What are the rules of engagement?

[CaptainObvious]

As we enter the new era of the U.S. Military having authorization to fire upon U.S. citizens, "where warranted", I'm wondering what are the rules of engagement. Are they, as in numerous combat zones, that they must be fired upon before returning fire? Are they, as with police, that the officer(s) must be in fear for their life? What exactly constitutes being in fear for their life if that in fact is the rule of engagement.
Does someone openly brandishing a weapon satisfy? How about someone firing a weapon in the air? What about physical threats, or does it have to be actual assualt?
I ask because as we have seen in multiple cases over several years that when a cop shoots a person who has in fact assaulted, shot at, openly committed acts of violence, that in many cases it is the position of the defense that deadly force was NOT necessary.
Seems we're going to see ourselves in a very murky area, once again divided by political affiliations as to what is a justified shooting of an American citizens.

 

[Bugenhagen]

As we enter the new era of the U.S. Military having authorization to fire upon U.S. citizens, "where warranted", I'm wondering what are the rules of engagement. Are they, as in numerous combat zones, that they must be fired upon before returning fire? Are they, as with police, that the officer(s) must be in fear for their life? What exactly constitutes being in fear for their life if that in fact is the rule of engagement.
Does someone openly brandishing a weapon satisfy? How about someone firing a weapon in the air? What about physical threats, or does it have to be actual assualt?
I ask because as we have seen in multiple cases over several years that when a cop shoots a person who has in fact assaulted, shot at, openly committed acts of violence, that in many cases it is the position of the defense that deadly force was NOT necessary.
Seems we're going to see ourselves in a very murky area, once again divided by political affiliations as to what is a justified shooting of an American citizens.

Trump is still president so if it can be fucked up, it will.

Worst case is Americans experience the same rules they use abroad.

All possible sniper positions will be occupied, nobody has the balls, Americans don't fight unless it is asymmetric. At best will be a state or two with a little fracas.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

As we enter the new era of the U.S. Military having authorization to fire upon U.S. citizens, "where warranted", I'm wondering what are the rules of engagement. Are they, as in numerous combat zones, that they must be fired upon before returning fire? Are they, as with police, that the officer(s) must be in fear for their life? What exactly constitutes being in fear for their life if that in fact is the rule of engagement.
Does someone openly brandishing a weapon satisfy? How about someone firing a weapon in the air? What about physical threats, or does it have to be actual assualt?
I ask because as we have seen in multiple cases over several years that when a cop shoots a person who has in fact assaulted, shot at, openly committed acts of violence, that in many cases it is the position of the defense that deadly force was NOT necessary.
Seems we're going to see ourselves in a very murky area, once again divided by political affiliations as to what is a justified shooting of an American citizens.

If this were a law school pop quiz in current times, the class would need to know the skin colors of the shooter and the shootee to know how to apply the law.

Think I am kidding?

Let the viewers decide.

 

[notagain]

What if the National Guard is in D.C. for keeps?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/e6V3AYONwA8/

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I just hope that Joe does not accept an offer from China to have them place troops in DC to "protect" his regime. Or Joe might agree to allow them to come for "joint military exercises" and out troops go there for joint training.

Think that would be ridiculous to even consider? Talk the Canadians. They have already done it, so that virtue signals to Joe that it is a good thing. Idiots.

Most likely Joe will do some version of it but reframe it as "joint climate change exercises" or some bullshiite that will cause dems to go ga-ga and start self-stimulating.

"They are not bad folks."

China-Canada joint military exercises called off after US raises concerns: Report
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/w...ary-exercises-cancelled-at-usas-behest-182372

 

[Cuddles]

As we enter the new era of the U.S. Military having authorization to fire upon U.S. citizens, "where warranted", I'm wondering what are the rules of engagement. Are they, as in numerous combat zones, that they must be fired upon before returning fire? Are they, as with police, that the officer(s) must be in fear for their life? What exactly constitutes being in fear for their life if that in fact is the rule of engagement.
Does someone openly brandishing a weapon satisfy? How about someone firing a weapon in the air? What about physical threats, or does it have to be actual assualt?
I ask because as we have seen in multiple cases over several years that when a cop shoots a person who has in fact assaulted, shot at, openly committed acts of violence, that in many cases it is the position of the defense that deadly force was NOT necessary.
Seems we're going to see ourselves in a very murky area, once again divided by political affiliations as to what is a justified shooting of an American citizens.

trespassers of secured zones must fire on servicemen first? That's news to me.

 

[Mercor]

Americans don't fight unless it is asymmetric.

Americas should make sure we only fight an asymmetric war We spend on defense more then the next ten countries to ensure this
To fight a symmetric war would be a failure of planning and the cause of needless deaths

 

[Bugenhagen]

Americas should make sure we only fight an asymmetric war We spend on defense more then the next ten countries to ensure this
To fight a symmetric war would be a failure of planning and the cause of needless deaths

Yep, just sometimes as an individual you meet a fair or even close match and its embarassing to see how American guys strut and run.

Who would have thought it was sky high insurance costs keeps the peace domestically?

As I said, with all sniper positions occupied, nobody will do shit.

 

[userque]

trespassers of secured zones must fire on servicemen first? That's news to me.

I doubt he was ever a Captain in the military.

 

[El OchoCinco]

As we enter the new era of the U.S. Military having authorization to fire upon U.S. citizens, "where warranted", I'm wondering what are the rules of engagement. Are they, as in numerous combat zones, that they must be fired upon before returning fire? Are they, as with police, that the officer(s) must be in fear for their life? What exactly constitutes being in fear for their life if that in fact is the rule of engagement.
Does someone openly brandishing a weapon satisfy? How about someone firing a weapon in the air? What about physical threats, or does it have to be actual assualt?
I ask because as we have seen in multiple cases over several years that when a cop shoots a person who has in fact assaulted, shot at, openly committed acts of violence, that in many cases it is the position of the defense that deadly force was NOT necessary.
Seems we're going to see ourselves in a very murky area, once again divided by political affiliations as to what is a justified shooting of an American citizens.

When police are allowed to use force on unarmed people running away or even those complying with the law, why shoudl you think that suddenly there is a clear understanding of when violence will NOT be allowed.

How many innocent people were killed because the cop "thought" he had a weapon.