8-17-19 Garand Picture of the Day

[Mark in Rochester]

The Baltimore riot of 1968 was a period of civil unrest that lasted from April 6 to April 14, 1968 in Baltimore. The uprising included crowds filling the streets, burning and looting local businesses, and confronting the police and national guard.

The immediate cause of the riot was the April 4 assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee, which triggered unrest in 125 cities across the United States. These events are sometimes described as the Holy Week Uprising.[1]

Spiro Agnew, the Governor of Maryland, called out thousands of National Guard troops and 500 Maryland State Police to quell the disturbance. When it was determined that the state forces could not control the rebellion, Agnew requested Federal troops from President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Ovidio]

Very bad idea sending soldiers to quell uprisings from civilians.
I’ve been sent in the South of Italy against organised crime in ‘94-95, and it was my worst time in the Army.
You just don’t have the right training and mentality.
You’re trained to face a certain threat and to shoot to kill.
Different business than police.
I’ve never aimed a loaded rifle at somebody before or after, but there...
And if something goes south, you’re alone.
No business for soldiers in my humble opinion.

[Bob Womack]

Just a point of information, the Posse Comitatus laws that prevent use of the Army or Air Force against the civilian populace don't cover any of the other services, including the National Guard, who are under control of state governors.


That doesn't alter or disagree with anything said before in this thread but I went out and did a little research and discovered this fact and was a little surprised.



Bob

[Ovidio]

Interesting indeed.
One might ask himself why...
National guard is probably a bit less aggressively trained, but it still gets a training which is far away from law enforcement.
But for me at that time, the worst thing was that we all knew that in case of trouble, we would be left alone and sacrificed on the altar of phoney politics...
That also reflected in the morale and discipline of the troops. We had to be particularly harsh on them to prevent any stupid deeds or loss of efficiency.
I remember my short time in “green” with great fondness, with the exception of those few months.

[Bob Seijas]

In the 1967 Newark riot the Guard was used as security for the state cops. When a call came in, the Staties would respond, and a jeep with three Guardsmen and their loaded M1's went along. They just stood by unless the cops needed them. The Guard fired over 50,000 rounds of 30-06 in four days.

[Daan Kemp]

There are many things to be said for and against military force in such situations. The military is the last resource of the government to ensure law and order.

Very broadly: Military are trained in prevention, police to wait until a crime is committed before acting. Correct way is for the military to act in support of the police. Very clear guidelines for action and co-operation usually in place.

When the police hand over to the military there is no way back, the military won't back off.

[us019255]

I happened to be in grad school in Cleveland when the riots broke out. Woke up to find National Guardsmen on the corner by my house. You bet your bippy that I was glad they were there. Hard, but necessary, duty in times like that.

[browningautorifle]

In our case, we have the mandate "Aid to Civil Power" which means authority has been signed over to the local military commander. The police accompany and to put it easiest, the policeman is the driver and the troops are the vehicle. The military has authority but are held accountable for their actions. The policeman should have a group, depending on the situation and uses them to restore order. Yes, the rules are very different...