How likely is the National Guard to actually shoot people?

Dennis E. Taylor

Get it off! It burns!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
365
Location
Beautiful downtown Mordor
My story is post-apocalyptic, but still measured in days and weeks since the event. The NG is trying to maintain order. A group of thugs try to take over a refugee camp, and are eventually taken down (alive, mostly)

In a situation like that, where there really isn't a jail available, how plausible is it that the NG would just like them up and shoot them? If not, what are reasonable alternatives? At this point in the story, it doesn't seem likely to anyone that civilization will be back in any reasonable time frame.
 

Pony.

Aspiring supervillain
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
3,563
Reaction score
194
The National Guard is still just a group of people, put someone in the right situation and and they will defend themselves. Has matial law been declared?
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
It's the National Guard. I would assume this means that there's some remaining organization behind them, rules and training to back them up, a higher authority? Unless you mean that they are remnants of the National Guard, who have put on the uniforms in hopes of maintaining order?
If there is a somewhat functional National Guard, I would assume that there's someone to appeal to/give orders, re: shooting people vs. locking them up in the ruins of a building. If they're merely guys playing Guardsmen, anything goes. I would assume it would depend largely on the guys 'in charge'. Are they thoughtful people, or Zimmermans? I think you could play it anyway you want/anyway that suits your story.
*It's not that the National Guard have never shot anyone. Kent State comes first to mind. But that was under orders. I don't know what their exact rules are. Presumably there are state by state differences?
 

Dennis E. Taylor

Get it off! It burns!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
365
Location
Beautiful downtown Mordor
This is actual NG, with a Lt. in command, but no comms with higher levels. To this point, I haven't referenced any Martial Law, but it's a good point. I could easily stick in that Martial Law was called just before comms went down.

The problem they'll have to deal with is that this could be a long-term situation, so building a jail and allocating resources to feed and guard 3-5 prisoners for possibly literally years seems like a large commitment. Balance this against the fact that these individuals essentially tried to execute a coup.

Another option might be to give the miscreants a few days supplies and point them south, with the stricture that if they show their faces again, they'll be shot on sight. But that entails a risk, of course.
 
Last edited:

Pony.

Aspiring supervillain
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
3,563
Reaction score
194
Martial law would authorize a more liberal application of deadly force. The last time I can think of the National Guard opened fire on civilians was Kent State, back in 1970. There may be others I’m not aware of since then, and I’m sure there may have been other occasions before 1970. The weekend warrior types in The Rambo movies do exist, and they tend to be the ones who get trigger happy at times like that; something that could play into characterization and motivation for you, too.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,775
Reaction score
6,485
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
That depends totally on the society you build, not the past occupation of soldiers in the society.

Murder is not going to be natural for most people in today's national guard.

But who cares? It's much more important what the social structure has developed into. No jails, perhaps disarmament and exile. Execution, if that is the consensus of the group. If they are reluctant executioners, the trick is to give some blanks so each can believe they weren't the killers.
 

waylander

Who's going for a beer?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
8,279
Reaction score
1,567
Age
65
Location
London, UK
So where is the story going? Do the NG believe order will be restored? If they do, then there is more chance they will exercise restraint as they may be called to account sometime later. If not then its entirely down to the Lt.
 

autumnleaf

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
215
Location
small rainy island
It's psychologically difficult for an ordinary person to shoot another person dead. Accounts from various wars show that the "kill rate" is typically much lower than you'd expect from the number of bullets fired, suggesting some soldiers were deliberately missing or flinched at the last minute.

The "kill rate" is higher when the victim has his back turned and so the shooter doesn't have to see his eyes. Firing squads usually cover the victim's face or eyes (so the shooters don't have to look at the victim) and use blanks for some members of the squad (so the shooter doesn't know for sure whether he shot the killing bullet).

This reluctance to kill diminishes with increased distance from the victim. It's psychologically easier to bomb a village from a plane than to shoot a person in the face, even though the former kills more people.

Training can reduce this unwillingness to kill, although it doesn't reduce the likelihood of subsequent PTSD. Dehumanizing the enemy is another effective (if brutal) way to increase the "kill count".

http://www.milsf.com/psychology-of-killing/
 

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
18,618
Reaction score
4,032
Location
Brillig in the slithy toves...
One reason that soldiers have recurring shooting drills is so that pulling the trigger on command becomes a matter of muscle memory, rather than simply a decision to shoot. (To override the hesitation most people naturally have when presented with a human target.) If you're talking about a firing squad, you might need to have volunteers who are willing to shoot in absence of self-defense scenarios, as a person who might be willing to kill in defense of another might not be willing to shoot without that element of present danger. Another method is to only load some of the rifles being used with projectiles. Each condemned person has two shooters aiming at them. One one of the two rifles has a bullet in it. The other's blank or black powder. Both fire, but both also have the chance to believe the other person is the one who actually killed the mark. Supposedly, executions used to be done this way with three or four people all "throwing the switch," but with only one switch being live for execution. Most people simply aren't coded with the ability to rationalize taking a life outside combat or threat.
 

benbenberi

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
843
Location
Connecticut
Martial law would authorize a more liberal application of deadly force. The last time I can think of the National Guard opened fire on civilians was Kent State, back in 1970. There may be others I’m not aware of since then, and I’m sure there may have been other occasions before 1970. The weekend warrior types in The Rambo movies do exist, and they tend to be the ones who get trigger happy at times like that; something that could play into characterization and motivation for you, too.

NG units have been heavily deployed in our recent wars, some of them repeatedly. I'm not sure there are currently any NG overseas, but I know for a while it seemed there were stories on the local news every few months about some group of them going out or coming back. Even if they weren't technically acting as front-line troops (IIRC the local units were supposed to be doing specialized things like logistics & medical support), they were still in active war zones & had some serious training & exposure.

So chances are, even (especially) in a martial law scenario the NG are pretty serious about following chain of command and rules of engagement, and they're probably not going to panic or go rogue as long as there's a plausible command structure in charge and a well-defined mission. But they will be prepared to defend themselves, and may have had some up-to-date counter-insurgency training as well as disaster response & civil defense. They're not just a bunch of bozos in uniform. They're not going to be eager to shoot anybody. They will be eager to restore, or re-create, the forms of civil society inc. law-and-order. Self-defense is a far cry from summary execution -- it's certainly possible for your NG to find themselves sliding down that slope, but they won't hit the bottom immediately.
 

cmhbob

Did...did I do that?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
5,743
Reaction score
4,840
Location
Green Country
Website
www.bobmuellerwriter.com
Summary execution, early on in an apocalyptic scenario, I find hard to believe, and I'm speaking as a veteran (active-duty MP) and an ex-cop.

Keep in mind that National Guard units have specific missions. You might have an infantry battalion in one county, but two counties up, the local unit is a support services company (mostly mechanics and admin types). You can play with that to some extent. As was pointed out up thread, lots of NG units have served combat deployments, and these days, serving in a support services company as a mechanic doesn't exempt you from pulling convoy duty and seeing combat.

It's also not unusual for soldiers to "reclassify" or change their MOS when they move from active duty to reserves or National Guard. So you might have a former infantryman with three combat tours under his belt now working as a mechanic.

I just have a huge believability problem with summary executions that early. They'll detail soldiers out to stand guard over a barbed wire enclosure before they start shooting people. Every soldier in the Army has served guard duty for one reason or another. My son's a mechanic with 1st Infantry in Kansas, and has spent more time on the front gate than in the motor pool in the last six months.
 

Dennis E. Taylor

Get it off! It burns!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
365
Location
Beautiful downtown Mordor
I just have a huge believability problem with summary executions that early. They'll detail soldiers out to stand guard over a barbed wire enclosure before they start shooting people. Every soldier in the Army has served guard duty for one reason or another. My son's a mechanic with 1st Infantry in Kansas, and has spent more time on the front gate than in the motor pool in the last six months.

And that's the real issue. From a purely logical perspective, executing them makes the most sense, and is probably legally defensible, especially if they killed some people during the coup attempt. The alternatives are to send them back to Earth Prime, where they'll probably starve to death or die of respiratory issues, or send them Earth 3, where they'll likely get eaten by large animals, or drive them 100 miles south in Earth 2 and drop them off, which raises the small possibility of them coming back for revenge.

Or slapping leg irons on them and making them prisoners for the rest of their lives.

None of these are great options. My feeling is that the NG will push the decision off to the civilian council. I'm trying to get a feel for what a bunch of civilians might choose as the least objectionable alternative.

Maybe the council will present the alternatives to the miscreants and let them decide...
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
And, if they're plotters, if they let them loose, what if they go somewhere else and start some new problem.

Or, if building a jail to lock them up and wasting resources feeding them is the issue, why not put 'em in leg-irons and set 'em to work? In a post-Apocalyptic situation there's probably lots of work that needs doing. All it needs is one person to watch them if they're chained up. Maybe two, for backup. Two people who can't do much other work, but who can watch, and if, necessary, shout a warning or shoot them if they try to escape.

The only thing to watch for is if the coup-plotters are persuasive speakers, and might try to talk their way out.
A deaf guard, one who doesn't speak their language, or one with a personal hate for the plotters should take care of that.
Again, make it clear to everyone that 'shot while trying to escape' is on the table.
 

Dennis E. Taylor

Get it off! It burns!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
365
Location
Beautiful downtown Mordor
Or, if building a jail to lock them up and wasting resources feeding them is the issue, why not put 'em in leg-irons and set 'em to work? In a post-Apocalyptic situation there's probably lots of work that needs doing. All it needs is one person to watch them if they're chained up. Maybe two, for backup. Two people who can't do much other work, but who can watch, and if, necessary, shout a warning or shoot them if they try to escape.

Yeah, I'm going to have to go that way, I guess.

The good news is that it can be a continued source of tension.
 

JNG01

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
212
Reaction score
53
Two books that might provide useful info for your question:

"On Killing" by Col. Grossman, which makes a thorough historical examination of human psychological barriers to killing, how that's affected warfare, and how modern military training is designed to try to overcome it;

"Ordinary Men" by Chris Browning, which is a sort of biographical history of reserve police battalion 101 in Poland around the time of WWII--the true story of how perfectly ordinary men ended up becoming part of the Nazi genocide machine.
 

Histry Nerd

Moving Forward!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
294
Reaction score
84
Location
Texas. It's like a whole 'nother country.
Summary execution, early on in an apocalyptic scenario, I find hard to believe, and I'm speaking as a veteran (active-duty MP) and an ex-cop.

...

I just have a huge believability problem with summary executions that early. They'll detail soldiers out to stand guard over a barbed wire enclosure before they start shooting people. Every soldier in the Army has served guard duty for one reason or another. My son's a mechanic with 1st Infantry in Kansas, and has spent more time on the front gate than in the motor pool in the last six months.

I agree with this. I served five years active duty with the U.S. Army (Infantry), followed by seven with the Texas Army National Guard (also Infantry). I spent two of those seven years activated or deployed--six months with the airport security mission after the 9-11 attack, and eighteen training up and deploying to Iraq in 2004-05.

If the National Guard in your story is anything like the Guard I served with, summary execution is very unlikely. If the unit has a strong backbone of combat veterans and has to attack the rebels in order to restore order, they are very likely to kill rebels in the assault. If they capture the rebels alive, they are very unlikely to execute them, especially without trial.

Some factors that might affect this likelihood:
1. The Guard unit has been under fire a lot lately, especially if they believe these are part of the group that's been shooting at them. Your description doesn't make it seem like that's the case.
2. The situation is uncertain locally as well as nationally. If the unit believes there is no law anymore except the law it brings, it might be more likely to take drastic measures. This becomes more likely if combined with #1.
3. The Guard platoon is part of a much larger unit (Brigade at least and well-equipped), whose commander has decided martial law means he is the law and given orders to that affect, and whose soldiers are unquestioningly loyal to him. This is unlikely unless 1 and 2 are also met, and this early in the scenario.

It's also important to remember that National Guard soldiers largely come from among the populations they will be mobilized to protect. Their families will be among the refugees. That means brutal tactics are unlikely in general, but if the Guard unit believes the rebels threaten their families, the rebels are likely to have a hard day of it.

Of course, that also makes other problems like loss of discipline, and even desertion, more likely as soldiers decide they need to be home protecting their families. The longer the crisis persists, the greater a problem this will become.

You can believably go either way if you set it up properly, but this early after the disaster it would be much less likely than later.

Good luck!
HN
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,781
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Police lose it and shoot people who pose little to no threat, even when there are jails and courts available. I have little trouble believing that some national guardsmen or women might summarily shoot looters or criminals in the kind of situation you describe, let alone rebels against what remains of the government they are supposed to be serving. They'd likely be jumpy and scared, and it's hard to predict how quickly and to what degree being the sole remaining authority in their societies might go to their heads. There are multiple ways someone, even a well-meaning someone, can justify lethal force, or even summary executions, to themselves in such a situation. The command structure, or developing culture, within a give unit or group could play a role too.
 
Last edited:

Histry Nerd

Moving Forward!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
294
Reaction score
84
Location
Texas. It's like a whole 'nother country.
Police lose it and shoot people who pose little to no threat, even when there are jails and courts available. I have little trouble believing that some national guardsmen or women might summarily shoot looters or criminals in the kind of situation you describe, let alone rebels against what remains of the government they are supposed to be serving. They'd likely be jumpy and scared, and it's hard to predict how quickly and to what degree being the sole remaining authority in their societies might go to their heads. There are multiple ways someone, even a well-meaning someone, can justify lethal force, or even summary executions, to themselves in such a situation.

This is definitely true. But it's a very different scenario for an individual to pull the trigger against a non-threat in the heat of the moment, and for an entire unit to deliberately execute several non-threats after they are disarmed and neutralized.

The command structure, or developing culture, within a give unit or group could play a role too.

In this scenario, the command structure and culture plays a critical role. If the culture and chain of command are still strong and value order and discipline and the Geneva Convention and due process, it is much more likely that these soldiers would stick to what they know and not execute prisoners. If the culture or the chain of command is weak, or either one fails to value those things, it becomes much more likely that they would shoot the rebels.

I think if you want a Kent State or a My Lai or a Waco, you have plenty of precedent and can write it that way. But you have to set it up if you want people to believe with you.

HN
 

Al X.

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 9, 2017
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
587
Location
V-Town, check it out yo
Website
www.authoralexryan.com
This is definitely true. But it's a very different scenario for an individual to pull the trigger against a non-threat in the heat of the moment, and for an entire unit to deliberately execute several non-threats after they are disarmed and neutralized.



In this scenario, the command structure and culture plays a critical role. If the culture and chain of command are still strong and value order and discipline and the Geneva Convention and due process, it is much more likely that these soldiers would stick to what they know and not execute prisoners. If the culture or the chain of command is weak, or either one fails to value those things, it becomes much more likely that they would shoot the rebels.

I think if you want a Kent State or a My Lai or a Waco, you have plenty of precedent and can write it that way. But you have to set it up if you want people to believe with you.

HN

My experience is similar to that of yours although I was in earlier than you were and in a different theater. I largely agree with your assessment although the Geneva Conventions was largely regarded as a joke, at least as it relates to enemy engagement. Note that the US is a conditional signatory - we agree in principle that adherence to the conventions is a good idea although we do not recognize it as law nor do we agree to be bound by an international entity. DOD enforces it as policy, but just like any other policy, it can changed or waived.

As an aside, it was a common myth that a .50 caliber machine gun could not be used against personnel, only equipment. The US Army Infantry school at the time included in its Geneva Conventions training, the caveat that all soldiers are bearing or wearing equipment, which may be freely engaged.

I spent a significant period of my IRR commitment as cadre at a reserve/NG training center. All I can say is that some of the NG units were more professional than others. Post apocalyptic fiction world? You could spin it however you want.