A Texas sheriff's office released bodycam video nearly a week after deputies allegedly shot a woman, mistaking her for an intruder, after she forgot her keys and broke the glass to get into an apartment.
tbf, if you approach soldiers in an active combat zone while carrying a gun, they are legally allowed to shoot you. The weapon marks you as a combatant.
That’s not what I was told when I was sent to a combat zone. There’s a thing called escalation of force and someone simply holding a gun isn’t automatically a target.
That’s not actually true. ROE gets much more specific than that. The US holds that members of the military always retain the right to self defense, but that means that there are times you can’t fire until someone fires on you. So a weapon doesn’t default to legally allowed to shoot. And frequently there are rules about how you escalate force to include verbal warnings given in the local language.
The US Manual for Military Commissions (2007) states: “Lawful enemy combatant” means a person who is:
A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
I would link to a primary source, but they’re all PDFs. So, this is from the Red Cross. There are additional requirements, but openly carrying arms is a big one.
I’m not disagreeing about them being a combatant. I’m disagreeing that being a combatant gives the military carte blanche authority to kill you. Like I said, the rules of engagement can be very specific about how, when, where, and with who you are legally allowed to engage. Self defense is the only universal time the US military is allowed to use lethal force. Outside of that you follow the restrictions and force escalations parameters outlined in the ROE.
Part of the point I was trying to make was about how clearly, those two cops did not see things in the same way as we do. They are very clearly behaving as if it was an active warzone, and they are facing a confirmed enemy.
I am more interested in the source of this mentality than I am simply brushing it off as a broader “cops are always whatever”.
This mentality comes from the “warrior” and “killology” training methodologies that many, if not most of, US cops follow. They basically are convinced that they are warriors in a warzone, and any suspect or perpetrator is their enemy. They treat everyone as if they had a gun and are trying to kill officers.
This CNN video gives a decent example of some of their training, and helps explain why US cops are so scared and eager to shoot at everyone and everything.
tbf, neither of those is an active warzone. DMZ is under an armistice, and Afghanistan was an occupation. In both cases the hot part of the war is over, and peace/pacification is the order of business.
tbf, if you approach soldiers in an active combat zone while carrying a gun, they are legally allowed to shoot you. The weapon marks you as a combatant.
That’s not what I was told when I was sent to a combat zone. There’s a thing called escalation of force and someone simply holding a gun isn’t automatically a target.
That’s not actually true. ROE gets much more specific than that. The US holds that members of the military always retain the right to self defense, but that means that there are times you can’t fire until someone fires on you. So a weapon doesn’t default to legally allowed to shoot. And frequently there are rules about how you escalate force to include verbal warnings given in the local language.
The US Manual for Military Commissions (2007) states: “Lawful enemy combatant” means a person who is:
A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
I would link to a primary source, but they’re all PDFs. So, this is from the Red Cross. There are additional requirements, but openly carrying arms is a big one.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/fr/customary-ihl/v2/rule3
edit for formatting
I’m not disagreeing about them being a combatant. I’m disagreeing that being a combatant gives the military carte blanche authority to kill you. Like I said, the rules of engagement can be very specific about how, when, where, and with who you are legally allowed to engage. Self defense is the only universal time the US military is allowed to use lethal force. Outside of that you follow the restrictions and force escalations parameters outlined in the ROE.
Ah, I see. Thank you.
“In an active combat zone” is doing some heavy lifting there.
Part of the point I was trying to make was about how clearly, those two cops did not see things in the same way as we do. They are very clearly behaving as if it was an active warzone, and they are facing a confirmed enemy.
I am more interested in the source of this mentality than I am simply brushing it off as a broader “cops are always whatever”.
This mentality comes from the “warrior” and “killology” training methodologies that many, if not most of, US cops follow. They basically are convinced that they are warriors in a warzone, and any suspect or perpetrator is their enemy. They treat everyone as if they had a gun and are trying to kill officers.
This CNN video gives a decent example of some of their training, and helps explain why US cops are so scared and eager to shoot at everyone and everything.
The US is not an active combat zone though.
Sure it is, you can see a fascistic occupation force right there.
Agreed. Just pointing out that this is a militaristic mindset, in disagreement with the previous commenter that wanted to say it was not.
Soldiers in Afghanistan in the latter part weren’t even allowed to return fire unless they were fired upon and the shots were close to hitting.
The same rule is used at the DMZ in Korea, with the added bit of never actually hit a North Korean.
tbf, neither of those is an active warzone. DMZ is under an armistice, and Afghanistan was an occupation. In both cases the hot part of the war is over, and peace/pacification is the order of business.