Instant Polyjury -- was it honorable "to put him out of his misery"

[Boris Godunov]

If the man was conscious and did not express a desire to be killed, then no, it's not honorable, it's murder.

AFAIK, even a mortally wounded prisoner is entitled to medical care that attempts to save his life. To just give up and shoot him isn't honorable at all.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by St Leo
It was honourable if the details true.

I was going to ask if the version of events is disputed by the prosecution. Most importantly, was the man going to die regardless.

[lord of the mark]

is there a middle ground between honorable and murder? Like, say, manslaughter? I agree with whoever posted the Terri-hypocrisy thing, but i have a hard time calling a guy a murderer who acted from an instinct of mercy, and without alot of time to think about it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
is there a middle ground between honorable and murder? Like, say, manslaughter? I agree with whoever posted the Terri-hypocrisy thing, but i have a hard time calling a guy a murderer who acted from an instinct of mercy, and without alot of time to think about it.

Not necessarily first-degree murder, but it is murder in the sense of "unlawful killing." Manslaughter is reserved for when there is no intent to kill, AFAIK. That isn't the case here.

I'm not saying the soldier acted out of malice, just that, if the prisoner did not consent, what he did was wrong.

I voted "need more info," btw.

[Spiffor]

Re: Instant Polyjury -- was it honorable "to put him out of his misery"

Originally posted by DanS
The company commander, after being told by his medic that the militant wasn't going to make it, "put him out of his misery"

If true, yes, it's the most honourable thing to do. If the only prospect of that man was to agonize for hours, the soldier who put him out of his misery was right in doing so.

[Adagio]

Depends... if the wounded guy asked to be "taken out of his misery" then I see no reason why not. Of course it could easily be a situation where it wasn't possible to say if he wished for it or not and in such cases it shouldn't be just one soldier to decide if he should be "helped" or not

[Donegeal]

Tough to say. What was the excact extent of the injuries? If its like Whoha said and the guy was missing half his head, then probably. Imagine a guy flopping around on the ground missing half his head making gurgling noises out of what is left of his throat and a medic sitting right there saying "There is nothing I can do to save him." Yeah, in that case, I'd shoot him too. However, if it wasn't that extreme, then I'd try to give him morphine (medics sometimes have it) or some kind of seditive.

[SpencerH]

He should have left him in the care of his medic. That is the honourable thing to do. The only (possible) reason to shoot him would be if there was no possibility of anyone providing care, given some extreme set of circumstances.

[Mr. Harley]

It was done all the time in the Civil War. However, and given the context of the war in Iraq, it was a stupid decision. If the facts are correct, it was merciful, but given the context of the conflict, and the fact situations like this are propaganda coups for the insurgency if they get into the press- let them die in agony at the side of the road. They played with fire, i.e. working for al-Sadr, they can die with the consequences. I can be a callous S*B at times.

[Sava]

Originally posted by St Leo
It was honourable if the details true.

[Sava]

DANS!

NO BANANA OPTION!

[Imran Siddiqui]

More facts are needed. Like what the medic's testimony. Whether the Iraqi asked to be killed. Stuff like that.

[Sava]

IMO, if this guy was a Sadr militant, and armed and opposing the US troops, then his life doesn't mean **** to me

he was lucky to receive death

but if he was just some innocent guy, then

[Zoid]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Ugh, I'm siding with Winston.

Me too.

[Q Classic]

honorable? i dunno. i don't give a ****.

killing people, especially non-white non-americans.