Self-Defense In A Combat Zone

A similar theme was developed between The Sniper and Ambush. The Sniper’s theme is Stay Focused, What has happened… Happened. Ambush’s theme is Don’t Dwell on the Past.

The other sniper is situated on a building on the other side of the street as the Republican Sniper. On top of being shot at, an armored car, of the opposing side, drives up near the Republican sniper’s position. He believes that his position was given up by a local woman who was walking around. The Republican sniper must kill this woman or his life will be in jeopardy. The Republican sniper takes the shot, and kills the woman. However, even after killing the woman, the Republican Sniper is still being shot at. He has to shelter himself, so, making his way to the top floor of the building, he situates himself. The Republican sniper proceeds to have a shootout with the other unknown sniper. The Republican sniper needs a way to kill his opponent, so he devises an ingenious plan. He fakes his death by pretending to be shot in the head. The opposing sniper, thinking he had killed the Republican sniper, makes his way out of his hiding spot. This exposes him, and the Republican sniper has a clear shot. The Republican sniper takes the shot, and sees the body of his opponent falling to the ground. The Republican sniper then goes to examine the dead body of his opponent, and to his horrifying realization, discovers that the man he had just outwitted and killed, was really his brother.

In the book Ender’s Game the view on killing in self-defense is always shifting and never justifiable. Firstly, the death stilson could have been avoided and could have been dealt better. The second instance, the death of bonzo could have been avoided and handled better. Lastly, the genocide of the buggers was the biggest extent of self defense killing and it could have been avoided and handled better. These murders could have been avoided if people had taken better measures and this is not justifiable.

The war influenced the sniper by forcing him to be brave. In this situation, brave is lying on a roof for many hours scouting the area for

Is killing right? Of course not, but what if you killed in self defense? In the book “The Outsiders,” A sixteen year old boy named Johnny Cade, killed a guy named Robert “Bob” Sheldon, after he and his gang nearly drowned a fourteen year old boy named Ponyboy Curtis. The two minors claim that Johnny killed in self-defense. What is self-defense? Self defense is “the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm,” (Hill, 2016).Johnny’s action was in self defense because he had a fear of death, Bob and his colleagues are the aggressors, and Johnny’s thoughts were irrational.

Define self-defense? Self-defense is when someone protects them self from harm way. In the novel of The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton, Johnny Cade has been carrying a concealed weapon on him everytime he went outside. When he and Ponyboy Curtis walk down the streets they were ambushed by Socs. When Bob, the reason why Johnny is carrying a weapon, decides to drown his friend, out of self-defense Johnny stabbed Bob. Johnny was still innocent because he stabbed Bob due to self-defense, to scare off the other Soc, and to save Ponyboy from drowning.

The sniper brushes with death again when he throws his revolver down without thinking and it goes off. Bullets make a war very deadly, as they are much more precise than earlier and much simpler weapons (such as swords and muskets).

A universal and unavoidable product of war is that soldiers get killed. Most people accept these killings as a necessary evil and that the ends justify the means. If the war is “justifiable”,the killing of enemy soldiers is deemed as a necessary triumph of what is right. If the war is unjustified, it is seen as honorable to fight for one's country, whether you agree with them or not. But antiwar pacifists do not take the lives of soldiers for granted. Everyone has a right to life and killing on the battlefield is a direct violation of that right. In a standard interpretation of basic rights, it is never morally justifiable to violate a right in order to produce some good. In war, the argument goes, kill or be killed, and that type of killing is killing in self-defense. But, according to anti-war pacifists, killing in the name of self-defense during times of war cannot be justified unless a) they had no other way to protect their

Murder is a reprobate action that is an inevitable part of war. It forces humans into immoral acts, which can manifest in the forms such as shooting or close combat. The life of a soldier is ultimately decided from the killer, whether or not he follows through with his actions. In the short stories The Sniper by Liam O'Flaherty and Just Lather, That's All by Hernando Téllez, the killer must decide the fate of their victims under circumstantial constraints. The two story explore the difference between killing at a close proximity compared to killing at a distance, and how they affect the killer's final decision.

Men have always viewed a love or need for a woman as a weakness. This is especially true in the U.S. military, where violence is sexualized and women are viewed as unnecessary. In a way, this is done to make life in the army easier because their are no women in the majority of their time. During an occupation, the local women have to incur the wrath of men trained to see them as something below human. Tim O'Brien exemplifies this in his novel, If I Die in a Combat Zone, where the soldiers in Vietnam mistreat the women used for sexual purposes like strippers and prostitutes, yet treat women in the villages as if they were their mothers. Soldiers at war, far away from the women in their lives, leads

William Calley is a former U.S. Army officer who murdered 22 unarmed citizens. While he was speaking to the public he says, “when my troops were getting massacred and mauled by an enemy I couldn’t see, I couldn’t feel, I couldn’t touch…nobody in the military system described anything other than communist” (Simkin). The U.S. government and citizens made no effort to understand the feelings and thoughts of a soldier until Calley blurred out his and the other soldiers. Everyone should have been more considerate to know the army’s point of view of the situation and their actions before dwelling on the fact that the men killed citizens in the My Lai. Philip Caputo, a US marine, who also was accused of murdering innocent Vietnamese civilians wrote, “in a guerilla war, the line between legitimate and illegitimate killing is blurred. The policies of free-fire zones, in which a soldier is permitted to shoot at any human target, armed or unarmed, further confuse the fighting man’s moral senses” (“My Lai Massacre” History Learning). Since no one really checks in on the “rules and regulation” of what a soldier can do, they make assumptions whether the person is right or wrong based on how one feels instead of looking into what was

Although many historians believe that the Boston massacre was an act of self defense it is clear that it was murder. It was murder is because Edward Garrick went to a single soldier and started to taunt him while inching closer, so the soldier struck him In the face with the butt of his gun then called for reinforcements making this murder because Edward was not causing any bodily harm to the soldier, the soldier was the one who started the violence. another piece of evidence proving murder Is that the crowd was defenseless they had no weapons besides their voices so they had no way to hurt the soldiers . Finally, I will use a fact from my book to explain the soldiers guilty ness. Now in the reading I read that the soldiers fired shots in the

The four elements of self defense are unprovoked attack, necessity, proportionality and reasonable belief. Unprovoked attack means that the defender cannot be the aggressor. And, the defender did not start the attack. Necessity, to use force that is necessary to repel and attack. Proportionality, the defender may use the amount necessary to repel the force. And, reasonable belief, the defender believes that it is necessary to use such force. For example,John and Michael are five year members of rival street gangs.Both gangs are extremely violent and have exchanged gunfire numerous times in the past. One day John is walking down the street and Michael, along w/ two other individuals, are walking

Groups like al Qaeda and Hamas pose a serious threat all over the world. If there was a way to stop al Qaeda and Hamas, and the only way to do so is by assassinating them all, let’s do so. It’s not right for al Qaeda and Hamas groups to plot against innocent people nor set up boot camps to brainwash people to kill. I have to agree with Statman in “Targeted Killing” when he mentions, “Things are, of course, totally different, both morally and legally, in context of the relations between individuals under criminal law and accepted rules of self-defense. To kill in self-defense, one is required to verify that the perceived attacker poses a clear and imminent danger to one’s vital interests and that the attacker bears responsibility for this danger. And, of course, with respect to punishment, it can be imposed only after establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did commit the alleged crime with required mens rea” (512). Without reasonable doubt, it’s only fair if someone pose a threat to someone they can legally kill them in the eyes of the law. Can it be morally

With my understanding of Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) 39-11-611 - Self-Defense, Whitlee Jones would not be able to use Tennessee’s “stand your ground” defense under the circumstances outlined in the article, Charleston prosecutors challenge use of 'stand your ground' law in domestic disputes at home (Knapp, 2014).