What Kind Of Rule Tells A Marine Not To Engage An Attacker?

Three US Marines in St. Louis were mugged by two unarmed men who got away with a wallet. Two unarmed muggers punched one Marine and took a knife from another and stabbed him with it (reportedly a minor wound) and made off with a wallet while a third Marine looked on. The Mayor is trying to figure out how this happened and perhaps the story will change but, as it stands, the story is shameful.

How did this happen? Because the Marines have specific rules of engagement:

“Marines have been given rules of engagement not to engage in any violence except to protect their lives,” said Marine Spokeswoman Capt Kate Vanden Bossche.

When asked if the Marines have essentially been told to hand over their wallets in St. Louis, rather than fight to protect their property, Vanden Bossche said: “If someone is in such dire need that they need to rob someone, I don’t think that’s a fight Marines need to get into.” CBS St. Louis

It would seem to me that if one is attacked then there is always the possibility of losing one’s life. It is also unconscionable to say that if a person is so desperate that they need to rob someone then the person, in this case the Marines, should not do anything to stop them. Or, as the spokesperson put it, it is not a fight the Marines need to engage in. What kind of politically correct nonsense is this? Are we to extrapolate this further and say the police should not pursue anyone who is in dire need and robs a bank? How about if a thug is in dire need to rape a female Marine? Should she just submit because this is not the kind of fight Marines want to engage in?

How about we take it further and say that if some entity is in such dire need to attack our country well, its not a fight the Marines should engage in?

These Marines should have engaged the attackers, neutralized them and called for the police. That would be the honorable thing to do and would have kept with the long, proud tradition of the Marines. In addition, that Marine who had his knife taken away should be ashamed of himself. Would he allow the enemy to take his rifle? HELL NO. That mugger should not get that weapon unless he is taking it out of the Marine’s cold, dead hands.

As for the third Marine who looked on. Shame on you young man. You are duty bound to have the backs of your comrades in arms. You are obligated to defend them with your life and you failed miserably at this.

I wonder how this spokesperson would be reacting had the Marines turned over their property and been killed anyway. It is absolutely a travesty that these young men did not defend themselves and their property.

The few, the proud, the Marines. Somehow I have a hard time believing anyone in uniform would be proud of this.

If this story changes and new facts come to light I will reconsider my position but as it stands right now I am ashamed that these men and their spokesperson represent the US Marines.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

6 Responses to “What Kind Of Rule Tells A Marine Not To Engage An Attacker?”

  1. Blake says:

    Wow- we need to change these rules of engagement. Perhaps if the US government had tort reform like we now have in Texas, this might well have been a different story.
    And the Marine spokesdyke, Kate Vanden Bossche should be able to critically think her way to the truth.
    People rob, not because they have no money, but for the thrill of it, and the desire to forsake legal and righteous work.

  2. Ogre says:

    Just to make this more clear — what’s not being said in the story is that if the Marines are given those instructions, they are backed by force. In other words, the Marines must have been told in this case that if they get in a fight over a wallet that they will be punished with fines, reductions in rank, or jail.

    And I’ll also point out these are the Marines that are being trained today — they’re not the Marines of old. Today’s military is not a fighting machine, they’re social workers. Marines of old would have pounded these scum, left them in street, and gone and had a few beers.

  3. victoria says:

    Remember, Fort Hood, “As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well”
    There is no common sense anymore. Just PC BS.

  4. carter says:

    There are women of both sexes. It may be as it appears, they were afraid of an altercation and chose to submit. But if this is their instruction, well, it sucks to be them.