Was my former teacher(who was in the military) wrong for this behaviour.

[QUOTE="Sparticus247"]

Case in point, would any of you want him in your squad??

GrandJury

Meh always good to have someone take fire off of you.

Honestly he actually did his job. Our rules of engagement is "Don't fire unless fired upon." No where in that statement does it say kill someone. He fired back, and therefore he did his job.

If you don't have the heart to kill, why join something that requires you to kill at one point or another?

[QUOTE="stepnkev"]

[QUOTE="smc91352"]

He should have done a different job. There are plenty of jobs in the military where you don't need a gun.

cpo335

When I joined the military, you didn't really have much of a choice. Of course that was 20 years ago.

There is a difference between having a choice and knowing what you are getting into. :roll:

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

[QUOTE="jus2nyce"]

It takes the better man not to fire his weapon and still walk out a fight

jus2nyce

There is a difference between having a choice and knowing what you are getting into. :roll:

stepnkev

[QUOTE="jus2nyce"]

It takes the better man not to fire his weapon and still walk out a fight

needled24-7

Yes, so a hitman who is paid to knock off an infant and doesn't go through with it should be attacked because he didn't do the job he signed up for. It doesn't matter what he signed up for. He chose the path of peace which is almost always the right path.

my teacher is also in the military too. (English) he was one of the people that goes on small boats and get into the enimies ship... he hasent killed anyone (yet) but he said its hard to takes someones life... but he seen his friends kill people just to protect others. it's not like a game were u just respawn and laugh having fun... in life and death is scary.

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

[QUOTE="jus2nyce"]

It takes the better man not to fire his weapon and still walk out a fight

HomicidalCherry

Yes, so a hitman who is paid to knock off an infant and doesn't go through with it should be attacked because he didn't do the job he signed up for. It doesn't matter what he signed up for. He chose the path of peace which is almost always the right path.

[QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]wrong. at least not in this situation. he signed up to do a job, and he didn't do it.

D3nnyCrane

Yes, so a hitman who is paid to knock off an infant and doesn't go through with it should be attacked because he didn't do the job he signed up for. It doesn't matter what he signed up for. He chose the path of peace which is almost always the right path.

They're under the same category, given the previous post, that is people who "sign up to do a job". I did it to point out that not fulfilling a contract or duty is not always wrong, not to draw any major parallel between the two.

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"][QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

Yes, so a hitman who is paid to knock off an infant and doesn't go through with it should be attacked because he didn't do the job he signed up for. It doesn't matter what he signed up for. He chose the path of peace which is almost always the right path.

HomicidalCherry

They're under the same category, given the previous post, that is people who "sign up to do a job". I did it to point out that not fulfilling a contract or duty is not always wrong, not to draw any major parallel between the two.

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"][QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

Yes, so a hitman who is paid to knock off an infant and doesn't go through with it should be attacked because he didn't do the job he signed up for. It doesn't matter what he signed up for. He chose the path of peace which is almost always the right path.

HomicidalCherry

They're under the same category, given the previous post, that is people who "sign up to do a job". I did it to point out that not fulfilling a contract or duty is not always wrong, not to draw any major parallel between the two.

[QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"] Please tell me you compared the military to hired killers....LJS9502_basic

They're under the same category, given the previous post, that is people who "sign up to do a job". I did it to point out that not fulfilling a contract or duty is not always wrong, not to draw any major parallel between the two.

I was just trying to illustrate a simple point and the analogy I used is being taken far too literally. Let's assume that the killer had a change of heart. He decides he can't kill this person for whatever reason. He is not doing what he promised to do, what he was expected to do when he signed the contract, but he is obviously not wrong because of it.

There is truth in what you say but there is also the fact that all is fair in love and war. If someone is shooting at you, you shoot back and hope you hit him first. At that junction, morals cannot fit in. This is why there is a rank structure - the people giving the orders GENERALLY (And I exclude my own officers from this because they were a bunch of toffee nosed Rupert idiots) know better than you.D3nnyCrane

I was just trying to illustrate a simple point and the analogy I used is being taken far too literally. Let's assume that the killer had a change of heart. He decides he can't kill this person for whatever reason. He is not doing what he promised to do, what he was expected to do when he signed the contract, but he is obviously not wrong because of it.

HomicidalCherry

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"]There is truth in what you say but there is also the fact that all is fair in love and war. If someone is shooting at you, you shoot back and hope you hit him first. At that junction, morals cannot fit in. This is why there is a rank structure - the people giving the orders GENERALLY (And I exclude my own officers from this because they were a bunch of toffee nosed Rupert idiots) know better than you.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"]There is truth in what you say but there is also the fact that all is fair in love and war. If someone is shooting at you, you shoot back and hope you hit him first. At that junction, morals cannot fit in. This is why there is a rank structure - the people giving the orders GENERALLY (And I exclude my own officers from this because they were a bunch of toffee nosed Rupert idiots) know better than you.D3nnyCrane

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Didn't know you were in the military. I take it not as an officer....

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

I was just trying to illustrate a simple point and the analogy I used is being taken far too literally. Let's assume that the killer had a change of heart. He decides he can't kill this person for whatever reason. He is not doing what he promised to do, what he was expected to do when he signed the contract, but he is obviously not wrong because of it.

LJS9502_basic

The teacher couldn't murder another human being. He saw a chance to lessen bloodshed and took it. Maybe this increased the risk of one of his squadmates getting hurt, but he basically saw an opportunity for everyone to go home alive and unscathed and took it. This view may have been naive, but his motives were commendable.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

I was just trying to illustrate a simple point and the analogy I used is being taken far too literally. Let's assume that the killer had a change of heart. He decides he can't kill this person for whatever reason. He is not doing what he promised to do, what he was expected to do when he signed the contract, but he is obviously not wrong because of it.

HomicidalCherry

The teacher couldn't murder another human being. He saw a chance to lessen bloodshed and took it. Maybe this increased the risk of one of his squadmates getting hurt, but he basically saw an opportunity for everyone to go home alive and unscathed and took it. This view may have been naive, but his motives were commendable.

The teacher couldn't murder another human being. He saw a chance to lessen bloodshed and took it. Maybe this increased the risk of one of his squadmates getting hurt, but he basically saw an opportunity for everyone to go home alive and unscathed and took it. This view may have been naive, but his motives were commendable.

HomicidalCherry

wars should be fought by recruiting the top 6 CoD4 players of each country, then, the ultimate tourneyProtestTheJOEL

I do understand his reasoning, but if he felt like that he should never have joined the army. That said I find it hard to understand why he did not ask to be put elsewhere, far from all soldiers point and shoot thier rifles, and logistics and planning is as inportant, he should have be reassigned to protect convoys, or a deskjob.

I am fairly certain that almost all western armies allowes this, if he found himself in a battle and realized he could not pull the trigger, it is far better for him and his brothers in arms to get hauled away from the place. It is atleast as damaging for the soldiers around him to lug around with him.

That said he might only have been in a battle once, and then got reassigned, if thats the case... no biggie.

[QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Then he wouldn't get paid. So? He also hasn't any fellow soldiers that he's put at risk by not defending. The teacher was dead wrong here....

D3nnyCrane

The teacher couldn't murder another human being. He saw a chance to lessen bloodshed and took it. Maybe this increased the risk of one of his squadmates getting hurt, but he basically saw an opportunity for everyone to go home alive and unscathed and took it. This view may have been naive, but his motives were commendable.

I do understand his reasoning, but if he felt like that he should never have joined the army. That said I find it hard to understand why he did not ask to be put elsewhere, far from all soldiers point and shoot thier rifles, and logistics and planning is as inportant, he should have be reassigned to protect convoys, or a deskjob.

I am fairly certain that almost all western armies allowes this, if he found himself in a battle and realized he could not pull the trigger, it is far better for him and his brothers in arms to get hauled away from the place. It is atleast as damaging for the soldiers around him to lug around with him.

That said he might only have been in a battle once, and then got reassigned, if thats the case... no biggie.

Maddie_Larkin

yes, he was very wrong for invading a country he had no place in and not even having the nerve to kill a total stranger with his fancy US rifle. He apparently has a brain, why did he join in the first place?

yes, he was very wrong for invading a country he had no place in and not even having the nerve to kill a total stranger with his fancy US rifle. He apparently has a brain, why did he join in the first place?

Anarchy4hire82

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

[QUOTE="jus2nyce"]

It takes the better man not to fire his weapon and still walk out a fight

jus2nyce

I am curious as to which conflict he was in, as Vietnam had a draft, and at that point he had no choice but to be slung into the battle.