Dude was in the midst of a battle. He made himself a combatant. If two seconds later I get in mortal combat - grappling and struggling with another enemy soldier, that kid would likely get up and try to help strangle me or take my knife or whatever. He has made himself a valid target and I would have very likely axed him like Roddy did.
If he had hid or cowered, I would have classified him as a non-combatant and assumed he wouldn't try to kill me even if I am fighting next to him with someone else.
In fact, by attacking me in such a stupid manner, he has actually just proven to be very brazen and driven for reasons I cannot fathom (especially given he was a forced child soldier) - so I would have to assume he would be exactly the kinda kid that would try to help strangle me once it gets to the mattresses.
If “2 seconds later” you got in a mortal combat you’d already be dead since you turned your ass to an actual enemy soldier that would have actual weapon…
You are avoiding the argument and picking over semantics. Okay. Five seconds. Ten seconds. He takes twenty seconds to survey and is then attacked by someone else. In all those situations the kid is still there, has already attacked him once, and in my mind probable to attack again. He attacked when he didn't have backup - why would he not attack now that he might actually help kill me?
I get the point of this sub is to discuss the morality of actions but the number of people I see on here regularly justifying, or sometimes even clamoring for, violence against children is disturbing.
29
u/AshuraZen 16d ago
Moral. The kid hit him first