Different missions - LEO vs Military

[GunnyGene]

A common thread, including the Ferguson biz, often revolves around the militarization of law enforcement. Just some ramblings here, and I may be wrong on one or more points, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

In the military, especially in front line combat troops, we were trained to recognize and eliminate a threat. Honor the threat is the common term for this.

As far as I know, Law Enforcement (military or civilian) is trained to manage a situation.

These two different missions, and training for them, seem to me to be at the heart of the concerns. While military units sometimes receive some basic training in crowd/riot control, that is not their primary responsibility. And conversely, law enforcement may receive some training in recognizing and eliminating a threat, but that is also not their primary mission.

This also goes to "Commanders Intent", whether that commander is a buck sargeant running a squad or the president of the country. He must make clear what his intent is - managing the situation or eliminating the threat, as everything else flows from that - planning, assignment of assets, strategy, tactics, etc.

I think people understand this at a gut level, and that is why we see objections to the militarization of law enforcement. The general population, rightfully so, does not want to think of themselves as a threat.

At the same time, politicians naturally want to manage a situation, which goes against the fundamental mission of the military to eliminate a threat. Yet they persist in calling in the military to manage the situation for domestic issues when it looks like things may get out of hand, and calling in the LE assets when eliminating the threat internationally would be the right approach.

This all causes a considerable degree of confusion within both LE and military. A lack of clarity of the mission, or the wrong assets to either manage the situation or eliminate the threat, is almost always a recipe for disaster, as I think we've seen for quite a few years.

I don't know how to reconcile this, but I do think that managing a situation, and eliminating a threat are not compatible missions either domestically or internationally.

 

[cadillo]

............but I do think that managing a situation, and eliminating a threat are not compatible missions either domestically or internationally.

I couldn't agree more!

Years ago, while an LEO and working in drug interdiction on the border I had to spend several nights in an LPOP with a few U.S. Marines. This was in California in the '90's, and I suspect that most people never knew that the military was on the border doing that sort of thing. They were there with us because they were able to bring with them some night vision equipment that was far superior to anything we had in inventory at that time.

Our post was right on the edge of an area very active in drug and illegal alien traffic, and there was always a very real possibility that some poor wetback or a group of them might unknowingly walk right into our position or even come in intentionally just to surrender and ask for water or food. Those Marines were young, alert, and full of !@#$ and vinegar, fully armed with M-16's and really, I mean really enthusiastic about being there and seeing some action. Those were some really miserable nights, as I was scared to death that some poor wetback might come up and startle them into shooting. They clearly had the mindset that anything moving out there that wasn't a Marine was a threat to their well being. While that mindset is correct for their usual mission, it's way wrong for a law enforcement operation and a recipe for disaster as demonstrated by the incident in West Texas where the Marines shot and killed the sixteen year old goat herder.

Later on, the Marines were replaced by some National Guard units. I didn't have to worry too much about them though, as except for their young lieutenant, they always slept for the entire shift, which suited me just fine.

 

[pawncop]

One of the primary missions of law enforcement is to apprehend the bad guy. We do not, nor should we ever determine their fate, unless they force us to make that decision.. That is up to the courts. Now on many occasions, the bad guy resists our efforts to apprehend them. That is where it gets sticky.

For our friends in the military, on the field of engagement, it is to destroy the bad guy. Their fate is determined by the rules of engagement and their location. When the bad guy resists on that field, it is far less sticky.

My sidearm is for my defense, or the defense of others threatened in such a manner, that deadly force is a last resort. We may carry long guns but the intent is the same. They are to be used in a defensive manner.

It is my hope this never changes, if it does, on that day I will be a retired cop.

 

[SAJohn]

I remember what the National Guard did at Kent State.

 

[Meeko]

I remember what the National Guard did at Kent State.

I will address this in the way the Guard is activated today. (as in Ferguson) They primarily will utilize MOS's/career field in a MP type. And while there were serious mistakes in some events in the past there are 2 things that have changed. the way we do buisness and the training/education of most guard members. Todays National Guard is better trained and educated to handle a disturbance than they were 30-50 years ago. There is also more defined rules of engagement/direction. The Guard is simply a force multiplyer for local LE when activated under state orders (article 32) which is legal for them to enforce laws unlike the article 10 active duty regular forces which is not legal. AKA Posse Comitatus.

No department is 100% proficient in riot control in they do not do it enough (thankfully) to be that well versed. Basics they should know but every disturbance is different.

Also as someone with 28 years of LE experience Military, municipal and Federal what some folks (even some within the LE ranks) forgets is LE's job is to create mole hills out of mountains instead of the other way around.

So to categorize todays guard on a mistake 40 some years ago is like you getting blamed for something your drunk Uncle did when he was 20. Just sayin

 

[mohavesam]

Who needs SWAT teams when a decent crop duster can disperse any (and I mean any) crowd with a couple passes.
I recommend a high-ration Capsicum mix with a oil-based bright UV dye...

 

[Selena]

Who needs SWAT teams when a decent crop duster can disperse any (and I mean any) crowd with a couple passes.
I recommend a high-ration Capsicum mix with a oil-based bright UV dye...

Sam,

You have a devious and evil mind...


I like that in a person.

 

[wheelgun1958]

The role of law enforcement is to enforce law.

 

[Fox Mike]

My old Guard unit was trained in crowd control. We were not a 'police extension'. Our job would be to move the masses from wherever they were to somewhere else and disperse them. If they got rowdy then we would be authorizes to use tear gas. Lock and load was a 'last resort' on our part.

 

[RugerHound]

The military is NOT equipped to 'manage situations'. Can you imagine what would have happened in WWI or WWII if we'd gone in to 'manage' our enemies?

Do we NOT all understand that since Korea, we have been 'managing' conflicts with our military rather than letting the military go kill people and bust things?

Someone mentioned Kent State... Well ya think? Guess what happens when you take a team that's trained to kill and destroy, and you put 'em in with an unruly bunch of college kids?

When we hear of bad stuff happening with the cops these days, more often than not it's when a police department TRIES to play military. We wind up with busted stuff and dead civilians. Gosh, how ever could a thing like THAT happen!?

Take all the military toys away from the cops and let cops be cops. If they need a military presence, then call up the bloody National Guard!

Seems simple doesn't it?

 

[Colonialgirl]

Seems simple doesn't it?

"SIMPLE", describes the intelligence of far too many of our politicians and some of our law enforcement people.

 

[Meeko]

The military is NOT equipped to 'manage situations'. Can you imagine what would have happened in WWI or WWII if we'd gone in to 'manage' our enemies?

Do we NOT all understand that since Korea, we have been 'managing' conflicts with our military rather than letting the military go kill people and bust things?

Someone mentioned Kent State... Well ya think? Guess what happens when you take a team that's trained to kill and destroy, and you put 'em in with an unruly bunch of college kids?

When we hear of bad stuff happening with the cops these days, more often than not it's when a police department TRIES to play military. We wind up with busted stuff and dead civilians. Gosh, how ever could a thing like THAT happen!?

Take all the military toys away from the cops and let cops be cops. If they need a military presence, then call up the bloody National Guard!

Seems simple doesn't it?

Hound, respectfully discussing here. The way things have changed your example is an outdated mentality that while simple is not the way it works. The Military has expanded and detailed contingency plans many of which include civil disturbance/riot control. Specifically MP or units with a LE type career field/role (ANG Security Forces) and all of them employ/train and use many less lethal items which as pointed out was not the case 40 plus years ago when the Kent State tragedy took place.

I personally have no issues with major police agencies having an armored vehicle or other equipment to a point. Small 3 member departments not so much. My reasoning is bigger cities (Dallas for example) have more for something like that for the very least delivering a throw phone to a hostage/barricaded situation and be utilized as such. Also in the worst case scenario of a Bank of America scenario. That is why every agency that didn't carry rifles now do. In times like that there is not time to activate the National Guard, remember Army Guard units.

I also have worked in LE for over 28 years for the Military,municipalities and the Feds spending time on a SWAT team so I understand just a little about 4th amendment and the use of force continuum.

That being said I understand there have been some overzealous administrators treating some citizens like subjects, my point is if utilized only in a true time of need should be nothing wrong with it.

Respectfully Meeko!

 

[exavid]

Seems to me that the military recognizes the difference between combat troops and policing. That's why we have the MPs, APs, and Shore Patrol. They are trained in handling policing duties the line troops are not. Unfortunately too many civilian police forces are given military equipment for which their duties do not require. But once you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.

 

[bobski]

this is what happens when you let program designers create video games with what they 'think its what it is or should be in life,' and people start playing these games thinking real life is really like what they are playing.
the world has turned reality into one big game with millions of experts calling the shots in a fantasy world.
and when it comes time to make real rational decisions, no one knows whats right.
law enforcement enforces law and protects people from crime.
military is to protect the populations from attack, both foriegn or domestic.
when people riot, they are threatening the population and the law.
NG goes into action when someone threatens to break law and injure population.
the NG has every right to mobilize when (groups) plan to riot and warn the world they will.

 

[GunnyGene]

It might be enlightening to review what the Official Missions of the various Branches are as they exist in current law. Note that there is no explicit mission statement that addresses any law enforcement duty or operation, etc.

I'll leave it to current and former members of the other branches to post their official missions.

Per 10 U.S. Code § 5063 - United States Marine Corps. The basic mission is expanded on, and/or tailored, for lower level organizations as required - Divisions, Expeditionary Forces, Air Wings, etc. and flowed down to sub commands.

(a) The Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall be so organized as to include not less than three combat divisions and three air wings, and such other land combat, aviation, and other services as may be organic therein. The Marine Corps shall be organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign. In addition, the Marine Corps shall provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy, shall provide security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval stations and bases, and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct. However, these additional duties may not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily organized.
(b) The Marine Corps shall develop, in coordination with the Army and the Air Force, those phases of amphibious operations that pertain to the tactics, technique, and equipment used by landing forces.
(c) The Marine Corps is responsible, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of peacetime components of the Marine Corps to meet the needs of war.

A lower level Mission for the II Expeditionary Force from: http://www.iimef.marines.mil/About/Mission.aspx

The official mission of the Marine Corps is established in the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1952.

Marines are trained, organized and equipped for Offensive amphibious employment and as a “force in readiness.” According to the Act, Marines stand prepared to meet mission requirements.

The seven elements of the Marine Corps Mission

Provide Fleet Marine Force with combined arms and supporting air components for service with the United States Fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the execution of naval campaign.
Provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy and security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval Stations and bases.
Develop, in coordination with the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the doctrine, tactics, techniques, and equipment employed by landing forces in amphibious operations.
Provide Marine forces for airborne operations, in coordination with the Army, Navy, and Air Force, according to the doctrine established by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Develop, in coordination with the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the doctrine, procedures, and equipment for airborne operations.
Expand peacetime components to meet wartime needs according to the joint mobilization plans.
Perform such other duties as the President may direct.

Note that there is no explicit mission statement that addresses any law enforcement duty or operation, etc.

I'll leave it to current and former members of the other branches to post their official missions.

It should also be recognized that the above US Code also limits a Presidents ability to reduce the size and capabilities of the the Marine Corps (and I'm sure the other Services) in several ways. To repeat from the Code: "and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct. However, these additional duties may not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily organized."

 

[Rabon]

Thanks for this thread, I find it very interesting.

 

[Meeko]

It might be enlightening to review what the Official Missions of the various Branches are as they exist in current law. Note that there is no explicit mission statement that addresses any law enforcement duty or operation, etc.

I'll leave it to current and former members of the other branches to post their official missions.

Per 10 U.S. Code § 5063 - United States Marine Corps. The basic mission is expanded on, and/or tailored, for lower level organizations as required - Divisions, Expeditionary Forces, Air Wings, etc. and flowed down to sub commands.

(a) The Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall be so organized as to include not less than three combat divisions and three air wings, and such other land combat, aviation, and other services as may be organic therein. The Marine Corps shall be organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign. In addition, the Marine Corps shall provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy, shall provide security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval stations and bases, and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct. However, these additional duties may not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily organized.
(b) The Marine Corps shall develop, in coordination with the Army and the Air Force, those phases of amphibious operations that pertain to the tactics, technique, and equipment used by landing forces.
(c) The Marine Corps is responsible, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of peacetime components of the Marine Corps to meet the needs of war.

A lower level Mission for the II Expeditionary Force from: http://www.iimef.marines.mil/About/Mission.aspx

The official mission of the Marine Corps is established in the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1952.

Marines are trained, organized and equipped for Offensive amphibious employment and as a “force in readiness.” According to the Act, Marines stand prepared to meet mission requirements.

The seven elements of the Marine Corps Mission

Provide Fleet Marine Force with combined arms and supporting air components for service with the United States Fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the execution of naval campaign.
Provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy and security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval Stations and bases.
Develop, in coordination with the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the doctrine, tactics, techniques, and equipment employed by landing forces in amphibious operations.
Provide Marine forces for airborne operations, in coordination with the Army, Navy, and Air Force, according to the doctrine established by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Develop, in coordination with the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the doctrine, procedures, and equipment for airborne operations.
Expand peacetime components to meet wartime needs according to the joint mobilization plans.
Perform such other duties as the President may direct.

Note that there is no explicit mission statement that addresses any law enforcement duty or operation, etc.

I'll leave it to current and former members of the other branches to post their official missions.

It should also be recognized that the above US Code also limits a Presidents ability to reduce the size and capabilities of the the Marine Corps (and I'm sure the other Services) in several ways. To repeat from the Code: "and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct. However, these additional duties may not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily organized."

While the main mission is defend the US that mission is completed by a smorgasbord of career fields. Infantry, logistics, maintenance, pilots, MP's engineers etc etc etc. Each has their main MOS/Career field but all contribute to complete the overall mission which you need more than infantry to fight a war.

The USMC and Navy has no National Guard only active duty and Reserve components. However he Army and Air Guard has 2 missions which make them differ from active duty and the reserve components.

The Federal mission at the discretion of the President which is in like with their wartime mission. Then the Army and Air Guard also have a State mission. The state mission is where the Governor activates the Guard under state orders. More often this is for natural disasters and weather related emergencies than civil disturbances. On state orders they are Title 32 orders so in the case of civil disturbances they can enforce laws and make arrests/detentions and it is not a violation of Posse Comitatus. Posse Comitatus only applies to title 10 active duty military.

And all 50 states/Governors have MOU's with each other that if something was to say get big (like in LA in 1992 or Ferguson in 2014) the GOV of MO can ask for help and GOV of IN, IL or wherever can activate their state guard and send them to the other state.

While in the case of civil disturbance the emphasis or thought is on MP/SP type careers there is a magnitude of support personnel that can be used as well. Medical, transportation/logistics and food services/cooks So they have quite a bit to offer.

That is one reason all the WMD teams are all Army and Air Guard title 32 AGR personnel stationed in all 50 states.

 

[Pal Val]

I was an officer of a National Guard company when Puerto Rico came under a threat of an uprising, back in 1975. We were movilized, and remained active until the threat was declared ended, a period of 3 weeks. Our installation had my supply company and two infantry companies. (My company provided logistical support to an Infantry Brigade).

A big problem ensued when the infantry came in contact with a mob of protesters. They were trained to push ahead and disperse them. I got to watch the whole incident from one of my trucks. What happened was that the protesters,numbering perhaps 30, tried to hold their ground. Not a shot was fired, but the Guardsmen put their rifle butts to fine use. The protesters who did not get picked up by the cops were picked up by ambulances. The press had a field day. It was more than 20 years until the National Guard was movilized again to deal with an emergency.

I learned a lesson that day. You don't swat a fly with a sledgehammer. Keep the military at its mission and the police at its mission, and don't mix them.

 

[GunnyGene]

I was an officer of a National Guard company when Puerto Rico came under a threat of an uprising, back in 1975. We were movilized, and remained active until the threat was declared ended, a period of 3 weeks. Our installation had my supply company and two infantry companies. (My company provided logistical support to an Infantry Brigade).

A big problem ensued when the infantry came in contact with a mob of protesters. They were trained to push ahead and disperse them. I got to watch the whole incident from one of my trucks. What happened was that the protesters,numbering perhaps 30, tried to hold their ground. Not a shot was fired, but the Guardsmen put their rifle butts to fine use. The protesters who did not get picked up by the cops were picked up by ambulances. The press had a field day. It was more than 20 years until the National Guard was movilized again to deal with an emergency.

I learned a lesson that day. You don't swat a fly with a sledgehammer. Keep the military at its mission and the police at its mission, and don't mix them.

The Siege:

"Trust me Senator, you do not want the US Army in an American City. It will not be mistaken for a Veterans Day Parade."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKVs8H3NYvM

 

[Pal Val]

You got it, Gunny! If those Guardsmen had been ordered to lock and load, it would have been a serious incident. There was a similar confrontation in 1937 in Ponce, PR. Someone fired a shot. Final count - 31 dead, several dozen wounded.