"Soldiers Arrest Civilians in Homestead"

[TheKnight]

Camp Pendelton is huge, They lose their own people on base there. I would hate to be the guy who says "Ma'am, I'm sorry we sent your son into a situation in which he had no local knowledge or communications and he was shot by authorities."

I don't think anyone would want to be that guy. However, I would be willing to accept the results of the action if the difference was standing by and doing nothing when U.S. citizens' lives were in danger and I could have done something to stop it.

Like sending a SEAL to do a boarding of a recreational vessel...not needed, not the proper training or approach to be used on a civilian U.S. population.

Frankly, as much as I like the military, I don't need the military knocking on my door at my house, within the borders of this country. Stay on base or join a real police department.

That's understandable. It is what it is. I agree with you that the military doesn't get the training necessary to deal with civilian law enforcement concerns on a consistent or regular basis, but in certain situations even the military's training would be better then simply doing nothing.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I don't think anyone would want to be that guy. However, I would be willing to accept the results of the action if the difference was standing by and doing nothing when U.S. citizens' lives were in danger and I could have done something to stop it.



That's understandable. It is what it is. I agree with you that the military doesn't get the training necessary to deal with civilian law enforcement concerns on a consistent or regular basis, but in certain situations even the military's training would be better then simply doing nothing.

I certainly understand the point you're making, but there are issues with it (in addition to it being illegal). Now let's say MPs or security forces respond and shoot the wrong guy....maybe they shoot a civilian or maybe an undercover officer who was working that case...

 

[TheKnight]

I certainly understand the point you're making, but there are issues with it (in addition to it being illegal). Now let's say MPs or security forces respond and shoot the wrong guy....maybe they shoot a civilian or maybe an undercover officer who was working that case...

If they have information telling them a life is in immanent danger, they are closer and able to respond with more resources then the local civilian agency, and what you describe does happen, then it was an unfortunate consequence of the situation, but a forgivable one nonetheless.

It's the kind of decision law enforcement have to make everyday. People make mistakes. When it comes time to make a decision regarding something that may be against the rules or the law, you have to consider what it is you're planning on doing, why, and whether or not the result of the action you plan to take is worth it.

Granted, you must also be willing to accept whatever consequences may come as a result of your action, should that be prison, a lawsuit, or whatever.


I personally don't see fear of liability as being a good enough reason to stop yourself from helping someone that needs it. But that's just my personal view. Other can and do disagree.

 

[JMC0759]

LITS - you are probably right about the radios. They are probably encrypted and that's why we can't hear them.

Knight - I am taking a small step backward on your statement about California giving an officer state wide policing authority. I am licensed by the State of Texas but my policing power comes from my municipality where I am sworn and certified. The only officers that have greater "authority" are deputies in their own county and then state troopers and game gardens that have state wide jurisdiction. I find it a little difficult to believe that an officer in California can enforce any law anywhere in the state, but I have been wrong many times on this site.

But we are way off track. MP's and anybody else should do everything that they can to protect life but what about a property crime? Shoplifter? Drunk Driver? We had an off-duty officer tailing a DWI in his POV. The drunk thought he was being chased and evaded and killed two people. Who do you think was sued on that one? The MP's should be careful because if something does go wrong they better have somebody higher in the food chain backing up their decision and protecting them. Actions that you make in a split second can get you in front of a grand jury months later and maybe a civil jury.

We will always accept help from other agencies but they need to be careful when they are out of their balliwick.

 

[TheKnight]

Knight - I am taking a small step backward on your statement about California giving an officer state wide policing authority. I am licensed by the State of Texas but my policing power comes from my municipality where I am sworn and certified. The only officers that have greater "authority" are deputies in their own county and then state troopers and game gardens that have state wide jurisdiction. I find it a little difficult to believe that an officer in California can enforce any law anywhere in the state, but I have been wrong many times on this site.

It's not just California, but also Nevada and Arizona that have similar laws. Texas is actually the example I give when explaining the difference of how jurisdiction is handled by different states because it is the only state where I know for sure that the officers don't have statewide authority. I think it is the same for New York too, but I am not sure.

In general, it is simple etiquette to only enforce the law in the area you work. However if you work in LA and want to make an arrest in San Diego, it's not illegal or prohibited. It's weird and you might get questionable looks, but it's not illegal. In fact, it's within your legal power to do so.

One cannot be a sworn peace officer in California unless certified by the State. This commonality of the standards for training result in a nearly contiguous method of operation between different departments when it comes to enforcing laws.

But I digress.

But we are way off track. MP's and anybody else should do everything that they can to protect life but what about a property crime?

I don't think they should do whatever they can, but whatever is reasonable.

Shoplifter? Drunk Driver? We had an off-duty officer tailing a DWI in his POV. The drunk thought he was being chased and evaded and killed two people. Who do you think was sued on that one?

I don't think the possibility of a lawsuit should inspire fear and inaction. I've seen how that can royally ruin a situation. Lawsuits are not messages from God. They're complaints. And I could not imagine why a human being would neglect to do something that could save lives out of fear of a complaint from someone immature. Any court that blames someone for the damages caused by a criminal when the person was attempting to enforce the law is, in my opinion, a foolish court.

The MP's should be careful because if something does go wrong they better have somebody higher in the food chain backing up their decision and protecting them. Actions that you make in a split second can get you in front of a grand jury months later and maybe a civil jury.

There's concern for the law, and then there's basic human decency. When the two are at conflict, I think the law should yield. But then again, if I were the MP or cop who tried to help I would graciously accept whatever lawsuit came against me and should I lose the lawsuit, I would happily pay whatever was required of me by the court. Certain things are more important then my material happiness or general comfort.

 

[LineInTheSand]

If they have information telling them a life is in immanent danger, they are closer and able to respond with more resources then the local civilian agency, and what you describe does happen, then it was an unfortunate consequence of the situation, but a forgivable one nonetheless.

Rarely do federal actions that result in a civilian loss of life receive acceptance in the community as a "forgivable" mistake. No, the community would say that the MPs overstepped their authority, broke U.S. federal laws, and endangered the public....and they would be correct.

 

[TheKnight]

Rarely do federal actions that result in a civilian loss of life receive acceptance in the community as a "forgivable" mistake. No, the community would say that the MPs overstepped their authority, broke U.S. federal laws, and endangered the public....and they would be correct.

When criminals are attempting to take lives, the public is already in danger. If there is a reasonable expectation that the MPs actions will be successful in stopping the criminal, then why shouldn't they step in? Because the community won't like it? Because a law passed in 1878 prohibits it? Because there may be negative consequences for the MPs? What kind of life saver thinks about those things when a life is in danger?

I understand the logic you present. Some people would prefer that those who wish to do innocent people harm be left alone until the proper authority comes along to stop them. I wholeheartedly disagree. Enforcement of the law is everyone's responsibility. Sworn law enforcement exist because a consistent and dedicated force is necessary to maintain law and order. However, the country belongs to all of us. The law being broken is not the police's problem, it is the problem of every person who believes in the ideals of the nation's founding and who pay taxes to ensure that such problems are taken care of.

Realistically the police cannot be everywhere. Successful crime fighting requires the assistance of the public. Usually this only takes shape in the form of calling 911 when a crime happens or being a good witness. But sometimes a person may be required to step above and beyond that simple duty. To fear or even consider a lawsuit as a reason to do nothing it to say that you value the result of a lawsuit more than you value the ideals of the nation, the values of the laws that are enacted, and your place as a citizen in the country.

I understand it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree, but this is how I see it. There is a reason that the new "fad" in law enforcement is Community Policing, the idea that we all are affected by the commission of a crime. It's because it is better for society when everyone is willing to step up to stop criminal activity. If it's left to the "proper authority" then nothing will change.

 

[LineInTheSand]

When criminals are attempting to take lives, the public is already in danger. If there is a reasonable expectation that the MPs actions will be successful in stopping the criminal, then why shouldn't they step in? Because the community won't like it? Because a law passed in 1878 prohibits it? Because there may be negative consequences for the MPs? What kind of life saver thinks about those things when a life is in danger?

Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.

What vacuum of a world is this happening in? One where they won't make mistakes? One when SOMEHOW the local base is called (and if you've ever tried to find the right person on a base, you know how impossible that is) before the local police?

Are we talking about a world where the police are completely absent, but somehow the MPs (who have no GPS in their cars), are going to get on their encrypted radios, talk on their secure radios, and end up at the location of a crime?

The AF security forces in the article were not just "happening" upon "bad guys"....they were being used.

And yes, if following federal laws and staying in the correct AOR means the PROPER AUTHORITY gets there a little later, I am far more willing to accept that (and likely a local base commander) than some MPs running out and shooting the wrong person.


As much as we all like to get the "warm and fuzzies" about members of the military doing what they do, the thought of having a uniformed member enforcing domestic laws should not only feel wrong to you, it should make you angry. There are protections against this for a reason. It may be the fact that Use of Force for a soldier in Afghanistan, when address a suspicious person may be VERY DIFFERENT than their approach to an American (who is innocent until proven guilty.) If I had a soldier knock me down on the street of DC as I reached for my cell phone, and he was acting in an official capacity, I wouldn't think twice about taking it to court.

If the AF security forces want to enforce laws at the Circle K...either quit the AF and join the police or go reserves and join the police....both ways require them actually JOINING THE POLICE.

 

[LineInTheSand]

If it's left to the "proper authority" then nothing will change.

Often when people step up, in the way of the proper authority (the guys with the training, the guns, and the knowledge of how to "do it"), they become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Solution? Tell the guys who know what they're doing something happened. Someone being held up at gun point? Don't need average Joe running out say "that's wrong and I'm taking a stand."

Again, that's a different situation than having the military enforcing U.S. domestic law. Not their place. No matter how much we want to call them heroes, and talk about honor or courage...there is a place for them to do that in an official capacity...and it's not on the street corner, unless they're Marines and they're collecting Toys for Tots.

 

[TheKnight]

Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.

What vacuum of a world is this happening in? One where they won't make mistakes? One when SOMEHOW the local base is called (and if you've ever tried to find the right person on a base, you know how impossible that is) before the local police?

Are we talking about a world where the police are completely absent, but somehow the MPs (who have no GPS in their cars), are going to get on their encrypted radios, talk on their secure radios, and end up at the location of a crime?

The AF security forces in the article were not just "happening" upon "bad guys"....they were being used.

And yes, if following federal laws and staying in the correct AOR means the PROPER AUTHORITY gets there a little later, I am far more willing to accept that (and likely a local base commander) than some MPs running out and shooting the wrong person.


As much as we all like to get the "warm and fuzzies" about members of the military doing what they do, the thought of having a uniformed member enforcing domestic laws should not only feel wrong to you, it should make you angry. There are protections against this for a reason. It may be the fact that Use of Force for a soldier in Afghanistan, when address a suspicious person may be VERY DIFFERENT than their approach to an American (who is innocent until proven guilty.) If I had a soldier knock me down on the street of DC as I reached for my cell phone, and he was acting in an official capacity, I wouldn't think twice about taking it to court.

If the AF security forces want to enforce laws at the Circle K...either quit the AF and join the police or go reserves and join the police....both ways require them actually JOINING THE POLICE.

I agree it shouldn't be official policy with the current laws.

I'm just saying that I don't disagree with military intervention. Civilians get angry when civilian LE uses force against them when they feel it is unwarranted, and they sue. In fact, cops get sued a lot. Even if they were totally in the right. Even if they win the case. Even if the person has no standing. Cops still get sued.

If I were an MP, I would much rather be the subject of an article headlined "MPs accidentally shoot unarmed civilian" than that of one headlined "MPs stood by and did nothing when a civilian life was in danger."

Often when people step up, in the way of the proper authority (the guys with the training, the guns, and the knowledge of how to "do it"), they become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Solution? Tell the guys who know what they're doing something happened. Someone being held up at gun point? Don't need average Joe running out say "that's wrong and I'm taking a stand."

Often times they do get in the way. However, often enough times their interference completely changes the situation for the better. Often enough for it to be worthwhile and encouraged (as many departments do so long as the interference is reasonable--IE it is not reasonable to run unarmed at someone who is armed).

Again, that's a different situation than having the military enforcing U.S. domestic law. Not their place. No matter how much we want to call them heroes, and talk about honor or courage...there is a place for them to do that in an official capacity...and it's not on the street corner, unless they're Marines and they're collecting Toys for Tots.

Honor and courage aren't things we do only in an official capacity, they are ingrained parts of who we are. Character doesn't stop when you go home for the day. The sole fact that they work for the military does not allow them to forgo their responsibility first and foremost as free citizens of this country, every bit as responsible for the welfare of our society as every other citizen.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I believe the headline would read something like

"AREA SOLDIER COURT-MARTIALED AFTER SHOOTING OF LOCAL: Base MP Guilty of Violating Posse Comitatus Sent to Jail"


Followed by "MILITARY SHOOTING VICTIM'S FAMILY AWARDED $10M"

And then of course....who got to try the shooting? Locals have jurisdiction too.


These values you speak of are universal, and yet OODs of ships are instructed, if they are in a port and see a disturbance on the land, they secure the ship, they don't run off into the sunset as the hero.

It's not "official policy" because it's AGAINST THE LAW!

I'm sure some of us know a few MPs, and know their general love of "proving themselves"....do it on base, write a ticket or two....

 

[LineInTheSand]

The sole fact that they work for the military does not allow them to forgo their responsibility first and foremost as free citizens of this country, every bit as responsible for the welfare of our society as every other citizen.

Actually, yes, I believe it does in fact restrict them from running off. They are first and foremost members of the U.S. military (which you will find make for far less "free"). Because they are in uniform and armed they are no longer acting as citizens. They can just call "time out, I'm a civilian"...."time in, now I'm military again". They are subjected to different laws, including Posse Comitatus and the UCMJ.

 

[TheKnight]

Actually, yes, I believe it does in fact restrict them from running off. They are first and foremost members of the U.S. military (which you will find make for far less "free"). Because they are in uniform and armed they are no longer acting as citizens. They can just call "time out, I'm a civilian"...."time in, now I'm military again". They are subjected to different laws, including Posse Comitatus and the UCMJ.

Maybe that's the problem. But I understand. This was a good discussion.