If they're designated medics, no. If they're combat troops helping a buddy, I'm shooting them without a second thought.
Poll: Would You Shoot Enemies Helping Their Wounded?
- Thread starter razelas
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Say that when you're being court martialled for violating international law and disobeying your superior's orders. But of course you'll never serve in the military because you're clearly a thirteen year old whose only experience of war is the movie Red Dawn. Actual soldiers who fought in World War One on both sides helped the wounded of the enemy and didn't shoot them where they lay.Abandon4093 said:
Medics are just as likely to treat people from BOTH SIDES. There's no "enemy". There are only people who are stupid enough to believe in that concept of that amorphous force called "the enemy". These kinds of actions (you know, killing innocent people because they're part of "the enemy") are what create your so-called enemies and make wars go on far longer than they need to.
And I am done with this discussion here because I don't have time to waste on people with no respect for human life.
All is fair...ryai458 said:
OT: It really depends on the situation. Although when you're in the heat of the moment you don't think, you are in action mode. Talk to any soldier that has seen an ample amount of time on the front lines. Its not pretty, that's why its called war.
Its a game so I'll shoot anyone i can. In reality its not OK to kill anyone but in games I've killed tens of thousands. Why would medics be any different to the countless pedestrians I've mowed down in GTA?
Depends on the type of game it is, if its something like CoD where the enemies just relentless charge at you then I would shoot anything that moved. But if it was an RPG like Fallout then I probably wouldnt, so long as my action would affect how the game behaved around me. Its a stealth moral choice system really.
In video games, probably, since they might be building up an Ubercharge!
In real life, definitely not. It contravenes the Geneva Convention, and what am I doing in a war zone anyway?
In real life, definitely not. It contravenes the Geneva Convention, and what am I doing in a war zone anyway?
In a video game, yeah. I sympathize for a lot of video game characters, but when it comes to player-versus-player I don't really mind much, and that goes doubly for shooter-style games.
Even in games that try to be more realistic, such as Call of Duty, it always feels to me like it's like playing Team Fortress 2. And who would you kill first in that game: the Medic or the Heavy that he's healing?
Though the strategic difference between a video game (which I would shoot a medic right away) and real life (in which I wouldn't) is that in the game the person he's healing is going to come back right away and help his team mates out. While in real life, even with medical attention he's going to be out of commission for a long time.
Even in games that try to be more realistic, such as Call of Duty, it always feels to me like it's like playing Team Fortress 2. And who would you kill first in that game: the Medic or the Heavy that he's healing?
Though the strategic difference between a video game (which I would shoot a medic right away) and real life (in which I wouldn't) is that in the game the person he's healing is going to come back right away and help his team mates out. While in real life, even with medical attention he's going to be out of commission for a long time.
Absolutely not. Think about it, that wounded soldier has taken those helping him out of the fight while they help him. Shots are better spent on active enemy units who pose an immediate threat.
In videogames I would like to have a choice to not shoot them. Most games don't let you progress until everyone is dead. I like games where I can knock out, take people prisoner or have them surrender. In a modern based game I wouldn't shoot medic unless they were actively a threat to me, a because I'd like to feel that's what I'd do in real life.
Interestingly enough during Mount&Blade : Warband when the enemies run, I often feel bad about killing them as they flee, but at the same time I usually do so to ensure I don't have to fight the same soldiers again. Even though I could console myself that this is medieval times and the concept of warcrimes doesn't really exist, I feel bad as it clashes with my honourable character. In fact when I secceded and created my own nation, I purposely ordered my men not to fire or pursue fleeing soldier of my parent nation, I alway fought defensively against them simply because I felt bad for betraying them, though eventually I did crush them.
Interestingly enough during Mount&Blade : Warband when the enemies run, I often feel bad about killing them as they flee, but at the same time I usually do so to ensure I don't have to fight the same soldiers again. Even though I could console myself that this is medieval times and the concept of warcrimes doesn't really exist, I feel bad as it clashes with my honourable character. In fact when I secceded and created my own nation, I purposely ordered my men not to fire or pursue fleeing soldier of my parent nation, I alway fought defensively against them simply because I felt bad for betraying them, though eventually I did crush them.
I think you take video games a little too seriously. I mean, come one it's a video game just shoot the medic and that's it. I don't think you will be judge for it anyway.
In real life though....i don't know seriously.
In real life though....i don't know seriously.
"Would you shoot enemies helping their wounded" quoted from the topic title. I answered that question, and I am saying that I would not. From all your posts you've clearly not understood me once. I would not kill anyone because I know that in the moment I would hesitate and be unable to do it. I always hesitate when it comes to inflicting violence to anyone.Treblaine said:
Your "philosophic" questions really aren't that deep. The consequences would be 1: enemy dies I survive and 2: I die. I am fully aware of this, yet I am fully aware of that I am unable to kill anyone, can't you understand that? Would I kill a medic if I were able to? No, that would be a war crime.
Is there any reason my ideals and my capabilities should be different? Seriously, if I say that I would kill the soldiers carrying the wounded man and the wounded man that would make ma a hypocrite if I know that I WOULDN'T.
seriously? anyone who FIGHTS fairly is a bloody idiot that diserves to die. ¬.¬ war crimes are laughable
That was established by the Geneva Conventions, which form part of what is known as the Law of Armed Conflict.kman123 said:
If they're a medic, religious serviceman, or some other troop protected by LOAC, then no, of course not. But if they're just another field unit giving first aid to another unlucky field unit, they're out of luck.
I'd be pissed that I hadn't killed their wounded with the first hit.
So no. I guess I wouldn't.
So no. I guess I wouldn't.