Murder vs Murder 18 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Flash525

The Carbon Comrade

50 XP

14th July 2004

0 Uploads

15,103 Posts

0 Threads

#1 9 years ago

I'm not sure whether or not this has been discussed before, but I think it is a worthwhile topic. The title might not be as direct as possible, but I wanted something simple and to the point, and it kind of makes my point well. Why is it, that it is against the law for one person to go out and kill another (some cases being random, other having meaning; even if misguided). Yet it is perfectly acceptable for a soldier to go to a foreign country, and shoot people dead who may not have actually done anything wrong? If you go to fight in a foreign country, you could end up shooting someone that happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. By all accounts, you're allowed to do it. Just as you're allowed to kill someone who fires at you in self defence (if you shoot first, then they shoot back, then you shoot and kill them). If you done this in a random street of the UK, you'd be arrested, and put on trial for murder or manslaughter. Seems a bit of a contradiction by any means. I know that rules of war are different, but in the long run, neither act is any more justified than the other. Killing is killing, nomatter whether you do it on purpose, you do it as ordered, or do it in self defence. I suppose some 'self defence' cases could be viewed differently, but that is all dependant on the case. Discuss...




Schofield VIP Member

om :A

319,554 XP

24th October 2007

1 Uploads

30,539 Posts

0 Threads

#2 9 years ago

Hmm... Well... A soldier killing someone is different as you said, sometimes the outcome can be good or bad. Killing people in another country for committing genocide would be viewed as a good thing because the genocide will go away for who knows how long. In places like Iraq/Afghanistan, the Taliban/al-Qaeda dressed up as the people we try to protect, making it harder for us to do anything. People running up to a group of soldiers to tell them someone near by is harbouring terrorists is probably mistaken to be a suicide bomber and shot on site. Going into a country to help out someone (Bosnia) would be a defensive operation, trying to take out the bad guys and keep the weak ones around to rebuild. It's all just a view, some people could see it as total murder...




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#3 9 years ago

That is not entirely true.

Ideally there are rules of engagement that soldiers are supposed to follow. Some areas are hotly contested and may be designated a free fire zone meaning that if you see someone with a gun you can challenge them or shoot them if you feel threatened.

Just walking up and shooting people for no reason is not justified and several soldiers have been charged for unjustified shootings. There is also the Blackwater incident where IIRC 17 Iraqi's were killed. Last I knew the DOJ was investigating and trying to bring charges to bear against the ones responsible.

The main problem is the circle of silence similar to cops "Thin Blue Line". Soldiers that have fought together and had to depend on one another to stay alive are often reluctant to give evidence or testify against fellow soldiers.

Most prosecutions have only happened because someone was bothered enough by the actions to come forward and get the word out. Once the word is out some soldiers will still lie and try to cover but often enough details come out for investigators to piece together a case. The problem then become is there enough evidence to pursue charges and to get a conviction.




Junk angel

Huh, sound?

166,880 XP

29th January 2007

0 Uploads

15,678 Posts

0 Threads

#4 9 years ago

Well it depends. If the soldiers are on a peace mission, they generally get sanctioned by the host country to use lethal force if necessary. So they are legally allowed to do so.

If they invade said country, there's again quite a big load of mumbo jumbo as long as war ordained by both sides.

Also keep in mind that soldiers are again bound to not commit to large excesses - i.e. war crime tribunals (although generally only the side that lost get's most of them)




Gevok

Alles, was passieren könnte.

50 XP

17th August 2009

0 Uploads

320 Posts

0 Threads

#5 9 years ago
Aerilon;4982248I'm not sure whether or not this has been discussed before, but I think it is a worthwhile topic. The title might not be as direct as possible, but I wanted something simple and to the point, and it kind of makes my point well. Why is it, that it is against the law for one person to go out and kill another (some cases being random, other having meaning; even if misguided). Yet it is perfectly acceptable for a soldier to go to a foreign country, and shoot people dead who may not have actually done anything wrong? If you go to fight in a foreign country, you could end up shooting someone that happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. By all accounts, you're allowed to do it. Just as you're allowed to kill someone who fires at you in self defence (if you shoot first, then they shoot back, then you shoot and kill them). If you done this in a random street of the UK, you'd be arrested, and put on trial for murder or manslaughter. Seems a bit of a contradiction by any means. I know that rules of war are different, but in the long run, neither act is any more justified than the other. Killing is killing, nomatter whether you do it on purpose, you do it as ordered, or do it in self defence. I suppose some 'self defence' cases could be viewed differently, but that is all dependant on the case. Discuss...

Soldiers of the US military in all fields of service, are strictly prohibited of shooting militia or civilians of other countries without cause or if fired upon.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#6 9 years ago

The law exists to protect society, this one in this country, (or that country, depending on the law,) not humanity in general.




Anson992

Master Jedi

50 XP

15th October 2005

0 Uploads

10,598 Posts

0 Threads

#7 9 years ago
Aerilon;4982248I'm not sure whether or not this has been discussed before, but I think it is a worthwhile topic. The title might not be as direct as possible, but I wanted something simple and to the point, and it kind of makes my point well. Why is it, that it is against the law for one person to go out and kill another (some cases being random, other having meaning; even if misguided). Yet it is perfectly acceptable for a soldier to go to a foreign country, and shoot people dead who may not have actually done anything wrong? If you go to fight in a foreign country, you could end up shooting someone that happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. By all accounts, you're allowed to do it. Just as you're allowed to kill someone who fires at you in self defence (if you shoot first, then they shoot back, then you shoot and kill them). If you done this in a random street of the UK, you'd be arrested, and put on trial for murder or manslaughter. Seems a bit of a contradiction by any means. I know that rules of war are different, but in the long run, neither act is any more justified than the other. Killing is killing, nomatter whether you do it on purpose, you do it as ordered, or do it in self defence. I suppose some 'self defence' cases could be viewed differently, but that is all dependant on the case. Discuss...

Know this, if you study law long enough you'll find that no matter where you go or look there will be numerous contradictions and hypocritical statements and regimens. This one in particular of course sparks little debate.

I guess in times of war, as you said, the rules of war are different, and no matter where you go with a war, there would definitely be chances for the killing of civilians. Then again, mankind are an ignorant and violent bunch, did you really expect better of them?

And by the way, that self defense thing is nonsense. I hope our laws wouldn't permit you to shoot someone and miss, them shoot you, and then you shoot them back and plead self defense. If our legal system is that bad.... in fact, I expect as much from our legal system. :cort:




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#8 9 years ago
Aerilon;4982248 Why is it, that it is against the law for one person to go out and kill another (some cases being random, other having meaning; even if misguided). Yet it is perfectly acceptable for a soldier to go to a foreign country, and shoot people dead who may not have actually done anything wrong? [/QUOTE] Its not legal. According to that scenario, its against standard rules of engagement and you will be court martialed for it.

Aerilon;4982248 If you go to fight in a foreign country, you could end up shooting someone that happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. [/QUOTE] Thats combat. Shit happens. If you hear gunshots, get away from them, and dont look like a target for some 19 year old kid who is jumpy and scared.

[QUOTE=Aerilon;4982248] By all accounts, you're allowed to do it.

No, you are not.

[QUOTE=Aerilon;4982248] Just as you're allowed to kill someone who fires at you in self defence (if you shoot first, then they shoot back, then you shoot and kill them). If you done this in a random street of the UK, you'd be arrested, and put on trial for murder or manslaughter.

Any soldier / Marine who is shooting at random civilians is handled appropriately within the process of the law.




Gevok

Alles, was passieren könnte.

50 XP

17th August 2009

0 Uploads

320 Posts

0 Threads

#9 9 years ago

This is also why there's "International Laws"




TodtheWraith

the exception

50 XP

3rd March 2008

0 Uploads

263 Posts

0 Threads

#10 9 years ago

From the invader's point of view; the people of the host country are acceptable losses when it comes to preserving the lives of our own.

From the host's point of view; it's unacceptable that they allow their soldiers to shoot our civilians.

It's us against them. Pick a side. We're at war.




  • 1
  • 2