U.S. Soldiers now raiding U.S. gun shops

[jeremy]

One engaged in military service. That's what it says. A person engaged in military service. That's the definition. It may especially refer to those in the "army", but it certainly does NOT exclude other areas of the military, by definition.

How do you like it when someone calls you boy?!

Personally, abuse the Term Soldier as much as you like, I quit being a Soldier in '95 when I became a Trooper...

 

[steveh_131]

You are saying that it should be illegal for members of a military branch, tasked with investigating criminal matters that occur within that branch, to employ police powers with regards to an investigation that began with a theft of military property from a military facility, simply because that military property now resides outside a military facility?

Really...

Yes. Do you think that military forces should be used to police U.S. citizens? I personally think it's unnecessary, and could lead to a slippery slope that should be avoided.

It most certainly is, or I would not have offered it. That's one problem with analogies, though; someone will take issue with them. Not interested in playing "yes it is"-"no it isn't", or the old thinking you're winning an argument by getting in the last word.

Read the post again in its entirety. Strike that line if you have to. That was as mild and diplomatic as I know how to make it. Any further arguing will only dig your hole deeper.

You're right, I'm done with this argument. Rambone's title was accurate according to Webster's definition of the word. That's all there is to it.

I've absorbed the added information and will make use of it in future references to members of the military.

 

[HICKMAN]

How do you like it when someone calls you boy?!

Personally, abuse the Term Soldier as much as you like, I quit being a Soldier in '95 when I became a Trooper...

refresh my memory, Scout?

 

[steveh_131]

How do you like it when someone calls you boy?!

Fill this out for me, trooper:

 

[HICKMAN]

again the "forum-pro" throws out the butt-hurt ploy.

It's my next favorite tactic behind strawman.

 

[GBuck]

You are saying that it should be illegal for members of a military branch, tasked with investigating criminal matters that occur within that branch, to employ police powers with regards to an investigation that began with a theft of military property from a military facility, simply because that military property now resides outside a military facility?

Really...

Boy, I hope Steveh never watches NCIS... It would takes weeks to clean up the blood from his head exploding.

 

[HICKMAN]

Yes. Do you think that military forces should be used to police U.S. citizens?

Are military personnel not U.S. citizens?

Perhaps we should bring the UN in investigate theft from our military...

why is is okay for the military to provide search and rescue after disasters... or build sandbag walls during floods... or provide food and shelter after tornados?

Don't see the Dems or unions out there helping anyone but themselves.

Yet we serve selflessly, for our communities and our Country.

 

[steveh_131]

Are military personnel not U.S. citizens?

They are, but they submit to the authority of the military when they join up. It's contractual and I'm ok with it.

Perhaps we should bring the UN in investigate theft from our military...

Perhaps we should use the local law enforcement agencies already in existence? I don't know what the U.N. has to do with anything.

why is is okay for the military to provide search and rescue after disasters... or build sandbag walls during floods... or provide food and shelter after tornados?

Well there is a pretty distinct difference here. The military being used to initiate force against citizens is where the slippery slope lies, in my opinion.

Don't see the Dems or unions out there helping anyone but themselves.

Yet we serve selflessly, for our communities and our Country.

Where did dems and unions enter the discussion? I don't know what any of this means regarding the discussion at hand.

 

[Hammerhead]

Wait a minute. I think the problem does not lie with the fact that the raid happened.

What many of you are complaining about is the fact that the Air Force was involved. As it's been pointed out, the AFOSI was the agency involved. Were there actually Air Force personnel, as in those sworn in as enlisted or officer ranks, or were the AFOSI agents actually the civilian federal agents attached to the Air Force because that's who they work for?

Rambone's original posting insinuates that it was actually sworn military members dressing up and playing cop, when in fact it's more likely that it was sworn federal agents dressing up and playing federal agents.

I like NCIS (the show) as well, and IIRC, they portray civilian federal agents with the same powers as the FBI, that investigate crimes committed by or against the Navy. They're paid by the Dept. of the Navy, but they're not sworn military members. They're authorized to act outside of Naval bases because they're not MPs or SPs, which are actually base/post police.

Aside from the misuse of terminology by Rambone when he used "soldier" as a blanket statement, he actually might be providing incorrect info because AFOSI agents are probably civilians. Rambone does like to sensationalize a bit. Those of you jumping on the martial law/posse comitatus bandwagon might be confusing sworn military with sworn civilian federal agents.

Aside from the terminology debate, those who are being blamed for the raid may not be those conducting the raid.

And for those interested, the USAF has ground special forces that are just as elite as special forces in other branches. Para-rescue Jumpers and Combat Air Controllers are not pilots, but are akin to Rangers, SEALs and Force Recon. (for those of you in those specialties, notice I didn't say "like" so you won't get butthurt over being compared to each other )

 

[Cwood]

Perhaps we should use the local law enforcement agencies already in existence? I don't know what the U.N. has to do with anything.

They did utilize the local LE, Las Vegas SWAT was used to initiate the raid, the AFSIO along with FBI and ATF were investigating.

 

[ocsdor]

Having spent 4 years in the Navy, I'm not going to get bent out of shape if someone calls me soldier or airman instead of sailor.

With that, I question the validity of anyone who does, as seen in this thread.
Stolen Valor

 

[Cwood]

Having spent 4 years in the Navy, I'm not going to get bent out of shape if someone calls me soldier or airman instead of sailor.

With that, I question the validity of anyone who does, as seen in this thread.
Stolen Valor

So you are questioning the service of the members of this forum that have replied to this thread in reference to the meaning of the word soldier?

 

[steveh_131]

They did utilize the local LE, Las Vegas SWAT was used to initiate the raid, the AFSIO along with FBI and ATF were investigating.

So why did the air force need to be physically involved in the raid at all?

 

[Cwood]

So why did the air force need to be physically involved in the raid at all?

It was the theft of AF property they were investigating. The whole reason they have the AFSOI, for criminal investigations regarding the AF.

 

[steveh_131]

It was the theft of AF property they were investigating. The whole reason they have the AFSOI, for criminal investigations regarding the AF.

I think their authority should be limited to members of the air force.

Let the local agencies handle the civilians. Keep things separated.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

So why did the air force need to be physically involved in the raid at all?

Have you ever worked with law enforcement types? There seem to be always at least some frictions when law enforcement jurisdictions work together. "It's MY Case" isn't a rare comment.

In areas where there are multiple jurisdictions working the same case, it's almost always the case that representatives from each jurisdiction are present to ensure that their interests are involved.

In that way, they're sort of different from fire departments - but not that much different, because some fire departments will not call for mutual aid, even if they need the additional resources due to ego problems at the command level - or even at the political leadership level.

If you're the guy who implied he was a railroad engineer, I can understand your confusion since your work life revolves around union rules which jealously guard your duties and perogatives in a different sort of fashion than occurs among paramilitary organizations like law enforcement. That's not meant to be a dig at your profession (I was a locomotive fireman one summer in my youth), it's just an attempt to explain the differences in your world view from others'.

 

[Expat]

I think their authority should be limited to members of the air force.

Let the local agencies handle the civilians. Keep things separated.

I am sure the appropriate authorities will give your suggestion the attention it deserves.

 

[Cwood]

I think their authority should be limited to members of the air force.

Let the local agencies handle the civilians. Keep things separated.

Thats why they are Federal Law Enforcement Agents so they can investigate matters that involve the AF and crimes committed by civilians against the AF. Much like the DEA is involved in drug enforcement, the Treasury in counterfeiting, and so on. Each has there respective area of enforcement. The Military is no different with the exception they actually have a small group of civilians that are also FLEA.

 

[rambone]

I would abolish most of the alphabet agencies we are discussing.

Report theft to the local police like the rest of us are expected to.

 

[HICKMAN]

Where did dems and unions enter the discussion? I don't know what any of this means regarding the discussion at hand.

Logic doesn't seem to be working, so I thought I would take on the role of smart-ass for a while, see how it felt.