Self-defense seems to be the key reason for harming, or even killing another person. However, when a soldier kills an innocent civilian it is not because of self- defense. This action, then, can not be justified. There are excuses that a soldier can make towards their reason of killing a person that has not necessarily attacked them. An example of such as excuse would be that they mistakenly thought they were being attacked by a civilian.
Going out on any mission in the military without necessary equipment is dangerous. A soldier can not be ready to engage the enemy without his/her necessary equipment near and ready. Also when you know where your weapons, headsets, and other equipment are you are providing a good example to other soldiers on how to always keep track of important items. Keeping track of important items is part of a soldier’s many duties. Accountability in the Army is very important.
I do think Tobias Wolff is a monster. I have many reasons to support my opinion on him being a monster. My main reason is because he had access to weapons and the lack of supervision as a child, which left him on his own to partake in senseless acts of violence. The joy of pointing the rifle at innocent civilians gave him some type of satisfaction a normal person wouldn’t receive. Starting with his action to take aim at innocent pedestrians walking by, also pretending to fire shots at them.
I could not believe a first grader shot another first grader. I could not believe two students shot their own peers. The violence in America is ridiculous. I don’t understand why people choose to kill other people. I wish I could understand so I could help prevent them from doing so.
Answer: Although Bobby did not intend on harming anyone with the gun, the mere fact of bring the gun to work shows intention. While waving the gun around and using violent behaviors and erratic motions, Bobby changed the naturally occurring events within that environment. When considering the totality of the circumstances, Bobby has violated the assault statue resulting in the harm to Officer Goodman. Bobby is guilty of assault as he unintentionally fired the gun upon a law enforcement officer in the performance of his or her [the officer’s] duties and should be found guilty of a Class E felony. b. Bobby is angry with his supervisor.
Main claim The paper ‘Professional Integrity and Disobedience in the Military’ by Jessica Wolfendale argues that if the military’s primary function is to protect the nation and serve moral good, then the military, at both institutional and individual level, should have, not only the permission, but the duty to disobey direct orders from the state to go to war if these orders conflict with the principles of jus ad bellum. Wolfendale further argues that there is a discrepancy between the military’s professional integrity and the generally accepted fact that the military should ultimately obey the state. The inconsistency lies in the fact that the guidelines of the professional integrity in this case would have prohibited the execution of many orders given by states through the years, and since there are few to none accounts of the military disobeying state orders. Opposing point of view The generally accepted opinion is, that the military professionals cannot be held accountable for the morality of an order issued by the state. It is widely recognised that the military and the soldiers individually are part of a community that would demand of them to put their personal and professional values aside to serve the moral good.
It almost leads us to question Henry’s morals if he is willing to kill infants. Although we assume that Henry is just playing up what will happen because he hasn’t lost control of them yet we have to play with the notion that Henry isn’t on as high of a moral ground as we thought even though it might be a just ground. This speech also uses a lot more detail to describe certain events than the other two speeches. He vividly states, “ the blind and bloody soldier with foul hand defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters:”(34-35). This is very detailed and horrific because he is saying he won’t be able to stop his soldiers from raping the women in the city.
Robert E. Lee had sent a series of attacks at us which our line was hard to break. I was in my line face to face to the Confederate soldier with my gun pointed at someone I don’t know but was willing to take his life the same as he does me. I opened fire and brought him down with a single shot, the next line of men on their side came forward and prepared to fire. At this moment I felt a chill go down my spine and when I looked up from reloading my gun I could see a mean glare coming from the other side. He wanted to kill me, I wanted to run but I knew that I couldn’t.
Killing people during war time should not count as a sin for many reasons. During war the army will have to protect the future of its country and avoid or minimize the damage that could occur, so it must defend and protect the land and innocent people who live there. Killing in an event of war isn’t sinful when the army is defending its land against the attacking country because if the defending army doesn’t defend or protect its land and people then they will get killed by the attacking army and therefore the attacking army will invade and possibly destroy the country. The soldiers also have a job to do so they won’t be able to disobey orders from their military leader or refuse to follow them. Defending property and people is also part of their job description which means that they will have to do anything they can to fulfill it.
In the story “They Each Had a Gun,” Hannah LaMarca was robbed and assaulted with no way to defend herself. Had she been armed and trained in the use of a firearm, it is likely the outcome would have been different. We also can’t ignore the usefulness of a firearm as a deterrent to a criminal. Gun control advocates are so quick to cite statistics of gun deaths from any source they latch on to. It’s a shame that we don’t have much statistics for crimes that have been adverted because a robber or rapist changed his mind about attacking an armed person.