Poll: Would You Shoot Enemies Helping Their Wounded?

[Wintermoot]

a game: hell yeah! a kill is a kill!
IRL: no, I keep myself with honor codes (like never shooting a guy in the back)
OT
how do you type this?

 

[thelastgentleman]

This poll stat. sickens me. Im in the medical field and I have worked with plenty of field officers. So what im about to say comes from a very close and knowledgeable source achem...NO FIELD SURGEON, PRIEST, OR MEDIC IS ALLOWED TO CARRY A WEAPON!!!!! (if you follow the Geneva Convention...if not SAME ON YOU!!!) would you really harm a person whose only job is to heal???
Same on you Escapists I am dissapint Even if they come back to harm you in the future can we have no humanity? Even in War?

 

[Xan Krieger]

In real life yes I would, he's helping the enemy so he gets shot.
In games yes I do, because as in real life he exists to help the enemy and my goals of destroying the enemy conflict with his so he must go.

 

[Dogstile]

Not an unarmed guy helping out wounded people, even if he was helping enemys. However, I would gladly shoot the wounded soldier in the face, along with all of his squad.

Why let him go? He's more than likely just shot at me with the intent to kill. I'm returning the bloody favor

 

[Thaluikhain]

Shooting wounded (and down) soldiers, or medics bearing the red cross logo is a war crime.

Yeah, exactly this. There is reason why medics wear the red cross, and it isn't to make themselves a better target.

Chances are no one is going to know who shoot the medics, and if they did they probably wouldn't be able to prove it, but I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that I'd killed some medics. Maybe the person they wear tending too was already far too gone for treatment, but maybe they would have helped someone who would probably spend the rest of the war in a hospital, but would at least go back to their family and/or significant other. Not to mention the families of the medics themselves. That, nah, that doesn't sit well with me.

Well, that and the other reason wartime conventions were created, it's not supposed to just be one side playing nice. If you abide by the rules, the enemy are more likely to as well, whereas atrocities tend to lead to reprisals and escalation. If nothing else, it makes good propaganda material if you can catch the other side doing it.

 

[ManOwaRrior]

Of course i would not.
There are the moral reasons, because yes, even war knows bounds. I'm sorry for those who don't understand them.

But there are also rational reasons. Those guys treating the wounded pose no immideate threat to me. So by shooting them, i might miss that other guy about to shoot me.
Also, i don't have unlimmeted ammo, so I'd rather shoot at important targets.

EDIT
Ok, it's only games... yup, definitly would.

 

[JoeThree]

I'd aim to wound, like you're supposed to with all enemy hostiles, as it then removes additional members of the opposition from combat who then must treat them.

 

[gigastrike]

I'm trying to make them dead, not make them wounded. I'd kill the guys helping them and finish the job.

 

[CrAzYEy3Z]

Given the fact that you said you were referring to video games, I definitely would, but were it real life I would with some hesitation. Chances are even if that guy is just dragging away his fallen comrade, it's still possible for him to shoot you when you're distracted by the act or moving away.

 

[Trivun]

In a game, of course I would. It's a game, not real life, and so what penalty is there for killing every damn enemy I can find? That's the whole point of the game, after all...

In real life, I probably wouldn't, because at the end of the day you need to have some honour and decency even when killing the enemy. And as has already been pointed out, it would be a war crime. And anyway, for the most part, unless you're fighting terrorists and whatnot, the enemy are just soldiers like me or you who are being ordered by their superiors to fight and kill, and may not particularly want to be in battle any more than us, so killing them when they're already wounded or just trying to help their friend is just low. Seriously, that stuff is just wrong.

 

[kommando367]

Free double/triple kills FTW!

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I'd shoot a war widow ten years after the war if I thought she might come back with a gun at some point.

 

[razelas]

This poll stat. sickens me. Im in the medical field and I have worked with plenty of field officers. So what im about to say comes from a very close and knowledgeable source achem...NO FIELD SURGEON, PRIEST, OR MEDIC IS ALLOWED TO CARRY A WEAPON!!!!! (if you follow the Geneva Convention...if not SAME ON YOU!!!) would you really harm a person whose only job is to heal???
Same on you Escapists I am dissapint Even if they come back to harm you in the future can we have no humanity? Even in War?

I should point out that the poll doesn't specifically mention medics.

 

[KingGolem]

Absolutely, and without hesitation. The goal of a soldier is to kill/neutralize as many of the enemies as possible, and if two of them are wide open and I have the shot, it would be downright treacherous not to shoot them. Now if they were neutral medics, like Red Cross or something, given the authority I would take them prisoner, execute all the enemies in their care, and force them to only treat my own soldiers. You don't go to war to excercise respect and conservation of human life, after all.

 

[jboking]

In the video game world, Final Fantasy Tactics has taught me to shoot down the White Mage(medic) FIRST. Then take care of everyone else. So, yes.

In the real world, no, I probably wouldn't shoot a medic if he was carrying men off the battlefield. Now, if they developed a way to heal and get wounded soldiers back onto the battlefield in mere minutes, then the medic has got to go.

 

[mrF00bar]

I would do it in a game and in real life, they are the enemy. No Mercy.

 

[razelas]

Absolutely, and without hesitation. The goal of a soldier is to kill/neutralize as many of the enemies as possible

I would have to disagree right there. Soldiers are ultimately trained to follow orders that advance their side. Attrition is a strategy; killing is a means, not the end.

 

[razelas]

In the video game world, Final Fantasy Tactics has taught me to shoot down the White Mage(medic) FIRST. Then take care of everyone else. So, yes.

In the real world, no, I probably wouldn't shoot a medic if he was carrying men off the battlefield. Now, if they developed a way to heal and get wounded soldiers back onto the battlefield in mere minutes, then the medic has got to go.

You should find this interesting then... [http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/life-extension/4328266]

 

[Fire Daemon]

Shooting wounded (and down) soldiers, or medics bearing the red cross logo is a war crime.

Yeah, exactly this. There is reason why medics wear the red cross, and it isn't to make themselves a better target.

Chances are no one is going to know who shoot the medics, and if they did they probably wouldn't be able to prove it, but I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that I'd killed some medics. Maybe the person they wear tending too was already far too gone for treatment, but maybe they would have helped someone who would probably spend the rest of the war in a hospital, but would at least go back to their family and/or significant other. Not to mention the families of the medics themselves. That, nah, that doesn't sit well with me.

Well, that and the other reason wartime conventions were created, it's not supposed to just be one side playing nice. If you abide by the rules, the enemy are more likely to as well, whereas atrocities tend to lead to reprisals and escalation. If nothing else, it makes good propaganda material if you can catch the other side doing it.

Unfortunately in most modern conflict that doesn't really seem to happen much, but if WW3 broke up and I find myself fighting in that I sure would hope that whoever I was fighting against wouldn't kill me when I was being airlifted to a hospital or whatever.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Grenade, you'd get all of them.