Soldiers aren't policeman, but the principles behind issuing weapons to either one aren't different--despite what over-scrupulous liberals would have us believe. Firearms aren't meant to level the playing field, but rather stack the odds in the favor of the enforcer. As such, there's no arbitrary rule that dictates whether or not an officer or soldier is put in a situation that suitably weakens him enough before he can use the tools of his trade. More often than not, deadly force can't be adequately interpreted until the assault has already been initiated. To that point, an attacker is very capable of using deadly force without a weapon--and I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but not every cop or grunt is a fucking judo master with the hand-to-hand experience required to pacify anyone let alone the late 6'3, 240+ lbs Michael Brown.
RoE is an infinitely abstract protocol, the existence of which peculiarly tends to vindicate a perspective such as yours--not to mention this fucking mob of cognitively dissonant dipshits. By virtue of the fact that most assaults will be perpetrated by people not as well armed as the enforcer, the interpretive nature of the RoE will always give the incensed cause to say that the enforcer used excessive force. Case in point: these Ferguson Fucktards.
It's like how Marc Lamont sympathized with Hamas simply because they couldn't fight the Israelis as effectively as the Israelis could destroy them.
