PICTURE 4
In this picture we can see a group of people who seems to be from the military, we can also see, an addititional person lying in the battlefield. In addition, the infantry are taking cover behind some trenches with guns; and are defending themselves from others.
The picture reflects war and the murders that have been commited.
In this case the defence can allege that he killed the other person to protect himself, and in defence of his king and country because it’s a war. They may say, that if there wasn't a war being fought at that moment, this homicide would have never ocurred
In the case number 4 produces to itself the defense of the country and of his king. In these situations the army not have the fault of the deaths that take place.
Because only they seek to defend his territory in name of the king and only they do it because they have to fulfill orders.
Many of the members of the army are afraid of losing to their family through the fault of the war and for this motive they do not have the fault of his acts.
Because of it in my opinion the defendants cannot be blamed by the deaths of the past because they did not do it intentionally.
Picture 4
In this picture we can see a 20th century battle, in the first half of the century, presumably in a world war two battle. This is a case of war thus meaning you cannot be charged with murder, as the battle or fight is legitimate, even if in some cases war was not previously declared. The soldiers here are doing their job, defend their nation and leader, in this case the king. The defending side, is fighting to preserve the unity of their territories, or simply saving civilian lives by fighting in an area far from civilian lives. Killing is not necesarily moraly right, but that is the "force" the country is entitled to , either to punish unfulfilment of the law, or to preserve our borders.
This is the true purpose on which the army was founded, although lately it is sometimes used on peace keeping missions.
Crimes against humanity is a diferent matter, if the battle ended, and the defending country decided to use torture on enemy prisoners, or decided to take retaliation in any way against for instance the families of these prisoners, or say put them to work under inhuman circumstances these charges could actually hold against the authorities in charge of these acts. What this means is, you dont actually charge the person who maybe tortured you, but the officer, or government official who gave the order.
Picture 4
In these picture we can see the principle Killing, no murder. We can see a battle in the early 20th century probably. We can see soldiers who are killing the defenders of the place they are trying to occupy. The defense can claim that sometimes the nations go to war for a wide variety of reasons. When they do, they command the authority to compel their citizens to behave in certain ways and, in general, their citizens usually do. Soldiers confronting an adversary simply know that they are authorized to kill enemy soldiers and that enemy soldiers are authorized to kill them.
Killing soldiers is not murder (for the homicide is legal). The soldiers during the war have the right to kill the enemies, in the name of the defense and in the name of the king during the previous centuries. So a homicide during this period (war) which is not a violation of international law is not considered as murder.
In this picture we can see a group of people who seems to be from the military, we can also see, an addititional person lying in the battlefield. In addition, the infantry are taking cover behind some trenches with guns; and are defending themselves from others.
The picture reflects war and the murders that have been commited.
In this case the defence can allege that he killed the other person to protect himself, and in defence of his king and country because it’s a war. They may say, that if there wasn't a war being fought at that moment, this homicide would have never ocurred
In the case number 4 produces to itself the defense of the country and of his king. In these situations the army not have the fault of the deaths that take place.
Because only they seek to defend his territory in name of the king and only they do it because they have to fulfill orders.
Many of the members of the army are afraid of losing to their family through the fault of the war and for this motive they do not have the fault of his acts.
Because of it in my opinion the defendants cannot be blamed by the deaths of the past because they did not do it intentionally.
Picture 4
In this picture we can see a 20th century battle, in the first half of the century, presumably in a world war two battle. This is a case of war thus meaning you cannot be charged with murder, as the battle or fight is legitimate, even if in some cases war was not previously declared. The soldiers here are doing their job, defend their nation and leader, in this case the king. The defending side, is fighting to preserve the unity of their territories, or simply saving civilian lives by fighting in an area far from civilian lives. Killing is not necesarily moraly right, but that is the "force" the country is entitled to , either to punish unfulfilment of the law, or to preserve our borders.
This is the true purpose on which the army was founded, although lately it is sometimes used on peace keeping missions.
Crimes against humanity is a diferent matter, if the battle ended, and the defending country decided to use torture on enemy prisoners, or decided to take retaliation in any way against for instance the families of these prisoners, or say put them to work under inhuman circumstances these charges could actually hold against the authorities in charge of these acts. What this means is, you dont actually charge the person who maybe tortured you, but the officer, or government official who gave the order.
Picture 4
In these picture we can see the principle Killing, no murder. We can see a battle in the early 20th century probably. We can see soldiers who are killing the defenders of the place they are trying to occupy. The defense can claim that sometimes the nations go to war for a wide variety of reasons. When they do, they command the authority to compel their citizens to behave in certain ways and, in general, their citizens usually do. Soldiers confronting an adversary simply know that they are authorized to kill enemy soldiers and that enemy soldiers are authorized to kill them.
Killing soldiers is not murder (for the homicide is legal). The soldiers during the war have the right to kill the enemies, in the name of the defense and in the name of the king during the previous centuries. So a homicide during this period (war) which is not a violation of international law is not considered as murder.