The morality of being a soldier

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-11-13 03:29pm

Sokartawi wrote:In the long run and when done on a large enough scale, try to get the baddie without killing him. If he gets away this time, well shit happens, better luck next time, will get him eventually if he keeps it up.

How can they possibly arrest someone who's willing to kill others when they aren't willing to take his life? What if he has a gun and starts shooting police officers that are trying to arrest him? They're never going to be able to arrest him if he's able to do that, since he will ALWAYS have the upper hand.

That would make a difference when enough people were that way.

Maybe if EVERYONE dies it would.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-11-13 03:33pm

Sokartawi wrote: Because usable land happens to cost a lot of money no matter where it is.

Dodging yet more questions.

1. What is the going rate on land in the middle of nowhere?
2. Why is that rate ridiculous? Why is it more than can be fairly charged?

Lot of people don't even know how to cook something, yet they still want the new kitchen just to show off.

And, again, how does this hurt you? Do you not realize that new kitchens have utility even for people who aren't going to use them?

Because there is no ground with it I can do with as I please, thus I cannot be self-sufficient.

How do you define self-sufficiency?

I just said that, idiot. I don't like seeing masochist sheep, like relious fundies wouldn't like seeing people having sex in public all the time.

Do you not see how both attitudes are patently ridiculous?

You've harped and whined about how people choose to care when other people die. Why do you choose to be annoyed by seeing masochistic sheep?

Wow, what a purpose...

You have a purpose. Your criticism is irrelevant.

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-11-13 03:43pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Sokartawi wrote:In the long run and when done on a large enough scale, try to get the baddie without killing him. If he gets away this time, well shit happens, better luck next time, will get him eventually if he keeps it up.
How can they possibly arrest someone who's willing to kill others when they aren't willing to take his life? What if he has a gun and starts shooting police officers that are trying to arrest him? They're never going to be able to arrest him if he's able to do that, since he will ALWAYS have the upper hand.

He'll run out of bullets eventually. And of course the cops will be equipped better to deal with these guys.

Master of Ossus wrote:
That would make a difference when enough people were that way.
Maybe if EVERYONE dies it would.

Well if it ends that way then humans were a worthless species anyway.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-11-13 03:45pm

Sokartawi wrote: He'll run out of bullets eventually.

And then his knife will get dull, and he'll run out of hand grenades, and all the while everyone will be so happy that they can't just shoot him and be done with it.

What happens when we run out of cops or even members of our suicide-society?

And of course the cops will be equipped better to deal with these guys.

How?

Master of Ossus wrote:Well if it ends that way then humans were a worthless species anyway.

You are one fine piece of work, you stupid immature bitch.

Meest · Post by **Meest** » 2004-11-13 04:01pm

Sokartawi what kind of neighbourhood do you live in? Sounds like you're just pissed that all these stupid people around you are able to experience their wants and dreams. You also sound like you want to put minimum effort into life and get maximum results. You say you don't own your house, yet mention you don't owe society a thing since you paid taxes for a few years, how the hell did that house get there? There's a crapload of infrastructure that you would never be able to break even with, you merely pay for it's maintenance. You should really visit Africa or something, and see what happens when a person is allowed to impose their ideals on their society.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-11-13 04:09pm

Master of Ossus wrote: How can they possibly arrest someone who's willing to kill others when they aren't willing to take his life?
What if he has a gun and starts shooting police officers that are trying to arrest him? They're never going to be able to arrest him if he's able to do that, since he will ALWAYS have the upper hand.

oh, come on, criminals have knees, just like everybody else.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-11-13 04:21pm

salm wrote:oh, come on, criminals have knees, just like everybody else.

That really doesn't work in real life: Police/combat training with a handgun teaches someone two basic things first:

1) NEVER shoot at someone unless you intend to kill them.
2) ALWAYS aim for your target's center of mass.

Trying to use a handgun to aim for specific parts of an armed opponent for the purpose of disabling him in a situation like that is just asking to get yourself killed...

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-11-13 04:23pm

salm wrote:oh, come on, criminals have knees, just like everybody else.

Even there, Scrotum-Tawi's morality restricts you. She doesn't want to permanently harm anyone, even if you don't kill them.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-11-13 04:38pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
salm wrote:oh, come on, criminals have knees, just like everybody else.
That really doesn't work in real life: Police/combat training with a handgun teaches someone two basic things first:

1) NEVER shoot at someone unless you intend to kill them.
2) ALWAYS aim for your target's center of mass.

Trying to use a handgun to aim for specific parts of an armed opponent for the purpose of disabling him in a situation like that is just asking to get yourself killed...

i´m not saying that it´s a smart thing to make it illegal for cops to shoot people in self defense. but it´s still possible. the risk for the cops is increased, sure, but it´s still possible. and not just

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-11-13 04:41pm

agh, the last sentance should read:

and not just possible as in "technically possible".

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-11-13 06:19pm

salm wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote: How can they possibly arrest someone who's willing to kill others when they aren't willing to take his life?
What if he has a gun and starts shooting police officers that are trying to arrest him? They're never going to be able to arrest him if he's able to do that, since he will ALWAYS have the upper hand.
oh, come on, criminals have knees, just like everybody else.

Shooting someone in the knees won't stop them from killing you. Police are trained to shoot for center mass for a reason. In fact the police academy I attend has a failure drill where we put two in the chest and one in the head. We don't fuck around...you get into a deadly force situation with police officers in Utah be prepared to die.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-11-13 06:21pm

Sokartawi wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Sokartawi wrote:But they will shoot at them if they try to get away.
Police can only shoot at a fleeing suspect if the suspect is a felon and the police have reasonable suspicion to believe that suspect will cause serious bodily injury or death to other members of the public if they escape.
Exactly, so in that case the suspect does not get protection from harm, and the police does something which others may not do.

Actually in Utah a civilian can legally use whatever force is reasonable to defend themself, including killing someone.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-11-13 06:23pm

Sokartawi wrote: He'll run out of bullets eventually. And of course the cops will be equipped better to deal with these guys.

You've been watching too many movies. What makes you think a violent criminal is just going to be expending rounds at nothing? A violent criminal will be shooting at people, if there are no people he won't be shooting. Therefore he won't run out of bullets unless he's been shooting at people and if you give him all the time in the world to shoot at you till he's out of bullets then the chances of a decent person dying are greatly increased.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-13 06:31pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Shooting someone in the knees won't stop them from killing you. Police are trained to shoot for center mass for a reason. In fact the police academy I attend has a failure drill where we put two in the chest and one in the head. We don't fuck around...you get into a deadly force situation with police officers in Utah be prepared to die.

Which is why plastic bullets and Tasers are only used for non-lethal purposes. If you unholster your firearm, you're shooting to kill. No such thing as shoot to wound.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-13 06:39pm

Actually in Utah a civilian can legally use whatever force is reasonable to defend themself, including killing someone

Self Defense is allowed in just about all the States that I have knowledge of. It is down right immoral to demand that a citizen die rather than preserve themselves from criminal assualt.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-11-13 06:51pm

Sokartawi wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:
Sokartawi wrote:In the long run and when done on a large enough scale, try to get the baddie without killing him. If he gets away this time, well shit happens, better luck next time, will get him eventually if he keeps it up.
How can they possibly arrest someone who's willing to kill others when they aren't willing to take his life? What if he has a gun and starts shooting police officers that are trying to arrest him? They're never going to be able to arrest him if he's able to do that, since he will ALWAYS have the upper hand.
He'll run out of bullets eventually. And of course the cops will be equipped better to deal with these guys.

Master of Ossus wrote:
That would make a difference when enough people were that way.
Maybe if EVERYONE dies it would.
Well if it ends that way then humans were a worthless species anyway.

I can hardly believe this. Why should a homicidal maniac ever be allowed the opportunity to kill so many in the first place? And would you be willing to step up and be one of these cannon fodder cops who have to play bullet catcher until he runs out of ammunition? If not, you are an awful hypocrite for suggesting that those men and women should offer up their lives - each of which is fully as valuable and as meaningful to them as yours is to you.

And how does it serve either justice or the greater good to allow a man to live by sacrificing say, fifteen good, decent officers, some of whom will have wives or husbands, and children who will be anguished beyond words at their deaths; as opposed to simply killing this single individual, who is obviously not someone with whom peaceful people can ever hope to coexist? Why is it more moral to allow the fifteen to die, and spare the one who is, for lack of a better word, evil? Why is it more moral to allow all the grief, anguish and sorrow the loved ones of the fifteen will experience, and to remove all their potential from society, rather than eliminate the one who will most likely not be mourned, and who is too maladjusted ever to fit into society, let alone contribute to it?

I cannot conceive of any logic which will justify your position.

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2004-11-13 07:32pm

How is this thread still open? What is the point of continuing this debate?

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2004-11-13 07:36pm

I dunno, ask Mike.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2004-11-13 08:24pm

Hope I don't like like I'm sniping here or something, but what about "non lethal" or ("less than lethal") methods of incapacitating or capturing violent people?

Agreed that there are only so many ways to stop an assault tank or fighter jet that's attacking you, but if we're just talking an invididual with a hand weapon...

The police force vs. army is an important thing.

Well I'll stop now, because I admit that I do not have the time or desire to read through 39 pages of this...

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-11-13 08:31pm

Kurgan wrote:Hope I don't like like I'm sniping here or something, but what about "non lethal" or ("less than lethal") methods of incapacitating or capturing violent people?

Agreed that there are only so many ways to stop an assault tank or fighter jet that's attacking you, but if we're just talking an invididual with a hand weapon...

The police force vs. army is an important thing.

Well I'll stop now, because I admit that I do not have the time or desire to read through 39 pages of this...

The problem with using non-lethal weapon against those with lethal weapons is this;

What happens if it doesn't work? How many lives are you willing to risk just to take this violent offender alive?

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-11-13 08:39pm

Kurgan wrote:Hope I don't like like I'm sniping here or something, but what about "non lethal" or ("less than lethal") methods of incapacitating or capturing violent people?

Agreed that there are only so many ways to stop an assault tank or fighter jet that's attacking you, but if we're just talking an invididual with a hand weapon...

The police force vs. army is an important thing.

Well I'll stop now, because I admit that I do not have the time or desire to read through 39 pages of this...

The problem is that no "non-lethal" method is really acceptably reliable. About 5% of people are just unfazed by pepper spray, and more are still able to continue fighting, albeit at reduced effectiveness if they get sprayed with the stuff. You also can't use it when the wind is blowing back at you, and if you try to use it in the rain most of it will never reach the target. Tasers are also sufficiently prone to fail that the manufacturer of the one most widely used by law enforcement advises that it should only be employed when lethal force is available as a back up should it fail.

Sometimes, the only reliable option you have is to resort to lethal force.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-13 08:52pm

It doesn't help that even when people actually do pump money into non-lethal systems like the mobile high-energy microwave vehicle, they suddenly get criticised because the thing may burn someone who's too slow to move out of the way in the full two minutes they have before injury is sustained. Can't win.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-11-13 09:49pm

Falkenhayn wrote:How is this thread still open? What is the point of continuing this debate?

Entertainment, interest, quest for satisfaction? I've been enjoying this thread so far in the sense that I'm amazed at some of the things people believe.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2004-11-14 12:03am

I really would like to read through this thread. I'm fascinated by Just War Theory, and of course this comes up everytime there's a war.

Obviously being conscripted into an army takes away some of the responsibility of an individual if war is immoral. Of course there is still the issue of obeying immoral orders, etc.

I guess I'll just have to leave it at that. I don't expect the question was "solved" but I'm sure there were some interesting responses given.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-11-14 12:30am

Kurgan wrote:I really would like to read through this thread. I'm fascinated by Just War Theory, and of course this comes up everytime there's a war.

Obviously being conscripted into an army takes away some of the responsibility of an individual if war is immoral. Of course there is still the issue of obeying immoral orders, etc.

I guess I'll just have to leave it at that. I don't expect the question was "solved" but I'm sure there were some interesting responses given.

I guess it depends on what your definition of an immoral order is. During basic we were constantly told that we had to obey every order except those which are illegal. (Torturing prisoners would be one of those orders)