ReillyT
Senior Member
Well, actually, at the time the soldiers met the goatherds, they only suspected that they might tell the Taliban. Certainly, the illiterate goatherders hadn't done anything at that time. So yes, at that time, they were innocent civilians. To kill them at that point would have been to murder them unprovoked.
Subsequent events do not change that fact.
Ahh yes, interesting logic indeed. Faulty as hell but interesting. Now the truth is I would have had trouble killing the goatherders myself, BUT in the end the decision NOT to incapacitate them was the wrong decision and the fault of the leader That Officer caused the mission to fail and worse, he cost the lives of his entire team save one.
Similar logic would be " That Bartender had no idea that the drunk would drive and kill all those people, he was just sitting in a bar drinking, after all"
To a very limited extent, you are right, insomuch as I did not fully state a proposition (and left it to the reader to get my meaning).
What I should have said was "So yes, at that time, to the knowledge of the soldiers, they were innocent civilians." I apologize for not making that clear.
However, your "similar logic" is not similar at all. The person at the bar has been seen drinking. Therefore, there is personalized evidence that he may be unfit to drive. In this case, there was no personalized evidence.
A better and more accurate example would be: "The bank manager had no idea that the drunk would drive and kill all those people, he was just cashing a check, after all."
Finally, to the extent that the goatherders informed anyone of their whereabouts, the officer is not at fault for not killing them, because he was following the RoE set out for him. Could he have incapacitated them in some other non-lethal manner within the RoE? Maybe, I don't really know.