NS infantry discussion thread. Mark II

[Registug]

'ey

How should I equip my special forces CSAR?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Seeing how police brutality angers me a lot, I'd like to have my riot police uniforms incorporate some sort of unique identifier such as a unique number, although I was wondering if there exists some sort of marker more easily and reliably recognizable in poor quality videos (such as improper filming angle, low resolution, poor contrast/lighting/etc, only a portion of the marker appearing on film, etc.) Can someone point me in the right direction? Has this been tried before?

How do you intend to quell riots without brutality? Presumably the reason why these guys are on the street in the first place is because the protesters are dangerous and need dealing with.

Do you really want to go into this? From my point of view in the striking majority of protests turned violent the police are to be blamed for the escalation. Riot police is regularly deployed even to peaceful protests, for whatever reason. Call me a tinfoil hat wearer but there is enough evidence to prove to me that police provocateurs are a real thing and are regularly used. Undercover police officers also blend in the crowd and perform more "peaceful" missions such as collecting evidence or infiltrating certain groups of protesters. The latter practice can be justified more or less but the former is done simply to discredit the protesters and justify use of force that could not be justified otherwise.

An argument commonly used against unauthorized protests is "they're blocking traffic" - IMO this is very superficial and selfish thinking. Chances are people getting their message out is more important than you being 5 minutes late to work because you had to make the superhuman effort to make a 1-block detour for example. Assuming a pretty large crowd gathers, I'd let it slide if a detour can be made of, say, 10 minutes or less or something along those lines. Also, for authorized protests (which would fully legally temporarily block or restrict traffic), the only criterion for authorization should be announcing it early on.

Also, while I do realize use of force is sometimes justified (although IMO way, way, way less often than it is used IRL), protests where it is properly used are rare at best. First off, a violent subgroup present at the protest does not warrant generalized, indiscriminate use of force against all present protesters, nor does it warrant shutting down the entire protest or other "offensive" action against the peaceful participants, such as intimidating, arresting, dispersing them (and so on) . The way I see it arrests should be made based on probable cause and any action "lesser" than that should be made based on reasonable suspicion, at the very least.

For example: assuming that an individual or a certain group of individuals in the mass of protesters is/are suspected of doing something that warrants an arrest (there has to be probable cause) then that/those arrest(s) should be made. Those and only those individuals should be arrested and no one else, under any circumstances. I do not believe in "proportional defense" or however its' called as I think it's an incredibly stupid and flawed concept. But assuming a non-compliant suspect, a reasonable amount of force still has to be used to make the arrest, ideally but not necessarily the minimum it would take. Assuming there is reasonable suspicion that some of the other protesters not included in the above group might attempt to obstruct the arrest of the above group then a limited (lesser) amount of force should be legally allowed to disperse these other protesters in order to facilitate the arrest and limit the risk to the policemen making the arrest.

What you need is reasonable and precise use of force . But hey, don't listen to me. Go ahead, be a 3rd world dictator and watch as minor riots and similar incidents turn into huge violent circlejerks because you chose to shoot or beat everyone when all the violence could have been easily avoided and the conflict de-escalated.

Take for example Ukraine this year. Innocent people being brutally beaten because they didn't run from the path of the charging gorillas quick enough. What is the purpose of this, may I ask? This is not only inhumane and uncalled for but also useless for the stated purpose of dispersing crowds. To disperse = to make people run away and have them brake up into progressively smaller and smaller groups while they're at it. Bludgeoning someone already down on the ground does not serve towards the goal of dispersing crowds in any way, unless of course you employ and endorse intimidation as a tactic for dispersing crowds (basically fuck off or get beaten [almost] to death) . If you want to disperse a crowd you should logically hit people not already dispersing until they a) disperse or unfortunately b) fall down on the ground, but that's it. Again, unless you intend to disperse crowds by threatening them with brutality and decide to do it the humane way, hitting someone already lying on the ground is among other things useless.

And yes I do realize I strawman'd . Did it to preemptively address issues that might come up.

[San-Silvacian]

Seeing how police brutality angers me a lot, I'd like to have my riot police uniforms incorporate some sort of unique identifier such as a unique number, although I was wondering if there exists some sort of marker more easily and reliably recognizable in poor quality videos (such as improper filming angle, low resolution, poor contrast/lighting/etc, only a portion of the marker appearing on film, etc.) Can someone point me in the right direction? Has this been tried before?

How do you intend to quell riots without brutality? Presumably the reason why these guys are on the street in the first place is because the protesters are dangerous and need dealing with.

Obviously you have secret cells everywhere to kill the leaders of riots before they start, preemptive strikes and such.

[Black Hand]

You're a newspaper vendor in the city.
There is a riot in the city.

You need to leave the city to leave the riot.

I have newer in my life seen a riot that was larger than several city blocks worth. You'd have to basically get the whole city up in arms pulling a revolution for what you are describing to happen. And at that point it's time to roll out the tanks.

It was a very well-publicised case of unprovoked police brutality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson

And I quote:

After this first encounter with the police, Tomlinson stayed on Lombard Street for another half hour, then made his way to King William Street, toward two lines of police cordons, where police had "kettled" thousands of protesters in the area around the Bank of England. At 7:10 pm he doubled back on himself, walking up and down Change Alley where he encountered more cordons, and five minutes later was on Lombard Street again, crossed it, walked down Birchin Lane, and reached Cornhill at 7:10, according to The Times, or at 7:15 pm, according to The Daily Telegraph.

The guy was drunk and not walked right into a violent riot but kept walking around the whole area trying to get into an area that had been cordoned off. What was he expecting would happen? A sane man would have gone to the pub to wait it out.

I think we've gotten far enough off topic. Riot troops are loosely related if they are part of your military. But accoantability is easy mount a recording ddvice to thwur helemt that is very well protected, and has a wide apeture. Its hard to break the rules when every single root soldier has a reccording device. And purp, a sane man newer leaves the pub riot or not, not till his significant other drags his drunken ass home.

[San-Silvacian]

'ey

How should I equip my special forces CSAR?

You should equip them well, I'd suppose.

[Registug]

'ey

How should I equip my special forces CSAR?

You should equip them well, I'd suppose.

ggggggggooooodddd ddaaaammmmiiiiiittttt ssssaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnn

[San-Silvacian]

ggggggggooooodddd ddaaaammmmiiiiiittttt ssssaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnn

mmm the smell of rage

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I have newer in my life seen a riot that was larger than several city blocks worth. You'd have to basically get the whole city up in arms pulling a revolution for what you are describing to happen. And at that point it's time to roll out the tanks.


And I quote:


The guy was drunk and not walked right into a violent riot but kept walking around the whole area trying to get into an area that had been cordoned off. What was he expecting would happen? A sane man would have gone to the pub to wait it out.

I think we've gotten far enough off topic. Riot troops are loosely related if they are part of your military. But accoantability is easy mount a recording ddvice to thwur helemt that is very well protected, and has a wide apeture. Its hard to break the rules when every single root soldier has a reccording device. And purp, a sane man newer leaves the pub riot or not, not till his significant other drags his drunken ass home.

A camera on the policeman can:

a) be intentionally pointed in another direction while other policemen are committing something illegal
b) be intentionally turned off
c) destroyed or damaged by the protesters (or the policeman can pretend it happened)
d) malfunction (or the policeman can pretend it happened)
e) run out of power

so on and so forth. The list in endless. This is why you shouldn't solely rely on body cameras, or any other type of evidence originating from your policemen. Or any single sort of evidence for that matter. Even with this, having easily identifiable markers is a smart idea since you can more easily ID policemen appearing in body camera videos. Which can offer a better/alternative perspective (or can even be the sole kind of evidence if video from said wrongdoing policeman is unavailable for whatever reason) . It can also serve to verify whether or not said policeman is saying the truth. For example, he may declare that an assailant outside of his camera's FOV was charging towards him to justify a certain action. This can easily be verified by watching the footage from the nearby policemen. In a heartbeat you know who's who and where he is.

E: It's called redundancy.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

'ey

How should I equip my special forces CSAR?

IMO base it off your special forces squads and equipment. Then shed off a reasonable amount of firepower and ammo to make room for the stretcher(s) and medical stuff.

[Purpelia]

Do you really want to go into this? From my point of view in the striking majority of protests turned violent the police are to be blamed for the escalation. Call me a tinfoil hat wearer but there is enough evidence to prove to me that police provocateurs are a real thing and are regularly used. Undercover police officers also blend in the crowd and perform more "peaceful" missions such as collecting evidence or infiltrating certain groups of protesters. The latter practice can be justified more or less but the former is done simply to discredit the protesters and justify use of force that could not be justified otherwise.

I do not disagree with you that this happens. I just disagree that it is a bad thing.

Furthermore I was under the impression that we were talking about stuff that is already violent by default like say football hooligans or political protests rather than people assembling peacefully and than suddenly becoming violent for no good reason.

An argument commonly used against unauthorized protests is "they're blocking traffic" - IMO this is very superficial and selfish thinking. Chances are people getting their message out is more important than you being 5 minutes late to work because you had to make the superhuman effort to make a 1-block detour for example. Assuming a pretty large crowd gathers, I'd let it slide if a detour can be made of, say, 10 minutes or less or something along those lines.

I am not quite sure where you got this tangent from. I know it's not from me thou so I would like to ask who else is partaking in this discussion since I seem to have genuinely missed something.

Also, for authorized protests (which would fully legally temporarily block or restrict traffic), the only criterion for authorization should be announcing it early on.

Honestly I would prefer some paperwork and at least a cursory background check to make sure the "society of peaceful friendly people protesting for the rights of plants" does not turn out to be a major gang of neonazi football hooligans in disguise who sent their leaders grandmother to sign in a protest for them.

Also, while I do realize use of force is sometimes justified (although IMO way, way, way less often than it is used IRL), protests where it is properly used are rare at best.

That is debatable. I for one do not support the use of violence against individuals not resisting arrest. But anyone from the crowd that actively strikes out against the police has nothing to complain about when they strike back.

First off, a violent subgroup present at the protest does not warrant generalized, indiscriminate use of force against all present protesters, nor does it warrant shutting down the entire protest or other "offensive" action against the peaceful participants, such as intimidating, arresting, dispersing them (and so on) . The way I see it arrests should be made based on probable cause and any action "lesser" than that should be made based on reasonable suspicion, at the very least.

This is where we disagree. If it is indeed only a small subgroup of protesters that is causing the problem than why do the protesters not act like good, honest citizens and aid the police in subduing them? Furthermore and much more importantly it should be the duty of any organization, be it political or social that wants to gain the privilege of having their voice heard to ostracize and eliminate such violent elements from their ranks long before they apply for permission to march on the streets. And to cooperate fully with the police in keeping those individuals away. If they refuse to censor them self, than the police will have to do it for them. And any collateral damage is on their heads.

Remember. Freedom is not a right to be taken for granted. It is a privilege that has to be worked for and maintained through effort and sacrifice. And if you don't do this than you do not deserve to have said privilege in the first place.

For example: assuming that an individual or a certain group of individuals in the mass of protesters is/are suspected of doing something that warrants an arrest (there has to be probable cause) then that/those arrest(s) should be made. Those and only those individuals should be arrested and no one else, under any circumstances.

Do you have any idea how unrealistic this is? Say a bunch of people are robbing a store during a peaceful protest. Is the police supposed to ask the crowd politely to move aside so that they can arrest them? Do you expect the police to walk through a raging crowd collecting evidence and only arresting whom ever they can prove threw a rock at them? That sort of thinking can only vaguely work if you have indestructible cameras everywhere and can just afford to round the people up from their homes at some later date.

It's not only utterly impractical but also dangerous. When a violent riot occurs the first and most important duty of the police should be to break it up and restore order and safety to the streets as quickly and painlessly as is possible. You don't just let people burn cars all day until you eventually arrest the one you have on film lighting a match.

Furthermore, it ignores the major issue of actual organizational responsibility. If someone organizes a mass gathering than he or they should be held responsible for the actions of the people they have gathered. Otherwise it becomes trivially easy for all sorts of extremist organizations to wash their hands and say: "These people whom we invited to gather and spurred on just decided to burn the city down on their own. It's not our fault."

If a group of people have gathered to publicly state their voice about something than they should be treated as a group. And both the organizers and members of this group need to be held accountable for it's behavior. If a part of that group turns violent they can't and should not be allowed to just turn a blind eye and expect the police to carefully pick these violent individuals out of the crowd.

I do not believe in "proportional defense" or however its' called as I think it's an incredibly stupid and flawed concept. But assuming a non-compliant suspect, a reasonable amount of force still has to be used to make the arrest, ideally but not necessarily the minimum it would take. Assuming there is reasonable suspicion that some of the other protesters not included in the above group might attempt to obstruct the arrest of the above group then a limited (lesser) amount of force should be legally allowed to disperse these other protesters in order to facilitate the arrest and limit the risk to the policemen making the arrest.

Your language is way too technical for me to bother deciphering. But I think we are on the same page here. As far as I am concerned standard practice should be to herd them all in like cattle and than arrest the lot. Applying force only to those individuals who resist through the use of force and only to extent required to subdue them.

I still say arrest the lot thou. If for no other reason than for their own safety. Every person who is arrested peacefully is not a person who can get injured when the police clash with those that refuse to give in.

What you need is reasonable and precise use of force . But hey, don't listen to me. Go ahead, be a 3rd world dictator and watch as minor riots and similar incidents turn into huge violent circlejerks because you chose to shoot or beat everyone when all the violence could have been easily avoided and the conflict de-escalated.

I am not sure how to reply to this beyond once again asking whom it is directed toward. As clearly it is not me for I have not made any remarks to justify it.

Take for example Ukraine this year. Innocent people being brutally beaten because they didn't run from the path of the charging gorillas quick enough. What is the purpose of this, may I ask? This is not only inhumane and uncalled for but also useless for the stated purpose of dispersing crowds. To disperse = to make people run away and have them brake up into progressively smaller and smaller groups while they're at it. Bludgeoning someone already down on the ground does not serve towards the goal of dispersing crowds in any way, unless of course you employ and endorse intimidation as a tactic for dispersing crowds (basically fuck off or get beaten [almost] to death) . If you want to disperse a crowd you should logically hit people not already dispersing until they a) disperse or unfortunately b) fall down on the ground, but that's it. Again, unless you intend to disperse crowds by threatening them with brutality and decide to do it the humane way, hitting someone already lying on the ground is among other things useless.

I am not a proponent of dispersal at all. I find that it serves no purpose leading at best to the guilty getting away and at worst to a stampede and mass violence. I am a proponent of containment, arrest and processing for everyone involved. Arrest them all and let the courts sort them out.

And yes I do realize I strawman'd . Did it to preemptively address issues that might come up.

Next time you decide to preemptively do something like that do be so kind to put the notice on the top of your post so that I can go ahead and not bother writing a reply more intelligent or intelligible than a bunch of harshly worded racial and gender related slurs directed your way.

[Kouralia]

Seeing how police brutality angers me a lot, I'd like to have my riot police uniforms incorporate some sort of unique identifier such as a unique number, although I was wondering if there exists some sort of marker more easily and reliably recognizable in poor quality videos (such as improper filming angle, low resolution, poor contrast/lighting/etc, only a portion of the marker appearing on film, etc.) Can someone point me in the right direction? Has this been tried before?

No, it is very hard to make sure that there is a marker that can be seen if the video-er is shit at filming. British Police wear collar numbers, and with them also printed on the back of their helmet in riot situations.

Any more than that, and you're making the armour have to be specialised for each officer.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

'ey

How should I equip my special forces CSAR?

Give them tools necessary to rescuing and stuff. Bolt cutters, stretchers, crowbar, emergency IV, and so on and so forth.

Protester stuff

Call it tough love.

[Yes Im Biop]

Purp your response to protesters was a radiation cannon designed to cook people.


For anti riot purpos's? Sonic devices, LRAD I think it's called? No one is gonna stay around with that, and that Microwave emitter that the US army uses. Both non lethal and do very little long term damage (For the most part anyway)

[Alfegos]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b3e_1362205181

Brilliant viewing.

[Purpelia]

Purp your response to protesters was a radiation cannon designed to cook people.

I was channeling an inner mad scientist that I was using for another RPG.

[Kouralia]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b3e_1362205181

Brilliant viewing.

Love that video.

[Purpelia]

Also, apparently the father of the AK just died. As in today.

[Fordorsia]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b3e_1362205181

Brilliant viewing.

When your main offensive weapons are snowballs, you have to rethink your protest.

Just do what Fordorsian Police do and put a couple of live rounds in to a violent crowd. If they want to endanger law-abiding citizens, they put themselves in danger.

Well, that's if they aren't communist student wannabees. In that case, the police just charge them and beat them into submission.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

He didn't die.

He just decided this planet had nothing left to offer him. We wish you luck, славный отец. o/

[Kouralia]

Also, apparently the father of the AK just died. As in today.

Did he?

Source please, since literally yesterday they had to make an official press release to counter the hoax claim that Mikhail was dead.

Rest in peace.

[Vareiln]

Also, apparently the father of the AK just died. As in today.

Yeah, I read the BBC article.
Apparently, the BBC thinks this is an AK.

[Purpelia]

Also, apparently the father of the AK just died. As in today.

Did he?

Source please, since literally yesterday they had to make an official press release to counter the hoax claim that Mikhail was dead.

Rest in peace.

The best source I can find is a forum page that linked me to this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19870688

[Vareiln]

Did he?

Source please, since literally yesterday they had to make an official press release to counter the hoax claim that Mikhail was dead.

Rest in peace.

The best source I can find is a forum page that linked me to this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19870688

You done been ninja'd.

[Fordorsia]

Also, apparently the father of the AK just died. As in today.

Yeah, I read the BBC article.
Apparently, the BBC thinks this is an AK.

I find it amazing that he has no trigger discipline in most pictures I see of him.

But yes, I now completely believe that no one in Britain who works in the media knows anything about firearms.

[United states of brazilian nations]

Also, apparently the father of the AK just died. As in today.

oh shit.
may he rest in peace, for he gifted the earth with the mighty Avtomat Kalashnikova.