- Feb 8, 2001
- 35,461
- 4
- 81
Man gets 10-20 years for ending the life of someone mortally wounded
- Thread starter Nitemare
- Start date
Yeah, those cases are tough. In war, there's a fine line between murder and simply doing what you're supposed to do. This seems like one of those cases. My grandfather, a WWII vet just discussed this issue with me the other day. He said that many of the things he saw in Europe during the war would be considered crimes by today's standards, even in times of war. He reiterated that, "War is war, there's no rationale to the things people do sometimes under those circumstances." I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment. 10 years seems an awful long time.
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: ribbon13
Terrible. Being a good samaritan isn't safe anymore.
Just don't let any ahole reporters see you doing it.
That and get rid of all the lawyers
Yep, the reporter got a raise, the news agency got a story, the USA got another blackeye, and this guy gets 10 years in prison for putting somebody out of their misery.
Sad all the way around.
There's not enough information in the story to really make a judgement. It doesn't say anything about whether the wounded man wanted to be shot.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 35,461
- 4
- 81
Doubt if the soldier understood Iraqi anyways.
Mortally wounded and suffering doesn't really need a translator....
Bout time they changed 'jury of your peers' to jury of the dregs of society who are unwilling to work and too mentally deficient to flip burgers.
They don't use juries in military court, as far as I know. And all of you guys are making judgement without knowing jack about the case. If he got convicted there was probably proof beyond reasonable doubt that this was a murder.
Yeah, I mean there was video of the killing from a drone plane. The court saw the whole thing, and convicted him, so he must have at least appeared to be doing it in cold blood.
I don't see the difference, if it was in self-defense maybe, but this would be classified as murder.
Sure it can. You cannot kill civilians, you cannot kill prisoners, you cannot kill your fellow soldiers. US Army has a set of rules and I'm pretty sure they like it when their soldiers obey those rules.
You see, you're mistaken here. It's ok to kill civilians when the army commands tells you to. But it's not ok to do that on your own accord :frown:
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 49,558
- 40,078
- 136
No one is even really sure of the number of Chinese killed by Japan. Most figures that I recall have it somewhere above 10 Million civilian deaths alone. That is not counting combat deaths and totals from other countries occupied by Imperial Japan.
The Japanese occupation of Asia was exceedingly cruel and harsh. That is one of the reasons many Asian countries are still distrustful of Japan to this day.
The Japanese tested biological and chemical weapons on the native Chinese population. Cities were not just captured, they were sacked. Rape, murder, torture were hallmarks of the occupation.
POWs in Japanese hands had by far the highest mortality rate of any POWs in the war due to Japanese maltreatment. They literally worked many to death on engineering projects. Torture was capricious and commonplace. They didn't even mark POW transport ships so allied aircraft and submarines ended up sinking many.
There is much more, I suggest you read a bit on the subject.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 35,461
- 4
- 81
Yes, who are bound to convict him since the media and the "world - patriotic Americans" had already pronounced him guilty even before the trial. His superiors are guilty of nothing more than curry favoring their beliefs for the media who hates American soldiers.
:thumbsdown: to Lt. Col. Laurence Mixon and the rest of the sell-outs. May you all get caught in compromising situations and be drummed out.
That is not true at all. It was the same set of rules back then. Even back then they didn't outright say that they're attacking civilians, they said they were attacking "military and industrial complexes". That actually meant destroying the factories and the towns of workers around them. And they'd do it again if they had to. They dropped 2 very small atomic bombs on industrial cities in 1945 that killed thousands of civilians. Nowadays, we have thousands of very large nukes in our arsenal. Don't try to tell me that we're beyond using them. If we were, they wouldn't be in our arsenal. If we really wanted to avoid killing civilians when we bombed their industrial sites, we wouldn't use such powerful nuclear bombs.
I'm not against the use of them, I'm stating that collateral damage is acceptable by the side using the weapons.
Japan was not a special case. The only reason that we didn't use nukes against Germany is because we did not have any yet. Germany fell before we had our nukes ready, and we used the only 2 prototypes we had on Japan.
Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union were all very cruel. The Soviets were on our side in WWII, we weren't going to use any against them.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter