The ROE for our soldiers in combat has been cumbersome for quite some time, it is not new to this horrible administration. The ROE for our soldiers (in my lifetime) has basically ranged from from visual of weapon to actually being shot at before they could “defend” themselves. This in a combat zone mind you.
We now are seeing officer involved shootings where they are considered “justified” if there was a visual of a weapon or the “appearance” of a weapon. There are even some which are deemed “justified” due to finding a gun on the person after he is down (read no visual of weapon). And even a slight few deemed “justified” where the person “acted” in a way that made the officer think he might be trying to reach for something that might be a weapon.
We are on a very slippery slope when we offer American citizens less restraint than that we demand for the enemy in warfare.
As far as the police, they have a very important job with a major amount of trust levied to them by We The People. They are entrusted with the right to take away that which is most precious to an American citizen....their freedom. They must be held to a very high standard.
Now, this guy with the pipe. Middle of Iraq, you probably could have shot this guy, he certainly looked the part of aggressor with a weapon. I do not necessarily think this was a completely unjustifiable use of force.
I do though worry about the visual of weapon = justified. How are We The People supposed to exercise our God given right to bear arms, if visual of weapon is sufficient to use deadly force? It wasn’t more than 30 years ago that every truck had rifles hanging in the back window. I do not remember a load of citizens being shot by police back then. What has changed? Has policy changed? Has law enforcement teaching changed? Something has changed, and it is not for the better.
We are marching further and further away from that which our forefathers left us. We would do well to study those before us.
In certain towns of the Old West, where and when lawlessness became out of control, guns were banned and sheriffs shot on sight those carrying. More recently, back during the 50s when big city youth gangs were white, gang fights involved everything that could maim and kill - but not guns - for one reason: gang members would be shot on sight if a cop saw a gun. But that's back when cops were legally considered justified in shooting anyone - even the unarmed - fleeing from them.
What I admit has changed is how many more places and in how many more situations guns for self-defense are being banned. That can be easily explained by how much lawlessness has been spreading during the liberalization of society in the past 50 years. How many more places and situations are cops now being shot at!
To return to the good-old-days, 2 things have to be done, both at the same time: 1) Society has to demand respect for law & order [along with the cops that represent it] and stop making thugs heroes and victims. 2) The law must respect the right of armed self-defense while coming down hard on the thugs