Human shields

Side A and side B are fighting a war.

Side A uses human shields to protect its forces.
Side B attacks the forces of side A, and the human shields die
(Clarification -- the human shields involuntary act as such)

Who is responsible for the death of the human sheilds?

Both. Side A for using them, Side B for shooting them anyway.

Side A is responsible for the deaths of the human shields as well as the human shields if they volunteered to be human shields. To allow someone to get away with using human shields only encourages the use of more human shields and endangers the troops.

EgoffTib said:

Both. Side A for using them, Side B for shooting them anyway.

Click to expand...

Does the presence of a human shield create a legal and/of moral imperative to not attack a legitimate military target?

Both sides are guilty. Using the human shields is probably a bit higher on the list, but firing anyway causes the sin to be shared.

Both sides are responsible.

Side A, in every possible situation I can think of except one: They didn't want human shields at all, but some people idiotically made themselves such anyway. As the wording of your question removes that possibility, then in the context you present Side A is always at fault.

Side B, only in some situations. For example, if they were attacking Side A for no valid reason, it would be slightly their fault, as Side A wouldn't be using human shields if they weren't under attack.
However, Side A would still bear most of the blame, as they didn't have to use human shields, they chose too.

Side A is completely at fault. Side B is completely innocent.

Side A is using human shields, if side B fires they kill both the civilian and the militant. However, is side B doesn't fire side B will die by the person using the human shield. If a human shield dies the blame lies solely on the one using the person as a shield. They would not have died had side A not used them and placed them in the line of fire.

Both sides are responsible for their deaths. Side A is responsible because the human shields wouldn't have been there had they not forced them to be. Side B is responsible because they fired the shots that killed them.

Sometimes you don't have any choice but to shoot anyway.

We Americans have gotten used to wars taking place 5,000 miles or more away. If we lose the war, it doesn't necessarily mean the homeland is in danger of invasion.

Most nations don't have that privileged position, between two vast oceans, with a friend to the north and a weak nation to the south.

For many nations the loss of a war may mean that invasion, conquest and oppression follows the loss.

Even if that is not the case, there are times when the consequences of not shooting outweigh the consequences of shooting. Let's say an Al-Q camp is known to have a suitcase nuke, and plans to set it off in New York... they also have civilian hostages. You have to measure the cost in lives of a nuke going off in NYC vs taking out the camp and risking the "human shields".

Or the way that terrorists have of hiding among the civvy population right after blowing up an Allied convoy...


I think it is somewhat analogous to a hostage-rescue situation, something I once trained for. Sometimes you have to take the shot, even if it endangers a hostage, because the consequences of not shooting will be worse.

A buddy of mine had to do that for real, one night. A murderer hid behind his hostage so well, that my friend had to shoot him through the meaty upper part of her (hostage's) shoulder. The murderer was shot thru the head and killed; the hostage suffered a moderately-serious wound but survived and recovered. Her survival, had the hostage-taker been allowed to escape, would have been very iffy.

Then there's the Russian handling of the theater-hostage/terrorism event a few years ago. They took the risk to the hostages to intervene, killing the attackers, because if they allowed the operation to succeed it would be an open invitation for more terrorists to perform similar operations.

Anyway, sometimes you have no real choice but to go ahead and shoot.

Side B

for not having homing bullets.

Neither side is responsible, God is & he will sort them out.........

Boomie is that you?...:2wave:
It's Haut in here.....:mrgreen:

Goobieman said:

Side A and side B are fighting a war.

Side A uses human shields to protect its forces.
Side B attacks the forces of side A, and the human shields die
(Clarification -- the human shields involuntary act as such)

Who is responsible for the death of the human sheilds?

Click to expand...

Side A.

Bad guy holds a hostage and uses that hostage as a human shield.

Police show up and try to save hostage and in the process, the hostage gets hit by friendly fire and dies.

Who is at fault?

Why would side B of your scenario or the cop in my scenario, be held responsible for the hostage's death?

I win! I stinkin picked side" A "betcha.

The person who shot the gun is fully responsible for the death that comes as a result of that action.

rivrrat said:

The person who shot the gun is fully responsible for the death that comes as a result of that action.

Click to expand...

With views like that, it is no wonder the terrorists have no problem using civilians as meat shields.

In war people die. If you don't have the guts to accept this, you should not be a warrior, period.

The side trying to hide behind the innocent is responsible.

Blackdog said:

With views like that, it is no wonder the terrorists have no problem using civilians as meat shields.

In war people die. If you don't have the guts to accept this, you should not be a warrior, period.

The side trying to hide behind the innocent is responsible.

Click to expand...

Maybe if you don't have the guts to accept the responsibility of your decisions and actions then you shouldn't be a warrior either. While people can run around to try to remove fault, the fact is both parties share blame. One for putting innocents in harms way, the other for harming them. You may be able to justify the action in some way, but it doesn't negate the action.

The Mark said:

Side A, in every possible situation I can think of except one: They didn't want human shields at all, but some people idiotically made themselves such anyway. As the wording of your question removes that possibility, then in the context you present Side A is always at fault.

Side B, only in some situations. For example, if they were attacking Side A for no valid reason, it would be slightly their fault, as Side A wouldn't be using human shields if they weren't under attack.
However, Side A would still bear most of the blame, as they didn't have to use human shields, they chose too.

Click to expand...

What you said is probably most accurate.

Side A more than B.

They put the civilians in the line of fire in the first place, any death should technically be their fault. Side B should try to avoid civilian casulty

Ikari said:

Maybe if you don't have the guts to accept the responsibility of your decisions and actions then you shouldn't be a warrior either.

Click to expand...

He would accept the responsibility by killing the enemy. If the meat shield is in the way oh well.

It is exactly this kind of attitude that gives our enemy's comfort and ties the hands of our troops.

If this kind of attitude prevailed in WWII, we could not have won. We would have been to busy trying to avoid civilian casualty's.

This is war, war is ugly and brutal. If you are not willing to go all the way for victory, don't get in the way.

Ikari said:

While people can run around to try to remove fault, the fact is both parties share blame. One for putting innocents in harms way, the other for harming them. You may be able to justify the action in some way, but it doesn't negate the action.

Click to expand...

No one is negating the action. We are not talking cops and robbers here. We are talking war.

So we have an anonymous vote for Side B. Probably some lib from here.

If you're walking in the street and then somebody grabs an innocent passersby, takes out a pistol and starts shooting at you - you have every right to draw your pistol out and fire back.

If the innocent gets hit, it's tragic, but it should be obvious that your life is in danger for every moment that you do not fire.

American said:

So we have an anonymous vote for Side B. Probably some lib from here.

Click to expand...

It's a guest vote, not anonymous.

Apocalypse said:

If you're walking in the street and then somebody grabs an innocent passersby, takes out a pistol and starts shooting at you - you have every right to draw your pistol out and fire back.

If the innocent gets hit, it's tragic, but it should be obvious that your life is in danger for every moment that you do not fire.

Click to expand...

Let's hope your gun has enough 'oomph' to shoot right through the shield.....