[Terry G]

OK, now we are questioning our Soldiers and Marines in combat. The latest story out of Iraq is that a Marine shot a wounded Iraqui when he shouldn't have. I have made my my views known on the treatment of prisoners, wounded, and dead enemy soldiers. BUT, and it's a big BUT, you don't question the conduct of a Soldier or Marine that has been wounded two day's prior, breaks into a building that that he has been receiving fire from and shoot's an enemy that has been playing dead. Mind you that the Marine's had been warned that the Iraqui's were booby-trapping their dead and wounded, and arming the wounded. The Marine in question, had been in combat for five day's. He broke into the room with his partner and saw the Iraqui make a furtive movement. Pistol, Grenade, Mine? Who knew? He quite properly shot him. I would have too. Now there has to be an investigation. He should have shot the reporter.

 

[Stillwater]

<snip>

He should have shot the reporter.

Thats a workable option ...

 

[Coyote]

yeah, but he didnt have a weapon, and the reporters help insure that that soldiers treat civilians and wounded enemies with some humanity. Shoot the reporter, huh? Scary concept; You just suggested that the U.S. military should turn its guns on an american citizen because he might tell the press that the marines shot an unarmed man.

 

[Garand]

Unfortunately in todays technological age, we have to ask our servicemen & women to show more self control than ever before in history. During my service, I came in contact with reporters on numerous occasions, I can honestly say I didn't always treat them with the respect I should have. They are an inconvienience, they are a witness if we screw up and we have to go out of our way to defend them against injury. We each have jobs to do, we each have responsibilities, to ourselves, our families, our "employer" and our country. One screwup on your part, can ruin your county's days for years! Depending on the depth of the inquiry.

 

[Terry G]

yeah, but he didnt have a weapon, and the reporters help insure that that soldiers treat civilians and wounded enemies with some humanity. Shoot the reporter, huh? Scary concept; You just suggested that the U.S. military should turn its guns on an american citizen because he might tell the press that the marines shot an unarmed man.

Coyote, You may be taking my statement farther than I intended. I gave a gut reaction to the press second guessing one of our Marines for reacting in a combat situation. If you care to check my previous posts, you'll see what my feelings are are about care for enemy prisoners or wounded. What I really meant was, here's one of our own, wounded previously, warned about booby trapped and armed wounded enemy, and he reacts to save himself and his partner. The reporter want's to get a story. I'm not trying to start a pissing duel with you, but have you ever been in combat? I didn't really mean shoot the reporter.

 

[RIKA]

I don't believe in shooting unarmed enemies but the reporter's camera cannot capture the thoughts of the Marine when he killed the Iraqui. It was the soldier's call as to whether he thought his and his partner's lives were in danger at the time of the shooting. Funny how so many people who have never been in combat or even a life threatening civilian altercation are so quick to pass judgement on this man. Hopefully a jury will find a fair verdict.

RIKA

 

[Magnum88C]

You know what?
If you're in that situation, under fire from abuilding and then storm it (him being wounded before is irrelavent), and you see someone on the ground, possibly "playing dead", if he moves and you even think he has something in his hand, you shoot him, Period, full stop, end of story.
Why? he doesn't need a gun to kill you. He could be laying atop a mine, and simply have a detonator in his hand. Has an unknown object in his hands, even if it's the shadows making it look like he does, even if he doesn't, AND you're in a region where the local are KNOWN for blowing themselves up? Damn right you shoot him.
If the reporter doesn't like it, next time you storm a building and come across the same situation, evac the room and make the reporter go and check out the "poor, innocent".
And no, I'm not kidding about that.

 

[Aslan]

I think it all comes down to - did the marine shoot the guy, simply to shoot him (actionable offense) or did the marine react to a perceived threat (right thing to do).

I firmly beleive it is the latter and not the former. It's called war, not because everything is well-organised and tidy, just the opposite.

Bad stuff happens.

It's pretty clear the marine wasn't executing anybody...

:devil:

 

[John in AR]

A 'down' enemy soldier that's been taken into custody, you don't shoot.

A 'down' enemy soldier playing possum..? He's still a threat, and in war, you're supposed to kill enemy that are threats. That's your job.

Based on the limited info I've seen & heard, our guy did right.

 

[Rich Z]

Those people aren't just playing checkers over there. One side is trying to kill the other side. Fact of life is that dead enemies are not much of a threat any longer. I would much rather have our side err on the side of their own survival and to hell with the other guys.