What is wrong with this picture?

[Jocassee]

Cops and marines cross-training for "integration."

http://www2.wnct.com/news/2012/aug/23/8/marines-civilian-police-officers-conduct-urban-tra-ar-2542928/

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Nothing to see here. Move along

[Blakenzy]

I see.... So what's the protocol to pass a Marine checkpoint with out getting your vehicle "lit up" on your way to work?

I figure I better start off learning the easy way...

[kgbsquirrel]

"I think it's always good when you get an opportunity to work on some similar tactics and procedures so that everybody's kind of operating on the same page. That way when you bring teams together from active duty and the  civilian side, it makes the integration a whole lot smoother."

*twitch*  Anyone else remembering the 25% of marines that answered "yes, I would shoot at Americans if ordered"?

[Jamie B]

*twitch*  Anyone else remembering the 25% of marines that answered "yes, I would shoot at Americans if ordered"?

Oh crap, no!

[Jocassee]

I am not ashamed to admit that stuff like this bothers me far, far more than the potential re-election of Obama. Stuff like this is far more insidious and much more important when it all comes down to the wire.

[dm1333]

*twitch*  Anyone else remembering the 25% of marines that answered "yes, I would shoot at Americans if ordered"?

Yeah, I'm remembering that it was a poll given on ONE base, way back in 1995, and that it was in response to a very specific question.  How 'bout we not paint Marines or the military in general with such a broad brush?



"The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government."



"The survey results: 42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion. In one of the footnotes appearing in his thesis, Cunningham quotes comments placed by some of the Marines next to their answers to this question: "What about the damn Second Amendment? … I feel this is a first in communism! … Read the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen." "I would not even consider it. The reason we have guns is so that the people can overthrow the gov’t when or if the people think the gov’t is too powerful." "Freedom to bear arms is our Second Amendment. If you take our Amendments away then you can take this job and stick it where the sun don’t shine! … It is a right to own firearms for defense (2nd Amendment); I would fight for that right!"
Based on the disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines, Cunningham concluded that "a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd/29palms-mcmanus.htm

[brimic]

Why don't they start with the Marine Corps teaching the NYPD how to shoot?

[RevDisk]

Uhm. The basic theory of the military, including Marines, is to stop the enemy. This is primarily accomplished through killing them. Basic theory of police is to safeguard the communities, handle felony crimes, etc. Killing is supposed to be a last use priority. Because it is the opposite of their primary focus, which is saving lives and promoting order. Again, yes, both of these are the theories.

Police and the military should be kept very far apart.

[Blakenzy]

Don't mind the black helicopters...

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/19379303/military-helicopters-to-train-over-twin-cities

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jep7NhJM070

But seriously, what exactly are they gearing up for? Military operations on US soil are a given now.

News anchor's closing comment:

I think it's pretty cool...

 

[Jamie B]

Uhm. The basic theory of the military, including Marines, is to stop the enemy. This is primarily accomplished through killing them. Basic theory of police is to safeguard the communities, handle felony crimes, etc. Killing is supposed to be a last use priority. Because it is the opposite of their primary focus, which is saving lives and promoting order. Again, yes, both of these are the theories.

Police and the military should be kept very far apart.

Agreed....true.....scary.....future reality.

[kgbsquirrel]

Yeah, I'm remembering that it was a poll given on ONE base, way back in 1995, and that it was in response to a very specific question.  How 'bout we not paint Marines or the military in general with such a broad brush?

I'm not painting the marines or military in general... just 25% of them. Do you have reason to believe that sampling would have been different if the survey was conducted at Camp Lejune instead of 29 Palms?

[dm1333]

I'm not painting the marines or military in general... just 25% of them. Do you have reason to believe that sampling would have been different if the survey was conducted at Camp Lejune instead of 29 Palms?

This is what you said:

*twitch*  Anyone else remembering the 25% of marines that answered "yes, I would shoot at Americans if ordered"?

Your post implies that 25% of Marines would shoot at Americans if ordered.  In reality 300 Marines at 29 Palms were given this 40 question quiz and about 25% of them said they would shoot at Americans under some pretty specific conditions.  You are painting Marines and the military in general with a broad brush by leaving out the fact that it was only 75 Marines who answered that if ordered to they would shoot at Americans who were a) ordered to turn in all their guns, and b) were given a 30 day grace period and c) they ignored that grace period and that d) this all happened back in 1994 or 95.

I never would have answered the question the way those Marines did and I'm not defending them at all, but by the same token I think your statement is misleading.  There were about 175,000 Marines back then, so in reality about 0.02 % of Marines answered that way.

[Blakenzy]

What has changed since 1995 that would make Marines less likely to fire on Americans?

That's an honest, no-sarcasm question, as in I would really like to be informed.

[kgbsquirrel]

This is what you said:

Your post implies that 25% of Marines would shoot at Americans if ordered.  In reality 300 Marines at 29 Palms were given this 40 question quiz and about 25% of them said they would shoot at Americans under some pretty specific conditions.  You are painting Marines and the military in general with a broad brush by leaving out the fact that it was only 75 Marines who answered that if ordered to they would shoot at Americans who were a) ordered to turn in all their guns, and b) were given a 30 day grace period and c) they ignored that grace period and that d) this all happened back in 1994 or 95.

I never would have answered the question the way those Marines did and I'm not defending them at all, but by the same token I think your statement is misleading.  There were about 175,000 Marines back then, so in reality about 0.02 % of Marines answered that way.

That didn't answer my question, so I shall repeat it.

For what reason should we infer that these 300 marines represent an abnormal sampling of the Corps and that a different sampling at a different base would render a different percentile?

It is intellectually dishonest to postulate that none of the non-tested 174,700 marines at the would shoot Americans under those specific circumstances simply because they were not tested. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Hawkmoon]

Basic theory of police is to safeguard the communities, handle felony crimes, etc.

Basic theory of police is to take after-the-fact statements and after-the-fact photographs, and to write after-the-fact reports documenting that a possible crime appears to have been committed by person or persons unknown. "Safeguarding the community" is not part of the program, it's just something the sign guys like to paint on patrol cars.

Police and the military should be kept very far apart.

On this I agree whole-heartedly. Posse commitatus and all that.

[dm1333]

What has changed since 1995 that would make Marines less likely to fire on Americans?

That's an honest, no-sarcasm question, as in I would really like to be informed.

I can't speak for any of the people who answered that survey or anybody who is on active duty right now, except for myself.  What I'm objecting to is the implication that 25% of Marines would fire on Americans if ordered to. 

*twitch*  Anyone else remembering the 25% of marines that answered "yes, I would shoot at Americans if ordered"?

[/b]

The statement kgbsquirrel made was not accurate.  0.02% of Marines said they would do it. 

I'm not painting the marines or military in general... just 25% of them. Do you have reason to believe that sampling would have been different if the survey was conducted at Camp Lejune instead of 29 Palms?

It wasn't 25% of Marines that answered that way, it was a total of 75 individuals.  Out of a total of about 175,000. 0.02% of the Marine Corps. I could be wrong about the total number of Marines on active duty at the time, feel free to quibble about that.  But the fact remains that about 75 Marines answered the question that way.  If you guys can't wrap your heads around the fact that this small sample doesn't represent the Marine Corps or all of the rest of the military I got nothing for you.  I'm just trying to throw in a few facts into this discussion to counter the statements you have been making. 

[Hawkmoon]

For what reason should we infer that these 300 marines represent an abnormal sampling of the Corps and that a different sampling at a different base would render a different percentile?

It is intellectually dishonest to postulate that none of the non-tested 174,700 marines at the would shoot Americans under those specific circumstances simply because they were not tested. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You are correct. A sampling of 300 out of a total population of +/- 175,000 is large enough to be statistically significant, especially when the population is fairly uniform. (No pun intended.) IMHO, even 75 Marines saying they would shoot at Americans for defending their Constitutional rights is 75 Marines too many.

[lupinus]

Hell, 1 is to many.

[Hawkmoon]

It wasn't 25% of Marines that answered that way, it was a total of 75 individuals.  Out of a total of about 175,000. 0.02% of the Marine Corps. I could be wrong about the total number of Marines on active duty at the time, feel free to quibble about that.  But the fact remains that about 75 Marines answered the question that way.  If you guys can't wrap your heads around the fact that this small sample doesn't represent the Marine Corps or all of the rest of the military I got nothing for you.

But it was not 75 out of 175,000 -- it was 75 out of 300. The make-up of Marine Corps units is basically pretty much the same, so a survey of one unit is broadly representative of the overall Corps.

By your logic, all political polls are invalid because they don't ask every single registered voter in the country who they're going to vote for. That's not how surveys get done. A sampling -- a percentage -- of the overall population is polled. The goal is to have the make-up of the sample group be as representative of the make-up of the overall population as possible. If Gallop surveys 250,000 people on how they're going to vote, and the result is 45% Romney and 46% Obama, plus or minus 3% either way -- do you reject that poll because Gallop didn't call up all 314,262,648 people in the United States?

[kgbsquirrel]

But it was not 75 out of 175,000 -- it was 75 out of 300. The make-up of Marine Corps units is basically pretty much the same, so a survey of one unit is broadly representative of the overall Corps.

By your logic, all political polls are invalid because they don't ask every single registered voter in the country who they're going to vote for. That's not how surveys get done. A sampling -- a percentage -- of the overall population is polled. The goal is to have the make-up of the sample group be as representative of the make-up of the overall population as possible. If Gallop surveys 250,000 people on how they're going to vote, and the result is 45% Romney and 46% Obama, plus or minus 3% either way -- do you reject that poll because Gallop didn't call up all 314,262,648 people in the United States?

Was going to type up something along the same lines as this. By the bye, those "statistically significant" political polls are generally around 1000-1500 people, not a quarter million. Or, roughly 0.00042% of the population. Compared to our common political polls the 29 Palms query was a huge (0.02%) representative sampling.


If it makes you feel better, here: I acknowledge that 75 marines out of a sampling of 300 acknowledged they would shoot Americans who refused to relinquish their firearms after a federally mandated grace period.

Now, based on this sampling of 0.02% of the USMC at the time, I shall infer that roughly one quarter of the USMC is willing to follow unconstitutional orders, and/or shoot American citizens on American soil.

[zxcvbob]

Was going to type up something along the same lines as this. By the bye, those "statistically significant" political polls are generally around 1000-1500 people, not a quarter million. Or, roughly 0.00042% of the population. Compared to our common political polls the 29 Palms query was a huge (0.02%) representative sampling.


If it makes you feel better, here: I acknowledge that 75 marines out of a sampling of 300 acknowledged they would shoot Americans who refused to relinquish their firearms after a federally mandated grace period.

Now, based on this sampling of 0.02% of the USMC at the time, I shall infer that roughly one quarter of the USMC is willing to follow unconstitutional orders, and/or shoot American citizens on American soil.

I don't think we have to worry too much about military.  A large percentage of them will be on our side; the unit will collapse into KAOS.  The bigger threat is the huge and ever-growing federal police force -- and whatever local cops choose to join them.

[dm1333]

You guys are talking about polls conducted by professionals!  I'm talking about a poll made up by a Navy LCDR.  Either of you ever been in the Navy?  I'm not knocking 0-4's as a whole but you get a pretty broad spectrum of performance at that level.