Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2OEH8eoCRo0 | Hacker News Reader

"When our Corps goes in as guards over the mail, that mail must be delivered," wrote Secretary of the Navy Edwin Denby. "Or there must be a Marine dead at the post of duty. There can be no compromise."

https://www.military.com/off-duty/2020/08/25/intense-rules-u...

The mail is serious business.

View on HN

That was a wild read.

> Q. Suppose the thief was apparently unarmed but was running away?

> A. Call halt twice at the top of your voice, and if he does not halt, fire one warning shot; and if he does not obey this, shoot to hit him.

There was no chill during the great depression:

> Q. If I hear the command 'Hands Up,' am I justified in obeying this order?

> A. No; fall to the ground and start shooting.

Asides from all that stuff about ordering soldiers to kill American civilians, I'm just boggled that it had a FAQ. How old is the FAQ structure? Wikipedia suggests a history going back to the 1600s, and much further if you stretch the definition to Plato.

American civilians who had made a decided effort to commit a federal felony. Also "ordering soliders to kill American civilians" attempts to color the situation in an unfavorable light, as if the soldiers had alternatives, or the situation didn't fully warrant it.

There's no reason that killing armed gangsters wasn't totally justified in this case.

Where's the BG copypasta quote about why soldiers shouldn't be police

The military defends federal property all the time. US mail is federal property. Is there a copypasta about blanket absolutes?

They did. The letter clearly instructs soldiers to shoot fleeing people in the back if they don't stop and surrender. "Not killing the fleeing man" is what we can an "alternative."

No mincing of words. Something like this would never be put into writing today, as far as I understand the USMC:

Q. Is there a general plan for meeting a robbery?

A. Yes; start shooting and meet developments as they arise thereafter.

> Something like this would never be put into writing today

Because we don’t need rules like that today. America was a very different place than it is now. Those rules were there, not because they were shoot happy maniacs, or because they didn’t care about being “PC”, but because it was much more dangerous back then. It is the same reason that US soldiers stationed in Germany don’t have the same rules of engagement as soldiers in Afghanistan.

People were shocked last summer when federal agents started doing night patrols around a vandalized and firebombed federal courthouse in Portland, deterring and detaining people left and right. Not many are aware of how seriously the federal government takes protecting its properties and duties, and how lethally serious such encounters were not too many decades ago.

Except the US Capitol.

Except for the killing of Ashli Babbitt, who was fatally shot despite being unarmed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com