Poll: Would You Shoot Enemies Helping Their Wounded?

razelas

New member
Oct 27, 2010
419
0
0
I'm not talking about Gears of War where soldiers just tap the wounded guy and they're in, or downing a guy and using him as bait. I'm talking about, in the heat of the moment, 2-3 enemy soldiers hauling some wounded soldier out of your gunsights. Or 2 unprotected enemies (with medic red crosses) carrying a wounded guy in a stretcher. I'm not sure if any game has this feature, besides the up and coming Battlefield 3 (and even then it's only person dragging the guy).

Tbh, I would probably hesitate, especially if I heard the wounded guy screaming.

[sub]Edit[/sub] Poll is a bit glitchy...

[sub]Edit2[/sub] I'm not talking about in real life, just in video games.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
It depends on what the war is about. If it was some idiotic war where I was a soldier sent into another country and the people I was fighting were seeing us as the aggressors and were merely defending themselves then I would have difficulty killing more than necessary.

If I was fighting in a war where my country was invaded then I'd have no qualms whatsoever about killing every single invader that set foot in the country, regardless of whether or not they were helping wounded.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,986
796
118
Shooting wounded (and down) soldiers, or medics bearing the red cross logo is a war crime.

I think you're allowed to shoot ordinary soldiers helping the wounded, as long as you don't target the wounded themselves...not sure.

If you are talking about games, I tend to commit war crimes because it's convenient. Don't have to muck around with prisoners, just execute them and move on.

In real life...I'd like to say I wouldn't, but the same logic gets used by people not unlike myself in situations totally unlike my own.
 

Pariah87

New member
Jul 9, 2009
934
0
0
If they were my enemies I imagine the idea would be for me to kill them. As a result if 2 or 3 guys presented themselves as a target as they were dragging away someone who I didn't manage to kill, I'd have a go at them aswell.

Of course there are rules on that sort of thing now, so I'll go from the standpoint that I'm leading an army of rebels where we don't care about the rules. In that scenario I'd actually get my men to target medics. Take them out and any further casualties will have a lower chance of survival. The more men who get killed, the more demoralized they become. Would a medic be so quick to break cover to help a downed man if he knew the enemy were deliberately going to aim for his head next?
 

tahrey

New member
Sep 18, 2009
1,124
0
0
Only if there's a very good chance that this'd be my only shot at them, and they'd immediately coming over afterwards to unstoppably kill me and my own people. Or they had a detonate bomb / call air strike button in the ambulance, etc.

Otherwise, that's deeply not cool.
 

Kaytastrophe

New member
Jun 7, 2010
277
0
0
I would, if they were soldiers because once the guy is safe they are coming back to kill me. However,if the people helping my wounded enemy were medics, civilians, or an NGO helping my wounded enemy then no I wouldn't. Call me old fashioned but I like the classic rules of warfare where armies mutually assured the safety of the enemies medical personnel like the red cross were
 

Pearwood

New member
Mar 24, 2010
1,929
0
0
Pariah87 said:
Would a medic be so quick to break cover to help a downed man if he knew the enemy were deliberately going to aim for his head next?
Medics don't work the same as they do in video games, if someone gets downed chances are they're out of action even with medic attention. The reason it's a war crime to target medics is that it is senseless killing, wounded soldiers aren't going to be appearing on the front line any time soon and medics are very unlikely to fire the first shot because they lose their protection in a situation where they're very exposed.

Edit - Rhymer is right, if the medic doesn't have the red crosses there's no way to know if it's a medic or a very stupid Rambo wannabe so my post only refers to medics wearing them.
 

Rhymer

New member
Jan 25, 2011
53
0
0
It costs more to have a wounded soldier in a hospital than to bury one. You inflict more damage by not killing soldiers, but rather wounding them. Of course, there are a number of factors at play here.

If I didn't see any red crosses on their uniform, I'd probably fire. They are the enemy and I probably won't get a better chance att killing them before they kill me.
 

PixelKing

Moderately confused.
Sep 4, 2009
1,733
0
0
No. War is legalised murder.
We kill because we have to not because we want to.
 

Aeshi

New member
Dec 22, 2009
2,640
0
0
Well if you don't kill them NOW then they'll just be back to fight you again later.

So yes.
 

StANDY1338

New member
Sep 25, 2006
333
0
0
Shooting someone helping a wounded person just seems sick to me. Forgoing the moral problem it is as Rhymer pointed out it is better to wound the enemy rather than kill them.
 

Lazarus Long

New member
Nov 20, 2008
806
0
0
Rhymer said:
It costs more to have a wounded soldier in a hospital than to bury one. You inflict more damage by not killing soldiers, but rather wounding them. Of course, there are a number of factors at play here.
Absolutely. A dead soldier consumes nowhere near as much of the enemy's resources as a wounded one. Then they go home maimed, as a living example of what the war is costing them. I think the Viet Cong understood that.

Of course, that's if we're talking about the mumorpuger known as Real Life. If we're talking about games, fuck it. Explode anything not wearing our colours.
 

Nimzabaat

New member
Feb 1, 2010
886
0
0
According to the Geneva Convention, knowingly firing at a medic wearing clear insignia is a war crime.

In modern times, most combat medics carry a personal weapon, to be used to protect themselves and the wounded or sick in their care. When and if they use their arms offensively, or carry arms that qualify as offensive, they then sacrifice their protection under the Geneva Conventions.

So if they have a red cross or religious symbol (chaplains are non-combatants) then that's a no. Otherwise any combatant is fair game.
 
Sep 14, 2009
9,073
0
0
well if this is a video game, you bet your sweet ass i'm aiming for that medic first, gonna knock out any chance they have of getting supplies/healing

in real life though? it would highly depend but i would highly try my best to not hit the medic
 

EllEzDee

New member
Nov 29, 2010
814
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Shooting wounded (and down) soldiers, or medics bearing the red cross logo is a war crime.
Bada-bing. If you're fighting for a country that hasn't outlined that important fact, you're clearly the lesser country in the conflict.
Anyways, where's the "why would i even be involved in a war" option?
 

Lineoutt

Sock Hat
Jun 26, 2009
749
0
0
Nope, I wouldn't shoot them... and I'd probably cry and throw up for being there in the first place... then i'd probably pass out into a coma
 

Chadling

New member
Oct 8, 2008
141
0
0
Only if it's reflected in game mechanics that a medic should not be targeted. I'd say that somewhere around 95% of the time, a medic is actually a better target than your average grunt, as they tend to have similar fighting power to the other classes and can actively heal (or instantly revive--hello, BF2) other members of their team. BF2 was especially a clear example of this: with the newer content, the medic class was faster, had (almost) as much health as the "assault" class, had a BETTER WEAPON than most of the other classes, and could revive or heal other players instantly.

Not even remotely balanced; not even remotely realistic.

Now, if the medic was a guy who wasn't even supposed to be shooting at the enemy, and their "healing" abilities mostly consisted of keeping the wounded from dying, rather than reviving or keeping them at max HP, I'd probably hesitate.


Also: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShootTheMedicFirst