A man standing at the entrance of a naval base in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico… pointed a gun at marines. His condition and motives are currently unknown.
Link: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1519270989303191/?app=fbl
A man standing at the entrance of a naval base in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico… pointed a gun at marines. His condition and motives are currently unknown.
Link: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1519270989303191/?app=fbl
Thanks for posting! Please be sure to read the rules, and make sure your post is not a repost of content from the past 30 days.
If your post is a repost of content posted 10 or less posts ago, you should perhaps delete it now, or else you will receive a 7-day ban. THIS IS YOUR WARNING!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I’m sure his motives he wanted to die and got the military to do it
Death by Marine.
He drowned?
Strangled by an octopus, actually.
Choked to death by crayola actually
Seems like a clear suicide-by-cop/military to me. Pretty sad.
Apparently it was another marine? That's what I heard on the other mexican subs.
That might explain why the took so long to neutralize him.
My first thought as well. No way he thought he was living through this and he waited a long time before he did anything. He kept testing pointing and getting closer like he just wanted shot not some blitz attack out of anger "at least I can take a couple with me" style.
The really sad part is that some of those Marines are going to have to deal with the fact that they just had to kill somebody. The dude pointed his gun at them several times before they finally opened fire. Marines showed a lot of restraint before sending rounds.
Asides from the obvious, I kind of wonder if they were trying to get him into a place where they can shoot him without any collateral
It's called training...
Marines are trained for killing other human beings. That’s their purpose.
There’s a huge difference between being trained and ready to kill someone, and wanting to kill someone.
Not true, the majority of Marines are in non-combat roles. While they’ve all been trained on how to use a rifle only a minority have the exact purpose of killing or capturing the enemy.
Mate, a soldiers job is to protect their country and the default way of doing that is by speed up other people's arrival at the Heavenly Gates.
When you join the military you need to be honest with yourself and understand that you may need to kill other people. If you want to save people you join ambulance service or firefighters. But the most basic job of the military is to kill people, though sometimes you might get to save people by killing other people.
And it doesn't matter if you are a frontline trooper, a truck driver or a paper pusher, when push comes to shove you are expected to shoot any morherf***er that tries to kill you or your teammates.
The vast majority of the US military is made up of support roles. Somewhere around 15% is purely combat roles.
They’re also one of the largest providers of humanitarian assistance. When natural disasters happen the US military will often be there to render assistance to those affected.
In todays all volunteer military you can absolutely choose a support job.
And if you’re a paper pusher and someone is trying to kill you then you’re most likely either lost or encountering a domestic criminal. The vast majority of people who are currently in or have left the military have never fired a shot in anger despite just fighting a 20 year war.
Because counter terrorism/ counter insurgency operations do not require many frontline troops. That might change when fighting near peer enemy. Right now US have about 1-6 combat to non combat roles ratio.Ukraine that has more or less same number of soldiers (about 1 million) has 1-3 ratio.
Again, if you want to help people and save lives, you should join one of the SAR teams, not organization which primary task is to kill people.
Yeah, in the peace time. But when the war starts and bullets start flying, you might get a rife, few mags and order to enjoy your promotion to a frontline trooper.
Correct. But you cannot join military thinking that you will be just a mechanic or an office guy and will never see any action, you won't have to kill someone.
Modern militaries are lot more technical and specialized.
Reducing or removing trained support personnel and putting them in combat roles is a decision made out of desperation that you’re unlikely to find the modern U.S. military. But when it does happen it’s usually combined with a draft at which point many people don’t have a choice but to join.
The U.S. military’s primary role is defense which favors deterrence through the projection of power not killing.
Ukraine has the unfortunate reality of being more susceptible to invasion by a nation much larger that them. For the US that is far less likely and practically impossible at the moment.
1: "Every Marine is a Rifleman!"
2: It was literally these people's job. I understand they probably didn't want to, but it's literally the reason they have weapons.
That’s a slogan, not a job title. If every marine was a rifleman they’d wouldn’t get paid, fed, watered, supplied, or transported.
The reason these specific people in the video have weapons is to deter and defend the installation from attack.
Bruh, the job is LITERALLY war.
This is like saying that the pizza delivery driver didn't deserve to get into a car accident. You're right, but obviously there's a whole lot higher chance, given the choice of profession.
The job in this case is “literally” guard duty.
But even in war there are rules that have to be obeyed like not targeting non-combatants. Violations can lead to real prison time and a dishonorable discharge.
It could also be "Borrowed Military Manpower" like the program I was in during my enlistment in the Army. When I did gate guard. And was trained on exactly what to do in this scenario.
I also worked for the Marines as a contractor so I understand a bit about how much pride is taken in that "slogan".
You can rightfully state that this shouldn't have happened. But you should also be able to recognize that "suicide by cop" can't happen if there's no cop... I'm just saying, it comes with the territory
Well their MOS won’t be titled “gate guard,” but that’s what they are doing. I’m not saying their MOS is a non-combat role, I’m just pointing out that their purpose isn’t just to kill people.
Yes, Marines are very proud of their warrior culture, but it’s a slogan nonetheless.
They're trained to kill hostile combatants, not countrymen.
I'm older, and have always hung around guys older than me. I've known a lot of Vietnam vets who've spent the rest of their lives dealing with it.
None of it's easy, and these guys are going to have to deal with killing one of their own...sucks.
Yeah that's why so many of them are doing so great mentally after being over seas right?
It says 'status unknown', it's not the US so they probably didn't unload a load of rounds in his chest.
If you listen to the audio there are 4 shots. 1, 2, pause, 3, 4. They reacted and didn't unload at their fellow Marines and citizen traffic. Very reasonable and controlled IMO.
yeah, cause not US...That was my point....
And I was corroborating your point. You said "probably" as if you didn't know the answer. The audio has the answer.
I don’t understand your point of “not US”… it was the US marines.
Holy crossfire
I was thinking the same. Great tactic to wait until everyone is in line to fire.
Because everyone has to fire at the same time of course…
Two guys fired I’d say, the guy with the helmet who was on him the entire time, and the guy with out his cap, you see cap less man tag helmet guy as the gunman rounds the corner, that’s him saying “right here” you have a guy behind the truck directing traffic from behind cover. In my assumption helmet man takes the first burst and capless man takes the second.
No criss fire at all as far as I can see….
How dude wasn’t dropped instantly blows my mind
My only guess is that wall is very tall and solid, so really blocking the two sides from seeing each other.
On the other hand, they were clearly reacting like they knew there was a threat outside the gate. So I think they just didn't really know what to do, or there was some kind of culture theyre dealing with that prevents action.
[deleted]
Uf, they definitely waited until they were in each other's cross fire before they did shoot though.
Rules of engagement.
Depending upon what state of alert they're in, they can be quite restrictive.
Unless you're in active combat, you generally don't get to just shoot people unless they're an actual (not potential or just being shot at) threat to your life. IE: being actively engaged by an identified enemy.
Edit: because some people don't quite understand what an actual threat is.
I mean… he’s pointing a gun at them like the whole time….
During the last 20 years of war in the middle East everyone had guns. Tons of the Afghani population carried and pointes AKs at us, but the RoEs were you could only shoot back. Meaning they had to fire at you first
I was deployed at the very end of the war in the Afghanistan and while our RoE were absolutely insane, the one thing was alway very clear, anyone pointing a weapon at you (as in aiming in a way that would allow them to shoot you) was a threat and you could engage that person.
Waiting until someone kills you or your friends before shooting back is insane. No civilians ever aimed weapons at us at any point throughout multiple regions.
People carrying AKs and just flagging everyone was okay because they weren't aiming them, they were careless because of the culture, and while it was super uncomfortable, it was understandable.
Also, we could engage anyone just carrying a sniper rifle or an RPG. People with those weapons were designated as enemy combatants, and the civilian population was perfectly aware of that.
Marines vs everyone else maybe? Military cares much more about those “assets.”
Easy solution, if they point a gun at you, drop them, and put spent x39 brass next to them. 2010 was a different time...
Now we’re thinking
That is fucking terrifying. I don't think I'd be able to handle the stress of that. Did they know the rules and took advantage of the fact?
Don't let American police propaganda influence you. Ask any GWOT veteran about what constitutes a threat to your life and compare that to the horseshit the cops use as an excuse. Its pathetic
1,000%
Pointing a gun directly at you is a direct threat. You have a wild take.
Yeah, I don't know why you're getting downvoted for this, and maybe I will too. If someone points a gun at me, I don't know how I could perceive it as anything but a threat on my life. I know active military may have different rules for engagement, but I have to think that if someone is 10 feet away from me, pointing a gun at me, it's crazy to think that I'd have to wait for them to shoot before I'm allowed to fire back. Basically, they get the first shot? So they might kill me, and I have to wait for that to happen before I can react?
Yeah, that's why military interacting with civilians is fraught with issues. And also why the US, Aus, and other militaries copped a lot of (undeserved & deserved) flack for civilians dying when conflicts have moved into 'policing' and nation building phases.
And especially when you're facing insurgents that are very difficult to differentiate from civilians with weapons for hunting and self defence.
Killing civilians is a war crime and many states have laws that heavily limit how their military can act against their own citizens.
When not on duty they're able to act as you would think, but on duty everything changes.
Coward
Actual threat to life vs perceived threat to life
Having a gun pointed at you is an actual threat to your life
No, it's a potential threat to one's life.
Shit, (edit if you're military on duty), even when someone's shooting at you doesn't necessarily mean you are authorised to shoot back.
Edit: there also could be circumstances where they could be required to shoot anyone, threatening or not. Yes, those circumstances would be more extreme, but the point is that the threat is not the be all and end all of whether one can fire.
The man with the gun has a clean line of sight and ability to shoot many marines.
All it would’ve taken was the man to pull the trigger once and it could’ve killed a Marine. To me, and the law, that is a threat of imminent death or grave bodily injury (atleast in the USA)
Sure, and if they were not military they would almost certainly be perfectly within their rights (even as Mexicans in Mexico) to shoot the man.
But they're military, operating under a specific set of rules of engagement. An officer may order them to open fire or may not, they may have to wait for permission to open fire or return fire depending on the circumstances and particular rules of engagement they're operating under.
They don't have the same leeway that you or I do when defending ourselves. And the military has to be very hands off when dealing with civilians. With the whole killing civilians is a war crime thing. (Why a soldier disguising themself as a civilian is war crime)
Yes. It absolutely does authorize you to shoot back. What country are you from?
It depends upon the specific rules of engagement the unit is under at that point in time.
There's plenty of examples. NATO forces in Serbia, UN forces all over the place, Australian forces in East Timor.
A unit doesn't always have permission to fire on a potential or active threat or even return fire.
Why are you asking what country I'm from? Is it in an attempt to de-legitimise my argument?
My point was not state or military specific for a start.
Are you from Mexico?
Someone holding a gun is a potential threat to one's life. Someone pointing a gun at you is just a threat.
Not if you're behind armour, bulletproof glass, wearing body armour, behind barriers, or the gun is uploaded or not real.
The point is rules of engagement will sometimes require a non-civilian identified enemy actively engaging you, and sometimes not even then - eg Serbia
You really had to move the goal posts far to make that point didn't you.
No. I didn't. The point is about rules of engagement.
That the military doesn't just get to shoot people because they have a gun pointed at them.
The goal posts have stayed the same, no matter that some people have latched onto an example thinking it is the lynchpin of the argument as a whole.
You're right bringing up bullet proof glass wasn't a stretch in the slightest given the context of the clip and conversation.
That's just an example of when different circumstances change what the actual threat is.
The moment he raised that weapon he was a threat to their lives.......
I get that, however he was an actual threat to their lives lol. Dude had a gun pointed at them wdym
He was also a Marine, those guys ready to drop him are his comrades. I'm sure no one wanted to shoot him, that's why they took their time until there was no other choice.
ROE maybe I dont know if I was on gate guard and someone pulled a gun id be mag dumping for sure on their ass haha
I guess American soldiers are much better trained than the average American cop?
Nah fuck that. You point the gun, you’ve done buttered your last biscuit…
I think most cops in most countries would’ve shot the guy!
100
If this was Fort Benning, he would be a grease stain on the asphalt after showing the gun
[deleted]
Go point a gun at ur cops and lmk how it goes
[deleted]
Correct, given that guy was pointing a wallet at the cop and claiming he had a gun in his pocket. Wouldn’t be out of the realm for him to get shot in the US doing that, but it’s also not proving the other guy wrong since he wasn’t actually pointing a gun.
My guy he was pointing a gun at them for 37 seconds
Marines are not cops.
Which would explain why they didn’t shoot, soldiers have rules of engagement.
There are, like, a handful, at most, places in the world where you might not get shot or beaten down immediately, and even then you're still likely to be shot. The fuck are you talking about?
You can expect to get got anywhere in the world when you point a gun at an armed man.
Mexico is not like most countries.
Tell me about it. It's a shit hole.
[deleted]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Marine_Corps
Suicide
Nice eggs
Took incredibly long, like waiting for the perfect crossfire position.
How are they not stopping traffic?
It's Mexico.
Maybe not enough time to?
That was quite the.... Mexican standoff.
Respect 🙏
I don't think this fits this sub. How is he an idiot with a gun when he got exactly what he wanted?
How do Soldiers have so much more restraint with their Firearms than US Policemen?
Training
They don't. You're seeing a small set of videos, similar to how I can show you videos of cops having far more restraint than they realistically should be showing.
Hm…I saw a guy wearing a shirt today, it said “Marine corp. One shot, One Kill.”
That wasn’t one shot….unless each of them shot one at him….
You always double tap
Suicide attempt
He must have wanted to delete himself.
If this were US Marines, he would’ve been dead 20 minute ago
Well their MOS won’t be titled “gate guard,” but that’s what they are doing. I’m not saying their MOS is a non-combat role, I’m just pointing out that their purpose isn’t just to kill people.
Yes, Marines are very proud of their warrior culture, but it’s a slogan nonetheless.
He would have been shot the first moment he raised his weapon in the US. And several would have mag dumped.
It is crazy the restrain these officers and soldiers maintained.
Lots of people in the crossfire there
Lol traffic still rolling by
Oof... That's (Hopefully only attempted) suicide by military if I've ever seen one...
On another note you didn't tag this correctly, the post isn't 18 plus and I'd at least have used the "NSFW - Bodily Injuries" tag instead of just NSFW...
👍
They got pointed at with a gun for way too long they even let him flank them
Dude, is it really that easy to get a gun in Mexico? There are thousands and thousands of people involved in arms and drug trafficking.
As a United States Air Force retiree, the one thing I know is if you pull this stunt on the fine men and women who man the gates at the entrance to the base. This would be your last act. Military Security personnel trained to deal with these situations, calmly, rationally and very effectively….
They were much more patient than I would have been. Once he raised his gun to point at a marine, I would have expected it to be over.
Yikes! Holy failure to engage. If he really wanted to hurt them he could have.
They took way too long to shoot him, and when they did almost got buddy in the back with the crossfire
I mean, if you can't end it yourself. Have someone else end it for you. I just hope he didn't feel pain for too long.
Why didn't they empty their clips?
Magazines
Who cares? Why didn't they plaster him with 1 instead of 20?
T r a f f i c
Couldn't they just taze him? Or shoot him in the leg?
Looks like they did show considerable restraint.
Yes, if they are cool with the possibility of dying, they could absolutely do that.
And if youre OK with that risk I encourage you to enlist, if not cowards like me will enlist, and we'll avoid risking our lives.
I'm JOKING!!!! Why didn't they shoot him faster?
Maybe they were trying to taze him in the legs. Ever think of that?