• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Human shields

See OP: Who is responsible for the death of the human shields?


  • Total voters
    36
Since I am not Catholic why would this concern me? They are ignoring the correct translation for a known mistake. This makes it blasphemy to most Chrsitians. Of course in the eyes of the Catholic church, this would make me and most Christians heretics, so it's all good.

They might say that those Christians are using a mistranslation in order to justify killing by adjusting their laws to allow it (since murder is just "unlawful killing", any killing could be made unsinful by altering the laws).
 
They might say that those Christians are using a mistranslation in order to justify killing by adjusting their laws to allow it (since murder is just "unlawful killing", any killing could be made unsinful by altering the laws).

They are not mistranslating it though, the Catholics are. All you have to do is look at the OT. It is pretty clear about what is murder and what is not.

I mean many times the Jews were told in no uncertain terms to kill every man woman and child in a place. It was justified by God and not murder. When The early Jews went to war, they were justified in all the actions they took. This included by our standards much killing, but not murder.
 
Or in this case the correct one.

You merely define it as correct because it fits your means. It doesn't make it correct if used as a defense mechanism

I was taught what I needed to stay alive and do my job. That makes it right.

It doesn't necessarily make it right, it makes it useful.

This has no relevance on moral absolutes.

Man has been killing man since day 1. So it looks like it mite be the exact opposite of what you are trying to say. This also has little to do with generalizing about someone you don't know and have never met.

Not quite since day one, but it really came about during the evolution of human society. But humans were less evolved back then and we've come to greater understandings now.

No. I am disagreeing with what you are saying because it is not realistic and does not work in real world terror or warfare situations.

It's because you're not understanding what I'm saying. For some reason you seem to be confusing responsibility with justification. The thread was about responsibility alone though.

It has everything to do with it.

Yet you've provided no proof of it's existence.

OK point out where i have done this in my life? Wow you know allot about me for someone who has never met me. Assume much?

Your posts make you seem like a shoulder shrugger.

You need to realize justification is everything and blame with no force behind it means nothing.

No, justification is only relevant in legal terms. Responsibility is more broad reaching and includes morals.

You mean like the terrorists we are fighting?

For one, yes. We treat them as non-humans and in fact expand that attitude over a great number of cultures in the ME. It helps us to keep going with the war if we don't have to think of the other side as human. We don't have to feel bad about killing them if we can somehow dehumanize the lot.

And not everyone worships a god, what does this tell you?

That specific gods are creations of man. But sin exists outside the existence of gods and absolute morals can still exist outside of gods. But that specific point is brought up for people who do believe or claim belief in a god. Since gods have sets of absolute morals along with them. If you really believe that is and aren't just using it as convenient excuse to absolve behavior and consequence.

So instead of calling the enemy solders, "enemy solders" we will call them ahhh human targets. would that help?

What would help would be to recognize and accept the humanity of all humans.

Did not say you did. I said you have no legal leg to stand on. In other words the rest of the civilized world disagrees with your unrealistic moral assumptions.

All humans are human is not an unrealistic moral assumption. It conflicts perhaps with your desire to dehumanize enough to absolve consequence, but there's nothing unrealistic about recognizing the universal humanity of humans. As I said, it's not a legal question being asked here, it's a moral one.

So in other words your whole argument is based on semantics? :lol:

Nope, it's based on the universal similarity of humans as a species.

So because I call someone an enemy combatant in stead of human (which would cause a hell of a lot of confusion) somehow all of a sudden I am responsible?

No, if you kill someone you are always responsible for that death. Accepting the humanity of others doesn't affect that part. It affects the acceptance or denial of consequence.

And it like much of the cannon of Catholicism is wrong and based on an incorrect translation.

That's your opinion. Again, you will choose the opinion which best meets the requirments for you. But Catholicism predates most forms of modern Christian sects. The other sects were made when they got pissed at the Catholic Church for rules they didn't want to follow. So they claimed some misinterpretation and made their own churches so they wouldn't have to follow the rules. I think in many ways, the Catholics are probably the most right on things, plus they are the most original. Others broke off in order to satisfy their own needs and create churches which were engineered from the start to suit their own needs. So it makes it BS really.

You have yet to post one shred of evidence that moral absolutes exist. All you have to do is look around, you can see it does not.

All you have to do is look around and you see it does. Unless your contention is that human isn't human. That the value of a human or degree of their humanity is based on circumstances of their environments and not on the fact that they are human in the end. Which I would say is rather ridiculous.

Semantics again.

Is this going to be your common retort when you can't prove a point or counter an argument?

I am arguing cold hard facts, while you try and argue philosophy and semantics.

No, you're trying to argue some legal floppiness. I'm arguing cold hard facts. Fact, you pull a trigger. Fact, you kill someone. Fact, you contributed to the death of that someone. Fact, you bear responsibility for the death of that individual. That's the fact, and that's what you're trying to rally against.

No need to deflect. [/quoite]

Then quit doing it.

No need to. None in this case exist.

All action has consequence

Don't care enough to bother.

Thank you for admitting that you are an intellectually dishonest debater. Basically you wanted to insult me and make it seem as if I was changing my mind. But it was a response to a specific quote which you refused to read either out of laziness or dishonesty and tried to apply an accusation which didn't fit and could have been solved if you read the quote. So I'll give you kudos on admitting that you're not being intellectual honest.

Not running from it. Nothing to run from. No consequences legally or morally from society's point of view or the results of this poll.

The consequence is one of reality and biology. The consequence is that you've killed someone. Whether or not you want to accept and understand that consequence or run from it is another point. Your arguments are arguments for running from the consequence, for trying to hide from it, for trying to pretend it doesn't exist. Mine simply accepts reality for what it is.
 
Last edited:
I am absolutely dumbfounded as to how any intelligent person could state that if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you are somehow not responsible for the death of that person. :confused:
 
They are not mistranslating it though, the Catholics are. All you have to do is look at the OT. It is pretty clear about what is murder and what is not.

But the Catholics aren't mistranslating it, the non-Catholics are. All you have to do is look at the New Testement. It's pretty clear about turning the other cheek and such.

See how that works? The simple fact is you can't say for certain who is getting it wrong, you can only say what you believe ;)

Only God knows for sure what is or is not a sin.


I mean many times the Jews were told in no uncertain terms to kill every man woman and child in a place. It was justified by God and not murder. When The early Jews went to war, they were justified in all the actions they took. This included by our standards much killing, but not murder.

But the Christian's were told, under no uncertain terms, "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
 
I am absolutely dumbfounded as to how any intelligent person could state that if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you are somehow not responsible for the death of that person. :confused:


If Person A starts shooting at me, and grabs Person B to use as a human shield...

... and of necessity I shoot back in defense of my life...

... and as a result both Person A (the shooter and shield-grabber) and Person B (the unfortunate shield) are both killed, it is Person A's fault.

Person A initiated the conflict by trying to shoot me. Person A put Person B's life in danger by grabbing him and using him as a human shield. I did what was necessary to preserve myself; I am not responsible for PersonB's death, person A is responsible, he is the one who put B in the line of fire while forcing me to respond.


Caveats:
Perhaps I could have ducked behind cover and just let Person A go.
... perhaps instead of leaving, he would have approached my cover and tried to finish me off at close range, still using his human shield.
... perhaps I am an LEO tasked with apprehending this person; perhaps he is a known murderer, and if I let him escape with Person B then he is likely to murder him anyway.

Perhaps I could have done something else...
... like what? Rush to HTH range in the open and under fire? Bit suicidal...
... try for a head shot? Sure, if possible... but pinpoint precision is always difficult under such conditions.

Intrestingly enough, as an LEO, I went thru some training on how to deal with being a hostage. We were told the following:
... 1. You (the officer) are expendable; we will not release a prisoner or allow a felon to escape to save you.
... 2. When SWAT rolls in, hit the floor, because the killing is about to start; they will try not to shoot you, but if you're in the line of fire you may be shot anyway.

I was transporting a group of 14 post-conviction felons from one place to another, once. At the destination facility, I took them into a secure room to remove their restraints. Before doing so I locked my sidearm outside the room to prevent their possible access to it (SOP). Normally I would have (should have) had some help, but we were short-handed, so I removed all their restraints myself, prior to their induction into the facility.
Before anyone else could arrive, one convict and his buddies threatened to take me hostage and kill me if they were not released. I explained to them Fact 1 and Fact 2 listed above, and they were deterred and surrendered without further action. (well, I also had a fistful of chains and told them I would definitely kill at least one of them first, but...lol)


If my department allowed prisoners to get away using officers as human shields, such incidents would probably be more commonplace.
 
Those who employ this dispictable act are responsible for the deaths.
It must be remembered that war is hell.
Side A?
Side B?
No vote.
As far as the felons go, I think they should stay shackled forever, unless they can display a degree of trust.
 
Last edited:
If Person A starts shooting at me, and grabs Person B to use as a human shield...

... and of necessity I shoot back in defense of my life...

... and as a result both Person A (the shooter and shield-grabber) and Person B (the unfortunate shield) are both killed, it is Person A's fault.

Person A initiated the conflict by trying to shoot me. Person A put Person B's life in danger by grabbing him and using him as a human shield. I did what was necessary to preserve myself; I am not responsible for PersonB's death, person A is responsible, he is the one who put B in the line of fire while forcing me to respond.


Caveats:
Perhaps I could have ducked behind cover and just let Person A go.
... perhaps instead of leaving, he would have approached my cover and tried to finish me off at close range, still using his human shield.
... perhaps I am an LEO tasked with apprehending this person; perhaps he is a known murderer, and if I let him escape with Person B then he is likely to murder him anyway.

Perhaps I could have done something else...
... like what? Rush to HTH range in the open and under fire? Bit suicidal...
... try for a head shot? Sure, if possible... but pinpoint precision is always difficult under such conditions.

Intrestingly enough, as an LEO, I went thru some training on how to deal with being a hostage. We were told the following:
... 1. You (the officer) are expendable; we will not release a prisoner or allow a felon to escape to save you.
... 2. When SWAT rolls in, hit the floor, because the killing is about to start; they will try not to shoot you, but if you're in the line of fire you may be shot anyway.

I was transporting a group of 14 post-conviction felons from one place to another, once. At the destination facility, I took them into a secure room to remove their restraints. Before doing so I locked my sidearm outside the room to prevent their possible access to it (SOP). Normally I would have (should have) had some help, but we were short-handed, so I removed all their restraints myself, prior to their induction into the facility.
Before anyone else could arrive, one convict and his buddies threatened to take me hostage and kill me if they were not released. I explained to them Fact 1 and Fact 2 listed above, and they were deterred and surrendered without further action. (well, I also had a fistful of chains and told them I would definitely kill at least one of them first, but...lol)


If my department allowed prisoners to get away using officers as human shields, such incidents would probably be more commonplace.

The problem is they follow some zen movement that says killing a human is never good and think that moral absolutes apply equally to everyone.

I guess they have never met a sociopath.
 
If Person A starts shooting at me, and grabs Person B to use as a human shield...

... and of necessity I shoot back in defense of my life...

... and as a result both Person A (the shooter and shield-grabber) and Person B (the unfortunate shield) are both killed, it is Person A's fault.

Person A initiated the conflict by trying to shoot me. Person A put Person B's life in danger by grabbing him and using him as a human shield. I did what was necessary to preserve myself; I am not responsible for PersonB's death, person A is responsible, he is the one who put B in the line of fire while forcing me to respond.


Caveats:
Perhaps I could have ducked behind cover and just let Person A go.
... perhaps instead of leaving, he would have approached my cover and tried to finish me off at close range, still using his human shield.
... perhaps I am an LEO tasked with apprehending this person; perhaps he is a known murderer, and if I let him escape with Person B then he is likely to murder him anyway.

Perhaps I could have done something else...
... like what? Rush to HTH range in the open and under fire? Bit suicidal...
... try for a head shot? Sure, if possible... but pinpoint precision is always difficult under such conditions.

Intrestingly enough, as an LEO, I went thru some training on how to deal with being a hostage. We were told the following:
... 1. You (the officer) are expendable; we will not release a prisoner or allow a felon to escape to save you.
... 2. When SWAT rolls in, hit the floor, because the killing is about to start; they will try not to shoot you, but if you're in the line of fire you may be shot anyway.

I was transporting a group of 14 post-conviction felons from one place to another, once. At the destination facility, I took them into a secure room to remove their restraints. Before doing so I locked my sidearm outside the room to prevent their possible access to it (SOP). Normally I would have (should have) had some help, but we were short-handed, so I removed all their restraints myself, prior to their induction into the facility.
Before anyone else could arrive, one convict and his buddies threatened to take me hostage and kill me if they were not released. I explained to them Fact 1 and Fact 2 listed above, and they were deterred and surrendered without further action. (well, I also had a fistful of chains and told them I would definitely kill at least one of them first, but...lol)


If my department allowed prisoners to get away using officers as human shields, such incidents would probably be more commonplace.

I said nothing with regard to justification. That is irrelevant. That it might be the right choice to shoot the human shield does not negate the shooters responsibility in the 'shields' death. The shooter IS responsible for pulling the trigger and aiming the gun. If that bullet kills its target, it is the SHOOTERS responsibility. That doesn't mean it was or wasn't justified, that's not the question.
 
But the Catholics aren't mistranslating it, the non-Catholics are. All you have to do is look at the New Testement. It's pretty clear about turning the other cheek and such.

That is not true and does not even apply. The word for murder was mistranslated as killing in the KJV. Most other Bibles have corrected this mistake.

End of story.

The NT also says murder and not kill.

Turning the other check has nothing to do with someone trying to kill people. Or people being killed in a war etc.

See how that works? The simple fact is you can't say for certain who is getting it wrong, you can only say what you believe ;)

Only God knows for sure what is or is not a sin.

Please Tucker, do not try and preach my own Bible to me. I know it inside and out in it's many different translations and versions. As I have shown you are incorrect, and it does not work like that in this case.

It is not a question of interpretation, it is an admitted mistranslation.

But the Christian's were told, under no uncertain terms, "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Taken out of context and without any real knowledge of the Bible, I can see how you and others would make that mistake.

It is a lesson about forgiveness and revenge, not literally letting someone beat you or kill you.
 
Last edited:
I said nothing with regard to justification. That is irrelevant. That it might be the right choice to shoot the human shield does not negate the shooters responsibility in the 'shields' death. The shooter IS responsible for pulling the trigger and aiming the gun. If that bullet kills its target, it is the SHOOTERS responsibility. That doesn't mean it was or wasn't justified, that's not the question.

Okay, they're "responsible", but that does not mean they're "culpable".
 
I said nothing with regard to justification. That is irrelevant. That it might be the right choice to shoot the human shield does not negate the shooters responsibility in the 'shields' death. The shooter IS responsible for pulling the trigger and aiming the gun. If that bullet kills its target, it is the SHOOTERS responsibility. That doesn't mean it was or wasn't justified, that's not the question.



I'm afraid redneck ex-cops like me don't understand such fine distinctions. :mrgreen:

Well, ok in a sense I do. Legally, if you claim to have killed someone in self-defense then you are considered to have admitted to the crime of homicide, while claiming the justification of self-defense. If the justification is accepted, then you walk and are free from all criminal penalty.

Frankly that never made sense to me. If it is justified and you go free, then you were right and not guilty of any crime. You were not "responsible" in a criminal sense.
 
If Person A starts shooting at me, and grabs Person B to use as a human shield...

... and of necessity I shoot back in defense of my life...

... and as a result both Person A (the shooter and shield-grabber) and Person B (the unfortunate shield) are both killed, it is Person A's fault.

Person A initiated the conflict by trying to shoot me. Person A put Person B's life in danger by grabbing him and using him as a human shield. I did what was necessary to preserve myself; I am not responsible for PersonB's death, person A is responsible, he is the one who put B in the line of fire while forcing me to respond.

I still think you would be responsible as well. You took actions that directly resulted in the death of the human shield (firing back). Would you be guilty in a legal sense? No. Would your actions have been justified? Yes. But you still bear an equal share of responsibility in the human shield's death.
 
I still think you would be responsible as well. You took actions that directly resulted in the death of the human shield (firing back). Would you be guilty in a legal sense? No. Would your actions have been justified? Yes. But you still bear an equal share of responsibility in the human shield's death.

I still want to know, what does this mean? Responsibility with no responsibility legally is what?

I mean if it was my responsibility to clean up the dogs mess, but I never did and someone else did it for me and I was punished, I am obviously responsible. Now lets remove the punishment, this also removes any real responsibility as if I do it or not is now irrelevant.

Can someone explain how I would still be responsible?
 
Don't feel bad Blackdog, I am not "gettin' it" either.
 
Don't feel bad Blackdog, I am not "gettin' it" either.

I am hoping someone will seriously fill us in, lol.

I mean I think I have now accurately explained my position.

Just in case it gets lost back there....

"I still want to know, what does this mean? Responsibility with no responsibility legally is what?

I mean if it was my responsibility to clean up the dogs mess, but I never did and someone else did it for me and I was punished, I am obviously responsible. Now lets remove the punishment, this also removes any real responsibility as if I do it or not is now irrelevant.

Can someone explain how I would still be responsible?
"
 
Last edited:
I still think you would be responsible as well. You took actions that directly resulted in the death of the human shield (firing back). Would you be guilty in a legal sense? No. Would your actions have been justified? Yes. But you still bear an equal share of responsibility in the human shield's death.


Yeah, look... I don't see your point.

Okay, IF I had the opportunity to just walk away and failed to take it, that is one thing. But if we're talking about a situation where my life is being endangered by the hostage-taker, no... what are my practical options? Get shot and let this scumbag do what he likes to whoever else is in the area... no.
 
Okay, they're "responsible", but that does not mean they're "culpable".
No, they may not be culpable. That's different than responsible. They are, however, very much responsible. The morality of the action is debatable depending on the situation.

I'm afraid redneck ex-cops like me don't understand such fine distinctions. :mrgreen:

Well, ok in a sense I do. Legally, if you claim to have killed someone in self-defense then you are considered to have admitted to the crime of homicide, while claiming the justification of self-defense. If the justification is accepted, then you walk and are free from all criminal penalty.

Frankly that never made sense to me. If it is justified and you go free, then you were right and not guilty of any crime. You were not "responsible" in a criminal sense.
Responsible in a criminal sense is different too. If you kill someone in self defense, you are still responsible for their death. Were you in the 'right' to do it? Of course. But you still caused their death, you ARE responsible for their death. Culpable? Nope. Criminally responsible? Nope. Morally wrong? Nope. But *responsible* for their death, absolutely.
 
I am hoping someone will seriously fill us in, lol.

I mean I think I have now accurately explained my position.

Just in case it gets lost back there....

"I still want to know, what does this mean? Responsibility with no responsibility legally is what?

I mean if it was my responsibility to clean up the dogs mess, but I never did and someone else did it for me and I was punished, I am obviously responsible. Now lets remove the punishment, this also removes any real responsibility as if I do it or not is now irrelevant.

Can someone explain how I would still be responsible?
"

I'm speaking of responsibility in more of a cause and effect sense. Your actions directly lead to the death of the human shield. Had you not taken that action, he would still be alive. That makes you responsible for his death in my mind.
 
Yeah, look... I don't see your point.

Okay, IF I had the opportunity to just walk away and failed to take it, that is one thing. But if we're talking about a situation where my life is being endangered by the hostage-taker, no... what are my practical options? Get shot and let this scumbag do what he likes to whoever else is in the area... no.

There are always other choices. Yes, those choices are not attractive ones, but they were there. The fact of the matter is that you made the choice to take the action that ended the human shield's life. That makes you responsible for his death, because had you not taken that action he wouldn't have died.
 
There are always other choices. Yes, those choices are not attractive ones, but they were there. The fact of the matter is that you made the choice to take the action that ended the human shield's life. That makes you responsible for his death, because had you not taken that action he wouldn't have died.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The poll result disagree with you.
 
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The poll result disagree with you.

I didn't say he was solely responsible. By my metric, both sides share equal responsibility for his death.

So what if people disagree. There's no such thing as truth by majority.
 
I'm speaking of responsibility in more of a cause and effect sense. Your actions directly lead to the death of the human shield. Had you not taken that action, he would still be alive. That makes you responsible for his death in my mind.

Responsible in action only, OK.

I still think the person who put the meat shield in that position is responsible, period.
 
Back
Top Bottom