Difference between revisions of "Talk:Opening fire"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(New page: Yes indeed, the military is forbidden by law to engage civilians within the US unless martial law is declared, they are not a police force. ~~~~)
 
(to Mark)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Yes indeed, the military is forbidden by law to engage civilians within the US unless martial law is declared, they are not a police force. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)
 
Yes indeed, the military is forbidden by law to engage civilians within the US unless martial law is declared, they are not a police force. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)
 +
 +
:Two questions:
 +
:#Does this only apply to federal forces such as the Army, or also to National Guard units under control of a state governor?
 +
:#Are you saying that the National Guard is not allowed to [[return fire]], if attacked by civilians?
 +
 +
:We need documentation for the above, as the issues involved have a bearing on the [[Kent State]] incident, as well as the [[Fallujah]] incident overseas.
 +
 +
:The obvious part is that armed men should not wantonly kill unarmed civilians, especially when they're peacefully going about their business. The difficult part is determining when this rule is being violated. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:22, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 16:22, December 1, 2008

Yes indeed, the military is forbidden by law to engage civilians within the US unless martial law is declared, they are not a police force. Markr 11:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Two questions:
  1. Does this only apply to federal forces such as the Army, or also to National Guard units under control of a state governor?
  2. Are you saying that the National Guard is not allowed to return fire, if attacked by civilians?
We need documentation for the above, as the issues involved have a bearing on the Kent State incident, as well as the Fallujah incident overseas.
The obvious part is that armed men should not wantonly kill unarmed civilians, especially when they're peacefully going about their business. The difficult part is determining when this rule is being violated. --Ed Poor Talk 11:22, 1 December 2008 (EST)