The only real link between the questions I’m about to ask is that I’m the one asking them, but I didn’t want to open two threads in one forum today. Well, that and they both relate to short stories I was working on today, what with being the holiday. I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned stories before, but I’m too brave the search engine.
Anyway…
I’ll start with the military procedure query. In the story in question, three army personnel – a battle-seasoned sergeant, a green recruit, and a newly-commissioned lieutenant–are tasked to escort a group of civilians from a war zone. During the evac, they are attacked by an enemy squad. They win the skirmish but no thanks to the lieuteant, who demonstrates his unsuitability for a military career by hiding behind one of the civilians during the fight. Afterwards the sergeant takes the lieutenant’s weapons and gives them to someone useful.
Assuming both the sergeant and the lieutenant survive the overall engagement, and the lieutenant tries to make trouble for the sergeant, does the sergeant have a legal leg to stand on?
The equine anatomy question is simpler. How well can a rider see a horse’s eyes while in the saddle? I’ve ridden a horse all of one time before (while doing research for the first iteration of this story), and I didn’t think to make a note about that.
Eyes, plural? Never. You need to be standing in front of a horse to see both eyes.
An eye? That depends. If the horse is facing straight ahead you essentially can’t see them. However you turn a horse by pulling on the reins. For a well behaved horse this is done with minimal pressure, it’s just an indicator, not phsyical handling. In those cases the horse will turn its head slightly as it changes direction, and while that will allow you to glimpse the eye you’re still not going to be looking it in the eye. For a misbehaving horses or in an emergency you really need to pull the reins, which can pull the head around sharply. At that point you can see the eye quite clearly.
So a rider could quite concievably see a horse’s eye under some circumstances. But on a quite ride on good roads? Not really.
Don’t know what you’re planning here, but anyone with any knowledge of horses can tell more from their ears and general behaviour than from their eyes. IOW the only reason a character would need to look at a horse’s eye is to specifically see the eye for some reason. If you need them to notice what the horse is looking at or understand the horse’s mood, those are all things that any halfway competent rider can do from the saddle.
The character’s riding a horse (well, a unicorn) but not directing it. I made a reference which only made sense if she could see the equine’s eyes, andthen thought, “Wait–that doesn’t make a lick of sense.” I wanted to double-check, though, since a horse’s eyes are set further to the side than a human’s.
Cool, a battle hardened green beret sargent with a machine gun on a unicorn. Oh, wait. These are two separate strories, right.
If it’s important you can still use it. Horses also turn their heads for any number of reasons including scratthing themslevs or dilodging flies. Not common bhevaiour for a ridden horse, but since this one has no bridle… So your rider coudl see the eye if its necessary.
They are, but as BaneSidhe notes, when you look at them from behind you are looking at the edges. In fact you can see right through them.
IMHO, but IANAL, the sergeant does have a legal leg to stand on. I interpret the actions of the Lieutenant as renouncing his willingness to participate in combat–he relinquishes his combatant status, and by the Sergeant taking (or the LT handing over) his weapon, he’s put himself under a protected status. Call the LT what you will, a “prisoner” or a “non-combatant,” either way, he’s out of the game and the Sergeant can deal with him as he sees necessary to protect himself and the party.
Oh, and then there’s the whole thing about hiding behind a civilian–a non-combatant. Your hypothetical Lieutenant is a war criminal.
Everyone will want to nitpick this one, I guarantee. But I personally think there’s not a commander in the field that will think twice about throwing the LT into a court martial, and giving the sergeant some “atta-boys” for keeping his cool head.
As for the horse, I don’t know. A horse is a horse of course, of course, unless of course the horse is blind in his left eye.
Tripler
Now, if the Sergeant were riding that horse. . .
I don’t know what he (the Sgt) would be court-martialed for. The Sergeant led when the unit’s original leadership ceased to exist. He stepped up and took charge: 'zactly what a good NCO would do. IMHO, the LT is guilty of Art 99, Misbehavior in Front of the Enemy and at the least, Art. 133 Conduct Unbecoming. . .
Well, it IS the same fantasy universe, so I could if I wanted to. But I won’t, because I don’t want to.
The sergeant does stop the civilains from killing the lieutenant, though, which they are inclined to do, given that two of them get killed in the skirmish. But he only does that because they don’t have any ammo to spare.
WRT the first question: I interpret “Afterwards the sergeant takes the lieutenant’s weapons and gives them to someone useful.” to mean giving the LT’s weapons to one of the civilians… I would expect that to require at least a nominal punishment. But then I am just a soldier, not a lawyer (or a judge advocate) so I am not at all sure about that.
I’ll only answer if you really want to know, as it requires about 120 words of explanation and, though I have no particular desire to go home right now, I’m terribly lazy.
No, it’s important for the story that the unicorn be, in terms of its physical nature, a really big horse that happens to talk and have a horn. And, before anyone bitches, I’m perfectly aware that earlier representations of unicorns are not described as uniformly equine.
Well, it is your story after all, I was just curious. But if ya need help with that landmine part, just gimme a holler. I did just graduate that school an’ all. . .
It’s a fantasy story. The lieutenant can fly. He’s the only person in the evac group who can, and after his disgrace, it becomes clear that the only way out of the combat area is by air. The widow of one of the civilians who dies, partly due to his cowardice, then swallows her pride and begs him to carry her infant child away. He deserts the group without doing so, which is when the sergeant has to restrain soemone from shooting him in the back. As the group continues to try to get away, the baby is killed, but its mother dies. After the battle is won (by the defenders), the mother sees the dastardly lieutenant, who has escaped injury entirely, and naturally goes batshit. Being a were-tiger, she naturally decides to rip his wings off, as there’s no point in being able to turn into a tiger if you don’t do things like that from time to time.
Surely if it’s a fantasy story you can have military law work any way you see fit? The Sarge could or could not face charges, depending on what works best in your story.
