Soltz explains ROE

| April 11, 2012

Eric sent us a link to Mitch Berg at Chanting Points Memo who does a fairly good job for a civvie talking about Jon Soltz’ latest drooling liberal bullshit trying to compare George Zimmerman’s situation in the Trayvon Martin shooting by claiming that Zimmerman, thanks to the “Stand Your Ground” aspect of Florida laws, had more leeway than the troops in Iraq had while Soltz was there. I won’t repeat what Mitch Berg wrote, you should go over and read it for yourself. It’s long but worth the read. 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.” It’s 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.

Yeah, those 105,000 members of Votevets are largely civilians who have never served, except with and George Soros’ foundations. Their views on gun control are pretty much monolithic opposition to private gun ownership.

To demonstrate how the troops are under more stringent rules than private citizens in Florida, Soltz recounts a story that he “heard” third hand. Dicksmith told him a story that Dicksmith heard from someone else about a lieutenant who shot an escaping, unarmed Iraqi while he was fleeing. The Iraqi bled out waiting for a medivac bird. But, whether this really happened or not is subject to investigation because Soltz heard it from someone who heard it from someone else. Not a real reliable example, Jonny.

Soltz goes on the recite the Rules of Engagement when he was in Iraq to make his point;

[T]he rule…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.

Yeah, on that “show your weapon” thing, the law calls that “brandishing” and civilians can’t brandish their weapon and demonstrate an intent to use it. Civilians can’t draw their weapon until they intend to pull the trigger – and not as a warning shot. So there’s half of the ROE that soldiers get to do and civilians can’t.

Again, Soltz takes third or fourth-hand information to judge George Zimmerman guilty;

Of course, comparing the Trayvon Martin case to a war situation is neither fair nor clean, and we still don’t know all of the facts surrounding Trayvon’s death. But insofar as what I’ve read about the case, it sounds to me that if Trayvon had been an Iraqi soldier, and George Zimmerman had been a U.S. Soldier, there would have been an immediate investigation, and most likely a manslaughter charge, and victim’s family financially compensated for wrongful death.

“What I’ve read…” I’m pretty sure, knowing Soltz like I do, he didn’t read any unbiased media (remember the NBC producer who was fired last week for manipulating the reporting from his desk). Now if Soltz had pried his dog-ass from behind his desk and actually conducted interviews in Florida, I might give him a little credit, but obviously, by his own admission, that’s not what he did.

If a soldier or marine faces an imminent threat, he or she must take the procedural steps of employing Graduated Force, and if they don’t, they may be criminally liable. By eliminating both the duty to retreat and by providing blanket immunity for a shooter who claims he felt reasonably threatened, Florida’s “Shoot First” law seems to me to be exponentially more lax than the law that guides our troops in a war.

Yeah, Jon, it’s not “shoot first” it’s “stand your ground” and since we really don’t know what happened that night in Florida your whole argument is weak. It may be that Zimmerman was retreating when he was attacked from behind, because that’s Zimmerman’s story which, in order to write your whole column, you had to completely ignore. It looks like we’ll find out soon because the Washington Post is reporting that charges are pending in the Zimmerman case. Maybe Soltz should have waited a day before he made an ass of himself – not a condition with which he’s totally unfamiliar.

But I think Soltz wrote the piece just so he could remind us that he served in Iraq twice.

ADDED: On Zimmerman; It’s second degree murder.

Category: VoteVets

Comments (13)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Just Plain Jason says:

    John Soltz was born with a peanut in his head… Obviously he has never been in a shoot or not to shoot situation. Fucktard…

  2. JP says:

    Charges are filed against Zimmerman but thanks to people like Sharpton, Jackson and our “esteemed” President spouting off at the onset, this man will NEVEr get a fair trial.

    PS: Jon Soltz is an assclown.

  3. UpNorth says:

    Good point, JP. The prospect of finding an untainted jury pool should appear daunting to the prosecutor. But, the DoJ is standing in the shadows, awaiting their turn at Zimmerman, if the jury fails to do their duty and convict. That last was sarcasm, btw.
    I do think the prosecutor over-charged, thinking that it best to cover the bases. If the jury doesn’t find enough evidence for 2d Degree Murder, they can “settle” for the lesser included offense of manslaughter.

  4. DaveO says:

    After all the crap in the news, the only facts of which I can be certain:

    1. Trayvon Martin is dead.

    2. George Zimmerman shot Martin, which killed him.

    Everything is floating in a cloud of BS, perception, and opportunism.

  5. PintoNag says:

    What DaveO said.

  6. TexasFred says:

    A warning shot: Shoot the 1st SOB through the door and let that be a warning to all of his buddies behind him…

    That my friends is a direct quote from a Louisiana State Police class teaching new recruits many many years ago…

    Shoot to wound: Preferably, head wounds and chest wounds…

    Here endeth the lesson…

  7. NHSparky says:

    That’s some serious shit if he can engage from Kuwait.

  8. WOTN says:

    Yeah, he conveniently forgot the part of the ROE that states that Americnan Troops ALWAYS have the RIGHT to use deadly force in the defense of themselves, their fellow Troops, and non-combatants.

  9. Azygos says:

    SYG has no place in this if the thug was sitting on his chest beating him. No place to retreat from laying on your back.

  10. In OIF III, I traveled to several places. It seemed like each unit was in a different war as far as ROEs went. In Falljuah Dec 04, we if a veh didn’t stop coming up on a military veh, we “pointed and yelled” then lit them up if they didn’t stop.
    In Baghdad, a few months later, we couldn’t even throw fucking rocks.

  11. fivejumpchump says:

    Most of the people I know who have been downrange w/ the conventional military recently, myself included, would love to have ROE as simple as stand your ground. All that touchy-feely “counter insurgency” bullshit is making it harder and harder to engage the enemy with any kind of arms. Cumbersome and excessive rules of engagement ARE getting Americans killed. Soltz is still an ass wipe tho.

  12. Spade says:

    “3.G.(1)(D) (U) Fire a warning shot (if authorized);”

    I’d go to jail if I did that.

    That’s using deadly force. But the fact that you didn’t fire at the guy shows that you didn’t feel the threat to life and limb was “imminent”. So that proves you didn’t need to use deadly force yet.

    Plus, this is the US, not a battlefield. People here tend to frown on stray rounds going god knows where.

  13. MItch Berg says:

    Thanks for the link. I wasn’t aware of Soltz’ history, although I did find out a lot about his group’s links to Soros, MoveOn and the rest.

    The part I find hilarious – Soltz goes along with the lefty chanting point of referring to “Stand Your Ground” as “Shoot First”.

    Have any of these hamsters considered the implications of shooting *second* in a life-or-death encounter?