...............are good at killing unarmed people, but when people take up arms and start fighting back they complain.
2006-11-30 09:12:59 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
How about if you STOP Stereotyping the Military Servicemember and REALIZE this -- we DO have a Code of Conduct that we MUST work within ... and we do NOT go about indiscriminately killing unarmed people.
2006-11-30 09:23:49 · answer #1 · answered by sglmom 7 · 9⤊ 2⤋
Both the police and the army never pull a trigger without good reason. The very last thing any trained armed man wants to do is to start shooting because the chances are someone will shoot back. For every person you kill or injure as a policeman you have to face an enquiry,and you may only fire at a clear and present danger. As a soldier you may fire only on command or when given a standing order. The police never fire unless they suspect the subject is in posses ion of a weapon. This does not have to be a firearm. If the weapon is a close-quarter one (knife, club etc) the preferred option is to take the assailant down physically. If it is a projectile or explosive, then they will fire if necessary. The army are slightly different, the idea is to neutralise hostile action quickly and firearms are the preferred option whatever weapon the assailant possesses.
The problem with many people taking up arms is that they aren't trained to use them and they aren't good at it. When I was younger and shot regularly I could hit a 2p piece at 50 yards, and there were people who were better shots than me. Anybody picking up a firearm for the first time will be lucky to hit their intended target at more than a few feet away. This is how bystanders get shot. It is not a good idea to allow arms in the hands of people untrained or unfit to use them as they do not have the discipline to refrain from pulling the trigger.
2006-11-30 17:38:18 · answer #2 · answered by prakdrive 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
The only soldiers I`ve heard complaining about fighting in a war are the muslims as they don`t want to kill they`re brothers.
The british army is the finest in the world ( one of the worst equiped) and every man and woman is a volunteer, not like the rets of europe where most are conscripts and are union members.There is no Union for our soldiers.
All soldiers will complain about something, when they don`t complain thats when you know somethings wrong with them.
No sane person wants to fight in a war( you can hurt)
"Sergeant major are the men happy"
" well F**k them around"
2006-12-03 15:13:06 · answer #3 · answered by Jacqueline M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well police and army kill unarmed people if they feel their lives are threatened. Yes justice may prevail if someone should kill a police officer or army the person doing this wants them out of the way.
2006-11-30 17:27:11 · answer #4 · answered by sweet_blue 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Police and the army are a form of social control we need that to stay a civilised state .Accidents happen and are investigated and i think your question does not address the hostile situations the army and police face there are rules of engagement and codes of conduct which are adhered to.
2006-12-01 16:15:07 · answer #5 · answered by sammie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question should be : Why does no-one mind a civvy being killed, but when a police officer is killed its apparently the worst crime of all. Why is a police officers life supposedly worth more than yours or mine???
2006-12-01 06:51:09 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
what country are you ref to? its a bit of a generalisation going on there. i have visions of police and men in uniform randomly shooting people when the unarmed people where probably twats and deserved to be shot. why else would the services you mention be involved in the first place,
2006-11-30 17:49:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
why is it that silly liberals rant and complain without basis.
they also forget to thank the people that die to give them the right of free speech.
instead you have morons saying they only complain and shoot at unarmed people.
go ahead and cowar behind your words while brave men/women stand and fight for your freedom.
where do you think you would be without the US military
2006-11-30 18:09:09 · answer #8 · answered by Rigger 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
First they are brave for risking their lives to defend & protect US. Secondly, what US troops are complaining about being blown up by terrorists? (not a sensible conclusion) Are you talking about Darfur & Chad maybe?
2006-11-30 17:42:54 · answer #9 · answered by spareo1 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I see your point that is after all what they get paid to do.On the other hand they are only carrying out the orders for the governments aggressive foreign policy.
2006-11-30 17:35:02 · answer #10 · answered by Monkey Basement 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋