Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:
I don't complain about it. Notice how the French military is involved in this hunt? It is flat out illegal for the US military to partake in domestic crime issues.

To expand on this, I'm going to add "normally" as a prefix or suffix to that last sentence.

Djones already knows what I am about to say but our international posters might not - our military is indeed normally prohibited from undertaking a civil law enforcement role. However, there are some rare exceptions in which the military can assist, and while pointing them out normally just makes you a pedantic jerk because they are so rare*, in this case since it's one of them it's probably appropriate.

To be more specific: with heavily armed gunmen of the type seen here, the governor of the state can declare a state of emergency and activate the national guard.

Additionally, the Insurrection act was expanded in 2006 to expressly allow the President to use federal troops to respond to a terrorist attack (among a few other things).

So if something like this happened in the US and it was felt that local SWAT or FBI SWAT couldn't handle it, there are numerous avenues in which regular military forces such as the Marines or a SEAL team to engage them.

*I can only think of 2 or 3 times in the last 20 years that the national guard was deployed to restore order, and only once that regular military did the same

Agreed its rare but does occur:
*New Orleans
*Ferguson.

More typically they are called out here for natural disasters.

What are you picturing for the regular military Ouze? I'm not aware of any incident.

We were involved with Katrina, but only as a Search and Rescue capacity.

Yeah, as it should be IMO. I know fairly recently NY National Guard was deployed to shovel snow in Buffalo

By the way, I know Americans think our police goes out with flowers in their hands instead of weapons against criminals. Well, they're not stupid. They are armed. We have elite forces as well and they aren't jokes. The ones deployed right now in France have nothing to be ashamed of compared with your heavy armed policemen in America. Just like yours, they can't be everywhere all the time, it's as simple as that.

In this case, let's face it, the killers were prepared. They were trained. They knew where to go. They launched an attack against a satyrical magazine and wanted to kill very specific people. They knew they were there. Even in America, your police would be caught off guard if this happened, because "normal" police isn't suited against military type terrorist attacks. Maybe they would be killed more quickly in the end...but I'm pretty sure as well their targets would already been dead before their murderers were put down.

The policemen killed in France were the same. They fell into a trap and were murdered. They didn't have a chance to call reinforcements before the killers ran off. Having guns on civilians wouldn't have helped at all. Just adding more dead if someone wanted to play hero or cow-boy.

Their purpose has already been filled. If they die, they would be martyrs. If they live...well, I'm pretty sure they know they're better off dead, in fact. At least, in America, for sure...meaning they wouldn't be afraid to leave with a big bang, making more civilian deaths just because they have nothing to lose.

So stop saying stupid things like "it wouldn't have happened if all Europeans had guns with them". It would. Having a gun doesn't mean you will be ready to use it always, all the time. Or, if you try, something tragic is more likely to happen, like your child killing you with your own weapon because you didn't see what he did for a few seconds.

I'm talking about civilians here, without a serious training and awareness about how handling a gun. I'm not talking about "common sense", because I can see that even this is lacking in many more people nowadays. The numbers of death "by accident" in America because of guns talk by themselves; civilians aren't suited nor meant to use weapons. Even if I leave this aside, civilians are certainly NOT prepared to be faced with people trained to kill and knowing exactly what they do, where they go and when they go.

About the consequences, it's already happening with the "bombs" against mosques in France; acts of "revenge" againt innocent muslims (most likely people "who look like muslims" even if they aren't at all, in fact...) without discernment. And, of course, some politician will gladly use the fear of people so that they can grab power in the end. Front National can't be more than happy with this event; it's litterally holy bread for them.

I'm quite disgusted that this happened, honestly.

 djones520 wrote:
What are you picturing for the regular military Ouze? I'm not aware of any incident.

We were involved with Katrina, but only as a Search and Rescue capacity.

The only one I can think of is the LA riots and I think that might even go back further than 20 years, to be honest.

Normal military cannot be involved in civilian police duties over here as well (well, AFAIK that is).

These guys aren't part of the normal military, their sole purpose is police duty and they answer to the same chain of command as the civilian police (the Minister of the Interior).

I think that you guys in the US don't have an equivalent police force.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
What are you picturing for the regular military Ouze? I'm not aware of any incident.

We were involved with Katrina, but only as a Search and Rescue capacity.

The only one I can think of is the LA riots and I think that might even go back further than 20 years, to be honest.

Ahh, yeah that was 1992.

 Sarouan wrote:
snip

This, pretty much.

You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
snip

This, pretty much.

You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?

As has been said repeatedly, there may not have been any difference. The armed officers may have just held them up for a minute or two before being killed. They may have wounded the guys. They may have gotten a lucky head or femoral artery shot and just dropped the guys.

No one can say with any certainty what may have happened. All we are saying is that there would have been possibilities for other things to happen, that is all.

 djones520 wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
snip

This, pretty much.

You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?

As has been said repeatedly, there may not have been any difference. The armed officers may have just held them up for a minute or two before being killed. They may have wounded the guys. They may have gotten a lucky head or femoral artery shot and just dropped the guys.

No one can say with any certainty what may have happened. All we are saying is that there would have been possibilities for other things to happen, that is all.

Except their wouldn't, because they'd have no time to react.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
snip

This, pretty much.

You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?

As has been said repeatedly, there may not have been any difference. The armed officers may have just held them up for a minute or two before being killed. They may have wounded the guys. They may have gotten a lucky head or femoral artery shot and just dropped the guys.

No one can say with any certainty what may have happened. All we are saying is that there would have been possibilities for other things to happen, that is all.

Except their wouldn't, because they'd have no time to react.

You don't know that.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?

At the very least by being able to engage the perpetrators it would have caused then to adjust their plan, possibly wounded or otherwise pinned down the perpetrators, given the other officers on the scene a chance to flank the perpetrators, and given the people in the office an opportunity to escape.
At the very least this suggestion has more advantages than disadvantages given the present scenario.

 djones520 wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
snip

This, pretty much.

You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?

As has been said repeatedly, there may not have been any difference. The armed officers may have just held them up for a minute or two before being killed. They may have wounded the guys. They may have gotten a lucky head or femoral artery shot and just dropped the guys.

No one can say with any certainty what may have happened. All we are saying is that there would have been possibilities for other things to happen, that is all.

Except their wouldn't, because they'd have no time to react.

You don't know that.

Two police officers not expecting a thing, versus two heavily armed terrorists that have been planning this for a very long time? Ehh..

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?

At the very least by being able to engage the perpetrators it would have caused then to adjust their plan, possibly wounded or otherwise pinned down the perpetrators, given the other officers on the scene a chance to flank the perpetrators, and given the people in the office an opportunity to escape.
At the very least this suggestion has more advantages than disadvantages given the present scenario.

So you think that they'd even get the chance to react? It wouldn't have mattered in the slightest. One of them was armed, and shot before he could do a thing.

 Sarouan wrote:
By the way, I know Americans think our police goes out with flowers in their hands instead of weapons against criminals. Well, they're not stupid. They are armed. We have elite forces as well and they aren't jokes. The ones deployed right now in France have nothing to be ashamed of compared with your heavy armed policemen in America. Just like yours, they can't be everywhere all the time, it's as simple as that.

In this case, let's face it, the killers were prepared. They were trained. They knew where to go. They launched an attack against a satyrical magazine and wanted to kill very specific people. They knew they were there. Even in America, your police would be caught off guard if this happened, because "normal" police isn't suited against military type terrorist attacks. Maybe they would be killed more quickly in the end...but I'm pretty sure as well their targets would already been dead before their murderers were put down.

The policemen killed in France were the same. They fell into a trap and were murdered. They didn't have a chance to call reinforcements before the killers ran off. Having guns on civilians wouldn't have helped at all. Just adding more dead if someone wanted to play hero or cow-boy.

Their purpose has already been filled. If they die, they would be martyrs. If they live...well, I'm pretty sure they know they're better off dead, in fact. At least, in America, for sure...meaning they wouldn't be afraid to leave with a big bang, making more civilian deaths just because they have nothing to lose.

So stop saying stupid things like "it wouldn't have happened if all Europeans had guns with them". It would. Having a gun doesn't mean you will be ready to use it always, all the time. Or, if you try, something tragic is more likely to happen, like your child killing you with your own weapon because you didn't see what he did for a few seconds.

I'm talking about civilians here, without a serious training and awareness about how handling a gun. I'm not talking about "common sense", because I can see that even this is lacking in much many more people nowadays. The numbers of death "by accident" in America because of guns talk by themselves; civilians aren't suited nor meant to use weapons.

About the consequences, it's already happening with the "bombs" against mosques in France; acts of "revenge" againt innocent muslims without discernment. And, of course, some politician will gladly use the fear of people so that they can grab power in the end. Front National can't be more than happy with this event; it's litterally holy bread for them.

I'm quite disgusted that this happened, honestly.

Actually I didn't know they were unarmed until this happened.
Have there been bombs against mosques reported? I have not seen that reported here.

 Frazzled wrote:


Actually I didn't know they were unarmed until this happened.
Have there been bombs against mosques reported? I have not seen that reported here.

I recall hearing someone threw a grenade inside one.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
You guys do realise that it's pretty hard for an armed officer to take his weapon and kill a man in a kevlar vest armed with an ak-47 that suddenly appears before he gets shot, right?

At the very least by being able to engage the perpetrators it would have caused then to adjust their plan, possibly wounded or otherwise pinned down the perpetrators, given the other officers on the scene a chance to flank the perpetrators, and given the people in the office an opportunity to escape.
At the very least this suggestion has more advantages than disadvantages given the present scenario.

Well its not a question of escape really, the unarmed officers arrived at the scene when the shooting was happening/already happened. The one that was armed and present is amongst the dead in the office.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Have there been bombs against mosques reported? I have not seen that reported here.

This has been the image the BBC and other media have shown in regards to actions against muslims so far (spoilered for size).

Hopefully this and other events will not lead to more freedoms being trampled on by our governments in the name of keeping us safe.

Seems they hit a gas station after switching cars. If i were them I'd switch cars again

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30721677





Armed robbery is noisy. Personally, I'd have gotten a haircut, and simply paid in cash. Nobody notices that, and a shave and a haircut can be pretty effective in changing your appearance.

12 French-Canadian newspapers (including the biggest names) have decided to show support to the fallen and reproduced one of the most controversial depiction of Mohamet on their front page. In it, you can see the prophet of Islam shaking his head and lamenting "it's hard to be loved by morons".

I was wondering if you had heard of any similar initiatives?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Hopefully this and other events will not lead to more freedoms being trampled on by our governments in the name of keeping us safe.

I think thats a given.

At the minimum, we'll see more militarization of the Police, more Police being armed.

 djones520 wrote:

As has been said repeatedly, there may not have been any difference. The armed officers may have just held them up for a minute or two before being killed. They may have wounded the guys. They may have gotten a lucky head or femoral artery shot and just dropped the guys.

No one can say with any certainty what may have happened. All we are saying is that there would have been possibilities for other things to happen, that is all.

Say that to your two New-Yorker policemen being ambushed by someone prepared to kill http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-12/21/c_133869528.htm. I'm pretty sure they would tell you how easy it is not to be caught off guard. Oh wait, they can't...they're dead.

You can build Rome in one day with your "if". Reality tells you something else, always. Sadly.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
12 French-Canadian newspapers (including the biggest names) have decided to show support to the fallen and reproduced one of the most controversial depiction of Mohamet on their front page. In it, you can see the prophet of Islam shaking his head and lamenting "it's hard to be loved by morons".

I was wondering if you had heard of any similar initiatives?

Quite a few newspapers have done cartoons. One Danish newspaper printed the same cartoon as you mentioned on their front page. Several large Dutch papers are doing cartoons as well, one has one of the last cartoons that was drawn and another has a front page cartoon where a Muslim is french-kissing (quite intense makeout session) Charlie. Same goes for Belgian newspapers as far as I have seen.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
So you think that they'd even get the chance to react? It wouldn't have mattered in the slightest. One of them was armed, and shot before he could do a thing.

And did the other have time to react?

 Sarouan wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

As has been said repeatedly, there may not have been any difference. The armed officers may have just held them up for a minute or two before being killed. They may have wounded the guys. They may have gotten a lucky head or femoral artery shot and just dropped the guys.

No one can say with any certainty what may have happened. All we are saying is that there would have been possibilities for other things to happen, that is all.

Say that to your two New-Yorker policemen being ambushed by someone prepared to kill http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-12/21/c_133869528.htm. I'm pretty sure they would tell you how easy it is not to be caught off guard. Oh wait, they can't...they're dead.

You can build Rome in one day with your "if". Reality tells you something else, always. Sadly.

Again - it's not a comparable situation. The NYPD officers were the TARGET of the attack. The officers in France were not the target of the attack.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


Again - it's not a comparable situation. The NYPD officers were the TARGET of the attack. The officers in France were not the target of the attack.

That's what you are saying.

The killers went into a patrol. They went for the killing purposedly. By the way, so that you know, Charlie Hebdo, the target, was under police protection because of former threats.

For the policewoman in Paris, it was a target. By someone else. Another killer, who fled. She was killed in the back without hesitation.

So yes, it's a comparable situation. I know it disturbs you in your "guns always protect the people who hold them" credo, but that's reality. Holding a weapon doesn't prevent you from being murdered.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Seems they hit a gas station after switching cars. If i were them I'd switch cars again

Spoiler:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30721677

Armed robbery is noisy. Personally, I'd have gotten a haircut, and simply paid in cash. Nobody notices that, and a shave and a haircut can be pretty effective in changing your appearance.

Seems a bit incompetent, given how meticulously planned the rest of their actions have been. Did they really just forget to plan ahead for Escape funds? Why risk an armed robbery with an extremely high profile and intense man hunt underway when they could have had bags of cash stashed somewhere?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Hopefully this and other events will not lead to more freedoms being trampled on by our governments in the name of keeping us safe.

Good luck with that; it's certainly not how it usually goes with us.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Seems a bit incompetent, given how meticulously planned the rest of their actions have been. Did they really just forget to plan ahead for Escape funds? Why risk an armed robbery with an extremely high profile and intense man hunt underway when they could have had bags of cash stashed somewhere?

With the attention from police, and a close relative in police custody then their hand may have been forced and they had to improvise alternatives.

I was under the impression that French police were able to decide whether or not they wanted to carry a sidearm.

As to all the guns=murder posts, guns are tools. Nothing more. Carrying a gun, which I do at almost all times, gives me options that unarmed people don't have.