I just watched the video. I have a hard time justifying it. My frame of reference is that of a soldier in a combat zone. This would be a crime and a court marshal. The ROE I've been under required a direct threat. Yeah, that increases the danger but that's what you accept when you sign up for a dangerous job. Soldiers want to get home safe to their families just as much as cops do. But if you aren't willing to accept the risk, you should choose a different job.
It seems like soldiers in a war zone are held to a higher standard for use of lethal force. I would think it would be the opposite. I used to watch JAG so I know how it works.
Depends on who is president at the time determines the ROE.
The current administration is drawing praises from the folks on the ground, while the past administration put soldiers in jail for minor infractions of the ROE.
I see. Maybe we can just get Trump to tweet out the ROE for law enforcement. Settle this whole mess once and for all.
He offered to do that in the case of Chicago and the murder rate in that city. The democratic administration turned him down, then came out with statements favorable to gun control. Imagine that.
Apparently you are unaware of the non-existence authority of a President over State and Local Law Enforcement.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My statement was supposed to be a joke that I thought was pretty funny.
Just to enhance on this post, Democratic administrations are alway in favor of moving the military into the local population to assimilate and convince the people looking to kill them that they are good guys winning hearts and minds to mitigate the conflict. While in reality, the populous is looking for ways to kill and maim the invaders. The ROE needs to be determined by the military and not politicians.
