To be perfectly frank it is the perfect illustration to why they are such failures of leadership. The policy is foregone lethal force in response to those suffering from their own failures with no consideration of alternatives, only ass covering. The people who are supposed to be making decisions aren't. The situation could make a good uncomfortable ethical scenario question or a nuanced issue but this isn't it.

It is the context which makes it especially odious - a defense attorney position question would have done the same thing and emphasized fair handed protectionism without the brainwashy aspects - noting that deliberate failure to provide a proper defense to the best of their ability because of a dislike of the accused would risk rights and ironically could get them off.