What a crap take. You know how many people young and old have been in a foreign country with a majority of the populace looking to kill them, have a thing called ROE Rules Of Engagement to guide when they should shoot to kill. Many time people with weapons, lethal weapons in their hand and those people would have to gauge whether or not they were a threat.
All police should have to adhere to a common ROE when engaging with the America/non American populace. If soldiers had to do it in a country where they were not welcome it should be a no brainier that the people sworn to "protect and serve" should have to do this bare minimum in our own country.
You did read the article including the part he was attacking his sister possibly with the garden tool or "piece of glass" while his other family was avoiding him and calling the cops? What is your threat assessment of that?
Anyways...
I don't know if the shooting was justified or not, and I've never made such statement and don't have an opinion one way or the other.
My post, if you read it again, is about The Guardians lack of information about the freaking tool.
That's all I want to know. What is the tool? JFC people.
Do you think that his family who called the cops wanted the cops to murder him?
Heard you the first time. Just leave it there then? Perhaps they hadn't been given that information yet.
Can you provide me with an example ROE and show me how the actions of the police here would have violated it?
Just for clarity, Here is the body cam video of the attack.
What ROE would have prohibited a member of the military deployed in a foreign nation from using lethal force in an equivalent scenario?
What a crap take. You know how many people young and old have been in a foreign country with a majority of the populace looking to kill them, have a thing called ROE Rules Of Engagement to guide when they should shoot to kill. Many time people with weapons, lethal weapons in their hand and those people would have to gauge whether or not they were a threat.
All police should have to adhere to a common ROE when engaging with the America/non American populace. If soldiers had to do it in a country where they were not welcome it should be a no brainier that the people sworn to "protect and serve" should have to do this bare minimum in our own country.
You did read the article including the part he was attacking his sister possibly with the garden tool or "piece of glass" while his other family was avoiding him and calling the cops? What is your threat assessment of that?
Anyways...
I don't know if the shooting was justified or not, and I've never made such statement and don't have an opinion one way or the other.
My post, if you read it again, is about The Guardians lack of information about the freaking tool.
That's all I want to know. What is the tool? JFC people.
Do you think that his family who called the cops wanted the cops to murder him?
Heard you the first time. Just leave it there then? Perhaps they hadn't been given that information yet.
Can you provide me with an example ROE and show me how the actions of the police here would have violated it?
Just for clarity, Here is the body cam video of the attack.
What ROE would have prohibited a member of the military deployed in a foreign nation from using lethal force in an equivalent scenario?