01-29-2013, 02:47 AM
LR1955,
Nukes makes a good point.
Also, we could not expect there to be a classified, let alone public, written policy on an aleged political litmus test, particularly when the test touches on the edges of constitutionally permitted behavior in advance of an event.
I've seen similar discussions in other venues and have seen the interview. Folks who feel that Mr. Obama is the greatest president ever will likely hold a different point of view on this question.
I am reasonably sure that it really doesn't matter as long as the officers and the troops are convinced that the targets are armed and actively resisting lawful authority. By the way, "armed" is a very flexible term. For example, police in California are authorized and have shot citizens who are armed only with an automobile. Same for baseball bats, etc.
Nonetheless, the speculation should give us all pause for serious thinking regardless of whether one is convinced the speculation is pure hogwash, the absolute gospel, or something in between.
Nukes makes a good point.
Also, we could not expect there to be a classified, let alone public, written policy on an aleged political litmus test, particularly when the test touches on the edges of constitutionally permitted behavior in advance of an event.
I've seen similar discussions in other venues and have seen the interview. Folks who feel that Mr. Obama is the greatest president ever will likely hold a different point of view on this question.
I am reasonably sure that it really doesn't matter as long as the officers and the troops are convinced that the targets are armed and actively resisting lawful authority. By the way, "armed" is a very flexible term. For example, police in California are authorized and have shot citizens who are armed only with an automobile. Same for baseball bats, etc.
Nonetheless, the speculation should give us all pause for serious thinking regardless of whether one is convinced the speculation is pure hogwash, the absolute gospel, or something in between.