Jakki wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Oddism wrote:
1. The Secret Service sniper that killed the assassin was watching him through the scope of his gun for quite a while before any shots were fired. When the first shot was fired, he jumps slightly (can't blame him) and then returns fire without turning his own gun at all. It was clearly already aimed at the target, so he knew the target was there. Why the delay? Was he waiting for permission to take the shot? Nervous about killing a man? Ok fine, but in that case why weren't the foot agents beside Trump doing anything to get him off stage?
Jurisdiction and rules of engagement are likely factors in this.
If you shoot someone with what turns out to be an umbrella you've probably just ruined your career in the SS.
Have found rules of engagement are generally used as a cover up for murder of one type or another .
Especially regarding a Presidential person. Believe Presidential security is Paramount in this country . Have seen
much lower level law enforcement fabricate circumstances to justify a homicide "1st hand " .
The incompitency level of the secret service in this issue . imho . was planned . These folks are trained to act at the least hint of threat, as I understand it.

.[Think this through please , ] if your country has a Satillite system that can read license plates from Outter Space. Then wouldn't security enforcement use them for keeping the President safe.?

Then add police drones, Secret service , FBI , NSA, Special Snipers ,This situation just stinks . The question is how did this guy get radicalized?
And why is this pattern of evidence not getting any media attention?????
While I agree with your general idea that sometimes RoE are used to justify use of force that might have been applied too aggressively, in this case they likely had the opposite effect and delayed what was ultimately a justified use of force.
Literally all
rules of engagement refers to is the guidelines someone who might be authorized to use deadly force has to follow before they're allowed to escalate to deadly force.
Ultimately if someone cites RoE to defend a questionable use of force they're moving the responsibility up the chain of command and hoping to pass the buck when questions of discretion are asked.
This is an example of how hard is might be to provide perfect RoE, given that one can't perfectly predict how a use of force situation will unfold. It's also an example of how the general public expects use of force to never occur before it needs to be but also expects it to be immediate as soon as (and with hindsight that obvious didn't exist in the moment) it's understood that use of force was necessary.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.