Does shooting to kill make sense?

[JohnH1963]

Many of us are familiar with the news and youtube videos of soldiers in Iraq killing downed rebels after they no longer appear to be a threat. The news media usually uses these videos to back their case of an immoral war.

However, my opinion, is that shooting to kill in a wartime situation makes sense. If the rebel were to live then they would be placed in a prison camp for a short period of time and then be released eventually to kill again.

During World War II and other conflicts this did happen quite frequently. Even during current times it happens with a great frequency. Many rebels released from prison camps soon find themselves behind an AK shooting at American soldiers.

In home burglary situations, if you simply wound the home invader then there is a strong chance they will come back in some form. The invader will be placed in a jail for a time and then when they get out it will be back to the same neighborhood for similiar antics. It might not be against your household, but someone else's household and who knows who they might get next.

I know that shooting to kill goes against conventional, legal and moral sense, however, does it make any sense. Obviously, certain soldiers have made the decision that it does make sense and do it despite of the legal consequences that might fall upon them.

If bullets were shot at myself, then I would definately return that fire without regard for the individual who is shooting at myself. That makes perfect sense in my world. Firing one or two bullets then sitting to wait and observe if the combatant is going to fire more does not make sense to me.

[raimius]

Killing an enemy who no longer poses a threat (i.e. is incapable of mounting resistance) is illegal and wrong, both in the civilian world and in combat.

Now, many times what looks like a disabled enemy on video is not the case. Many combatants keep fighting after being shot. Suicide grenades, hidden weapons, etc. pose a serious threat to those trying to detain prisoners. Also, there are many cases where a fight continues until one side is dead/mortally injured. It is usually advised to continue fighting until the threat has OBVIOUSLY been ended.

[RamSlammer]

Using deadly force to stop a threat either in combat or in civilian life is necessary in many cases. Once the threat is stopped going further and killing someone based on their future potential to threaten again is tantamount to murder.

Honorable combat has limits as detailed in the UCMC and Geneva Conventions. Civilian self-defense is just that - defense.

So, no. Killing after the immediate threat which necessitated using deadly force is no longer present is not acceptable. Doing so is unlawful and immoral vigilante behaviour - judge, jury and executioner is not anyone's right to excersise.

[Wiskey_33]

Shooting until the threat is no longer a threat is how I see it.

However, just because the person is down, doesn't mean they are no longer a threat.

[pax]

If you want to discuss deliberately violating the law against murder, you won't do it on this forum.

pax