Who would be out there except to riot or protest?
Yet, the article says there was not an active protest going
on, yet there was a crowd that had to be 'dispersed'.

Guys, that's a double negative.
Not only does that not make sense, it seems they are
overly dramatizing this incident to get the most emotion
from the reader.

THIS is a hit piece.

It should state plainly the facts but is ambiguous to
point to any certainties. It's an open interpretation
of the facts.

First, they are deployed for a reason.

Second, the job is self descriptive, they are soldiers.

Third, unless you are one of the two, you should not be
out there period. You're either a rioter or protester.

Fourth, how do you tell someone who is a soldier and is
trained to "not fall back on their training"?
The point of "training" is so that they have
fast reflexes to save their own ass.

When you're fired upon, YOU.RETURN.FIRE.

It's that simple.

I think the guy was trying to be a participant of some
type but not sure yet as to what he was trying to accomplish.