News The Troops = Bad? (surely killing is wrong)

[Huckleberry]

No, if you use the OP logic alone "everyone who joins these forces wants to kill" then nobody would be traumatised. However this is clearly not the case. But that still doesn't mean most people become traumatised. I think in these situations, the cop would see it as doing their job and therefore, unless they felt they did something wrong (made a bad call) then they wouldn't be affected.

Have personal experience with this? Spoken with many vets lately? Talk to cops much? Done any research? Where does the belief that people who kill another human in understandable circumstances feel no guilt come from?

All of the people I knew that have killed another human express some type of regret (not always consistently) and emotional stress. At least one was seriously traumatized afterwards. He still needs antipsychotic drugs to prevent night terrors caused by his experience in the Vietnam war.

From my anecdotal experience I would say that being predisposed to killing is not a natural condition. It's psychotic. I don't believe it to be uncommon that they suffer some psychological damage even if their actions are justified by law and/or conscience. It directly affects their ability to cope in society. Killing another human being is not something to be taken lightly if one wants to exist in a society where murder and brutality are wrong.

 

[Al68]

Killing is always bad. It's just sometimes the lesser of evils.

If you killed someone, even in self defence or war, it would still haunt you the rest of your life.

I would say if someone was haunted by guilt because he killed someone, there is reason for it, such as he knows deep down it wasn't "really" self defense, for example. If they believe they did nothing wrong they would feel no guilt.

Unless by "haunted", you mean by something other than guilt, like any crime victim might be haunted by the memory.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I would say if someone was haunted by guilt because he killed someone, there is reason for it, such as he knows deep down it wasn't "really" self defense, for example. If they believe they did nothing wrong they would feel no guilt.

Unless by "haunted", you mean by something other than guilt, like any crime victim might be haunted by the memory.

http://www.calea.org/Online/newsletter/No87/ptsd.htm
Unfortunately this does not give any specific information about incidents of PTSD connected to shootings.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5607q4h6p23012m/
This is just an abstract, it does deal specifically with shootings, unfortunately it does not specify officers shooting a suspect only officers involved in shooting incidents in general.


The problem you see is that they second guess themselves. They begin to wonder whether or not they really needed to shoot the person or if there was something else they could have done. This often happens regardless of how by the book they did their job or how many people tell them they did the right thing and had no other choice. You will find this sort of phenomena in just about any field of work that involves life and death decisions. Doctors, EMTs, soldiers, firefighters, ect..

 

[Moridin]

We can simplify this:

Murder = bad
Killing = depends on situation/context

But this is just a definitional, rather than contextualized argument, since murder is merely defined as "unjustified killing". To state that murder is morally wrong is merely to state that unjustified killing is unjustified? Perhaps we should think about it like (Killing (Murder) )?

 

[Al68]

http://www.calea.org/Online/newsletter/No87/ptsd.htm
Unfortunately this does not give any specific information about incidents of PTSD connected to shootings.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5607q4h6p23012m/
This is just an abstract, it does deal specifically with shootings, unfortunately it does not specify officers shooting a suspect only officers involved in shooting incidents in general.


The problem you see is that they second guess themselves. They begin to wonder whether or not they really needed to shoot the person or if there was something else they could have done. This often happens regardless of how by the book they did their job or how many people tell them they did the right thing and had no other choice. You will find this sort of phenomena in just about any field of work that involves life and death decisions. Doctors, EMTs, soldiers, firefighters, ect..

Sure, that was really my point. The feelings of guilt are due to at least the possibility that it wasn't justified self defense. They're not due to the person thinking that killing in self defense is immoral. If a police officer thinks self defense is immoral, what's the gun for?

Of course killing by accident is different, too, like in the case of doctors, etc. But that would be more analogous to a police officer accidentally killing a bystander. I don't think the OP was referring to accidental killings, but of course someone would feel guilty about accidentally killing someone.

 

[kyleb]

I am sure the OP was referring to what is commonly euphemised as "collateral damage", which isn't rightly self-defense and only sometimes attributable to accident.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Sure, that was really my point. The feelings of guilt are due to at least the possibility that it wasn't justified self defense.

Its certainly debatable but I believe the common theory is that the second guessing stems from shock at having taken a life not necessarily the circumstances.

 

[JaredJames]

Well you can't really compare a cop to a soldier. A cop has strict regulations when it comes to pulling and using his gun (a soldier too but no one is there to keep them strict). If a cop shoots someone, it usually has to be because they have pulled a gun and generally won't submit to the cop or even shot at him. They really do need justification to pull that trigger. In Britain, the cop needs a direct order from HQ before they can even consider pulling the trigger. If they shoot someone wrongly they can be sued and go to prison.
In a war, when people are shooting then PTSD does become a much bigger issue, soldiers get fired on, they fire back. If there are civilians within the firing line they were unaware of (given firefights generally are over medium range with .50 cal machine guns and grenade launchers or within urban areas), they cannot always guarantee the person they shoot is a combatant (possible friendly fire), there is always a doubt in their mind the person they shot was innocent. And without proof they were not, that doubt can become an issue.

 

[drizzlekizzle]

do you think any of those troops want to be there? think they enlisted to go kill foreigners? they enlisted to make something of themselves and serve their country, fighting for it if necessary. the taliban and al-qaeda in afghanistan attacked us so its obvious there's going to be troops there fighting them. iraq is a whole different story, they shouldn't even been there in the first place.

 

[mohd_adam]

do you think any of those troops want to be there? think they enlisted to go kill foreigners? they enlisted to make something of themselves and serve their country, fighting for it if necessary. the taliban and al-qaeda in afghanistan attacked us so its obvious there's going to be troops there fighting them. iraq is a whole different story, they shouldn't even been there in the first place.

No, Taliban didn't attack America. Al-qaeda only who atacked America. bin Laden' deceived Mullah Omar, by undertaking the 9/11 attacks behind his back. No, if we want to stop killing in Afghanistan, America must negotiate with Taliban, if this happened, this will be the end of Al-qaeda. For me, i don't support Taliban. When America withdraw from Afghanistan , Taliban will become very weak.

 

[russ_watters]

Well you can't really compare a cop to a soldier. A cop has strict regulations when it comes to pulling and using his gun (a soldier too but no one is there to keep them strict).

You're probably thinking that since the soldier used his gun more that means the regulations must not be as strict. I think you'll find that if you examine the rules of engagement of cops and soldiers, you'll find them to be surprisingly similar.

If a cop shoots someone, it usually has to be because they have pulled a gun and generally won't submit to the cop or even shot at him. They really do need justification to pull that trigger.

And that is different from war how?

In Britain, the cop needs a direct order from HQ before they can even consider pulling the trigger.

I highly doubt that. It would make self defense impossible for a cop because rarely do you have enough time for that.

If they shoot someone wrongly they can be sued and go to prison.

Soldiers too, though it is tough to sue someone from another country.

 

[JaredJames]

You're probably thinking that since the soldier used his gun more that means the regulations must not be as strict. I think you'll find that if you examine the rules of engagement of cops and soldiers, you'll find them to be surprisingly similar.

Yes, but in a war zone where fifty caliber guns are being fired from multiple angles along sides grenade launchers and rpg's, it can be difficult tracking down who killed who. So shooting a civilian in a war zone isn't going to be as bad as shooting a civilian in a police situation (from a discipline point of view).

And that is different from war how?

I'll give you this one, must have had an example in my head when I wrote this but it was a while ago.

I highly doubt that. It would make self defense impossible for a cop because rarely do you have enough time for that.

UK cops don't carry guns. The most offensive weapon they carry is the night stick and pepper spray. Special units are called to deal with armed response issues and they are giving orders according to the situation at hand.

Soldiers too, though it is tough to sue someone from another country.

Especially if you don't know who did it.

I was only trying to make the point that it can be worse for a soldier than a cop. As it's bound to be harder for a soldier to confirm to themselves that the 'combatant' they shot (particularly at range) is definitely not a civilian. Whereas most cop situations are close range with a much better idea of who is and isn't a threat. I just think it would be easier for a cop to confirm to themselves the killing was justified.

 

[Ghost803]

I respect and pray for the troops as much as I do for my Garbage man.

 

[Count Iblis]

It's not so cut and dry. For the most part, US/UK soldiers do not plant roadside bombs or IED's. They generally do not shoot unless they come under fire. On the other hand, al Qaida and Taliban forces have massacred civilians intentionally, whereas US/UK/allies forces seem to do it unintentionally. However, we know in some cases, a limited number of US and UK troops have intentionally brutalized and killed innocent people.

I'm opposed to war, but that doesn't change that fact that if happens. I hope it ends quickly.

If one feels strongly about, join an NGO or other humanitarian group, and serve in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

It is not a fair comparison to compare the action of a military superior invading force by those of people who are resisting the invasion. You have to compare the tactics of the insurgents with what our plans were in case of an invasion of NATO countries that NATO would not be able to resist. The plans were very clear:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

 

[drankin]

I respect and pray for the troops as much as I do for my Garbage man.

Are you saying you don't respect your garbage man? Maybe you should start hauling your own trash to the dump.

I respect the people who work hard for a living. Particularly in thankless accupations that are very much required to make are communities liveable.

Such a comment is snooty.

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you saying you don't respect your garbage man? Maybe you should start hauling your own trash to the dump.

Haha - don't ask that question of anyone http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/29/toronto-strike.html" .

 

[drankin]

Haha - don't ask that question of anyone http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/29/toronto-strike.html" .

LOL, I hear your pain. Sounds like they are demanding monetary respect, or else.

 

[mheslep]

...UK cops don't carry guns. The most offensive weapon they carry is the night stick and pepper spray. Special units are called to deal with armed response issues and they are giving orders according to the situation at hand...

Yes that should be most UK cops don't carry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Police_armed_uk.jpg

 

[JaredJames]

Yes that should be most UK cops don't carry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Police_armed_uk.jpg

No it shouldn't. What part of special units didn't you get? They are special armed response units. They undergoe special training not done by normal officers (obviously) and are called armed response officers. Yes, they have grown in numbers since the terrorist attacks (particularly at airports) but they are still considered a unit on their own and it is extremely rare you would see one 'taking a stroll' down your street (never happens in places outside of big cities although there are some which patrol in cars in certain areas that are known for gun/knife crime).

The wiki description calls them just officers but that is why I don't like wikipedia. Also if you knew anything about whitehall you would know why there is an armed division patrolling it (heres a hint parliament).

 

[mheslep]

No it shouldn't. What part of special units didn't you get? They are special armed response units. They undergoe special training not done by normal officers (obviously) and are called armed response officers. Yes, they have grown in numbers since the terrorist attacks (particularly at airports) but they are still considered a unit on their own and it is extremely rare you would see one 'taking a stroll' down your street (never happens in places outside of big cities although there are some which patrol in cars in certain areas that are known for gun/knife crime).

'Special' is your word, and simply because a cop undergoes 'special' training does not make him/her not a cop. My statement about "most cops don't carry" is empirically correct. Those Whitehall units are still police, they are not British soldiers. Your original statement that "UK cops don't carry guns" without qualification was simply false.

 

[DaveC426913]

'Special' is your word, and simply because a cop undergoes 'special' training does not make him/her not a cop. My statement about "most cops don't carry" is empirically correct. Those Whitehall units are still police, they are not British soldiers. Your original statement that "UK cops don't carry guns" without qualification was simply false.

I was about to say pretty much the exact same thing. They're cops; they carry guns. The "most" qualifier is appropriate.

 

[Ghost803]

Are you saying you don't respect your garbage man? Maybe you should start hauling your own trash to the dump.

I respect the people who work hard for a living. Particularly in thankless accupations that are very much required to make are communities liveable.

Such a comment is snooty.

Maybe the garbage man should try living without his monthly income, then I'll try hauling my own garbage.

 

[Huckleberry]

Ok, so you have an unreasonable hatred for both garbage men and the military. Fine. Your point would be more useful to this thread if you gave some kind of explanation as to why you feel this way, and more persuasive if you had a logical reason why anyone else should agree with you.

 

[drankin]

Maybe the garbage man should try living without his monthly income, then I'll try hauling my own garbage.

Or he could just skip your house and continue making a living without hauling your trash. Let's not stop there, maybe the plumbers could blacklist you too. Does your disrespect towards waste disposal extend to the police and firemen?

 

[Pupil]

I'm curious. The OP had very weak arguments, but suppose he liked Ghandi's philosophy of Pacifism and claimed that the troops were bad because their profession was to kill (regardless of whether it was in offense or defense).

I have my own misgivings about Pacifism, but I'd like to hear your rebuttals and I'll try to defend this position (though I might not do a very good job given that I disagree with it).

 

[Alfi]

I respect and pray for the troops as much as I do for my Garbage man.

I like it. to me, It says a good thing. Respect everyone, regardless of their job.
If you think positive, the 'as much as' can mean a lot.
If you think negative, the 'as much as' can mean a little.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm curious. The OP had very weak arguments, but suppose he liked Ghandi's philosophy of Pacifism and claimed that the troops were bad because their profession was to kill (regardless of whether it was in offense or defense).

I have my own misgivings about Pacifism, but I'd like to hear your rebuttals and I'll try to defend this position (though I might not do a very good job given that I disagree with it).

Pacifism works if you are directly involved in the altercation.

But if you see an injustice committed elsewhere, and your moral imperative tells you to come to the aid of the oppressed parties, pacifism's effectiveness approaches zero.

 

[mheslep]

Well put.

 

[Count Iblis]

Intervention to help oppressed people only works if you are neutral. Not neutral in the sense of being blind to who is doung the opressonand who is oppressed, of course. Rather, when the problem is solved and you have to set up a system for the long term, that you don't become party to any political conflicts, or are blinded by some ideology.

In case of Iraq, the US was was blinded by the Neo-Con idea of a "democratic Iraq". The minority Sunnis were not able to get their grievances addressed within Iraq's political system. When time for Bush was running out he did intervene by making consessions to the Sunnis and by pressuring the Iraqi government to crack down on Shia militias/death squads who until that time has been operating with the support of the interior ministery.

The US adminstration made propaganda by claiming that "The Surge is working" as if that vindicated the Bush line. The fundamental reason why things were not working until the surge was that the political process was flawed leading to parts of the population supporting militias/insurgents, which then allowed terrorists to exploit the situation.

The reason why the Bush adminstration did not fix the problem at an earlier stage was because in their minds all that they would have to do is make sure that Iraq was democratic and people were voting. Any violence that would occur despite that could then only be due to "terrorists" and they would have to be confronted with violence. The idea that you would have to overrule outcomes reached by the democratic processes in Iraq was taboo, as that would prove wrong the Neo-Con doctrine.

 

[DaveC426913]

Intervention to help oppressed people only works if you are neutral.

Well, not true. It certainly works if you're not neutral, although I suppose then it is more properly known as alliance. Depends on what the desired outcome is.