General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGeorge Zimmerman Had More Legal Authority To Shoot And Kill Than Our Troops Do At War
George Zimmerman Had More Legal Authority To Shoot And Kill Than Our Troops Do At War
By Guest Blogger on Apr 10, 2012 at 9:30 am
Our guest blogger is Jon Soltz, founder and chairman of VoteVets.org.
The Trayvon Martin case has gripped the nation, and forced the country to re-examine our gun laws. But the horrible affair has struck me in another way, because of my two tours in Iraq. One fact stands out in my mind: The Stand Your Ground law in Florida, which may let George Zimmerman off the hook for the killing of Martin, gives more leeway to shooters than our own military gives to soldiers in war.
VoteVets.org has more than 105,000 members who take a wide array of views on gun control and the 2nd Amendment, but the Trayvon Martin case is less about the right to bear arms than it is the use of force. Its impossible to ignore the legal protection George Zimmerman enjoys in suburban Florida vs. the Rules of Engagement that outline when one of our troops can shoot while in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The U.S. military issues Rules of Engagement (ROE) for every conflict to guide servicemembers ability to protect themselves from deadly threats while responding only with the necessary and proportionate level of force in a dangerous situation. The Rules of Engagement for Operation Iraqi Freedom laid out a clear set of steps that U.S. forces must take, up to and including deadly force if necessary, when responding to a threat or hostile act.
A key component of the ROE used during the height of violence in Iraq in 2007 was the requirement to use Graduated Force when time and circumstances permit. Section 3.G.(1) states that if an individual commit[s] a hostile act or demonstrat[es] hostile intent meaning he or she attacks U.S. or designated allied forces, nationals, or property, or threatens the imminent use of force against any of them U.S. Force may use force, up to and including deadly force, to eliminate the threat. However, the rule also explicitly instructs forces, when time and circumstances permit, to use the following graduated measures of force when responding to hostile act or hostile intent:
3.G.(1)(A) (U) Shout verbal warnings to halt;
3.G.(1)(B) (U) Show your weapon and demonstrate intent to use it;
3.G.(1)(C) (U) Physically restrain, block access, or detain;
3.G.(1)(D) (U) Fire a warning shot (if authorized);
3.G.(1)(E) (U) Shoot to eliminate the threat.
more:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/10/460965/zimmerman-shoot-kill-troops-military/
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)before it was show, shout, shove, shoot. They changed the show and the shout. We were told if we could shove then we could shoot. Couldn't shoot someone just because they were carrying a weapon or other reasoning such as seeing someone walking along side of a road with wire and a shovel.