but this is not an accurate statement. Idk why we live by the word of someone CNN interviewed. Military ROEs isnt a blanket policy. The rules of engagement are determined by each mission. That means you can have a different ROE every day maybe even twice a day. And theres even less accountability. Theres no body camera or witnesses in places we deployed.
I remember a staff sergeant telling me how they found a box of grenades in the desert and were just throwing them out their humvee, hot, as they were driving through villages
this comment sums it up well
Rules of engagement are different. Military has usually three modes: return fire, cease fire or shoot at will. And a mission. When they're sitting at base or defending an object, they're defensive aka return fire mode. When they're attacking, depends if they're in hostile area or not. If they're scouring civilian settlement for enemy combatants, it's usually return fire mode, if they're attacking, it's fire-at-will. It comes with a mission.
For police, ROE changes all the time rapidly. A traffic stop could turn into a shootout in seconds, so return fire is their default "mode". Mission for police is simpler: stay alive, protect (unarmed) civilians. So they have more flexibility in this. Of course, it makes their situation also more dynamic and prone to mistakes.
Important difference is also that military usually has some form of hierarchy present. There's commanders and leaders to take responsibility and give orders (unless they get shot, but that's likely a free-fire situation anyway). Nobody's sending just bunch of privates to a mission.
Police patrol doesn't have such luxury. They don't have time to radio to their commanders whenever situation gets hot. For serious conflicts and if there's time, they do, however, like if it's visible that suspect barricaded themselves in a house or took hostages or whatever.
dude literally saying common everyday police work is more dangerous than military in enemy territory....