what are the rules of engagement for police officers and military?
820317
In the Marine Corps, there is a standard in place which has been deemed the "escalation of force."  It is simply a guideline that a Marine must follow in the line of duty.  Essentially, it starts with a verbal command for the individual to cease whatever activity they are doing and submit to authority.  If this does not work, the baton is used in an area that is non-lethal on the individuals body.  If the individual(s) still does not submit to authority or commands, they could be killed.
113049
I'm not in the military, so I can't speak to military aircraft, but taking a photograph of a police helicopter is part of the public domain.  The only exception would be if you're hindering their work...like if you are in the middle of where they want to land or shining a bright light into the cockpit.  \nOh, and you can't trespass into a restricted area to take a picture (i.e. police station, behind police tape, etc.)
165988
Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 1334.5, "Peter Principle", appointments and promotions Officers and Gentleman
949147
because the Geneva convention says the definition of military is someone that clearly states their intentions by uniforms and must follow the convention them selves.  How can you fight someone by a set of rules when the other side isnt.
62670
Depends if there injuries at the scene, property damage, or other hazards at the scene when officers arrive. If none of those factors exist, than it is just like any other arrest. Officers follow a SOP when it comes to taking suspects into custody. Check with the authorities in your area for the best advice.
763378
Hi, \n\nWell you are close. The sentence starting with The police, is a plural expression, in that police means more than one. \n\nTo properly make use of the word is it would have to be worded as A policeman is walking in the street, in that policeman is a singular expression. \n\nYour second analogy; again is an argument for singular and plural. Correct wording should be: \nThe army is marching. The word army, portends a singular expression, and the word is correctly used as:\n\nThe army is marching.  \n\nTo correctly use are in the sentence, we need to go plural:\n\nThe army's are marching, in that army's represents more than one army.   \n\nIn summation:\n\nIs = To be used in singular expression. (One)\n\nAre =To be used in plural expression. (More than one.)\n\nGood question, and Happy Thanksgiving, \n\nDarryl S.
715310
with the creation of the dept of homeland security, many police depts are getting more extensive training.. however i may be confused in the context of your question... if an enemy was on a mil base.. the military would respond... the military would only assist law enforcement if a state of emergency is declared.. does this answer your question??
862999
Interesting. \n\nCommon good? \n\nFear of retribution? \n\nSometimes policy is not in our realm to alter 'on the street', so to speak. Motivating one individual through the 'proper channels' perhaps is one method some authority figures may choose to aide someone whom policy has hindered. \n\nSometimes stopping someone from acting on a strong believe can in the end move that believe to higher channels, and in the end form stronger opinion for it. (i.e. violent acts do move public to abhore a group based solely on thier actions and not motivations).  A police officer (I use this example as per your question) may see this in a perspective the protestor does not, and while understanding the motivations behind the act, knows to stop the act itself will in fact further the resolution in favour of common good will and understanding and therefore possible policy changes become more likely. \n\nAnother example is a peaceful 'march' gains more public notoriety simply by having a police task force on hand. Whether they believe in the marchers motivations or not they are required to offer protection regardless of thier own beliefs. \n\nOne of the main stands in joining the police force, I believe is that they have to stand forward unbiased, and work to the society's set laws regardless of thier own belief system. Protect and serve regardless of whether they like or dislike the citizen. \n\nIt is in fact a double edged sword. \n\n..with early retirement common I'm sure, simply because of this moral requirement in a lot of cases.
1020322
Follow the rules of engagement. That is all you can do. War ceased to be battle between two distinctly uniformed forces sometime ago. Now we fight people who discard their uniforms in favor of civilian clothing to give them a  perceived advantage in combat. Yes it makes proper identification almost impossible, so the use of force has to be based on actions, not flags or uniforms.
226545
I don't know about the army but the police have the Police Federation and the Chief officers have an association.
796141
I retired after 22 yrs of military duty in the U S Navy.  I was a naval police ( Master - At - Arms ), with the K9 division.  I worked with / assisted Navy SEALs', Army Special Forces, Marine Recons, FBI, NCIS, FDA, DEA, Secret Service, U S Marshalls, U S Customs, various city / county / state / and Federal agencies, both U.S. and over seas, and U S Coast Guard.  I've been on task force teams, in helo's, assault watercraft, raids, line of defense for restricted areas, worked with FEMA on guarded escorts for supplies, pursuit of armed suspects, plenty of excitement for a life time.  Most of this was tied to being a K9 handler / trainer / instructor.  If you like ( no love ) police work and K9s then I guarantee you can have as much action as you want.
28977
Ask the officers what type of proof they are looking for.
496996
JOIN THE POLICE ACCADAMY.
286787
The US Department of Defense officially defines ROE as:\n\n"Directives issued by competent military authority which delineate the circumstances and limitations under which United States forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered." [1] \n\nThe ROE deal with four issues [2]:\n\nWhen military force may be used, \nWhere military force may be used, \nAgainst whom force should be used in the circumstances described above, and \nHow military force should be used to achieve the desired ends. \nThe ROE take two forms: Actions a soldier may take without consulting a higher authority, unless explicitly forbidden (sometimes called 'command by negation') and second, actions that may only be taken if explicitly ordered by a higher authority (sometimes called 'positive command').\n\nIn addition to a typically large set of standing orders, military personnel will be given additional rules of engagement before performing any mission or military operation. These can cover circumstances such as how to retaliate after an attack, how to treat captured targets, which territories the soldier is bound to fight into, and how the force should be used during the operation.\n\nThe ROE are extremely important:\n\nThey provide a consistent, understandable and repeatable standard on how forces act. Typically they are carefully thought out in detail well in advance of an engagement and may cover a number of scenarios, with different rules for each. \nThey assist in the synchronization of political-diplomatic and military components of a strategy by allowing political commanders to better understand, forecast and tailor the actions of a force. \n\nThe first rule of engagement for United States military forces is always the right to use force in self-defense.\n\nIn any engagement, the ROE need to balance two competing goals: The need to use force effectively to accomplish the mission objectives and the need to avoid unnecessary force. This creates room for two types of error:\n\nExcessively tight ROE can constrain a commander from performing his mission effectively, called a Type I error. It is typical for the political leadership to constrain the actions of military commanders. This is often a source of tension between the political leaders, who are trying to accomplish a different objective than the military commanders, who are trying make the most effective use of their forces. Sagan [2] provides an excellent discussion of this topic. The UN Peacekeeper's ROE (see UNAMIR) during the Rwandan Genocide is a tragic example of too restrictive ROE. \nExcessively loose ROE can facilitate the escalation of a conflict which, while being tactically effective, negates the political objectives that the use of force was meant to achieve. This is a Type II or 'escalatory' error and an example of it may be the accidental killing of Jean de Menezes on July 22, 2005.
481481
Try this: http://www.officerecruit.com/
463283
All leave considerations follow this simple rule: As conditions warrant."  Each commander (ship, battle group, Navy (CINCPAC, etc..)) makes up policies which are then modified by lower level commanders.  When you move to a new station, new policies apply.\n\nBasically, if they want you to go, you get to go.  If they do not want to let you, they say "Operational necessities do not allow leave" and deny the leave.
197819
The offical rules are here\n\nhttp://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/official_info/official_rules/foreword.jsp