At what point does military action cross into murder?

[Altorin]

Homocide =/= murder

War casualties are almost all homocides, but that doesn't mean that they're murders. Murder has certain legal requirements. I don't think military actions are ever described as murder.. The military has their own charges, and they're more often then not tied to disobeying orders rather then the actual act of killing someone. If one of the rules your government has in place is that you try not to kill civillians, and you go out of your way to kill them, you're violating a standing order or rule of engagement, and hence will be charged with that violation..

Murder is mostly a civillian matter. Military have special dispensation.

 

[Haunted Serenity]

see above arguements. I managed to screw up the quote ability somehow.

I don't quite get it. What do you want me to do?

1)The majority of people in the area at the time was catholic so when they arrested 3,000 people. Most would be catholic. And during war you can pass emergency laws to suspend trials

2)If someone is shot at close range there would be gun-shot residue

3)They were shot in the back because they were running ok. Have you ever fired and automatic weapon and tried to fire at individual targets in a crowd?

4)IRA was a terrorist group, with civlian backing. Military leaders were having a hard time on figuring out how to stop attacks because it was still new and no tactics were in place to counter it easily.

5)completley peaceful people do not demostrate, throw rocks and insult soldiers. It was a mob building up

here this should simplfy it.

You are a cold man. I doubt you'd say the same thing if you were protesting about something and you got shot at by the same force that's supposed to protect you. Not everything can be solved in emotionless military terms.

Heres your fucking answers:

1/ The British government simply assumed that if you were Catholic you were a terrorist, which is obviously not true. As I said before, very few had any connections to terrorism, but were tortured regardless. Also, yes in a war you can pass emergency laws to suspend trials. Your argument would hold up, except that the British were constantly denying it was a war, and saying the IRA were criminals.

2/ There was no gunshot residue on their hands.

3/ British SLR rifles are semi-automatic and the soldiers were only given 1 clip each (20 rounds) they were also one of the best trained regiments in the British Army, and a lot of the shots were aimed. It wasn't a case of firing above the crowds heads, they were deliberately shooting to kill.

4/ Yes, shooting civilians and driving even more people in to the arms of the terrorist groups you are trying to destroy sounds like a great strategy to me. As the MP for the area Ivan Cooper said, 'The British government have just given the IRA the biggest victory they will ever have'

5/ They do when their relatives and friends have been shot, arrested and abused by a military police force that's supposed to protect them.

i am cold. I won't argue that. I think that the British made the mistake in firing however i don't think that the Irish at the protests or that were killed at other times were innocent and they were causlities of war. Even though the british said it wasn't war it was. They tried to save face on the global scale but lost it anyways. The IRA was a terrorist group, anyone aiding them in my opinion was aiding terrorists. Simple, Cold but true.

 

[Kajin]

Murder isn't the same as killing someone in defense or in the military.

If a cop kills someone who is pointing a gun at someone and is clearly going to shoot, it is NOT a murder. Or if someone breaks into your house with a knife in hand, attacks you and you use your own knives to throw at him and kill him. You are defending yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Unlawful killing of other human being with intent. War's laws are different - kill or be killed.

But if someone bombs a village full of people because "a suspect might be there", then it IS murder. They didn't have to kill everyone, just the suspects and only if they were either wanted dead or neutralized by any means necessary.

In all honesty this post should have been the end of the thread. Murder is to kill someone unlawfully. If you do it within the law, then it's manslaughter, which is generally frowned upon but since a person typically has a reason to commit manslaughter that is justified most people won't yell at you for it.

Two soldiers on opposite sides is manslaughter. A group of soldiers that get rowdy at a bar in a foreign country and end up getting drunk and killing an innocent local, that is murder. It's not always as simple as that but for the most part that is how it would be.

 

[Haunted Serenity]

The IRA was a terrorist group, anyone aiding them in my opinion was aiding terrorists. Simple, Cold but true.

THEY WEREN'T AIDING THEM, THEY WERE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GROUP. I'm sorry for caps-locking but I really have to drive that point home. They were civil rights activists who used peaceful protest and solidarity marches. The IRA were in conflict with them as well, although they never killed any of them. They consisted of both Catholics and Protestants who just wanted peace.

Anyway, enough of this discussion, it's going nowhere.

final point then...who burned the british embassy then?

 

[Mcface]

It is simple.
murder is when you kill an innocent, or someone with no way of defending themselves.