Poll: Would You Shoot Enemies Helping Their Wounded?

[Canadamus Prime]

No! Of course not. I assume you mean in real life and not in a video game where we'd just be talking about 1's and 0's with a fancy coat of paint, but even then I'd hesitate. ...unless it's in Starcraft or something where the medics can insta-heal. KILL THE MEDICS!!

 

[Mcface]

It depends on the type of enemy im facing.
Would this enemy give me the same respect?

 

[pulse2]

In real life, of course not, in a game, yes........except if karma is involved, then maybe no, depending on what I want my outcome to be.

 

[Nightfalke]

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.

This. Also, if you wound a soldier, you are effectively taking 2-3 guys out of action: 1 wounded guy, and 1-2 healthy guys to help the wounded guy off the field and/or take care of him.

 

[Corporal Yakob]

I'm not sure....you're not supposed to shoot at medics or enemy wounded but in the heat of battle.....

Also it depends on how much I hate the enemy-if they treated our medics and wounded with respect and fought "fairly" then no. If I've just heard rumours or even seen an atrocity being carried out such as our prisoners being shot then I would show no mercy.

 

[N1ceDreamz]

I wound shoot them if they were armed.

 

[MercurySteam]

Well you have to consider what they would do in your position and if they would eventually be able to kill your fellow soldiers if they get patched up. So, yeah, I guess.

 

[Merkavar]

i dont think i would shot a medic but depending on the war i would probably shot the soldier helping the wounded soldier.

medic tend to be the good guys no matter what side they are on. but the point of a war is to kill the enemies isnt it?

 

[Alon Shechter]

If my intention is to kill a soldier, I see no reason why I should not shoot him helping his friend.
After all, his friend is wounded because I failed to kill him, so maybe I'm supposed to finish the job that I already started.

 

[Heinrich843]

Protip:

If you're actively making this decision, you're probably doing something wrong in the first place.

While it's true there are no rules of war, there are orders. In combat, you eliminate threats first. Out of combat, you're not allowed to fire unless given permission.

So then, assuming we're all just winging it, and we're all partisans (not part of any professional military force or any recognized group)... we're probably all going to die if they catch us anyways.

The wounded soldier costs them more, but the dead soldier can't report.

 

[Samechiel]

Of course not. I wouldn't shoot anyone.

I mean... isn't this what we have expensive bombs and Predator Drones for? Civvies be damned, let's just sweep in and level everything. Leave no survivors to be wounded in the first place.

 

[Mr Shrike]

On Operation Flashpoint, we only shoot at medics in self-defence. We won't actively target them, and our enemy does the same. Medics do have weapons on our server but they're for self-defense only. We also won't knowingly shoot at anything with a Red Cross emblem on it, but we will shoot at non-incapacitated wounded soldiers who are capable of returning fire. That doesn't mean accidents don't happen, though... We do actively shoot at those helping the wounded, but are not medics.
EDIT: We do wipe out whole squads, though, given the chance. The medic will eventually get killed. At the end of the day, he's still got a gun and is an enemy combatant.

In real life, I feel the same rules apply. There are such things as War Crimes. Don't shoot at medics!

Captcha: completed Idonse

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

I'd shoot the pricks that put me in the war. LONG LIVE EMPATHY!

Jokes aside . . . I wouldn't shoot them. If they're attending the wounds to a soldier why would I have to? Just walk up to them, point the gun to their head, and then demand that they surrender. Seriously, when the hell would you ever need to shoot someone attending the wounds to another soldier? If they're not firing at you then obviously there isn't a need to fire back.

 

[Casimir_Effect]

In games, all the time. Far Cry 2 does this and I intentionally wound soldiers sometimes to draw their friends out from cover.

In real life I'd let the soldiers take their friend away. An injured soldier is a far greater burden on the enemies forces than a dead one is

 

[Vakz]

The soldiers who are helping their wounded friend, are just soldiers who will continue shooting at you once they have dragged their friend back. If two-three enemy soldiers leave cover to help their friend, and you have the chance to kill them, then do it. It might not be fair by any stretch of the imagination, but since when is war fair?

War isn't nice. It has never been about kindness. I'm not trying to be macho. Fighting is about staying alive, and the enemy is what stands between the now, and getting to go home to your family when the struggle is over.

 

[Frankster]

Are we talking rl or game? Genuinely not sure from OP.

If we are talking rl.... Whilst on 1 hand it is unethical, on the other hand I'd rather not see my side lose because i didn't shoot at their medics whilst they shot at ours.
Guess it will depend purely on the enemy and how honorable they are, if they stoop to sniping medics, then only fair we answer in kind.

 

[kortin]

In a video game, sure. Every guy on the field has to be dead for me to advance in most missions. However in real life, and the unlikely situation that I get drafted (because theres no way in hell i'm voluntarily joining any militar), I wouldn't shoot a medic. Chances are, some guy who got shot in the leg, is not going to be fighting any time soon. So technically speaking, it only takes one bullet to 'kill' or otherwise remove the enemy infantry.

Plus, as said before, shooting a medic bearing the Red Cross symbol is a war crime and you will be punished for it.

 

[Haydyn]

In war, any mercy you show threatens the lives of your side. Sure, it's nice to have some cooperation with the enemy, but at the end of the day they are trying to kill you. I'm not questioning war crimes, but rules are meant to be broken, and at strategic times.

Look back to when Egland and France were fighting over the the New World. Here's the Brits, all lined up perfectly in line formation. And here's the Natives and the French hiding in trees like Ninjas shooting the fuck out of them.

America's army wears camo, as opposed to the majority of history's armies, which almost never used worn equipment for the sake of stealth. I personally would rather wear something more flashy or badass, but you should always take any opportunity to increase your chances of victory.

I wouldn't kill a medic or the wounded. Not all soldiers medics help get back into combat. Statistically speaking, ammo is better off being directed at other soldiers, or the soldiers helping the wounded. I know it seems cruel to treat people with lives and families so harshly, but their objective is to kill people with lives and families.

All this talk about war is killing my buzz. Let's bust of the hippieness.

 

[Jodah]

Regular soldiers dragging a wounded one into cover? Yea, I could do that. They are still combatants even if they aren't shooting at that particular moment. Once they get to cover they will be shooting at me again.

Medics wearing a cross and with little, if any, weaponry? Probably not, they aren't combatants. Even if they fix the wounded soldier neither will likely be shooting at me.

 

[Vern5]

If we're talking about a game then Hell Yes. That's two dead enemies. In fact, that's one dead medic and one dead whatever, the medic being the more important of the two dead guys.

In reality, I'm not sure. Depends upon the reasons behind the battle. If its just scrabbly militia attacking then one severely wounded soldier and a noncombatant aren't worth the effort.