Printable View
@Ajax my definition of murder is rough as I said, I didn't take in accidents, I simply forgot them.
And about gun arms not allowed, I live in a perfectly normal European country, walking on street with any kind of weapon is not allowed. (well Swish army knives are, but weapons no)
HeheQuote:
Originally Posted by Stig
Quote:
walking on street with any kind of weapon is not allowed. (well Swish army knives are,
Hehe :2thumbsup:Quote:
but weapons no)
Not sure if you're allowed to carry your weapons everywhere you want here (it's insanely hard to get a licence here, but I thought that was it), though of course there's plenty of bars and other places that have their own "no weapons allowed" regulations.
I'll look that up...
No, the soldier is fully responsible for his actions, he pulls the trigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
If he tells his superior that he does not want to commit murder and the superior wants to kill him, he has a chance for self defence...
In any way, if the case would come to den Haag or another court, if the soldier did it, they'd be both guilty of a war crime, if the soldier refused, I do not really know, maybe attempted murder for the superior and probably murder if he kills the soldier.
Or would you really say that some soldiers who threw babies at church walls and watched their brain flow down the wall are not guilty of anything?:inquisitive:
After all, they were ordered to kill the people inside the church...
Well Kralizec why do you think we need a license to have a gun. Ofcourse with that license you can carry one, but I doubt you will. Almost everyone that has a license is a hunter (atleast the people I know), they don't go carry about guns in street. Next to that good luck finding a weapon store here.
Things as big knives, ofcourse you can carry them in you're bagpack, but why?
Okay, then I understand your aversion to a weapon, but how is that related to whether a killing is a murder? What if the woman were to defend herself with her bare hands and kill her assailant, as in the case of that nurse not too long ago? Is that non-murder, while using a gun to do the same thing would be murder? That seems to me to make as much sense as saying that grabbing a chicken leg in my hand and gnawing on it is eating, but using a fork and knife is not. How is the instrument used relevant to whether it is a case of murder?
(I can see it being an illegal possession, and thus a separate crime, but not a defining criterion for murder)
Ajax
As far as I know, soldiers are legally obliged to disobey unlawful orders...
As I would say that since guns are illegal, killing anyone with them is illegal too (unless ...). If for example the woman just pushed the attacker away, he falls, his head hits the ground just too hard and he dies, and this can be proven, it's only an accident.Quote:
What if the woman were to defend herself with her bare hands and kill her assailant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
A soldier can't be held responsible for actions that he had no choice over, if he refuses he gets killed, with very little chance of self-defence - therefore its entirely the responsibility of his superioir who gave the order - i might not like the soldier for what he does, but i can't blame him for following the orders he is given.
Again, i wouldnt like the soldier's for what they did, but its the responsibility of the person who gave the orders...:2thumbsup:Quote:
Or would you really say that some soldiers who threw babies at church walls and watched their brain flow down the wall are not guilty of anything?:inquisitive:
After all, they were ordered to kill the people inside the church...
Oh wait, I forgot to say something:
4. Some woman shoots and KILLS a man attempting to rape her. Is that MURDER?
In Iran, yes it is, the man is guilty of no crime and the woman can be executed (even if she doesn't fight back).
1.No, an accident, a very un-fortunate one.Quote:
1. Some guy is working on his property digging out his waterline and a neigbours kid falls in and is KILLED. Is that MURDER?
2. Some teenagers out for smoke behind someone's house toss a cigarette that starts a fire, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
3. Some drunk runs a stop sign and plows into another car, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
4. Some woman shoots and KILLS a man attempting to rape her. Is that MURDER?
5. A drafted soldier in Vietnam is in a foxhole and KILLS an enemy soldier coming at him. Is that MURDER?
6. A soldier at the village of My Lai guns down women and children as they try to run, KILLING them. Is that MURDER?
Yes, there is a difference between KILLING and MURDER. Everything eventually ends in death as we are all going to die anyway. The circumstances do matter!
2.Manslaughter? One has to ask the question, why are these teenagers smoking?
3.Hmmm, manslaughter? I cannot be sure, I mean I personally think that it is murder. I have had freinds thinking they're going to drive home drunk, but all by themselves they decide it's not a good idea. Why should this person be any different?
4.For me, I would call it self defence. Why the hell does that man have a right to such a thing. He stepped over the line, she reacted, what are we meant to do when someone steps over the line? Do we stand passivley behind it? I don't know.
5.Why the hell was he there in the first place, he was fighting for his survival, unwillingly. In my view sending an unwilling man off to fight, where he may give away his most precius posession, is one of the greatest crimes ever.
6.Again, why in God's name was he there? Oh sure he might be put through court, make the govt. seem like it's upholding the law. But the despiccable men at the top are still smoking cigars, still breaking laws behind the great oak desks.
Scurvy it is the soldiers responsibility to follow LEGAL orders - targeting civilians deliberatly is an illeagal order and should not be followed - if it is then the soldier can be accused of War crimes and in most cases would be jailed
Reason? Nuremberg
during the Nuremberg Trials numerous SS soldiers/officers tried to claim that they were just following orders when killing jewish and other detainees - the judges ruled that such a defence was illegitimate and these men were convicted
Claiming you were just following orders (now known as the Nuremberg defence) doesnt work it doesnt (and shouldnt) Protect soldiers from intentionaly killing civilians
Again, a soldier forced into arms by his govt. is not a real soldier, He is just man forced to fight. He's not in the ar,ed forces for a career.
Thus it is imposiple to confide forced consription and the Rules which govern war.
A soldier has no choice but to obey "illegal" orders, if hes been told to do it, he has too, it is the principal any army works on...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
I dont like the example of Nuremburg, because at the time the judges were very anti-nazi, and therefore the convicted had very little chance, in a less byass court some of those SS soldiers (but not the officers) may have been found innocent
scurvy not all orders are legitimate - if a officer tells you to shoot yourself do you do it? the point is if a soldier recieves a order which is in effect orders him to break the law he doesnt have to follow it and is obligated to report the officer
Reinforcement: In the British army at least, soldiers are not mindless drones trained to obey each and every order. If ordered to do something illegal, they are trained to disobey. If they witness a crime, whether it be by a friend, superior officer, whatever, they are trained to report it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
In how many armies is it possible to do this? In the vast majority of armies which commit illegal orders soldiers are expected to be mindless drones - with no choice over their actionsQuote:
Reinforcement: In the British army at least, soldiers are not mindless drones trained to obey each and every order. If ordered to do something illegal, they are trained to disobey. If they witness a crime, whether it be by a friend, superior officer, whatever, they are trained to report it.
- if whenordered to shoot themselves, they refused, they would be shot for disobeying the order to shoot themselves
the only time a soldier might be held responsible for such things is in the case of no order given, or an ambiguous order which they choose to follow in a certain way...:2thumbsup:
i know for a fact that all "western" armies dont allow "following orders" as a defence and i believe theres an international treaty signed by most countries that means all signees are ment to follow it too - problem is some armies as you say arnt exactly very big on soldiers thinking for themsevles (normally the same armies that are used to maintain dictatorships)Quote:
In how many armies is it possible to do this? In the vast majority of armies which commit illegal orders soldiers are expected to be mindless drones - with no choice over their actions
- if whenordered to shoot themselves, they refused, they would be shot for disobeying the order to shoot themselves
I agree :2thumbsup: - a soldier who has the ability to not-obey is more at wrong than others - although i still think the officer in command has to accept the most of the responsibility (ie/ differing levels of war crime)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Killing is causing death. Murder is normally killing with intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm (not necessarily to the victim). Some places broaden it, so that it is also murder to kill with reckless indifference to human life, or to kill by a dangerous act in the course of an unlawful purpose. Manslaughter is a killing that isn't murder. That includes a killing caused by criminal negligence. In other words there is generally no offence of "negligently causing death", except manslaughter.