murder or justification in the war?

[Tyrannis]

hey guys, i thought i'd ask everyone this to see what they thought on the subject.


me& a friend were discussing band of brothers yesterday, and it boiled down to this:

i told him about how i had seen in a documentary, that americans would shoot surendering snipers. and here is the reason why.

the documentary stated that, the snipers would ignore chances to peacefully surender given to them, and would procede to kill as many americans as they could. then when they ran out of ammo, they would surender to save themselves from being killed.

in the documentary, they had footage of a sniper who was dug into a windmill, it stated that that an american unit had offered the sniper a peaceful surrender, and even sent a messenger to deliver this to the sniper(unarmed).

the sniper shot the messenger, and 4 other americans. after 3 days the sniper decided to surrender due to lack of food. in the footage it shows the sniper taking a white flag&stuffing it down his rifles barrel. he then came out, held the white flag up, and backed up towards the awaiting americans. when the sniper got to about point blank range. the americans shot him in the back of the head.

the argument me&my friend had is, were the americans justified in killing the sniper? or was it murder?


i personally feel it was justified, the sniper had no chance of escape or shooting his way to freedom. he was offered a chance to surrender peacefully but shot the messenger and then anyone who he could. and then he only attempted to surrender because his supplies were running low, so he wanted to save himself.


my friend tho feels it was murder, due to the sniper surrendering. he said that the sniper was only following orders and therefore didnt deserve to be killed like he was.

what do you guys think? was it wrong or right to kill the sniper?

[mipoikel]

It was wrong.

Sure they felt it was justified in that time because they just lost friends etc. 

[VonMessa]

Unless one has been in a live combat situation, one cannot even presume to form an opinion on this matter.

In war, one makes decisions that no rational man would.  The rules are different.  The question of "right or wrong" becomes absolutely moot.

I pray that you neither never have to experience it, nor make a decision like that.

[MarineUS]

You NEVER shoot a messenger.

He deserved it. Would I have done it (killed the sniper)? No.

I believe in Chivalry. The man was doing as much damage as he could to the enemy. If he had NOT killed the UNARMED messenger (which IS murder, which he WOULD have been tried for and WOULD have received the death penalty for), I would have said it is wrong. I would expect no less from an American sniper when it comes to damaging the enemy, with the exception of the messenger.

[Yossarian]

It was wrong - no matter what that sniper had done, he was surrendering and posed no threat to those Americans when he surrendered.  Killing a person who poses no threat whatsoever to you is murder.

Additionally, the sniper had just shot the messenger (who was presumably an unarmed soldier).  The American then shot the surrendering sniper (who wasn't quite unarmed, but whose weapon had a flag stuffed in it - so he was practically unarmed) - so there really wasn't any difference between what the sniper and the American solider did.  One man killed an unarmed man, then another man killed that first (now unarmed) man.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

Unless one has been in a live combat situation, one cannot even presume to form an opinion on this matter.

The fact that this was a combat situation makes the actions of both sides understandable, but it doesn't change the morality of what they both did - I think they were still wrong.

[Reaper90]

Sounds like an execution to me.

[Motherland]

MarineUS:
If the sniper had known standard procedure was to kill captured snipers, why would he not shoot the messenger(s)?

[VonMessa]

I'll say it again.

Unless one has been in that situation, where one is in a position where one has had to watch friends die or part of one's job description includes the possibility of taking another man's life, at close range, no honest or experiential conclusions can be drawn of whether it was right or wrong.

When one is under fire and has been for more days, weeks, etc. in a row than one cares to remember, has seen friends die/get maimed, hasn't had a hot meal, soft bed proper shower or comfort of a woman for even longer, one's outlook is drastically different than the one of a peacetime civilian and, as such, so is one's sense of morality and definition of justice.

"War is Hell" - William Tecumseh Sherman

[Yossarian]

I'll say it again.

Unless one has been in that situation, where one is in a position where one has had to watch friends die or part of one's job description includes the possibility of taking another man's life, at close range, no honest or experiential conclusions can be drawn of whether it was right or wrong.

When one is under fire and has been for more days, weeks, etc. in a row than one cares to remember, has seen friends die/get maimed, hasn't had a hot meal, soft bed proper shower or comfort of a woman for even longer, one's outlook is drastically different than the one of a peacetime civilian and, as such, so is one's sense of morality and definition of justice.

"War is Hell" - William Tecumseh Sherman

I agree that that would change your viewpoints beyond all recognition/imagination...but I still think that the situation cannot change certain absolutes (at least, I consider them to be absolutes), one of which is that it's wrong to kill people who don't pose a threat to you (or replace 'pose no threat' to 'innocents' or whatever)

[rogwar]

Snipers were not well received on either side in all parts of WW2.

[infowars]

should've blew his knee caps first.

[Angus]

I can surely think of something bad enough for him without killing......
Start by chopping the trigger finger. Maybe that should rather have been the rule? Or the hand 

[RufusLeaking]

I once read something about Omar Bradley having said that he did not want to read too much about snipers being taken prisoner. May have been Eisenhower.

Stephen Ambrose wrote that one of the most dangerous moments in a war is at the time of surrender.

Combine these with the fact the sniper shot an unarmed messenger, and I think the outcome was predictable.

It is too easy for us to debate ethics while sitting behind keyboards. If the sniper wanted to live, he should have let the others live.

[VonMessa]

I agree that that would change your viewpoints beyond all recognition/imagination...but I still think that the situation cannot change certain absolutes (at least, I consider them to be absolutes), one of which is that it's wrong to kill people who don't pose a threat to you (or replace 'pose no threat' to 'innocents' or whatever)

What you are saying is very true.

The problem is that, given the opportunity (abundance of food/ammunition, etc), he would have still been a threat.

Snipers were not well received on either side in all parts of WW2.

I think that applies to any conflict.  I have never met a person that enjoys taking random, deadly rounds from out of nowhere  

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

Snipers are some of the most feared and hated units on any battle fields, ever.


When a entire company can be held down by one sniper, you can fairly guess that when man after man lay dead or wounded "your buddys" and that sniper try's to "surrender" hes not going to be given the chance. NOWA days we send counter sniper teams into a combat zone just to end these "3 day stand off's"


:Edit: so to your question, bolth only depending. Murder is murder and always will be, but many people can try to justify something, but justification never makes something truly "right".