Do you think our military could fire on civilians that are demonstrating?
Answer:
Check out Kent State, when the National Guard killed students demonstrating. The students were unarmed. Several were killed
Please do check out Wikipedia, it concisely tells why the order to shoot was illegal. It took place in the quad, not the White House, and the National Guard was a distance away, not within rock throwing distance. It was such a blatant misuse of force that it caused a reexamination of tactics.
There was also the New York Draft Riots of 1863 but in that case there was significant force used on both sides. And martial law had actually been declared.
The question here is could our military fire on civilian demonstrations, not is it right or moral, and they did.
It's happened before, but today I think officers are required to exercise more restraint.
i will not take up arms against my fellow Americans
as an ex military. we were told to question orders that are contrary to our morality..before firing, we would have asked to see the order in writing as wouold be our right
Well this is not China, and yes if I was in a unit that was fired on, you bet I'd return fire.
We had that at Ohio State in 1970. Hopefully we never will again.
It would not be the first time...the National Guard fired on college students in the 60's at Kent State in Ohio for protesting the Vietnam War...killed 4.
The Ohio National Guard open fired and killed kids that were protesting the Vietnam war on the campus of Kent State University back in 1970.
I think it should also be noted that earlier the National Guard advanced upon the protesters with bayonets fixed on their weapons.
Could it happen again? I didn't think so but I never thought we'd be in another Vietnam-style war again either.
if you are given a order you do it no question's asked.butit would never be ordered and you could protest and go to the brig/ stockade until trial . but this would never happen in the usa
I would not fire. That would be an illegal order. Now if they are violating the law by doing violent acts, I would remove their brains out the back of their head!
you need to move to china
You didnt mention what kind of demonstrating, but I assume you meant non-violent. Today, there are more technologies than in the past. You can use the awesome water cannon, paintballs, rubber bullets, those bean bag bullets, tasers, tear gas, etc. Of course the military could fire on civilians in an extreme situation, but this would be VERY rare. Typically, police handle these situations. The military has fired on rioting civilians, like the national guard in Louisiana, but obviously that is very different than someone peacefully demonstrating. I would think that for bullets to fly the crowd would have to be getting extremely violent.
For some reason people keep mentioning Kent State, as if that was a non-violent protest. Almost any account will tell you that the national guard was there because the students were rioting for days and they fired because the students threw rocks and bottles at them repeatedly. This doesn't excuse what they did, but if you hit a cop in the head with a rock, don't be surprised if he shoots you.
Wow someone referenced Kent Univ., a 30+ year old incident.
Anyway in what context? Are these civilians storming the White House? Obviously if there just marching no, but if they get a little crazy...POP POP POP!
Our (USA) soldiers can kill anything, anyone.
Would you want your soldier to ignore your command? What good would a military be if soldiers used their discretion at all and any time? Soldiers are trained to obey commands.
Lots of citizens couldn't and wouldn't become soldiers because they can't commit to this promise, oath; and no, I couldn't do it.
No - there will never be a repeat of Kent State.
Besides there are too many fun, non-lethal weapons out there that disperse demonstrators quite effectively.
Well if our police force can do it, then why wouldn't the military be able to!
If the civilians are just demonstrating, no, the military should not fire on them. We had an incident in 1970 at Kent State where the military was called in, panicked and fired on unarmed students that were protesting the Vietnam war. Unless the people are destroying things, the Military will not be called in. It was the National Guard at Kent State, and believe me the Government does not want to repeat that incident.
Organized civil disobedience is a protected right under the constitution of the United States of America.Aggressive actions that infringe on others and cause harm or physical damage is not.Police are here to enforce the law buy what means are necessary.They never have the right to fire on peaceful demonstrations.
The US military would not get involved in domestic unrest. The Posse Comitatus doctrine (http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_ac... prevents it.
Please read about Kent State before you accept that the Ohio National Guard just fired on protesters. Read and understand that the ROTC Building on campus had been fire-bombed the night before. Read about the stone throwing and the crowd surging toward the Guard. Read about how the Guard had no training in crown control and should never have been there in the first place.
There was a lot of blame to go around at Kent State.
Ever hear of Kent State?
Read Michener's book on Kent State, the guard didn't have orders from high up to shoot, they paniced.
I could never be in the military, because I am a Christian, and I believe that all soldiers damn themselves by violating the commandment not to kill.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides in Article 15 that any servicemember refusing a lawful order of a superior can be courtmartialed for the offense of insubordination/refusing to obey a lawful order. It is not known who gave the order to fire at Kent State University, but this was clearly a gross violation of both civilian and military law.
On the one hand, the right of free speech is guaranteed by the
First Ammendment of the Constitution, as well as freedom of
assembly. But, these freedoms are not absolute. The government has not only the power but the duty to take such action as is necessary to preserve law and order. The government failed to do this during the rioting following the Rodney King case. This is why speech and other conduct that is done with either the intent or the reckless disregard of the possibility of inciting riot or other civil unrest is an exception to the First Ammendment freedoms. In the so called "Skokie" case, the American Nazis were suing for an injunction to allow them to
parade through the village of Skokie, which was populated largely
by survivors of the Holocaust. Despite the likelihood that unrest if not outright violence could easily have resulted, the Nazis got their permit, and only intervention by the govt at the 11th hour called the rally off.
In summary, a lawful protest is a fundemental right under law.
After all, a wise man once said that law without liberty is tyranny,
but the obverse of that is that liberty without law is anarchy. As
far as the second part of your question goes, this is the dilemna that Lt. Calley faced at My Lai during the Vietnam Conflict. Under the UCMJ, officers from the company level on up are responsible for the actions of their troops. At Kent State, far less lethal means of dispersing the protestors were available, such as tear gas. In a war zone the rules are no different. From My Lai to the
current situation in Iraq, the rules of engagement are established before any military action, and it is up to the officers to enforce them. After all, it is discipline which separates a cohesive military organization from a leaderless mob. On the other hand, Henry David Thoreau wrote extensively on the concept of civil disobedience. His theme was that a citizen, even a soldier has the option to disobey an order that they believe to be immoral.
But, the downside to that is, that person must be prepared to take the consequences of their actions.
no because we have the right to peaceful demonstrations and that would be inethinical
Absolutely not. Unless the demonstrators are rioting and then they should use nonlethal projectiles.
i wouldn't kill anyone........ but the military are trained to defend.......fight or whatever....and to obey commands.........oh_hell
I think they could and would. Apparently they will also fire at people (our own citizens) who are just trying to find something to eat. They can detain citizens in unbearably unsanitary conditions and fire at them for trying to leave. But where were they during the marches last year? Foreigners were marching in our streets demanding rights and were allowed to do so unmolested.
they can and will fire if they are given the orders to do so. i don't care what happens in china with the Chinese. let the chines govt handle that country. it's none of americas business.
The immigration information post by website user , MyTend.com not guarantee correctness