Slashdot Mirror
Machine Gun Fire From Military Helicopters Flying Over Downtown Miami
Okian Warrior writes with word that, as of Monday evening, multiple police agencies and the military were "conducting training exercises over Miami and elsewhere in the county. The exercise includes military helicopters firing machine-gun blanks while flying over highways and buildings. This YouTube video shows helicopters strafing highways with blank rounds near the Adrian Arts center. There are reports of similar actions in Houston From the Houston article: 'if you see the helicopters or hear gunfire, it's only a drill.'" Note: this time, it's not in The Onion.
With "exercises" of this nature, are you sure the gun nuts are so nuts after all?
Okay, so you have helicopters buzzing around and strafing highways with blanks in Die Hard-esque fashion, in highly populated areas.
Oh, yeah. Nothing could possibly go wrong there, right?
if you watch the video, RTFA, the trailblazers were in town. the cops were just shooting their fans
I have to admit, this is more than a little bit sinister. Even if it's not, using civilian infrastructure to conduct fire training exercises is extremely irresponsible. I mean what if someone on the ground had panicked and crashed their car?
This reminds me of the 2004 incident where the bullets were live.
somehow the pilot was miles off course when he started shooting...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/nyregion/05strafe.html
The Air National Guard warplane, flying a night training mission out of Andrews Air Force Base near Washington, fired a burst of 27 rounds from its 20-millimeter cannon shortly before 10:15 p.m. as it streaked over Little Egg Harbor Township, 20 miles north of Atlantic City, New Jersey military officials said last night
And yet, how well is the US Military doing against the Taliban, etc. who are also armed with mostly small arms and some improvised explosive devices?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Generally the "don't spend my money"ers are actually "don't spend my money except on things that cause violent death"ers.
They're all for a huge bloated military.
That being said. W.T.F. I have to agree with the GP... What the hell kind of reason do they have firing, even blanks in public areas like this. If it wasn't very well marked all over the place "military training exercise", I sure as hell hope someone gets fired/jailed for this idiocy.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
What if someone on the ground started shooting back?
-Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat-
Perhaps you should ask an American Indian.
If you can find one.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Just what is it they're training for?
Iran most likely. I recently finished "A year amongst the Persians" by edward granville brown (a (free) librivox recording) and if I were trying to pick a piece of american geography like Iran they could do worse than Houston. The miami connection is probably more to do with size/road architecture than climate. Although Miami is a 3rd world city, at least in parts, which might help with training.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
And defending themselves against other civilians. Firearms are the equalizer that allow the weak to protect themselves from the strong, or simply against the many. If you look at the documentation of incidents, legal gun-owners are almost never the... "abusers" as you put it.
There is a sweet spot between paranoia and complacency in which all reasonable men should dwell.
The State is a wild animal that must be kept on a leash, yet can do great good when properly trained and handled correctly.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
How much of this is because committing another crime means they are an illegal gun owner?
If I buy a gun legally, then use it to protect my drughouse and in the course of that action kill someone. Will your statistics capture me as a legal gun owner?
It's called blind trust, and he's certainly not alone. He will never accept that "his" government could become tyrannical and turn against him.
Our military has enormous lands throughout the U.S. including large areas of forest and desert and even uninhabited towns and cities built specifically for training exercises. The government was building lots of little makeshift towns just to blow them up with nuclear weapons during the cold war. You can find lots of videos of the government testing bombs in massive stretches of the desert. I've taken weapons training on SWAT courses that are like little ghost towns where the instructors have makeshift bridged built all over the course where they can walk above you and take notes on where you messed up something.
It's one thing to have military planes fly over civilian airspace. You have to test these planes traveling for hundreds of miles so of course they'll eventually have to fly over some commercial airspace. Or to have security training exercises be done and rehearsed at an event before it happens. Like the security teams that are not rehearsing the Super Bowl security at the actual stadium. But low flying helicopters? Shooting blanks at civilians and civilian vehicles? What possible reason could there be for that?
What's next? Armed soldiers patrolling the streets shooting blanks at people on the sidewalk? Why not? It's a perfectly safe exercise that won't cause panic at all.
"Hey it's just a training exercise...now put that cellphone camera down or we'll have to detain you. Now go home and watch American Gladiators and go back to bed".
Imagine the fun it's going to be when armed soldiers start firing blanks and some civilian has no idea what is going on and fires back. Or when people start panicking and cause a riot. I'm all for keeping a well trained military....but using our own people as the targets? What kind of self respecting soldier went on this mission without protesting it?
Calm down citizen. It's just part of our new anti-terrorist Tactical Helicopter Offensive Response program. It's for your protection.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Read the Militia Act, and it's pretty clear that the Guard isn't the Militia.
The line "every able-bodied male..." is pretty clearly NOT the Guard.
And I agree - why don't the feminists insist on being included in the militia?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
With "exercises" of this nature, are you sure the gun nuts are so nuts after all?
What possible excuse is there for doing this over civilians? I can't think of one.
Even if this is only "training", is there no way they could have painted some roads on the ground out in the desert or something?
No sig today...
In a time before 9/11, I had this prof...
Here in RI, we have the Scituate Reservoir, the water source for northern Rhode Island. The land surrounding it is state property. Couple this with the fact that if you grow weed on your land you lose your land (thanks Ronnie!) people either grow indoors or on state/city/town property.
The National Guard does training flights/drug interdiction over the Reservoir property, at low level, in their ageing Hueys and Cobras. This gets neigbors irate. So much so they call up and complain.
This is met, more often than not, with flat out denial that there are any helicopters in the area at all. "No sir, we don't have any scheduled flights there today."
Which was responded to by my prof, who lived in the area, "So if i discharge my gun accidentally, it *won't* hit one of your aircraft? Good to know."
Flights over his property ceased.
This could have been just a story, but it was entertaining anyway.
--
BMO
That is how these statistics are often mangled.
Like the ones MADD kept for years that made any accident in which any passenger or pedestrian was in any way intoxicated into an alcohol related accident even if the driver was stone cold sober.
Since being a drug dealer in the first place makes owning a firearm illegal (yes, the background check for every sale by a gun dealer will catch that sort of thing, if you're a known criminal. and if you're not known, it's still illegal and can be used as an additional charge when they catch you - "lying on a Federal form" or some such), I'd say that that makes your case impossible, and the statistics won't make you a legal gun owner, they'll make you one of those guys who bought his gun illegally.
Note that while it is possible to avoid the background check by buying a gun in a private sale, the law still doesn't recognize you as a "legal gun owner" if you're a criminal, and if the guy who sold you the gun knows this, HE is now a criminal as well....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
wait, who said that members of the military would actually be *willing* to fight a war against other Americans? I'd wager you'd see the shortest war in history as the front line troops would simply refuse to fire. Key leaders would resign before giving the orders to fight, and the infrastructure would then either A. fall into unmanageable chaos or B. constrict and lock down into a state of paralysis. Either way, it's not going to be an effective force, even if it gets far enough to (unconsitutionally) deploy troops.
Well, here's someone never in .mil nor looked at a map. Even wargamers know tanks are dead meat in cities under any circumstances other than a peaceful show of force, and more generally without infantry support they don't last long even in the "open" countryside. Generally speaking tanks vs infantry turns out pretty well for the infantry as a group given identical intelligence / experience / skill. Stupidity or desperation can force infantry into being slaughtered by armor, but it usually doesn't turn out that way. Basically tanks can't see very well, can only shoot in one direction (and slowly) and are remarkably fragile other than frontal armor hits where they are, admittedly, pretty much invincible. Tanks are really good at helping infantry take out a hard position like a machine gun bunker, plus or minus the bunker having some anti-tank rounds or more hilariously anti-tank minefield in the "obvious" firing positions.
Combined arms only works if... its combined... not just merely exists or deployed separately in complete isolation
Now what infantry really doesn't like is trained experienced snipers operating defensive at time and place of their choosing on their own very well known turf aka gun nuts.
Also if you think the supply line for a bunch of, basically, overgrown hunters, is insecure and easy to cut, you surely have never seen an armor supply line. The best way to fight armor (and air!), if you're in no great hurry, is to hide from / avoid / ignore it and go after the fuel / food / water / supply convoys. Hmm sound like a scenario where the US has recently lost the war? A broken tank is basically useless tactically and the MTBF isn't as good as you'd like to think under combat conditions.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Good point. Any time I hear how magnificent, holy, Christian, or righteous our nation is or was, I just invoke the names of many of the native American tribes who were driven into desolate reservations in deserts and badlands that white immigrants couldn't grow corn on. I love how wealthy white people complain when they lose their homes to squatters that laws such as "adverse possession" are immoral, antiquated, and should be repealed. But adverse possession is a cornerstone of our democracy. Without such laws we would have to give it all back to the people we took it from.
It was old white men who put the 2nd amendment into the Constitution, but defending your limited rights against a powerful government is something I'll support any day. It doesn't mean that the armed citizen will always win, but arms and the potential use of force allows people a stronger negotiating position. The US Cavalry couldn't "tame" the West until the introduction of the Gattling gun, which had a higher rate of fire and ammo capacity than any over-the-counter assault rifle you can buy today.
But if native peoples with rifles on horsebackwere no threat to US interests then I guarantee we would not have so many treaties that are still in effect today. Many people don't realize that on native lands state law does not apply. Reservations function as independent nations except that only Federal laws are enforced, and even such Federal enforcement is very rare.
Problem is the well placed part. It is easier to place the shot when the helicopter is stationary but then it is probably shooting at you or will be shortly. If it is moving you had better be really fucking good at gauging speed and distance because you will need to account for a large amount of drop and lead the thing. To put this in perspective at 400 meters there is probably going to be about 2/3 to 1 meter of drop (rough estimate but good enough) for your bullet. Also at those distances wind starts to play an important role. I have been able to consistently make shots at that distance against pop cans but that was on a day perfect for long distance shooting, hot, high humidity, low barometric pressure, no wind using low drag bullets fired from a Russian ex sniper rifle with a good scope. Toss in some wind and questionable consistency bullets (non match grade) and best of luck having consistent shots.
Time to offend someone
"y i.r.id10t" said it, but it deserves saying again.
In Afghanistan, a bunch of guys with rifles (the weaponry the gun-rights advocates are trying to protect) and improvised explosives have fought the U.S. military to a stalemate for more than 12 years. That's a country of 30M people and about 650K sq km. The contiguous 48 states in the USA are 12X the land area of Afghanistan with 10X the population. What makes you think the military would be any more successful fighting a guerrilla war here?
Generally the "don't spend my money"ers are actually "don't spend my money except on things that cause violent death"ers.
Generally the people that try to downplay how much money we are spending, by attacking other people, don't actually know the enormity of the spending and thusly don't give a shit that their partisan antics are a dangerous public menace.
Total government spending in the United States has grown to $6.2 trillion (2012), and with ~115 million households thats ~$54000 per household.
The median income for those 115 million households was $53000.
I used the word 'enormity', but really it does not encompass the problem here. The government spends more per household than the median income of households.
While you sit there being a partisan dickhead, the most important problem that we face today goes completely unnoticed by you. If there were an official definition of 'ignorant douche' you would be it.
"His name was James Damore."
Yeah I guess killing your mother to steal her guns is totally a legal way to acquire them...
Crap.... Illegal means they magically do not exist and cant be created no matter how hard you try! CURSES!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
No excuse necessary, apparently.
But this is as likely a desensitization exercise. When we're used to our own military overflying us in urban areas we will be less likely to ask 'why?' Since our military is supposed (as in -used to be-) to not be operating against us as citizens, this is important. Get us to accept that, and a giant hurdle is overcome.
And gunfire would be a logical next step. I see they combined the two, very efficient.
Seriously, I've joked for years that I will buy another gun when my government tells me I can't have one. I should not wait, for that is too late.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Great once we got the locals on our side.
This is Miami and Houston we're talking about, right?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
This was an interesting observation, thank you. I have long been concerned about this observation of Orwell:
This is from an article he wrote about the atom bomb. When I look at the rising expense and sophistication of modern militaries, and at the neo-colonialism my own dear patria and its allies seem willing to engage in, the future looks quite dark. But the cheapness and effectiveness of modern small arms and guerrilla tactics may be just coming into its own.
There is a scenario where the new possibilities for independence may not lie with people but with large organizations like governments. What makes it possible for asymmetrical warfare to be successful on the part of the weaker defender is that he is able to inflict asymmetical costs on the attacker. Drones may be changing that. If drones do not also find their way into private hands, like small arms, or if they don't turn out to be easily hackable, then future wars will rarely involve liabilities like tanks. In several countries the U.S. in involved in, this is already the case.
I actually thought of that when I posted, but it's really quite a different thing to take policing action at a violent, arson-fueled riot than it would be to invade Denver with tanks, as had been suggested in a post above. Would there be a few hotheads in fear of their lives claiming self defense, like at Kent? Sure, probably... but a planned "invasion" against Americans? Not gonna happen. Cooler heads would prevail.
The cooler heads didn't prevail for Aaron Swartz did they? Nor at the invasion of Iraq, nor at the congressional level to spy on Americans. What makes you think these people won't authorize the full use of force against the population of Detroit because of a few bad apples protesting? What did the US Government collect on the Occupy protesters and why won't they tell us? Why let police in riot gear pepper spray protesters who are sitting still? Did you forget all these things already? You did because we (all of us), have collectively moved onto the latest new thing. Why would you trample on the rights of Americans?
Because you can. Only later do you actually have some court "review" it if it ever gets there. Dead Americans is a guarantee. When, where and how much is the only unknown.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
On top of that, I couldn't find any NOTAMs (notice to airmen) for pilots about the operation. You would think that notification would be required in Class B airspace, especially if gunfire was involved. Lack of communication makes this operation suspect as a "training op".
Did any of the news organizations offering this reactionary reporting actually check with the local authorities to see if the helicopters were being used in for a movie shoot?
I had a friend who worked in a factory that built many of our combat helicopters. She said movies always frustrated her, because everyone shot at the cockpit trying to kill the pilot. She said that glass is pretty well armored against small arms fire. And that they should shoot the rotors. Rotors are fragile. If they get damaged, they become unbalanced and will tear themselves apart.
"Basically tanks can't see very well, can only shoot in one direction (and slowly) and are remarkably fragile other than frontal armor hits"
As a former Airborne Rifle Squad Leader in the 82nd, and former Bradley Master Gunner in the 1st CAV, I can assure you that this hasn't been the case in the last 30 or more years.
1. American tanks have an advantage in weapon range (commonly called standoff) over Infantry units. It's difficult to kill a tank if it can park and take potshots at you beyond your ability to effectively return fire.
2. They each have a TTS (tank thermal sight) that can display images based on a single degree of temperature difference, and combat as an infantrymen has a tendency to dramatically raise body temperature so that you literally glow in their sights.
3. The tank commander and gunner each have an independently operated sight, and the commander can shift and designate a new target while the gunner is still engaging the old target.
4. They can travel easily over moderate (not pristine) terrain at speeds greater than 45 MPH.
"Combined arms only works if... its combined... "
Yes. That also applies to the infantry.
So here's a thought. Go spend two or three hours walking around your local hardware store collecting the items you will need to kill (or at least render ineffective) an M1 Abrahms. Then figure out how you'll kill the other 100+ M1's that are right behind it.
Good luck, pal.
I think what we are seeing now may be something like standard game-theoretical escalation (between 'government' and 'citizenry').
Since the (corruption-driven) economic crisis, an increase in resistance-like protests have put those in power on edge. Perceiving increased resistance from a portion of the population, those in power are purposely scaling up their defenses against potential resistance (increased surveillance and attempts at gun control, bills like HR 347 and executive orders that grant extraordinary powers, usurpation of due process and indefinite detention etc.).
The game-theoretical result of this is that at the grassroots level, a small but steadily increasing proportion of the citizenry starts to (basically rightfully) sense that the government is escalating against the citizenry. This fuels further calls for resistance, calls for revolution from some quarters, the massively increased gun sales and stockpiling we've seen, and so on.
The game-theoretical result of that in turn is a government saying "oh shit, the people look increasingly likely to revolt", and the result of that is this kind of escalation - a raw display of brute power intended to demonstrate that we'd better all keep in line, "or else" - it's a kind of veiled threat, a kind of shock and awe tactic. "Behave citizens, or next time there'll be real bullets".
We're currently on a game-theory escalation path to increasing fascism and oppression and possibly a prolonged low-grade guerilla-style 'civil war' (though it will never be called a civil war, it will be called 'terrorism').
The proper solution is that both people and government need to try work with each other as partners toward a common goal, both 'sides' need to calm down and negotiate with mutual interest in the concerns (and rights) of the 'other side'.
In reality the government is now so corrupt and overtaken by corporatist interests (e.g. banks who are now supposedly too powerful even to prosecute for serious crimes, and a 'fox guarding the henhouse' situation at the treasury and Fed) that it might not be possible for true cooperation.
My other UID is three digits.
What makes you think the military would be any more successful fighting a guerrilla war here?
much bigger targets
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
of course it could be done and i'd wager $1000 that there already plans similar to what i say sitting in a file cabinet somewhere.
do it the same way every totalitarian government does, by using soldiers with existing general hostilities to the population they will be suppressing
send the bible belt soldiers to police the godless liberal traitors in california
send the black soldiers to police the cracka racists in the south
send the northeastern soldiers to police the whackjob traitors in the midwest
send the deep southern soldiers to police the coward yankee bastards up north.
if the soldiers you send to each area, blame the people from that area for starting "all of this" they will for the most part follow their orders as long as said orders are not profoundly outrageous "go machinegun some peaceful civillians" but an order to "keep that riot under control, and by the way rules of engagement allow automatic weapons and hand grenades if your life is in danger" will work just fine.
Also at the beginning you keep the rules of engagement too strict and the patrols too small and too sparse until something happens to one of them.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
If there were an official definition of 'ignorant douche' you would be it.
Problem is there are any number of official dictionaries. In mine, your picture is next to the 'ignorant douche' entry. In yours, my picture is there. And in everyone's copy, their own picture is next to the 'sane patriotic American' entry.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
They wouldn't be killing American citizens, they would be killing "Terrorists". And they probably don't have the time between one mission and another to try and check if the orders were actually right.
And their families would be likely in entirely another part of the US. Those giving orders, be their accurate or evil, are not dumb.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
That "hearts and minds" thing is complete and utter bullshit. I sorta believed in that shit when I was a boot, fresh out of boot camp. Sorta. That wore off, though.
YOU DO NOT WIN HEARTS AND MINDS BY MARCHING ARMED GRUNTS AROUND FOREIGN CITIES AND COUNTRIES!!
Either you were genuinely, openly invited to be there - or you're an invader. Invaders aren't loved anywhere. Hearts and minds are dead set against invaders, always and forever.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br