Which is worse: deliberately USING a human shield, or deliberately KILLING a human shield?

[Anonymous]

Both are bad, obviously, but is one worse than the other?

Deliberately using an innocent person as a human shield is worse.

Deliberately killing an innocent person being used as a human shield is worse.

Both are equally bad.

[strateguy632]

that question is impossible. that is like is "a circular square a square or a circle?" no such possibility.
against russia they would not HOLD a human *sheild because it would not stop russian soldiers! so human sheild does NOT exist in a place where the shooter would shoot "intentionally".
the only place to hold a human sheild is for israel who do not aim at civilians and who use precision bombs to minimize civilian casualties while war is needed.
so the second option can't exist anywhere.
which is worse a human or something nonexistent? the only option is the first one.

[Asker]

So i used the wrong word, my bad. Which is worse: deliberately using a human shield or deliberately killing an unarmed civilian?

[jshm2]

There is no such thing as a "human shield" it's why humans invented - the shield.

People using the term "human shield" do so only to justify their unlawful killing of a person.

[CriticalCatDad]

Using someone as a human shield is intentions. Killing someone being used as a human shield is often an accident.

[Asker]

Do you know what the word "deliberately" means?

[CriticalCatDad]

That's why I said intentionally

[Asker]

You said one is intentional. Im asking which is worse if they are BOTH intentional.

[CriticalCatDad]

How is killing a human shield intentional?

[Asker]

The same way killing anyone is intentional: if you know you're going to kill them, and you kill them.

[CriticalCatDad]

So if a criminal uses a hostage when at gunpoint by an officer the officer shouldn't find an opening to miss the hostage and hit the criminal? You don't think that's possible?

[Asker]

That would only risk killing them on accident, which, like I already said, is not what I'm asking about. In that scenario what I'm asking about would be the officer aiming AT the hostage and shooting the hostage intentionally TO KILL them, and then shooting the criminal afterwards since they no longer have a hostage.

[CriticalCatDad]

Pretty sure that's not the intended goal for anyone... But you seem intent on both options being the wrong answer so I'm not going to play your game

[Asker]

I literally said at the beginning that both options are wrong and bad. That's why I'm asking which is WORSE, or are they both equally BAD. I never suggested either option was good.

[BarryLiverstone]

Who uses a human shield?

[Asker]

Bad people.

[BarryLiverstone]

Who are the bad people

[Asker]

People who do bad things. What are you confused about? I asked which action is worse.

[BarryLiverstone]

Because it seems like this is related to Israel and Palestine. But both sides use human shields.

[Asker]

It's the same action no matter who does it, isn't it? Does who does something make it better or worse?

[BarryLiverstone]

It might

[Asker]

Okay, how might it?

[BarryLiverstone]

If the person was part of a moral group and for the benefit of society

[Asker]

So a bad thing is less bad if a moral group does it?

[BarryLiverstone]

It may. Is that confusing?

[Asker]

Yes. I was under the impression that what's wrong is wrong, no matter who does it. Someone can have better or worse intentions for doing the same bad thing, I know that. I didn't think that someone's intentions for why they hurt someone made the person any less hurt though.