Posted on Jul 21, 2015
Is This The Answer We've Been Waiting For? Army Recruiting Command addresses armed civilians at recruiting facilities?
11.6K
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)
3
3
0
i think these people mean well, but it is not going to do anything and won't last long.
(3)
(0)
MSgt James Mullis
Agreed. Most Americans have a short attention span. In 1 to 3 weeks the whole issue will be replaced by another media hyped scandal.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
Is the guy in the red cap going to hit an assailant with his golf club? Much better to arm the recruiters.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
civilians know that we are not allowed to be armed, not even on our own bases. we do have some citizens that actually care about the military, of course they are going to want to help protect us. if the military/government doesnt want them to do that then they should realize that if we are allowed to arm up and protect ourselves the concerned citizens wouldnt have to because they would know that we could do the job ourselves.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
PO1 (Join to see), Ma'am I believe most members of the military would agree with you, but it's just not that simple. Opening a can of worms like that, may only encourage more " Lone Wolfs ". The thing about private citizens guarding, is that I doubt most of them are trained in military tactical maneuvers. It's easy to stand around with a firearm, but you better be ready to die,if you do this. Those terrorists sympathizer idiots are out to kill whoever they can and the civvies better be ready to kill as well as be killed. I don't think the majority of the civvies realize that.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
TSgt Kevin Buccola
Sure I will be more than happy to explain – Recruiting is already a very stressful job no matter how successful you are. Give someone with stress and anxiety a weapon is ridiculous. Example – It is ship day and 0430 you get a phone call from the MEPS saying that one of your shippers is not shipping and now DQ’d to enter. Little bit later your flight chief calls you ripping you a new one, while that is going on your cell phone ringing and it is the Production Super asking WTF? Also by the way it is the end of the month and you have not made goal yet…you are working many hours and your spouse calls to see if you are going to be home for dinner and once again you missed your child’s school play or game.
Arm Recruiters? I think not. This is from a successful AF Recruiter.
Armed Civilians guarding the Military Recruiting Offices is also a joke – Standing out front thinking your Wyatt Earp is not going to change anything. If I was still recruiting in the AF and I saw you outside my office - I would tell you thank you for your support but I need to you leave.
Arm Recruiters? I think not. This is from a successful AF Recruiter.
Armed Civilians guarding the Military Recruiting Offices is also a joke – Standing out front thinking your Wyatt Earp is not going to change anything. If I was still recruiting in the AF and I saw you outside my office - I would tell you thank you for your support but I need to you leave.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
TSgt Kevin Buccola, It doesn't sound much different than putting a combat soldier on a desk job. There are more demanding jobs than recruiting, this one probably rates way up on the list. Now, they have to wonder if they are going to be shot at or killed while on the job. Add that to your description, Tsgt. and I don't know if I could do a recruiters job. Especially if I can't protect myself
(0)
(0)
TSgt Kevin Buccola
SGT (Join to see) - email me [login to see] and I will tell you more - I don't put all info for public
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I understand that these are the decisions are made by the Officers that are appointed over me. I understand that they have to make decisions of the few for the many. But to treat these Citizens as they are Criminals or as if they are not to be spoke to is LUDICROUS! I understand that the ENEMY could go into and amougst them. But these are Law Abiding Citizens that Know each other and have more than likely gotten together and decided to do this as a group and take shifts and days. They will know each other and the shit bag cannot just WALK up and join the group. They will ask questions as most ARE VETERANS wanting to protect there brothers. Some states are asking for volunteers (MP's) for state active duty to be armed and stand guard till we figure this out. I salute the Governors that see that the White House isn't going to make a decision to protect us and have either given the STATE facilities the order to carry at the armories, and recruiting stations!
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I think if a bad guy tried to fit in, they would give themselves away pretty quick. You know the old saying, Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I would highly recommend following the orders as given.
(1)
(0)
SFC Kevin Presser
Once the policy is published, of course they have to follow the orders. However; I don't believe this is a well thought out policy. A situation such as this will involve local law enforcement. Were any law enforcement agencies contacted for their advice on how to handle these situations prior to the policy being implemented? They may have ideas on how to deal with the situation. Perhaps prior notification to law enforcement of any civilians standing guard? Who knows? The policy does not appear to allow for conversations with the civilians.
(0)
(0)
1stSgt (Join to see)
SFC Kevin Presser - Any time that there are openly carried long rifles and sidearms the police will be notified by J.Q.Public. I am also sure that there is continuing guidance being issued to commanders at all levels. I tend to think that Commanders above Platoon Commanders are there for a reason. Jackasses get washed out fairly early on. I trust that our recruiters will accomplish the mission regardless of militia outside or not.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google