I know that there’s a lot of controversy that because he was free to walk immediately after the incident, this means that his arrest and arraignment are just kowtowing to BLM protestors, but…
As a Marine, he would have been taught that there are rules of engagement based on how realistic the threat posed to you is. To disproportionately respond to the actual level of threat will get you court marshalled; at worst, charged with war crimes.
A marine I went to college with who was using his GI bill explained to my Military Ethics philosophy course that if someone attacked you barehanded, you like, had permission to break their nose or elbow to neutralize the threat, but once it was neutralized that was the end of it. You couldn’t wrest free and then shoot the attacker. You also couldn’t meet a charging attack (with no weapon in hand) with a firearm. Only once your personal life was on the line from the attacker getting the upper hand or if the attacker had a weapon with a credible and immediate threat on your life, were you free to respond with fire power.
So I think this guy would have received ample training to learn where those delineations are, and he has no excuse for reacting to just rantings with a choke hold held long enough to deprive someone of oxygen. His justification and defence that people assume marines don’t feel fear is a farce. His “just think about the women and children” should tank his legal defense, in my opinion. It shows that he was never directly targeted/involved and instead inserted himself into the situation.
I know that there’s a lot of controversy that because he was free to walk immediately after the incident, this means that his arrest and arraignment are just kowtowing to BLM protestors, but…
As a Marine, he would have been taught that there are rules of engagement based on how realistic the threat posed to you is. To disproportionately respond to the actual level of threat will get you court marshalled; at worst, charged with war crimes.
A marine I went to college with who was using his GI bill explained to my Military Ethics philosophy course that if someone attacked you barehanded, you like, had permission to break their nose or elbow to neutralize the threat, but once it was neutralized that was the end of it. You couldn’t wrest free and then shoot the attacker. You also couldn’t meet a charging attack (with no weapon in hand) with a firearm. Only once your personal life was on the line from the attacker getting the upper hand or if the attacker had a weapon with a credible and immediate threat on your life, were you free to respond with fire power.
So I think this guy would have received ample training to learn where those delineations are, and he has no excuse for reacting to just rantings with a choke hold held long enough to deprive someone of oxygen. His justification and defence that people assume marines don’t feel fear is a farce. His “just think about the women and children” should tank his legal defense, in my opinion. It shows that he was never directly targeted/involved and instead inserted himself into the situation.