiers and Marines are taught to always aim “center mass” with a rifle (I can’t speak for snipers). Whether that shot wounds or kills is the target’s problem. The only exception I was taught is using a pistol or MP5 against a target wearing body armor – in which case you aim for the legs, groin, and head.
Bram, that's interesting. And
Bram, that's interesting. And for me, reassuring. If you get called to duty (presuming you're not commenting from the field somewhere outside Kirkuk or Gulfport already), good luck.
Thanks, Not currently
Thanks, Not currently deployed so I am commenting from an office building in New Jersey.
Donald Sensing weighed in
Donald Sensing weighed in cogently on this, I think. In particular, he pointed out the huge difference between "shoot to kill" and "shoot on sight". Either gives me the willies, but the second far less than the first. See this">http://www.donaldsensing.com/index.php/2005/09/02/shoot-to-kill-orders-… entry
My own thinking on this
My own thinking on this matter has led me to a perverse conclusion: the Army or NG shooting looters would be a worse outcome than if armed civilians shot looters. Not that I want either one to happen.
As for the rescue ops, I'm right there with you, in a cafeteria discussion at least, which is all this is.
Shoot to kill is appropriate
Shoot to kill is appropriate for armed looters shooting at rescue operations.