In all kinds of war stories; movies, books, magazines, even on the news, you hear about how American soldiers are told NOT to shoot at women and children. In the movie, Black Hawk Down, 
there are two scenes where that rule comes into play, but with two very different outcomes. The first scene is with a young boy. He has a gun. Instead of shooting an American soldier, he accidently shoots his father. The American soldier lets him live. In the second scene, a woman runs out to a dead body, picks up a gun, and before she can shoot, an American soldier shoots her. The question here is, when is it okay to shoot at women or children?
In the scene with the child, he shoots his father and instead of the soldier killing the little boy, he just runs away. At what point in this scene do morals come into play? Is the little boy a threat or is he forced to shoot the first thing he sees? In the other scene, the woman picks up the gun and she gets killed before she can kill. She wouldn't have gotten shot at if she would have just stayed in hiding.
Children are still children. Just because they are old enough to hold a gun, doesn't necessarily mean they know exactly what it is capable of. Because if they don't know what it is capable of, they probably don't know how to use it, therefore; they can't do too much damage. But in the woman's situation, she knows what she's doing, she knows how to use a gun, and she knows what it is capable of. You can tell that the child has no intention of killing, but the woman has full intention. Is it wrong of the soldier to let the child live, but kill the women?
That's a difficult question to answer. Of course, I would prefer for neither the child or women to be shot at, but I understand the soldiers reasoning. The soldiers were under the command of not to shoot unless shot at so that explains why he didn't shoot the child. Also, I believe the soldier felt compassion for the child and his wounded father which kept him from shooting the child. The women on the other hand was warned not to pick up the gun and continued to do so. Therefore, she was considered a threat to the soldiers safety and unfortunately "deserved" to get shot at.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that it was wrong for the soldier to kill the woman and not the child. The woman thought about her actions and ran to pick up the gun. The soldier was hoping that she wouldn't pick it up because he didn't want to kill her. Although when she picked up the gun she became an enemy and was shot because she had intentions of shooting back. In the child's case, I think that after the boy shot his father by accident he was no longer a threat. After seeing what he had done he dropped the gun and ran to his fathers side. He made the right decision not to kill the boy.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that it is wrong letting the child live and not the woman. As you said, the child at that point in time, had no intention of killing anyone. However, the woman did. In this type of situation, the child is not considered a threat; however, the woman is. When the woman picked up the weapon, she was considered an enemy. As Alexander says, the soldier did not want her to to pick up the weapon but she did. Once the woman put herself in that situation, there was nothing the soldier could do but to kill her. It was his life or hers. In war, you kill the enemy. When the woman picked up the gun, she was an enemy.
ReplyDeleteI think the soldier made the right decision in both situations. No, I don't think it is right to shoot a woman or child, I don't think it's even right to shoot at a person at all, but the soldiers did what they had to do. In the child's case, he saw that the child was no threat to him so he did not kill him. In the woman's case, she was obviously a threat since she picked up the gun so he did what he thought was best. If anyone is going to be a part of a war, they should know the consequences that come with it.
ReplyDelete