Is it ok to kill for money?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Exactly, if your contract is, lets say, as a cook in a military base, then i see no problem

Well thank god people don't have to check with you first.

What about the guy that has to stand guard over the guy trying to build a hospital? If he has a gun is he a bad guy in your eyes? Should he just leave and let the nutjobs kill the guys trying to rebuild the country?

Quote

I don´t understand how anyone would want to put himselve in a position where making the mistake of killing a civilian is a very real posibility just for money

they don't go into a situation planning on making a mistake....They go to do a job and for the money. One Contract job I saw was for 120,00 a YEAR. Thats tax free and enough that after one year I could have bought a house almost CASH.

The job was not to "Kill innocent civilians". It was to provide security for builders.

Quote

Specially if that anyone is of the "I prefer to be judge by 12 than carried by 6" mentality.

That is nothing more than a way of saying they would rather face a judge than be dead...I very much doubt you would rather be dead than risk breaking a law.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

i personally believe you should never kill anyone who isnt like armed and isnt looking you in the eyes equally prepared to kill you...

Hmmm... what would you do if confronted by an angry un-armed mob who started rushing forward to take your gun away and perhaps kill you.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

i personally believe you should never kill anyone who isnt like armed and isnt looking you in the eyes equally prepared to kill you...

Hmmm... what would you do if confronted by an angry un-armed mob who started rushing forward to take your gun away and perhaps kill you.

This thread is going nowhere.

Everyone agrees it's ok to kill in defense of self or others and this is both sides' positions - all agree on that.

The disagreement is whether this condition is met or not. Since it's opinion, then it can't be resolved unless you give the contractors the benefit of being able to decide for themselves if they are protecting themselves and others.

The 'no' voters won't give that respect to those individuals (guilty until proven innocent), the 'yes' voters seem to (innocent until proven guilty).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Darius11 12]

The 'no' voters won't give that respect to those individuals (guilty until proven innocent), the 'yes' voters seem to (innocent until proven guilty). ***


The problem is the yes voters think they are innocent as long as on our side. If there is proof they say the proof is wrong. The media is lying, or what ever else they can come up with. That’s the problem.

People let their pride, or loyalty fuck with what is right and wrong. They look for an excuse to make it seem right. Weather it is a guy in a car who gets shot, or a guy in London who gets killed point blank.

They will never say wow the cops fucked up, they will always say why was the guy running. That’s the problem.

I have no problem saying what I feel is wrong-Terrorism wrong-9-11 wrong-London bombing wrong, any time innocent people are killed wrong but that also includes the people we have killed by mistake.
It doesn’t matter if the person responsible for the killing is American, Iranian, Christine, Jewish, or Muslim wrong is wrong. Unfortunately people don’t seem to see it that way. Whenever a killing, murder, or torture points to American Solder, contractor or any thing red white and blue they automatically look for a way to blame the guy who got killed.

Justice is for all not only for the people you like or you can relate too.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[rehmwa 2]

My only response to that, Darius, is that you go after the individuals who committed unjustified killings.

What you don't do is class everyone into the 'guilty' basket because of a handful of high profile stories.

That's why a poll like this is bogus. Some of the generalizations stated here are absolutely nuts.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ron 10]

Quote

People let their pride, or loyalty fuck with what is right and wrong. They look for an excuse to make it seem right. Weather it is a guy in a car who gets shot, or a guy in London who gets killed point blank.

They will never say wow the cops fucked up, they will always say why was the guy running. That’s the problem.

Really?

Johnrich:

Quote

Second-guessing is no worse then jumping to conclusions before all the facts are in...

And now that the facts are in, it turns out that he really wasn't a suicide bomber. So the hand-wringing and second-guessing were justified.

But a good question was WHY WAS THE GUY RUNNING? I mean lets be real here. You are following a guy that you think is a terrorist that was involved with killing people just a few weeks ago, and just tried the other day. He runs from you ONTO a subway car....He you think could be a guy trying to blow up the subway. He does not stop when you say "Stop, Police!"

What would you think? Be honest.

Is it worth it to maybe let this guy you think has a bomb onto a subway where he could kill those onboard?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Alias 0]

Quote

Quote

People let their pride, or loyalty fuck with what is right and wrong. They look for an excuse to make it seem right. Weather it is a guy in a car who gets shot, or a guy in London who gets killed point blank.

They will never say wow the cops fucked up, they will always say why was the guy running. That’s the problem.

Really?

Johnrich:

Quote

Second-guessing is no worse then jumping to conclusions before all the facts are in...

And now that the facts are in, it turns out that he really wasn't a suicide bomber. So the hand-wringing and second-guessing were justified.

But a good question was WHY WAS THE GUY RUNNING? I mean lets be real here. You are following a guy that you think is a terrorist that was involved with killing people just a few weeks ago, and just tried the other day. He runs from you ONTO a subway car....He you think could be a guy trying to blow up the subway. He does not stop when you say "Stop, Police!"

What would you think? Be honest.

Is it worth it to maybe let this guy you think has a bomb onto a subway where he could kill those onboard?

mmmm, I guess your saying kill him first, then figure out if you are right?

I understand what you are trying to say. But are you saying if he runs, kill him?

Just trying to follow your logic here

Carpe Diem

[Darius11 12]

He fucked up by running maybe he was scared maybe he didn’t know they were police, or maybe he was a dumb ass.



The point is perspective.
You have many times told me that I have no idea what it’s like to be in a combat zone or be in Iraq there for I should not judge. Armchair airborne ranger I think that was one of the terms used.

But that argument is wrong. You don’t need to be someone or exactly in the same place to know right from wrong. What I have heard you and many others say is like me saying you have no idea what it is like to be a poor Muslim in Palestine so you can not judge a suicide bomber. That’s a cop out. That’s making excuses.


To rehmwa-Your right and that was pointed out to me via PM by a Dz.comer. I asked for the poll to be removed and deleted. I even posted my requested. I also explained this was not directed at anyone group. At the time when I made this post I was frustrated that no one seemed to get my point that it is wrong to kill for money.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

At the time when I made this post I was frustrated that no one seemed to get my point that it is wrong to kill for money.

Thanks for acknowledging that - I think it's pretty clear that people don't just kill for money. They get paid to do a job, the job is not to kill, but to protect. And it's sad to have to kill in order to protect.

I get frustrated when people act like soldiers/airmen/corpmen/sailors are really assassins in disguise. It's not right. Service to the country is really unlike any other service - it's to be admired in most cases. Not reviled.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

mmmm, I guess your saying kill him first, then figure out if you are right?

Quote

I understand what you are trying to say. But are you saying if he runs, kill him?

Apparently you don't understand what he's saying. He's saying given the entire situation ie. recent bombing, then an attempted bombing, that the Police Officer had to make a split second decision about a suspect wearing a long coat on a hot summer day, refusing to halt when ordered to. Should the Officer continue to chase him onto a train and risk his own life and the lives of possibly hundreds of others if the guy has a bomb, or does he make the decision to shoot to kill. Tough decision and I'm sure the Officer is having trouble sleeping at night because it appears he killed someone he didn't have to kill. I'm sure those Monday Morning Quarterbacks who are second guessing this brave Officers decision are making it even more difficult for him to deal with it.

Just trying to follow your logic here

• Quote

[pajarito 0]

Quote

The point is perspective.
You have many times told me that I have no idea what it’s like to be in a combat zone or be in Iraq there for I should not judge. Armchair airborne ranger I think that was one of the terms used.

But that argument is wrong. You don’t need to be someone or exactly in the same place to know right from wrong. What I have heard you and many others say is like me saying you have no idea what it is like to be a poor Muslim in Palestine so you can not judge a suicide bomber. That’s a cop out. That’s making excuses.

As tragic as this is, I say that it is still justifiable. Shit happens sometimes. They just got hit by a series of terrorist attacks. This guy acted extremely suspicious. They could not take the chance of not acting. I think it's bad to second guess these guys. We weren't there. I don't know that "right or wrong" as you put it comes into play. The cop thought he was right and was obliged to protect the many other people in that subway. The suspect acted stupid and got shot. Things can get very confusing in the split second you have to make the decision to fire or not. However, you’ve got to act. Otherwise, your guys die. This was a mistake. However, too many lives were perceived to be in danger. They couldn’t take that chance.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

One Contract job I saw was for 120,00 a YEAR. Thats tax free and enough that after one year

only the first 80k is tax free for civilians, and you have to spend 330 day consecutively in a 'combat zone'

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Ron 10]

Quote

You don’t need to be someone or exactly in the same place to know right from wrong.

And how many times have you heard eveything is not black and white?

You have to know the situation to know the reall deal.

Quote

What I have heard you and many others say is like me saying you have no idea what it is like to be a poor Muslim in Palestine so you can not judge a suicide bomber.

It would also be true. I have never been religous, and dirt poor at the same time.

Quote

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

• Quote

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

mer·ce·nar·ies
One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling

Make no mistake about it, the contractors are not there because of any altruistic quest for the greater good. They are there for the cash and I have no problem with it, I have many friends doing it. They know it's dangerous and they know there's a probability that they could have to kill to defend themselves or their protectee. Killing for money and protecting for money are worlds apart, yet, the latter often involves the former.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

Let me add to your question, Is it okay to put yourself in a position where you VERY WELL MAY end up killing an innocent for money?

My answer is NO WAY!

I believe that some contract security personnel are there to provide personal security for people living in dangerous places. Most heads of state have bodyguards -- there's always the possibility of their killing someone, too.

It's not good. But hiring on as someone's bodyguard doesn't make one bad, either. If you do it because you're looking forward to it, that's a bad thing. But, well, whoever you're guarding probably won't like that either -- nothing is safer than avoiding the dangerous situations in the first place.

Wendy W.

Bodyguards and cops are not hired to kill people. They are hired to protect. Sometimes circumstances happen beyond their control that force them to react. Those that proactively kill....well...

Me? The concept is something that has never cross my mind. However it intrigues me to listen to the deviant, misguided minds that try to justify it. There are some very sick people in this world that feel it is ok to kill for money. Life is sacred.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Only if you are a government and other governments approve of your killings or you have a powerful enough military for that not to matter.

[Alias 0]

Quote

Quote

mmmm, I guess your saying kill him first, then figure out if you are right?

Quote

I understand what you are trying to say. But are you saying if he runs, kill him?

Apparently you don't understand what he's saying. He's saying given the entire situation ie. recent bombing, then an attempted bombing, that the Police Officer had to make a split second decision about a suspect wearing a long coat on a hot summer day, refusing to halt when ordered to. Should the Officer continue to chase him onto a train and risk his own life and the lives of possibly hundreds of others if the guy has a bomb, or does he make the decision to shoot to kill. Tough decision and I'm sure the Officer is having trouble sleeping at night because it appears he killed someone he didn't have to kill. I'm sure those Monday Morning Quarterbacks who are second guessing this brave Officers decision are making it even more difficult for him to deal with it.

Just trying to follow your logic here

No, I understand just fine. Ron's main question was "why was the guy running" as if that gives the police a right to fire on him. Right?

The UK Police let their suspect get all the way into a train station before "taking him out"

In fact, he was about to board a train. This begs the question, what if he WAS a bomber ?

He was under surveillance all the way from his home to the train station....WTF!

If anything, it's a double bungle by the police - they firstly let a suspect get into a crowded station and secondly, killed an innocent man.....for running and wearing a heavy coat.

Of course, the police could say in their defence that they didn't apprehend the suspect before he reached the station because he may have led them to other bombers, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that they let him get all the way into the station itself.

They fucked up. Simple as that. Him running surely caused alarm, but deadly force as a result is a bit trigger happy too me. He ran. That's all. He was not connected to anything other then coming from the building and running when approached by 20 "normal dressed" men screaming at him to stop.

Ever been to Brazil? If you have, then you might have a better understanding of why he maybe ran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4415775.stm

I'm not excusing him running and I'm certainly not excusing the UK Police because he ran.

They fucked up...big time!

Carpe Diem

• Quote

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Quote

So is it better to kill people because they don't have the same religion or beliefs?

I don't think you should kill anyone unless you are in danger of being killed.

I'm missing a bunch of this cause I'm not through the whole thread, but every soldier in every army is at least being fed to kill the soldiers in the enemy army.

I was paid by the government to be put in a position of deterrence to the enemy, and then to just wander around armed in order to keep the domestic peace.

When I was a cop I would have killed without remorse those who threatened the lives and property of others, and not only had been paid, but been paid overtime and given a vacation.

There will ALWAYS be people who need killing. There will always be specially trained, paid, people to do that killing.

Darius, let's say you have to do some business here in San Francisco where you are either going to be carrying very sensitive corporate intellectual property or some other multi-million dollar property. You hire me to just hang out with you, armed, just in case (I'm a retired cop now, but they let us remain armed) A ruthless competetor attempts to rob you of the material at gunpoint and I kill him. Consequences of just letting the guy go is the collapse of your multinational corporation and zillions of seniors losing their pensions and eating cat food, etc.

How about if we're just hanging out and somebody wants to whack you cause you look middle eastern and I end up killing him. You're not going to at least buy me dinner?

Shit. I'd have to buy a case of beer for my first whack-job.

PM me the other thread, please.
JP

Edit: This becomes less complex, but not clear, the first time somebody tries to really, honest-to-god kill you. When some dork got the second snap of my SSIII holster undone before I got my second gun screwed into his left eye once upon a time, I thought I was the great negotiator.

Skipping lunch does not make people what it is like to be starving, but we say "I'm starving" let's get something to eat.

I'm glad this thread didn't get deleted. Hell, Darius, the best conversations often come about because people don't understand each other at first and take the time to explain themselves.

If I had the qualifications and wasn't so old, I'd be over there with Clay. Deterring people from attacking my clients, and killing them when they weren't deterred. It is very much like police work. Hooligans would tell me "you wouldn't be so tough without that gun and badge" and I'd reply "If it wasn't for this gun and badge I'd never be in this neighborhood"

Anyhow. Would I do a hit for money? No.

In the line of duty? Yes.

Does protecting engineers fixing power plants in foreign countries from murder while employed as a security contractor count as in the line of duty? Yes.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Does protecting engineers fixing power plants in foreign countries from murder while employed as a security contractor count as in the line of duty? Yes.

I agree....

Now the question becomes how that thought changes if you find out a Security Contractor signed up for that because he knew it would give him a chance to kill some people....

[Darius11 12]

What’s up JP.


I think this is one of the few times I have seen you post in SC.
The questions was simple and you answered it at the end.

Quote

Anyhow. Would I do a hit for money? No.

In the line of duty? Yes.

So you would answer no to this pole.

Getting paid for a job that MIGHT require you to kill is different then killing for money.
I tried to make it very clear. I even said if your ONLY motivation is money.

About Clay. I said it before don’t know the guy have no feelings towards him at all. I think some of his posts in bone fire are funny. Ron brought him in to the whole discussion.
I’ll Pm you the thread.


Peace Bro.

Darius

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Now the question becomes how that thought changes if you find out a Security Contractor signed up for that because he knew it would give him a chance to kill some people....

Hardly. EVERYBODY who goes to Iraq and Afghanistan armed is likely to shoot some people. It's not a chance, it's almost a foregone conclusion. Every kid enlisting these days is likely to point a weapon at the enemy and pull the trigger, press the button, throw the switch or pull the lanyard.

The chance to shoot somebody is almost guaranteed. Whether an 18 year old enlistee, or an 18 year special forces veteran doing contract security work.

Truth is, armed encounters are tests that are challenging and fun to pass.

Very much like skydives. Every skydive is a life or death test that is fun to pass.

I was always able to point my pistol at somebody and command them to obey me, and convince them to submit and then disarm them (well, except for those kids who stole that car who ran when I racked a round into the shotgun. Poor kid, he actually pooped his pants and then the dog bit him. Very ignoble).

Sometimes the bad guy wants to take it to the limit and his grade is dead when it's over. That's why cops call shooting "good" and "bad". Is it OK to shoot unarmed people? Sure! A good friend of mine attempted to stop a car that turned out stolen and then chased the driver into the Acorn housing projects just East of the Oakland Coliseum BART station. He commanded the guy to put his hands out where he could see them and the guy reached into his waistband. Pow! Pow!

Now, the locals would all have testified in court that my buddy just tried to execute the guy for fun and KKK points. But he shot him through the hand and there was this neato through-and-through hole that matched in his underwear and his abdomen that his hand just happened to be in the middle of. End of story.

Now, my buddy had target fixation, which happens a lot to moderately trained marksmen like most cops, and shot at the percieved threat (the hand in the waistband). If it had been me, (who has had a lot of supplemental handgun fighting training) I might have put 3 or 4 rounds through his eye socket and then been in the headlines as having shot an unarmed man who happened to have a bag of crack and several hundred dollars in his underwear. "Racist Cop Shoots Unarmed Father of Five"

Turns out dude wanted to toss the crack before my buddy took him into custody. Bad choice, failing grade for shootee.

Passing grade for shooter (with improvement needed on marksmanship) We were trained to shoot for the center of mass, or the eye sockets, or both. A+ for lucky shot placement.

(Defense attorney) Why did you shoot this poor unarmed father of five?!

(Tim) I attempted to pull him over for failing to stop at a stop sign, he turned his lights off and sped away, turns out the car was stolen. He crashed it into a parked car and his five buddies all took off and I followed him cause we try to arrest the driver, cause nobody cares about the other folks in the car. He ran into the projects and I told him to stop and show me his hands. He turned toward me and reached into the front of his pants. Fearing for my life and beleiving he was retrieving a weapon, I shot him and he fell to the ground and I called for medical assistance and more cops cause the folks in the projects get upset when we shoot them and manifest hostility towards the police in large groups and that scares me."

(Defense attorney) Why didn't you wait to see what he pulled out of his waistband?

(Tim) Because I had told him to keep his hands where I could see them, he obviously did not want to be taken into custody, and if he had pulled out a gun I would have lost what little advantage I had by having my gun already out. "I told him "show me your hands or I'll shoot you" and I did.

(Defense Attorney) Why should we believe you when you say he was reaching into his pants?

(Tim) Dude, he's sitting right there. See the round 9mm scar on his right hand that matches the one just below his belly button? It's from the bullet that was matched to my pistol that was removed from his lower intestine.

(Defense attorney) It is still oppressive.

This thread has lots of cross links to the shot 5 times in the head in London thread. We don't know all the facts quite yet about that one, but I think it's similar to my buddies "good" shooting. I don't know much about British law, but it's different in subtle ways regarding detention and search and siezure.

Here, if there is reasonable cause to detain you, and it would be reasonable to detain you (not arrest, but detain) for leaving a home where a felony had been committed. If you ran, then the amount of force necessary to detain you is authorized and that ends up with people getting shot sometimes when they make bad choices.

Here, you have the right to not talk to the police but you have no right to resist a lawful detention. YOU making the decision that the detention is unlawful and running is a bad choice, regardless of whether you are right or wrong. So they detain you for being at Mr. Bomb Maker's house, you refuse to make any statement, they identify you, you haven't broken any laws, and they let you go. Having Bomb Making friends will be inconvenient. The cops will want to talk to you a lot, and want to see your ID a lot, and will listen to your phone calls.

Too much coffee. Blahblahblah.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

EVERYBODY who goes to Iraq and Afghanistan armed is likely to shoot some people.

very true...and I do have an issue with those signing up/volunteering/actively seeking work because they would like to go and kill some people.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

EVERYBODY who goes to Iraq and Afghanistan armed is likely to shoot some people.

very true...and I do have an issue with those signing up/volunteering/actively seeking work because they would like to go and kill some people.

So what do you think is the true percentage of the total population that would be diagnosed as clinically deviant violent psychotics (pulled wings off of birds as kids, tortured cats in the garage, killed a kid just see him die - kind of personality?)

25% ?
50% ?

or are those numbers just applying to Coalition service members? not to actual 'humans'

edit: I mean way to go out on a limb with that opinion. I'm against just the "psychotic soldiers" not the other 'cool' ones.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I don´t understand how anyone would want to put himselve in a position where making the mistake of killing a civilian is a very real posibility just for money.

You really don't understand shit do you?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You really don't understand shit do you?

quiet you 'psycho'. If you only understood that the only reason to be in a job where you use weapons is because of a deep seated homocidal urge coded deep in the genes of anyone living in north America for more than 2 generations. That and demonically possessed weapons and SUVs that take over the user's minds temporarily.

The only fix is west-Euro and/or hollywood sensitivity training where you are required to melt down a gun and fashion it into a homeless shelter. It takes a lot of therapy and drugs, but it's ok, the government will pay for it.

By the way, what's the point of RSLs and AADs, really? Gotta die sometime. Don't even get me started on exit order strategies.

won't someone please think of the children?

{{Sorry for the rant, I get wierded out by the 'all or nothing' PC types - Bot's got two key points in his note - 'mistake' self explanatory and "just for money" which is nonsense. But that last one just won't be cleared up in some people's minds}}

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants