I think the law school answer to your question is that they should honor a legitimate surrender, and the prisoner would be guilty of a war crime for committing perfidy in the first false surrender. However, if they shot him anyway under the circumstnces you describe, I can’t see that any court would convict them, since he just committed perfidy five seconds ago and they had no way of knowing that he wasn’t doing it again.
And the commentary says:
“Legally” may not mean anything in this context beyond “doing something that you won’t be convicted for at court-martial”. I rather doubt that any court-martial would be convened if the facts were clearly as described, and the obvious legal defense would be “how the hell could I assume the second surrender was legit when the first one obviously wasn’t?”
So it wouldn’t be a case of shooting someone after surrender; it would be a case of shooting someone who hadn’t clearly surrendered.
IANAMilitaryL.
Regards,
Shodan
And of course, MP would play this one to the very end, with the surrenduring force killing their foes one by one with a quick, “I surrender!” <trick-BANG> “Oooh! this time I really surrender” <trick, BANG> “Look, sorry about that, that was terrible of me. I surrender for real this time” <trick Bang> … Michael Palin, of course, as the killer & Graham Chapman as the straight man(oh the irony)/strict adherent to the GC.
And of course, they would only be flesh wounds. 
Don’t be a pussy, surrender again!
…and that’s somehow less of an ethnic slur? :rolleyes:
Yes, it is somehow less of an ethnic slur.
Are you implying it is as much an ethnic slur?
-FrL-
And that is what’s wrong with all this Political Correctness. Hard to keep up with the scorecard and even dis-interested parties can claim to be greatly offended and demand the death penalty for the offenders. That said, I demand in the name of all of my Jewish American Princess friends, that SamClem needs to be impeached by the minority, censure himself, and hang his head in shame.
Nonsense.
If someone says “You can’t call me ‘Korean’ because that’s an ethnic slur,” no one will take them seriously.
-FrL-
I have a cousin that goes ballistic on people who call him Mexican (and we are of Mexican descent), it’s all in the tone. Most people avoid calling him a Mexican unless they want to fight. Of course you may consider it nonsense, unless you were standing next to him and calling him a Mexican that is.
I’m not implying, it IS an ethnic slur. Not on par with niger or wetback, but about as bad as calling someone a fag.
Since you apparently seem confused (or possibly just ignorant), calling someone who is Jewish a JAP, or they are acting Jappy, or for that matter saying saying they “Jewed you down” is generally offensive. It usually means you are saying they (usually being a woman) are a spoiled, papered brat (which is unflatering) and you are making that associated with their Jewish heritage (which is the ethnic part).
Calling someone who is Japanese a “Jap” is also offensive, however outside of old WWII films, it’s not all that common of an expression these days.
Anyhow, it’s not so much that I find either term all that offensive. I was just pointing out to **samclem ** that it looks kind of stupid saying that an ethnic slur is improper unless you are using it as a different ethnic slur.
You didn’t say “JAP” is also an ethnic slur. You said (implied) it is “just as much” an ethnic slur. And that is false.
You may wish to offer an argument against what I’ve just said by relying on a notion that an expression either “is” or “is not” an ethnic slur, and there’s no “just as much” to the matter. To head that possibility off, I wish to preemptively remind you that you are the one who used the phrase “just as much” and that my reply to you was designed to turn on exactly this usage.
JAP is not as much an ethnic slur as Jap is. The latter is more patently and egregiously offensive.
-FrL-
My grandpa Sanchez was full blooded Mexican-American (in so far as you have full-blooded Mexicans), and that man HATED Mexicans. If you called him Mexican, you’d have a very irate man cussing you out in Spanish. He was an AMERICAN, he was BORN in this country, and he paid taxes, unlike those wetbacks trying to sneak into the country like thieves in the night and stealing all the good jobs (not my opinion, his opinion).
So yeah, it depends. I asked around amongst my mom’s family, and apparently we’re not Mexican-American, we’re not Latino, we’re not Tejano, we’re Hispanic (alternately, we’re Texans, but that’s a different kind of categorization).
Frylock, this is not GD. If you feel so strong about the topic you should open a thread in that forum and we can discuss racial slurs at length and vote on how bad one is compared to the other.
I predict that Sam is going to check back in, apoligize and close this thread since the OP has been answered and we are fighting like siblings.
I don’t feel anything about this topic, much less “strongly.”
Also, your post seems to put the responsibility for this line of discussion on my shoulders. A cursory look at the course of the thread shows this to be incorrect.
-FrL-
…don’t care. I surrender this argument to you.
Of course, just because you stop arguing doesn’t mean you lose the argument. So I’ll ignore the word “surrender” and take your post as a suggestion simply that there’s nothing more you would like to say. No problem.
-FrL-
Getting back to the OP, my Dad fought with the 69th Infantry in Europe in '44-'45.
He told me very explicitly that his unit encountered a lot of German soldiers, mostly young (but perhaps that was not because young people are more prone to doing this, but because that was all they had left in the West at that point in the war) who would fire off all their ammunition at the Americans from ambush, they jump up and surrender.
These weren’t fake surrenders, mind you. These were real surrenders, sometimes by young boys, but committed after the act of doing all the damage that could be done. I.e., at the point at which the surrendering party is no longer immediately militarily valuable (at least until rearming).
My dad said, “We shot every one of those SOBs without slowing down or discussing it.” He felt strongly that for a surrender to have any validity, it had to be offered instead of inflicting maximum possible violence, not in addition to.
I’m pretty sure that our memories of WWII as “the good war” are greatly improved by the censorship and rah-rah reporting standards of the day.
Sailboat
So…when is msmith537 going to pull out the machine gun taped to his back?