• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Equating rocks with rifles, Trump proposes radical new ROE

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,829
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
ROE: Rules of Engagement

Every service member who's been in combat knows what ROE means. Within the first 24 hours after arriving in theater, all officers were required to read the ROE as part of the inbrief.

According to this article, President Trump stated the following:

“It’s the military. I hope there won’t be that,” Trump said. “Anybody throwing stones, rocks, like they did ... to the Mexican police, where they badly hurt police and soldiers of Mexico ... we will consider that a firearm, because there’s not much difference where you get hit in the face with a rock.”

“They are throwing rocks viciously and violently. You saw that three days ago, really hurting the military," he said. “We are not going to put up with that. If they want to throw rocks at our military, our military fights back. I told them to consider it a rifle. When they throw rocks like they did at the Mexico military and police, I say consider it a rifle.”

While I cringe at his choice of words, I applaud the fact that he's standing up to the violence.

Our Second Amendment mentions "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The term "arms" includes all armaments, not just firearms. Rocks, knives, swords, axes, clubs and spears are all "arms."

Having said that, while self-defense using whatever means is available, including rocks, is indeed a right of U.S. citizens, foreign invaders are NOT "the people" i.e. U.S. citizens as clearly defined earlier in the U.S. Constitution.

Furthermore, the specified right includes "to keep" (own/possess) "and bear" (carry) "arms" doesn't include any explicit right to use them. However, the right of self defense is both implied therein as well as illuminated by the leading clause (preamble) in our Declaration of Independence which states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now, a lot of anti-2A people claim the Declaration of Independence was trumped by the Constititution. Not so! In fact, it was secured by the Constitution as clearly noted in the very next line: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Our government was instituted to secure these rights, not abolish them.

I pray for safety among the troops as they REPEL THE INVADERS.

All one need do to be convinced that they are indeed invaders, dangerous ones at that, is to watch some 200 UVA Wahoos storm the Virginia Tech football field and tear down our goalposts after being beaten by Virginia Tech 48 to NOTHING.

In closing, President Trump should have said the following:

“It’s the military. I hope there won’t be that,” Trump said. “Anybody throwing stones, rocks, like they did ... to the Mexican police, where they badly hurt police and soldiers of Mexico ... they're using armaments, which are both dangerous as well as deadly.”

“They are throwing rocks viciously and violently. You saw that three days ago, really hurting the military," he said. “We are not going to put up with that. If they want to throw rocks at our military, our military fights back. I told them to consider all rocks for what they are: arms. They're armaments. When they throw rocks like they did at the Mexico military and police, they are committing acts of violence against our troops, and our troops will respond accordingly.”

Personally, I don't consider President Trump's "new" ROE to be radical at all. It's what we've always done.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,177
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 4th EDITION (1968)
OTHERWISE. In a different manner; in another way, or in other ways. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore v. New York Life Ins. Co., D.C. Md., 14 F.Supp. 721, 726.
POSSE COMITATUS. Lat. The power or force of the county. The entire population of a county
above the age of fifteen, which a sheriff may summon to his assistance in certain cases; as to aid him in keeping the peace, in pursuing and arresting felons, etc.

BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY (1914)
POSSE COMITATUS (Lat). The power of the county. The sheriff, or other peace officer, has authority by the common law, while acting under the authority of the writ of the United States, commonwealth, or people, as the case may be, and for the purpose of preserving the public peace, to call to his aid the posse comitatus.

Title 18 U.S. Code § 1385 - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Historical and Revision Notes – See PUBLIC ACT - June 18, 1878, ch. 263, § 15, 20 Stat. 152.

CHAP. 263.-An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the flaw year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.

Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person wilfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment[.]

The Constitution of the United States - Article IV. Section 4 -
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence
.
The most important understanding of law is the definitions of words and phrases used within the law. The above defines two the terms used within the law, “posse comitatus” and “otherwise.”

The argument, in regards to the President sending military troops to the border, is that the military cannot be used directly to protect the boarder, only in a supporting role of the border patrol. Is that argument true? According to law it is not.

Title 18 U.S. Code § 1385 basically says whoever willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. Did you catch that? So, it is the person who deploys the troops, not the troops themselves.

The statute, however, has an exception. That exception is in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress. Whatever could that be? Well, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States says the United States shall protect each State against Invasion. And, an invasion is an aggression by a large number of people.

The Constitution does not say that the President shall execute the laws, but that ''he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

But, a military enlistee takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. And, just because you were discharged from the military does not mean you were discharged from your duty to support and defend the Constitution. Even without an order from the President your duty cannot be ignored.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,829
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I believe sense made a good collection of statements on your other points, so I'll let his observations stand for the moment.

But, a military enlistee takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
So do U.S. military officers. After the "will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" clause, however, they diverge.



And, just because you were discharged from the military does not mean you were discharged from your duty to support and defend the Constitution. Even without an order from the President your duty cannot be ignored.
Incorrect. You're confusing an oath with a duty.

Upon joining, we were required to swear or affirm the oath as part of our duty as a member of the Armed Forces. Upon separation, however, that duty is dissolved except for the draft and other recall to active/reserve duty, depending on one's separation status.

Furthermore, one's oath can be rescinded at any time. I knew a captain who resigned his commission after 8 years on active duty because he could no longer adhere to his oath of office. He had no active duty service commitments, so he was put on non-command administrative duty for about a month before he stepped out the door never to return.

His duty continued until his discharge. His oath ended the moment he no longer agreed with it.

On the other hand, all U.S. citizens do still have a duty to support and defend the Constitution, a fact underscored by the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America taken by all naturalized citizens. However, the entire CIS article contains no mention of the word, "duty."

This opens a discussion I've had with others about the difference between one's duty as a citizen of a country and one's duty as a member of the military.

The two are indeed different, although that difference can be subtle.

Some say, "citizens aren't required to die for the country," but they'd be overlooking the "I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law" clause of the Naturalization Oath.

So, just what is duty? And is it all the same duty? Or is there a difference between civilians and members of the military?

I submit to you that it's all the same duty, but there are different expectations and depths of commitment depending upon one's status.

My grandfather, born just after the turn of the last century, knew his duty through and through, even though he was never in the military. Many of today's youth haven't a clue. Heck, more than a few of the youth in the 1960s didn't have a clue, either.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,054
Location
here nc
I believe sense made a good collection of statements on your other points, so I'll let his observations stand for the moment.

Snipp

On the other hand, all U.S. citizens do still have a duty to support and defend the Constitution, a fact underscored by the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America taken by all naturalized citizens. However, the entire CIS article contains no mention of the word, "duty."

This opens a discussion I've had with others about the difference between one's duty as a citizen of a country and one's duty as a member of the military.

The two are indeed different, although that difference can be subtle.

Some say, "citizens aren't required to die for the country," but they'd be overlooking the "I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law" clause of the Naturalization Oath.

So, just what is duty? And is it all the same duty? Or is there a difference between civilians and members of the military?

Snipped...
I submit to you that it's all the same duty, but there are different expectations and depths of commitment.
I am truly confused when you mix the terms ‘citizens’ and ‘naturalized citizen’ and then throw in the commentary about the ‘oath for naturalized citizens’ indicating ‘citizens’ born in this country took an oath of allegiance?

When was this ‘oath of allegiance’ adminstered to those who were born in and are considered ‘citizens’ of this great nation, during the B’nai/B’not Mitzvah celebrations or Confirmation or upon entering upon one’s mission, or Bismillah or Kytme ceremonies?

So Since9, when was this ‘citizen’ oath administered to this nation’s citizens?

Oh it is of interest to note,
1. Officers are appointed
2. Their oath does not state they will obey the commands of the President nor those above them
3. They may resign at any time [I have know enlisted who did that and were hunted down and Court Martial’d]

Sorry Since9, differences exist, and they are not subtle in definition of duty, as noted, Officers, gentlemen one and all, may resign from their military duties with impunity, yet the same cannot be done by an enlisted member?

American’s aristocratic citizens and their offspring have for years gotten out of service to this country, again w/impunity.

Subtle...nawllll, quite egregious differences in duty actually exist, in the past and even in today’s society, if one is grounded in reality.

[sidebar: who/whom is ‘sense’ ? Or are you engaging in another P/A insult towards another member?]
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,829
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I am truly confused when you mix the terms ‘citizens’ and ‘naturalized citizen’ and then throw in the commentary about the ‘oath for naturalized citizens’ indicating ‘citizens’ born in this country took an oath of allegiance?
I can see that. Your confusion stems from a serious misreading. Have you considered using the quote function to "play fair" instead of mislead others?

When was this ‘oath of allegiance’ adminstered to those who were born in and are considered ‘citizens’ of this great nation, during the B’nai/B’not Mitzvah celebrations or Confirmation or upon entering upon one’s mission, or Bismillah or Kytme ceremonies?
None of the above. Is this a trick question or are you still misreading my posts? Again, the quote function will prove useful.
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
158
Location
Planet Earth
Throw a big rock at a cop and see if you don't get shot...what is so radical about stopping a lethal threat.
Depending on the size, weight, and velocity of said "thrown rock", it can be fatal too. Just because you have a firearm and they don't is no reason to put yourself at inordinate risk because of the difference in equipment.
What if, instead of a rock, they throw a "molotov cocktail", esp. if they have mixed in some styrofoam to make it a sticky gelatin?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
Location
White Oak Plantation
Depending on the size, weight, and velocity of said "thrown rock", it can be fatal too. Just because you have a firearm and they don't is no reason to put yourself at inordinate risk because of the difference in equipment.
What if, instead of a rock, they throw a "molotov cocktail", esp. if they have mixed in some styrofoam to make it a sticky gelatin?
In Ferguson Missouri, cops were getting frozen bottles of water thrown at them. Serious injuries were reported.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,829
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
In Ferguson Missouri, cops were getting frozen bottles of water thrown at them. Serious injuries were reported.
Hence my contention that arms (armaments) are all around us. Rocks, sticks, clubs...

Since banning arms is impossible, our Founding Fathers mandated the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's necessary to the security of a free state -- the only way we stand a chance against either tyranny or anarchy.
 

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
157
Location
Planet Earth
Ask the National Guard what happened at Kent State when rocks were thrown at them.
The main problem with Kent State, as with the "illegal immigrant invasion", was "disparity of force". At Kent State, there were only 100-200 students (IIRC) and maybe 20 Guardsmen.
The "invasion" is 10-30 times larger, depending on how many get to the U.S. border. How many Border Patrol agents will be there remains to be seen. Their ability to withstand this assault is also in question and the military MAY need to defend not only themselves, but the B.P. agents as well. Again, depending on how many get to the border, how many try to use the actual ports of entry and to seek legitimate asylum vs. a forcible assault, blood will be spilled, probably on both sides.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,585
Location
Granite State of Mind
Ask the National Guard what happened at Kent State when rocks were thrown at them.
None of the students killed at Kent State were closer than 75 yards from the Guardsmen. They weren't throwing rocks at anyone. One of those killed was even an ROTC student, not a protestor, and neither was another of the students killed.

"B-b-b-b-but... they feared for their lives!" Same BS excuse heard in every unjustifiable use of deadly force that winds up being ruled justified.


Cops aren't trained to defend our nation's borders. Military forces are.
No, they aren't. I would fully support our military defending our borders, but they are trained to defend other nations' borders, or to create new ones as it suits US foreign policy.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,054
Location
here nc
KBCraig, et al., sorry, as shown below, neither police, national guard, nor U.S. Military are capable of engaging this nation’s citizens when they are in a frenzy over some real or perceived injustice, these cases are ‘just’ the ethnic generated social injustice cases over the years which have resulted in citizen, NG, and others death and injuries.

1965 - watts riots: The number of people gathering increased, and the crowd of black onlookers through rocks and concrete at police. Nearly 4,000 National Guardsmen were deployed, in addition to about 1,600 police officers. Martial law was declared and a curfew implemented. More than 30,000 people participated in the riots, fighting with police, looting white-owned homes and businesses, and attacking white residents. The riots left 34 dead, more than 1,000 injured, and about 4,000 arrested.


1967 - Newark: Rioting followed for the next several nights, and the National Guard was deployed. Despite the presence of the National Guard, the violence and looting continued for three nights. The worst rioting in New Jersey's history left 26 dead, 725 injured, about 1,500 arrested, and more than $10 million in property damage.


1968 - MLK death, Riots broke out in about 125 cities following the April 4, 1968...
In Washington, violence broke out hours after the assassination. On April 5, looting, arson and attacks on police increased, and as many as 20,000 people participated in the riots. The National Guard and Marines were dispatched. The riots reached within two blocks of the White House. Twelve people were killed, more than 1,200 buildings were destroyed, and damage was tallied at $27 million, leaving the district's economy in tatters.


Rioting in Baltimore began April 5. Maryland's governor Spiro Agnew called in the National Guard, and later needed to dispatch federal troops to help control the violence and looting. Rioting continued until April 14. Seven people were killed, 700 injured, and about 4,500 were arrested.


In Chicago, rioting took place over a 28-block area in Chicago's West Side. As in other cities, rioters looted stores and homes, set buildings on fire, and broke windows. In addition to some 10,500 police officers, about 6,700 members of the National Guard and 5,000 federal troops were deployed. Eleven people were killed in the violence and 2,150 arrests were made.


1992 - Rodney King: Predominantly African American areas of Los Angeles erupted in violence, and six days of riots led to 50 deaths, thousands of arrests and an estimated one billion dollars in property damage.


2015 - Baltimore: Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency, called in the National Guard, and set a curfew as demonstrators threw rocks and cinder blocks at police and firefighters, looted stores, and set buildings and cars on fire. Fifteen police officers were injured.

Kent state’s 1970 history is mired in political and self preservation and turned into an urban legend with multiple moral(s) depending on which group recants the legends for their self-serving use(s).
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,177
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
If I'm righteously defending myself against attack or grievous bodily harm, guns against rocks is perfectly proper. The reason for the attack is irrelevant.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
Location
White Oak Plantation
... "B-b-b-b-but... they feared for their lives!" Same BS excuse heard in every unjustifiable use of deadly force that winds up being ruled justified. ...
This is due to QI and the "reasonable officer" standard employed by corrupt judges who enjoy absolute immunity.

The bottom line...you have a pistol and I start throwing rocks at you...I don't plan on stopping the rock trowing either, for whatever reason that is unknown to you...
 

Michael48632

Newbie
Joined
Sep 2, 2018
Messages
19
Location
Clare County Michigan
Rocks / Firearms

I am proud that we finally have a strong President that is letting our military be a military and not cuddlers , if there is aggression THEN our men and women in uniform need to respond with FORCE and we need to back them as if they do not have us behind them then we are letting them down for protecting us .
 
Top