Justifiable Homicide In The Military

Life in the armed forces is filled with crucial, split-second decisions that must be made. Some of the decisions ask these men to take the life of a dangerous individual in order to ensure the safety of countless civilians. In this case many see this Homicide as Justifiable, however, others believe that nothing can justify a homicide and that a situation can always be resolved with non-lethal methods. When it comes to dangerous military targets, this position is naive as these people would not need to be eliminated if they were willing to reason and felt sorry for their crimes. These service men don't take another life for their own personal enjoyment or gain, but they do it because it is their duty to protect. Justifiable homicide is certainly justifiable when it is used justly to protect others from those who would use it unjustly. A homicide is not justifiable when nonlethal methods of disarming can be used and a conflict can be resolved peacefully. However, lethal force is needed whenever a terrorist,
who has already had no problem with the killing of innocent civilians, is added to the mix. “Mr. Buntangyar had organized suicide and roadside bomb attacks.” (1 Zielbauer) These type of people who are willing to manipulate and use young people in this way are not the type that would want to discuss their terms of surrender and jail sentence. These people would sacrifice all of those around him in order to escape and continue his work from afar. It would be a disservice to the locals, those living and dead, to not eliminate a known terrorist, especially when authorization is given to eliminate him. A soldier's duty is to follow orders and procedure, and their actions are justified if it is within the scope of those orders and procedures. An elite team of marines that is ordered to kill an infamous terrorist has authorization and the killing is justified. “Mr. Buntangyar had already been “vetted as a target” by American commanders, as an enemy combatant who could be legally killed once he was positively identified.”(1 Zielbauer) In a situation where the quote above would apply, the team that eliminates Mr. Buntangyar would be simply be following an established procedure. They would not be killing this terrorist for their own gain, they would be killing him as their duty to both their country and to the people they are supposed to protect. These factors of Justifiable homicide not only apply to military personnel but it also applies to normal, everyday citizens.
If a citizen has a reasonable belief that their life is in danger, then in that case a homicide is justifiable. In the case of a justifiable homicide, a citizen’s reasoning for committing such an act is the same for a soldier, a duty that must be executed. A soldier's duty is to protect the people he is ordered to protect along with his fellow servicemen, and a civilian’s is to protect the lives of his family and himself. Whenever an armed criminal enters someone's home, they don't have time to reason with a dangerous thug, especially when lives are on the line. Thus, this power can only be considered justly used when it is used in a way that could save lives. In conclusion, justifiable homicide should be an element in society so that the average man can protect his family and so that the soldier can protect the average
man.