[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Say one of our soldiers, serving in a war zone (Iraq lets say), finds an incoherent unarmed Iraqi, pants around the ankles, middle of an intersection, messing with cars going by. By our current ROE, can he shoot him?

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: No. No. No.

At MOST he can be physically restrained and detained.

And you had better not use one ounce of force more then absolutely necessary.

[walkingdead]

The question was of course rhetorical, that being said I am glad you answered it.

What kills me is we have had men in harms way with an ROE of only fire when fired upon. Police officers need to accept some level of risk, heck we expect our men and women in arms to accept more risk when dealing with potential enemy combatants on foreign soil. This is crazy.

A free society, especially one with the right to keep and bear arms, cannot coexist with a police force who can shoot someone just because they felt threatened. For instance, how am I to exercise my right to be armed, when the mere sight of a gun constitues a just shooting?

The road we are heading down should scare every freedom loving American.