According to nearly a dozen retired officers and current military lawyers, as well as scholars who teach at West Point and Annapolis, an intense if quiet debate is underway inside the U.S. military community about what orders it would be obliged to obey if President-elect Donald Trump decides to follow through on his previous warnings that he might deploy troops against what he deems domestic threats, including political enemies, dissenters and immigrants.
Archived at https://archive.is/He9O6
My point is that even now that we know all that stuff happened, that doesn’t mean that the military held back because it was directly complicit. Their justification is a solid one, and backed up by years of military history and tradition in this country. Yes, the justification is convenient, but that doesn’t make it less valid. I would have much preferred that the police did their jobs back then without all the overt racism, but sending the military in to do the police’s job would not have been the correct answer, either.
You seem to be lumping in “cops” and “the military” in the same category, where the whole point of this discussion is that they are not, and if Trump tries to use them in that fashion the military ought to stop him (for as long as they can, until Trump purges all the military leaders who are loyal to the country over him.)