Speaking of things that enrage me (admittedly, a very long list), we have this little situation:
Authorities have released of the name of the suspect accused of throwing Molotov cocktails into a federal building, adding that they believe he was “motivated by anti-immigration enforcement sentiment.”
The incident occurred on Monday, with the suspect identified as 54-year-old Jose Francisco Jovel. Authorities have released images showing the moment Jovel allegedly carried out his act.
Here’s the reason for my rage.
The first recorded use of said bombs was during the Spanish Civil War, when Nationalists threw them at the Soviet-supplied tanks of the Communistic Republicans. The actual term “Molotov cocktails” was coined by the Finns as they battled the Soviets during the Winter War of 1939, and was actually used ironically, the target being the then-Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov.
Anyone else see a trend, here?
Let’s not put lace panties on this pork chop: the Molotov cocktail is a weapon of war. More to the point, it is a horribly-dangerous and malevolent weapon. When it works, it is capable of setting fire to everyone and anything around it — an inflammable grenade, if you will.
Throwing a Molotov cocktail at a structure shows an intent to set the place on fire, endangering the lives of everyone inside. Throwing a Molotov cocktail at a person or group of people shows an intent to burn someone to death.
So here’s my question. How is it that when someone fires a gun at a building or a person, the rules of engagement for police (or the military) allows for the immediate shooting of said miscreant; yet when someone lobs a Molotov cocktail, the response is (metaphorically) a shrug of the shoulders?
It’s wrong.
Let me tell you: anytime a “protestor” is seen to be preparing a Molotov cocktail — that would be setting fire to the wick tied to the bottle’s neck — this action should be regarded as an act of war, and constitute grounds for a sniper or designated marksman to shoot the motherfucker dead on the spot, whether said tosser [sic] has thrown the thing or not.
Let’s get back to our terrorist wannabe:
Bill Essayli, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, said in a statement that the building he targeted “houses our U.S. Attorney’s Office, ICE, and is where illegal immigrants are processed.”
“Jovel was targeting our immigration enforcement operations and wanted to send a political message,” he said.
“Thankfully, the devices did not ignite and no one was injured. Jovel was immediately arrested. Federal officers seized Jovel’s belongings and discovered five other Molotov cocktails,” Essayli, said, adding that Jovel is charged with “attempted malicious damage of federal property, and faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in federal prison and up to 20 years’ imprisonment. This is an ongoing investigation and we’ll be looking at adding additional charges.”
Wrong, wrong and again, wrong. In the first place, the charges should include attempted murder — fuck that “damage of federal property” jive — and should carry a mandatory sentence of life without parole.
More important, however, is this. Had there been an armed guard on duty at the establishment in question, the rules of engagement should have been such as to allow the guard to shoot this Jovel asshole at the very minute he lit the wick, or drew back his arm to throw the bomb.
And I want law enforcement’s rules of engagement changed to take care of this little reindeer game, immediately.
If you can’t shoot someone who is committing an overt act of war against you, who the hell can you shoot, then?
It’s probably impractical – people who actually shoot would know better than I would – but what I’d like to see is snipers targeting the Molotov cocktails rather than the rioters. If it IS a gasoline bomb, it splashes burning gasoline all over the idiot who was lighting the wick; flash roasted nitwit. And if the ‘bomb’ is a fake filled with water, nothing too bad happens, so the sniper(s) are protected from charges of excessive force.
I’m of the opinion — no doubt of increasing popularity — that, immediately on the instantiation of a “protest” (really an act of insurrection), the relevant authority should be mandated (by statute) to “read the riot act” and authorize the use of lethal force to scotch the event. Do that a couple times and violent protests become a thing of the past.
It’s my understanding that lethal force may be applied to stop people from setting fire to any occupied structure, such as a home or business. IIRC, the laws regarding this situation do not require you to confirm actual occupancy, but can be assumed due to conditions that would indicate a likelihood of this being the case.
I was in an MP unit in the DC Guard in the 60’s for race and anti-war riots, and we were often issued 80-100 rounds ammo in magazines for our M-14’s and loose ammo for riot shotguns if we were going on the street. Most of our training from 68-70 was at an artificial village at Fort AP Hill, where we practiced riot control tactics. For call ups, we were sworn en masse on the armory floor by either the DC Police Chief or the Mayor, I forget which, as “Special Police” and given a sticky back paper badge for our outer garment, which gave us arrest powers in the District. We could handcuff and search an individual, but were not authorized to search a vehicle or building. We had to call the DC police for that.
Our ROE said just stand by and do nothing but watch for theft/looting, protect firemen as required, shoot the perp for life endangerment such as presentation of a weapon or lighting of a firebomb such as a Molotov cocktail. Note “lighting”, not “throwing.”
We were told to carry empty and not insert a magazine, but when four or five of us were on curfew road block checkpoints at night and washed with headlight glare, we quickly realized how stupidly vulnerable we were and always loaded a magazine and chambered a round, safety on, before approaching a vehicle to order the driver out for credential check, curfew violation or whatever. I suppose we could have been court martialed, but better that than shot or run over.
yeah, tossing molotov cocktails are incendiary bombs and should be treated appropriately. If you bring that to a protest then you’re no longer peaceful and should be prosecuted for arson, attempted murder and whatever else the DA can throw at you.
“..this action should be regarded as an act of war, and constitute grounds for a sniper or designated marksman to shoot the motherfucker dead on the spot,..”
Excuse me? Why should just snipers and DM’s have all the fun?
Who said the DM had to be in uniform? [innocent grin]
I can be charged with “damage of federal property” if I dig a hole in a National Park. It’s getting time to strengthen the FO part of FA. What’s the meme? “It’s not the sledgehammer against a fly, it’s the other flies that are watching” or “Stick a few heads on a pike, the message will be received”
Had the terrorist been a conservative Christian or Trump voter in general he’d have been charged with crimes that carry a mandatory life sentence without parole, and the left would be screaming for “reinstating the death penalty for far right extremists”.
But he’s a leftist in commiefornia so they’re doing their absolute best to brush it all under the rug.