- Nov 16, 2016
- Reaction score
But not at the home of the lawyers in that St. Louis community and that was the subject of the thread. Valid tactics are situation dependent. Your is possibly a loosing strategy, not an application of valid tactic. Relax. Remember to breath and think.my assumptions/opinion can be verified by the the accounts of their actions over the last month of riots,,,All assumptions of yours are unverified. I look at it from years of tactical training and having been in situations in an Ameican city during period of unrest, arson and snipers using harassing fire to interfere with fire fighters. I assure you, if you bring on sufficient force, a non-determined enemy will disappear and egress the area as quickly as they appeared. Nobody tested the resolve of the officers above us, or the discipline of the troops. We never fired a shot either, but the display made everything go quiet except for the fire fighters continuing to fight the fires. That was just a few years after Kent State. Nobody trusted the discipline of troops on the streets and probably with good reason.YOURE RIGHT IT SHOULDNT BE, BUT AS WE'VE SEEN OVER THAT LAST MONTH they always turn to violence and more people die.Disagree. Shooting people should never be taken lightly, just because you might (I said MIGHT) be able to get away with it. Would probably have them coming back to burn it down with more force next time, or while you are gone. Mind, you I have NO respect of human life (except mine and PJ's) in a final defensive fight, but that is a last resort type of thing, not a message to the masses. Indiscriminate shooters should be jailed, even if they are home owners.people that break through a gate onto private property are not protesters they are a violent mob and should have been shot when they came through the gate,,,The protesters started running their mouths when they realized the McCloskeys were trying to intimidate them with guns.oh dear god youre an ignorant one,,,There is nothing to indicate the protesters had any bone to pick with the McCloskeys. Your imagination is on hyperdrive, per usual.What the McCloskeys did shouldn't be commended. I could see them being nervous.
The McCloskeys won't get in trouble because they're rich white professionals and they will say they were defending themselves. But it is a bad example to set and I don't blame the DA for being concerned about it. Let the police handle it if guns have to be involved. QUIT playing cowboys out there.
If the McCloskeys had not had those guns, the only thing the police could have done would be to fill out the paperwork after the mob had murdered the McCloskeys.
I repeat, they are lucky all they got was rough language. I wouldn't condone violence from them, but I sure don't condone the threats from the McCloskeys either.
in this case they should have been shot once they broke through the gate.
we can be assured that if the cpl didnt do what they did that neighborhood would still be under occupation and most likely burning.
It is a far better strategy. Two against who know how many. Not great odds. In that case you want the most force multipliers you can get. In the open without armor or cover is not a force multiplier. Cover increases your odds of survival. It is why police officers try and put something between themselves and shooters or potential shooters. When making a traffic stop they try to keep the engine of the car between them and the detained individuals.
The homeowners had no plan b. Nothing they could do if bullets started flying except die and take some with them. Not my preferred plan.
And falling back under fire is tricky. Best case scenario it requires a lot of ammo. They did not have much. Not nearly enough. Odd were if the bullets started flying at least one would fall outside the home.
It was a bad tactical decision that worked. They got lucky.