So... someone confesses murder to you

[Scipio]

Assuming the presence of confidentiality and attorney-client privilege, I congratulate my client on his craftiness in avoiding prosecution, and step away slowly until I leave arm's reach.  Then I stop returning phone calls and letters, and move to a different state, changing my name.

[The Brain]

changing my name.

[Pat]

Report him to the police.

Let the police find out wheather is true or not.

I have zero tolerance for criminals.

Ok.  So you meet a fellow Israeli like you, who served in the army and is now an American citizen and soldier.  He tells you that at some point, he shot Palestinians civilians in the head, after they were neutralized during the sweep of their house.

You report him?

We are talking about murder, as in murdering your fellow citizens, not about war or killing enemies.

Now, if in your example the guy had killed a fellow soldier, or a civilian back home, for whatever reason, I would personally drag his ass to the nearest MP station.

So killing unarmed palestinian civilians is cool because that's killing enemies, and is not murder?

[Siege]

- The circumstances of the crime (crimes during wartime tend to attract less concern: "I fragged a gung ho officer 40 years ago in WW2 who was going to get us all killed" as opposed to "I killed a girl and buried her body at the cottage 40 years ago").

Morale have to be bottom low for that to happen.

These days, we get pissed off that there are not enough missions, that we are completely restricted by the rules of engagement, and that our officers are pussies that don't even want us to return fire when we get shot at. It is gay as fuck. I had to do a shitload of paperwork for the little skirmish I had the other day. The single one time I have fired my weapon during this deployment.

Which brings us to a conversation I had today with a friend of mine about how much better our army is today compared to the Viet Nam era US Army. We are far more motivated, dedicated, disciplined and professional.

[Siege]

So killing unarmed palestinian civilians is cool because that's killing enemies, and is not murder?

Dude, the pals are waging a propaganda war. Every time some of them get killed in combat, their buddies retrieve their weapons, and bring the media to show them unarmed dead bodies.

[Pat]

So killing unarmed palestinian civilians is cool because that's killing enemies, and is not murder?

Dude, the pals are waging a propaganda war. Every time some of them get killed in combat, their buddies retrieve their weapons, and bring the media to show them unarmed dead bodies.

That's not answering my question 

[Bluebook]

So killing unarmed palestinian civilians is cool because that's killing enemies, and is not murder?

Dude, the pals are waging a propaganda war. Every time some of them get killed in combat, their buddies retrieve their weapons, and bring the media to show them unarmed dead bodies.

That's not answering my question 

Perhaps because the question was stupid?

[Pat]

It's not a stupid question. Did you even read what he wrote? Perhaps you're not the right person to accuse others of stupidity.

Viper asked him if he'd report another Israeli who shot Palestinians civilians in the head. Siege replied "We are talking about murder, as in murdering your fellow citizens, not about war or killing enemies."

The question was one of shooting civilians in the head. Siege replies that we are talking about murdering fellow citizens, not killing enemies. So according to Siege, shooting a Palestinian civilian in the head isn't murder, because the Palestinian civilian is an enemy, and not a fellow citizen.

[Bluebook]

It's not a stupid question.

Yeah it is. "So killing unarmed palestinian civilians is cool?" is a very stupid question in the context it was asked.
Edit: Actually, disregard the context-part, its a very stupid question no matter what the context is.

Viper asked him if he'd report another Israeli who shot Palestinians civilians in the head. Siege replied "We are talking about murder, as in murdering your fellow citizens, not about war or killing enemies."

The question was one of shooting civilians in the head. Siege replies that we are talking about murdering fellow citizens, not killing enemies. So according to Siege, shooting a Palestinian civilian in the head isn't murder, because the Palestinian civilian is an enemy, and not a fellow citizen.

Thats not how I read that conversation. And that is not how I would characterize his answer.

From the context of the question, the question was put as if he would report a fellow soldier who had shot a "neutralized civilian" (whatever that means) in a combat situation. He said no, but if the soldier had shot a civilian back home he would. That to me seems to indicate that he will make a difference between a shot fired in a combat zone, and a shot fired in a "non-combat-peaceful-civilian-situation". I cant say I agree with him, but who knows, Ive never been in a situation like that so I cannot say how I would react.

Be that as it may however, the question is still stupid since you seem unable to put the question/answer in proper context and you seem to be more interested in deliberately mischaracterizing his position than anything else.

[grumbler]

N00b fight! 

*pops popcorn*

[grumbler]

Certainly those are all important, though Marty has his head firmly up his ass

Coulda stopped right there.

[Pat]

It's not a stupid question.

Yeah it is. "So killing unarmed palestinian civilians is cool?" is a very stupid question in the context it was asked.
Edit: Actually, disregard the context-part, its a very stupid question no matter what the context is.

Viper asked him if he'd report another Israeli who shot Palestinians civilians in the head. Siege replied "We are talking about murder, as in murdering your fellow citizens, not about war or killing enemies."

The question was one of shooting civilians in the head. Siege replies that we are talking about murdering fellow citizens, not killing enemies. So according to Siege, shooting a Palestinian civilian in the head isn't murder, because the Palestinian civilian is an enemy, and not a fellow citizen.

Thats not how I read that conversation. And that is not how I would characterize his answer.

From the context of the question, the question was put as if he would report a fellow soldier who had shot a "neutralized civilian" (whatever that means) in a combat situation. He said no, but if the soldier had shot a civilian back home he would. That to me seems to indicate that he will make a difference between a shot fired in a combat zone, and a shot fired in a "non-combat-peaceful-civilian-situation". I cant say I agree with him, but who knows, Ive never been in a situation like that so I cannot say how I would react.

Be that as it may however, the question is still stupid since you seem unable to put the question/answer in proper context and you seem to be more interested in deliberately mischaracterizing his position than anything else.

If my business was mischaracterizing his position, I WOULDN'T HAVE ASKED HIM WHAT HE MEANT. I'd just have mischaracterized it straight ahead, for chrissake!

Now, if I didn't understand Siege correctly, he can say what he meant. But don't go saying it's stupid of me to ask. 

If fact, if anyone's in the business of mischaracterizing, it is you who is mischaracterizing me.



Edit:

As for

Thats not how I read that conversation. And that is not how I would characterize his answer.

Well, that's what he wrote.

[lustindarkness]

Good to see you Siege, keep up the good fight.

[Valmy]

Good to see you here Siege.  We are around if you need to blow off some steam.

Sounds like you are having a rather uneventful deployment so far.

[dps]

What I think is BS is that people in this thread are saying that (relating back to the Malthus WWII example) in this situation they would actually go to the police and report the guy.  You might think, philosophically, that this is the right thing to do, but I don't believe for a second anyone would *actually* do this, aside from possibly someone like Beeb who is constantly in contact with the police in his town anyway so presumably is very familiar with them (same might go for Strix).

Apparently not, since Malthus originally said that the dude liked to blab about it, and no one else turned him in.

So the question then becomes what parameters about the story need to change before people tip over to reporting him.  Time elapsed?  Sympathy for the vic (Marty's thesis)?  Risk of reoccurence?

Well, time elapsed would be part of it, I think.  Also, I think it makes a difference with older events whether or not there is/was actually an investigation and knowledge that a crime was committed.  For example, in the story Malthus told, it seems that there was no realization that the victim was murdered--apparantly it was thought that he fell overboard.  OTOH, there was a series of unsolved murders in my home town a couple of years before I was born;  if someone confessed to me that they had been the killer, I think I'd tell the police, even though it's been almost 50 years.