# should military snipers be considered serial killers **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 13, 2017, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-military-snipers-be-considered-serial-killers/788889 "2017-06-13T19:17:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-military-snipers-be-considered-serial-killers/788889/61 "2017-06-14T13:47:34Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > I wasn’t implying that a sniper should be charged with a crime, I was asking if the use of snipers should be considered unlawful and, if so, discontinued. Not IMO. Homicide isn’t always wrong. Homicide in self-defense, in defense of an innocent third party, or in a just war, is not wrong. Sniping in a just war is more justified than mass killing, because as one of your article states, snipers target command personnel, which is more effective than killing a number of ordinary soldiers. So you kill one guy, and thus spare the lives of others. That’s why the military targets command and control as much as possible. Kill the head, and you don’t have to kill the body. [quote] And, no, I do not have a cite for American snipers targeting non traditional targets. But I do have a > [@](#): > > ([What Does a Sniper Really Do? - The Sniper | HowStuffWorks](http://science.howstuffworks.com/sniper1.htm)) from a sniper saying he would target unsuspecting support personnel such as technicians and communications operators. Support personnel such as that are combatants. And again, it is more efficient to target those personnel, because killing them degrades the enemy’s ability to fight more than if you just kill a random soldier. Technicians are harder to replace, and an army without communications fights less effectively. And, for instance, if it becomes a general belief within a military that servicing an airplane is a death sentence a lot of the time, because snipers will shoot you if they get a chance, then it is that much harder to get your airplanes serviced, and again, this degrades your ability to fight. War is a terrible thing. Therefore it must be waged as efficiently as possible, to get it over as quickly as possible, and killing and wounding as few as possible. As few as possible, but no fewer. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-military-snipers-be-considered-serial-killers/788889/62 "2017-06-14T14:43:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Not IMO. Homicide isn’t always wrong. Homicide in self-defense, in defense of an innocent third party, or in a just war, is not wrong. I must point out that in the current state of international law on the rules of warfare, the last part of your sentence is quite wrong. In the context of war, the legality of killing human beings is not determined by the justness of the war. The legality of killing in war is a matter of _jus in bello_, the conduct of persons in war. A soldier in a war is expected to folow the rules of war, which include things like not deliberately killing persons protected by the Geneva Conventions (POWs, wounded people, civilians, etc) not using illegal weapons, and the like. **The justness of the war from the perspective of the state that soldier fight for is irrelevant.** A German soldier who conducted himself in World War II in accordance with the laws of war was not a criminal, even though the war he was fighting was patently unjust; an Allied soldier who murdered POWs or used poison weapons would have been a war criminal, ever though his side was fighting a just war. > [@](#): > > Sniping in a just war is more justified than mass killing, because as one of your article states, snipers target command personnel, which is more effective than killing a number of ordinary soldiers. So you kill one guy, and thus spare the lives of others. The article is quite incorrect if it is actually that simplistic. A sniper is a soldier trained to directly engage and kill enemy personnel, using firearms ideally suited for the purpose, from positions that are difficult for the enemy to effectively detect and return fire to. Snipers sometimes engage command personnel. Sometimes they do not. Sometimes they provide cover for infantry. Sometimes they kill as many soldiers as possible to suppress enemy movement or lower morale. Sometimes they provide overwatch for operations or events where no combat is expected but you can’t be too careful. Sometimes they target radio operators or the guy carrying the anti-tank weapon. Sometimes they simply take out targets of opportunity. Sniping is just an infantry role; that skillset is used in any number of different ways, depending on the needs of the situation. ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-military-snipers-be-considered-serial-killers/788889/63 "2017-06-14T15:36:09Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > But _you_ seem to be deciding here, and haven’t justified your position at all._Why_ do you place such high value on preserving every single life at all costs? It may seem self-evident to you, but it is not to me. If killing evil people makes the world a better place, why hold back? Yours is the burden of proof here. you can’t save every life at all costs, people die every day for myriad reasons. But the purposeful taking of a life should have much more weight to it than I believe it currently does. There’s a difference, to me, between saying a person is evil and deserves to die, and saying that the person who takes that person’s life doesn’t deserve to be punished. the first way puts a negative value on one persons life, the second puts a positive value on one persons actions. And when you say that some people deserve to die it gives permission to all kinds of people to decide _ **on their own** _ who deserves to die. > [@Shodan](#): > > . . .War is a terrible thing. Therefore it must be waged as efficiently as possible, to get it over as quickly as possible, and killing and wounding as few as possible. . . > > Regards, > Shodan Good point, regards to you. > [@RickJay](#): > > . . . I mean, I think you’re trying to make an interesting philosophical point, and that’s cool. I agree we may at times be handwaving away the gravity of killing human beings by using euphemisms and weak justifications. But you’re not being very consistent in your own use of terms. > > Your OP title is really, really poorly chosen, too, because upon reading our posts, it’s clear to me that you have written an OP title that is wildly inaccurate and distracting from the point you’re trying to make. Aside from the fact you’re completely redefining a third term - “serial killer” is a term of art - you make it seem as if your point is specifically about military snipers, but as you yourself have sort of conceded, that’s not the point at all. the OP was written for a very specific reason, which very quickly was resolved and morphed into something else. Maybe this discussion as it is now should be continued in another thread, but quite frankly, I don’t have the energy to move it. mc ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-military-snipers-be-considered-serial-killers/788889/64 "2017-06-14T16:24:44Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I must point out that in the current state of international law on the rules of warfare, the last part of your sentence is quite wrong. I didn’t say homicide in a just war was legal; I said it was not wrong. Meaning morally wrong. > [@](#): > > The article is quite incorrect if it is actually that simplistic It’s not that simplistic. As I mentioned the article(s) mention targeting support personnel and technicians as well. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-military-snipers-be-considered-serial-killers/788889/65 "2017-06-14T17:33:31Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > you can’t save every life at all costs, people die every day for myriad reasons. But the purposeful taking of a life should have much more weight to it than I believe it currently does. There’s a difference, to me, between saying a person is evil and deserves to die, and saying that the person who takes that person’s life doesn’t deserve to be punished. the first way puts a negative value on one persons life, the second puts a positive value on one persons actions… Your just repeating an assertion without giving _reasons_ for it. You believe that all life _per se_ is so valuable that even evil murderous people should always be allowed to live. I can’t debate that unless you say _why_ you hold all life so valuable. > [@mikecurtis](#): > > …And when you say that some people deserve to die it gives permission to all kinds of people to decide _ **on their own** _ who deserves to die. This is the closest you’ve come to actually giving a reason for your belief, and it’s a pretty weak slippery slope fallacy. You’re basically saying that even if somebody _does_ deserve to die for good reasons, we still shouldn’t kill them because it might encourage some other homicide for _bad_ reasons. You might as well say that we should never _imprison_ anybody as a criminal punishment or as a POW, in case it encourages a dictator somewhere to imprison people who have done nothing wrong. ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-military-snipers-be-considered-serial-killers/788889/66 "2017-06-14T18:52:09Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Your just repeating an assertion without giving _reasons_ for it. You believe that all life _per se_ is so valuable that even evil murderous people should always be allowed to live. I can’t debate that unless you say _why_ you hold all life so valuable. I dont know how many times I have to say this. I dont think that everyone “should always be allowed to live” But I also do not think any one _ **deserves** _ to die. and the reason for this is it’s my opinion that it makes life better for everyone if we treat all life with respect, even the lives of those who would do us harm. If we grieve for the loss of the life of our enemies it makes us better people, it allows us to be not so quick to take the life of another human. I should be hard to take a life. It should come with all sorts of emotional and psychological baggage. If we agonize over the life of someone who we deem our enemy, then it makes the lives of our allies and our families that much more valuable. It may seem to you an easy decision to end the life of someone like OBL or the hypothetical madman with a gun to a little girls head, but the decisions are not always so clear cut; the line not always so bright. What what about the drunk driver who kills the young family, what about the sonuvabitch from the neighborhood who kills the family dog. If we start from the position that all intention killings are murder and then judge each on its merits, and decide what punishment fits (and maybe it’s no punishment at all) society will be much better off than if we start from a position that it’s ok to kill some people. This is not an original thought of mine. Others smarter and more enlightened than me throughout history have promoted similar ideas. Jesus Christ, The Religious Society of Friends, the Dalai Llama, just to name a few. mc ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-military-snipers-be-considered-serial-killers/788889/67 "2017-06-14T19:04:14Z")
> [@](#): > > should military snipers be considered serial killers Absolutely. And police should be considered kidnappers (serial kidnappers I guess) while surgeons should be considered (serial) butchers. Firefighters would be, I suppose, serial vandals (or serial fire killers, perhaps). ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-military-snipers-be-considered-serial-killers/788889/68 "2017-06-14T20:52:40Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > Follow up question: Should sniping be considered unlawful? Recognizing that it currently is not. > > consider: The targets of snipers are often non combatants, sometimes civilian, often done in non hostile theaters. and almost always unarmed and unaware that they are targets. The only part of this sentence that isn’t complete horseshit is that sniper’s targets are often unaware that they are targets. Your only support for this assertion - “a quote from a sniper saying he would target unsuspecting support personnel such as technicians and communications operators” - is describing the lawful targeting of armed combatants. I will note, however, that the actions of snipers - or more specifically _their_ snipers - has often been seen as out of the bounds of ‘fair play’ by soldiers in the field and they are often summarily executed if captured. See for example [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19156621&postcount=18) post in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=785274&highlight=sniper) thread. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-military-snipers-be-considered-serial-killers/788889/69 "2017-06-14T21:55:04Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > So, say that a Delta Force sniper takes out ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Is he supposed to heave a sigh, have a heavy heart, wipe a tear, and say, “I am a murderer, a serial killer, a Ted Bundy in uniform?” Not quite, according to Tao Te Ching 31: > [@](#): > > Weapons are the tools of violence; > all decent men detest them. > > Weapons are the tools of fear; > a decent man will avoid them > except in the direst necessity > and, if compelled, will use them > only with the utmost restraint. > Peace is his highest value. > If the peace has been shattered, > how can he be content? > His enemies are not demons, > but human beings like himself. > He doesn’t wish them personal harm. > Nor does he rejoice in victory. > How could he rejoice in victory > and delight in the slaughter of men? > > He enters a battle gravely, > with sorrow and with great compassion, > as if he were attending a funeral. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-military-snipers-be-considered-serial-killers/788889/70 "2017-06-15T15:41:44Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > I don’t know why everyone is so hung up on this. Just because “murder” is currently defined as unlawful killing, doesn’t mean that it always has to be. We made the definition and we can change it. Well “we” as a society seem to be pretty happy with the current definition. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-military-snipers-be-considered-serial-killers/788889/71 "2017-06-15T15:56:18Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Well “we” as a society seem to be pretty happy with the current definition. Besides, if we change the definition, we’ll need another word to take its place. What is the point of that? It may seem odd to outside observers, but our Hyoo-man society doesn’t operate so well without distinguishing between legal and illegal killing. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2017, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-military-snipers-be-considered-serial-killers/788889/72 "2017-06-23T11:53:27Z")
OP, if I’m reading you correctly, you don’t believe any premeditated killing of a human being should be lawful. Therefore, conventional war should be unlawful. I’m OK with that. If we henceforth replace military ammunition with paint-balls, war wouldn’t be so unpleasant. We’ll leave it to you to convince Kim Jong Un to start launching ICPMs (intercontinental paint-ball missiles). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-military-snipers-be-considered-serial-killers/788889.md?page=3)