When I was a kid I had a lot of freedom with guns. That started at about age 8. A LOT of freedom, and I shot up everything in sight that moved. Nothing was safe, including larger beetles if that's all there was.

I was taught that I was responsible for everything I shot. I had to know exactly what I was shooting at, exactly what was behind it, exactly what was near it. And the nature of everything. And if I hit something at which I wasn't aiming and did damage, I was as responsible for that damage as if I had set out to shoot it.

I do not think that's unreasonable. And, even though I was pretty irresponsible in some, I never did shoot anything I didn't know I could hit. (I didn't say I hit everything at which I shot!)

When I was in the military I was directed to a free-fire zone to check out people with a new grenade launcher. There was a guy out there with a water buffalo tending a rice paddy. He was working hard, may have been Viet Cong but gave no indication of anything. I called back that this area was occupied, I needed to move.

The order was to use this area, the map says it was free-fire.

Would I have been justified in killing him, and his buffalo? If that's what had happened, would his family, now deprived of husband and father, a living and wealth, been justified in calling that immoral? What would you have done?

Nope, the military needs to know that at which it was shooting. And Who you kill is as important as That you kill.

Arf