Posted on Jul 21, 2015
Is This The Answer We've Been Waiting For? Army Recruiting Command addresses armed civilians at recruiting facilities?
11.5K
80
57
10
10
0
Someone sent us this policy letter last night from the Command Operations Center – Security Division of the US Army Recruiting Command in regards to the folks who are standing outside recruiting offices to ostensibly protect recruiters from terrorists;
Subject: USAREC Policy – Armed citizens at recruiting centers ATO’s,
Situation: The USAREC COC has received reports from two Brigade ATOs, social media and TV coverage that law abiding armed citizens are standing outside of our recruiting centers in an attempt to safeguard our recruiters.
Execution:
1) Recruiters will not acknowledge the presence or interact with these civilians. If questioned by these alleged concerned citizens; be polite, professional, and terminate the conversation immediately and report the incident to local law enforcement and complete USAREC Form 958 IAW USAREC 190-4 (SIR)
2) Do not automatically assume these concerned citizens are there to help.
Immediately report IAW USAREC 190-4 (Suspicious Behavior)
3) Immediately report any civilians loitering near the Station/Center to local police if the recruiter feels threatened. Ensure your recruiters’ clearly articulate to local police the civilian may be armed and in possession of a conceal/carry permit. Ensure recruiters include any information provided by local police in their SIR reporting the incident.
4) Ensure all station commanders implement FPCON Charlie 6 (Lock and secure entry points) addressed in previous email.
5) I’m sure the citizens mean well, but we cannot assume this in every case and we do not want to advocate this behavior.
*** The timely and accurate submission of 958s (SIR) is imperative to track these incidents and elicit support from TRADOC, ARNORTH and NORTHCOM.
I agree with the policy, actually, but, Big Army can rectify the situation by allowing recruiters to protect their own offices. The civilians wouldn’t be there if the Army took some basic force protection measures. You know, beyond closing the blinds and wearing civilian clothes in route to work.
Folks who are planning to make a show at recruiters’ facilities, probably shouldn’t do so in a manner that can be construed as “loitering”.
Subject: USAREC Policy – Armed citizens at recruiting centers ATO’s,
Situation: The USAREC COC has received reports from two Brigade ATOs, social media and TV coverage that law abiding armed citizens are standing outside of our recruiting centers in an attempt to safeguard our recruiters.
Execution:
1) Recruiters will not acknowledge the presence or interact with these civilians. If questioned by these alleged concerned citizens; be polite, professional, and terminate the conversation immediately and report the incident to local law enforcement and complete USAREC Form 958 IAW USAREC 190-4 (SIR)
2) Do not automatically assume these concerned citizens are there to help.
Immediately report IAW USAREC 190-4 (Suspicious Behavior)
3) Immediately report any civilians loitering near the Station/Center to local police if the recruiter feels threatened. Ensure your recruiters’ clearly articulate to local police the civilian may be armed and in possession of a conceal/carry permit. Ensure recruiters include any information provided by local police in their SIR reporting the incident.
4) Ensure all station commanders implement FPCON Charlie 6 (Lock and secure entry points) addressed in previous email.
5) I’m sure the citizens mean well, but we cannot assume this in every case and we do not want to advocate this behavior.
*** The timely and accurate submission of 958s (SIR) is imperative to track these incidents and elicit support from TRADOC, ARNORTH and NORTHCOM.
I agree with the policy, actually, but, Big Army can rectify the situation by allowing recruiters to protect their own offices. The civilians wouldn’t be there if the Army took some basic force protection measures. You know, beyond closing the blinds and wearing civilian clothes in route to work.
Folks who are planning to make a show at recruiters’ facilities, probably shouldn’t do so in a manner that can be construed as “loitering”.
Recruiter
Murder
ISIS
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 21
8
8
0
I'm not sure if I disagree with you or not since I'm not exactly sure what the policy means.
1. Don't interact? WTF? Isn't that the purpose of a recruiter? To interact with citizens? Granted, these folks are likely not interested in signing up - and I'll also grant that just because they are standing out front doesn't mean their intentions are positive (i.e. #2). That said, basic situation assessment skills would indicate the above folks are not a threat - and any American willing to stand up to defend any part of America is absolutely somebody we want to interact with.
5. Don't want to advocate this behavior? You mean getting angry about being attacked in our homeland, strapping on a weapon, and taking a position on "the line"? Why do we not want to advocate that? I'll certainly grant that these folks don't appear to be especially capable of mounting a defense, but willingness to be there counts a great deal to me.
Ultimately, if you are suggesting that "basic FP measures" includes arming trained military members, I agree - and would further agree the citizens would not feel the need to stand that post.
1. Don't interact? WTF? Isn't that the purpose of a recruiter? To interact with citizens? Granted, these folks are likely not interested in signing up - and I'll also grant that just because they are standing out front doesn't mean their intentions are positive (i.e. #2). That said, basic situation assessment skills would indicate the above folks are not a threat - and any American willing to stand up to defend any part of America is absolutely somebody we want to interact with.
5. Don't want to advocate this behavior? You mean getting angry about being attacked in our homeland, strapping on a weapon, and taking a position on "the line"? Why do we not want to advocate that? I'll certainly grant that these folks don't appear to be especially capable of mounting a defense, but willingness to be there counts a great deal to me.
Ultimately, if you are suggesting that "basic FP measures" includes arming trained military members, I agree - and would further agree the citizens would not feel the need to stand that post.
(8)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP, Sir, I didn't understand most of what the decisions meant or intended to mean. I might be a little slow, but not that slow.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP
Sorry SGT (Join to see) , I wasn't implying my admittedly pedantic questions were for you, but rather for the policy as it was laid out. My opening about disagreeing with you was regarding your statement that you agreed with the policy.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
That is a bad idea, IMHO. It needlessly offends citizens that are inclined to help.
(6)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
ENS Jeremy Medlen, all the more reason to allow the military personnel defend themselves.
The armed civilians are there only because they want to protect the military personnel from attack. I find that situation to be very strange indeed; the military exists to protect the civilians, not the other way around.
The armed civilians are there only because they want to protect the military personnel from attack. I find that situation to be very strange indeed; the military exists to protect the civilians, not the other way around.
(0)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
ENS Jeremy Medlen, I don't see why they should not be able to carry side arms when in uniform.
(0)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
ENS Jeremy Medlen, I can understand not having the weapons on school grounds, but what about not having them in the actual recruiting office? The recruiting station i went to was stationed in a city that vied for the top 2 spots of the most dangerous cities in my state. sure they are located in the better part of that city but everyone in the state knows to be on your guard in that city. hell even the schools in that city have metal detectors. what's to protect them in their own office if they are not ALLOWED to be armed? i'm not saying it has to be required but they should at least have that option if they want.
(0)
(0)
This actually brings up a good point that just hit me. With groups of armed law abiding citizens standing outside recruiting stations are we not making it easier for non law abiding citizens to actually attack us? Think about it, you have a radical who wants to make a statement and sets his/her eyes on a local recruiting station. They see a group of people standing outside with guns. So the next day, they strap a side arm to their hip and walk up and blend into the group. No one does anything because there are 3 others with guns too. Suddenly, the crazed gun man puts his plan into action and suddenly instead of being upset about having 5 service members killed, we are faced with having many more than 5 injured. If I'm not mistaken, we have seen the same sort of debates following shootings in local schools. Both situations have no clear cut solutions because as we saw with the schools, certain solutions like metal detectors being installed in the schools do not stop the attacks. Schools are still being the backdrop of many attacks.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
That's a good thought. If I was an Isis supporter, or even if I just didn't like the military, it would be so easy to fool others, and kill who I wanted to. What if it were three armed people? We're talking massacre. If those people in the picture have never been in combat or shot at, or shooting at someone with a weapon, they won't stand a chance. Whoever is standing watch will have to be trained on how to remain calm and keep from getting killed. Most regular Joe Blows aren't ready for that.
(2)
(0)
SGT Bryon Sergent
SGT (Join to see) - From the news reports that I have seen these are just Joe Q Citizens. All I have seen on the news are former combat Vets and Vets standing the watch!
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google