the emotion of the killer

[kenposcum]

I read Lt. Grossman's "On Killing" and he said the same thing about most battlefield bayonet wounds being inflicted in the back. Seems that when the face is obscured, it becomes easier to dehumanize and kill one's adversary (or victim, I guess). But you've got to figure, if the guy's coming at you with a knife anyway, attacking, not posturing, he's probably already made up his mind about carving you up. :asian:

 

[kenposcum]

This was meant to go after Sammy's post on unarmed defense vs. a knife. Sorry for the mix-up.

 

[tmanifold]

De-humanizing of the victim is a interal part of killing. In war soldiers often try and distance themselves from the fact that the enemy consists of people two. In WW1 it was "The HUN". In WW2 it was the Nazis (which was pretty easy to hate) or the JAPS. Through Korea, and Vietnam, the enemy wasn't Nyung Hyun father of 3, he was a SLANT, a GOOK, or he was a COMMIE, VC, or Charlie. These were not rasict remarks they were away of keeping sane during war. By dehumanizing the victim coldblooding killing(which was neccesary) became possible.

Now to relate it to the knife attack. Chances are that the attacker has dehumanized the victim already. He often will think of them as Meat, prey. He thinks of himself as a predator. However, most predators want the quick kill. They don't want to fight. If he is really a predator he will not taunt or posture. if he is he either, is unwilling to go though with it or he is trying to dehumanize. This is when Verbal and non-verbal communication and de-escalation will work best. however, a predator has to be dealt with physically first. (eg. running away, attacking, etc.)

Tony

 

[Chiduce]

Originally posted by tmanifold

De-humanizing of the victim is a interal part of killing. In war soldiers often try and distance themselves from the fact that the enemy consists of people two. In WW1 it was "The HUN". In WW2 it was the Nazis (which was pretty easy to hate) or the JAPS. Through Korea, and Vietnam, the enemy wasn't Nyung Hyun father of 3, he was a SLANT, a GOOK, or he was a COMMIE, VC, or Charlie. These were not rasict remarks they were away of keeping sane during war. By dehumanizing the victim coldblooding killing(which was neccesary) became possible.

Now to relate it to the knife attack. Chances are that the attacker has dehumanized the victim already. He often will think of them as Meat, prey. He thinks of himself as a predator. However, most predators want the quick kill. They don't want to fight. If he is really a predator he will not taunt or posture. if he is he either, is unwilling to go though with it or he is trying to dehumanize. This is when Verbal and non-verbal communication and de-escalation will work best. however, a predator has to be dealt with physically first. (eg. running away, attacking, etc.)

Tony

I agree with you here concerning the non-combat and soldier straight out of boot camp going to the front lines of the battlefield. Yet, this analogy is very much to the contrary with the combat soldier whom has been training for some time in his art. We must remember that for the combat soldier, killing is just a job and that job consists of not only killing, but gathering valuable information and rescuing those whom are oppressed. The combat soldier has honor and respect for his/her nation and kills in the best interest, (he/she believes) of their respective nations. So, justice is the main concern of the combat soldier. Sometimes, this is not the case and the soldier then must follow orders. This is the job at it's worst, but it is still the job. This is what being a part of a combat team is all about as well as the lone soldier carrying out his/her assigned mission when the team is no longer there. The combat soldier's mentality is that of any average person. The theater is the same as an entertainer on and off stage! Off stage, he/she is the average guy next door. Onstage, it is showtime and a command performance is demanded. As the theater changes, the role of the combat soldier changes. The master of concealment and role playing is the true art of the soldier of combat. His/her life depends on it!
Sincerely, In Humility;
Chiduce!

 

[sammy3170]

With regards to the dehumanisation I was referring more so to the robbery type situation. If a guy is trying to rob you and is getting a little aggitated then his original intention wasn't to kill you. Turning your back now is where this may become a bit easier and instictual for him. I am sure that the yorkshire ripper didn't have such problems.

Cheers
Sammy

 

[tmanifold]

Originally posted by Chiduce

I agree with you here concerning the non-combat and soldier straight out of boot camp going to the front lines of the battlefield. Yet, this analogy is very much to the contrary with the combat soldier whom has been training for some time in his art. We must remember that for the combat soldier, killing is just a job and that job consists of not only killing, but gathering valuable information and rescuing those whom are oppressed. The combat soldier has honor and respect for his/her nation and kills in the best interest, (he/she believes) of their respective nations. So, justice is the main concern of the combat soldier. Sometimes, this is not the case and the soldier then must follow orders. This is the job at it's worst, but it is still the job. This is what being a part of a combat team is all about as well as the lone soldier carrying out his/her assigned mission when the team is no longer there. The combat soldier's mentality is that of any average person. The theater is the same as an entertainer on and off stage! Off stage, he/she is the average guy next door. Onstage, it is showtime and a command performance is demanded. As the theater changes, the role of the combat soldier changes. The master of concealment and role playing is the true art of the soldier of combat. His/her life depends on it!
Sincerely, In Humility;
Chiduce!

I have to both disagree and agree with you. I agree with you that soldiers are just people but because they are just regualar people from the same society as everyone else they have a cultural revultion to killing. By dehumanizing the enemy Pvt. Bloggins can kill and do his job with out going insane. Think of how many soldiers who have gone to war in say the past century who were devout christians. They were raised on a steady diet of thou shalt not kill. Yet they have to kill to do their job. The Infantry is the most personal of trades; you stare down the barrel of a rifle and put bullets in to another man's body. So we dehumanize to keep our sanity and to stop from hating ourselves.

In the robbery scenario it is the same thing. These attackers are human just like you and I; they need to feel good about themselves too. Often they will tell themselves they killed because the other guy was about to do something or they dehumanize by turning them around,etc.

Tony

 

[Chiduce]

Originally posted by tmanifold



I have to both disagree and agree with you. I agree with you that soldiers are just people but because they are just regualar people from the same society as everyone else they have a cultural revultion to killing. By dehumanizing the enemy Pvt. Bloggins can kill and do his job with out going insane. Think of how many soldiers who have gone to war in say the past century who were devout christians. They were raised on a steady diet of thou shalt not kill. Yet they have to kill to do their job. The Infantry is the most personal of trades; you stare down the barrel of a rifle and put bullets in to another man's body. So we dehumanize to keep our sanity and to stop from hating ourselves.

In the robbery scenario it is the same thing. These attackers are human just like you and I; they need to feel good about themselves too. Often they will tell themselves they killed because the other guy was about to do something or they dehumanize by turning them around,etc.

Tony

I see your point here; yet private Bloggins like most infantry sodliers (unless they are special forces recon, forward observers, cav, airborne infantry, delta, or green berets) never see the enemy up close and personal. Heck they never see whom they have killed. They fire from a perimeter. Only in advancing patrols do they even get close to the enemy enough to see their uniforms. If the assignment comes for them to take a enemy position or get to a point first before the enemy does, there is then only a chance that they will see them face to face or at arms length. Typically, a recon unit has gotten there first and secured the position so they can take over and hold that position. I served this country for a hot minute in several combat units and the name of the game is cover, concealment, and suppression through teamwork!
Sincerely, In Humilty;
Chiduce!

 

[Chiduce]

Originally posted by tmanifold



I have to both disagree and agree with you. I agree with you that soldiers are just people but because they are just regualar people from the same society as everyone else they have a cultural revultion to killing. By dehumanizing the enemy Pvt. Bloggins can kill and do his job with out going insane. Think of how many soldiers who have gone to war in say the past century who were devout christians. They were raised on a steady diet of thou shalt not kill. Yet they have to kill to do their job. The Infantry is the most personal of trades; you stare down the barrel of a rifle and put bullets in to another man's body. So we dehumanize to keep our sanity and to stop from hating ourselves.

In the robbery scenario it is the same thing. These attackers are human just like you and I; they need to feel good about themselves too. Often they will tell themselves they killed because the other guy was about to do something or they dehumanize by turning them around,etc.

Tony

 

[tmanifold]

Originally posted by Chiduce

I see your point here; yet private Bloggins like most infantry sodliers (unless they are special forces recon, forward observers, cav, airborne infantry, delta, or green berets) never see the enemy up close and personal. Heck they never see whom they have killed. They fire from a perimeter. Only in advancing patrols do they even get close to the enemy enough to see their uniforms. If the assignment comes for them to take a enemy position or get to a point first before the enemy does, there is then only a chance that they will see them face to face or at arms length. Typically, a recon unit has gotten there first and secured the position so they can take over and hold that position. I served this country for a hot minute in several combat units and the name of the game is cover, concealment, and suppression through teamwork!
Sincerely, In Humilty;
Chiduce!

Effective range of M-16 300 yards. I can see people from there also in many armed forced (e.g. the Canadians) the rifles are equipt with scopes therefore making the enemy seem that much closer. Also remember that Most armies do not have the strict roles that the US does(to my knowledge). Most soldiers are just that, soldiers. And Pvt. Bloggins could easily be picked for a patrol or advance on an enemy posistion.

Tony

 

[kenposcum]

The real meaning of the commonly misinterpreted commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill," is, "Thou Shalt Not Murder."
Killing is a neutral act; if so and so is trying to kill me, or if we're on opposite sides during war, then I'm killing him, not MURDERING him. Murder is different...it's killing without real justification.
The explanation of this dichotomy was used to help returning soldiers cope with the unimagineable(to me, anyway) stress and psychological trauma of having killed another human being.
Lt. Grossman also states in his book that there is an estimated 2-4% of the population who has no compunctions whatsoever about killing. For these individuals, dehumanization of the victim is not important...he cites a letter from an Australian soldier in WWI writing to his father, describing bayoneting enemies as "great sport...you stick the blade in and their eyes stick out like prawns."
I don't know how much of this is actually on-topic, but I wanted to stick in another two pennies.:asian:

 

[tmanifold]

Originally posted by kenposcum

The real meaning of the commonly misinterpreted commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill," is, "Thou Shalt Not Murder."
Killing is a neutral act; if so and so is trying to kill me, or if we're on opposite sides during war, then I'm killing him, not MURDERING him. Murder is different...it's killing without real justification.

I totally agree on this point. However, as you said most people take it as "I should not kill, for what ever reason". Dehumanizing is just a mental survival mechinism for most people.

Tony

 

[Chiduce]

Originally posted by tmanifold



Effective range of M-16 300 yards. I can see people from there also in many armed forced (e.g. the Canadians) the rifles are equipt with scopes therefore making the enemy seem that much closer. Also remember that Most armies do not have the strict roles that the US does(to my knowledge). Most soldiers are just that, soldiers. And Pvt. Bloggins could easily be picked for a patrol or advance on an enemy posistion.

Tony

The maximum effective range of the M-16A1 Rife is 460 Meters or well over 500 yards!
Sincerely, In Humility;
Chiduce!

 

[tmanifold]

Originally posted by Chiduce

The maximum effective range of the M-16A1 Rife is 460 Meters or well over 500 yards!
Sincerely, In Humility;
Chiduce!

300 meters sighted fire out to 600 for covering type fire.(CDN Pam)

Basically the m-16 and its Variants (We used a version made by Demarco(sp?) which we designate the c-7) are just about moa capable but more commonly under 5inchs is good. so at 300 meters one is firing over 15 inch groups possible the largest a group could get and stay effective 400m would give 20 which is unacceptable for sighted fire. So I think that the weapon itself could be accurate to say 600m but I think 300m is a good, realistic maximum.

Anyhow, I think we are a little of topic.

Tony

Ps. My math may be wrong here in terms of groups but I think it is right.

 

[Shadow Hunter]

Dehumanizing has been around since the earliest times. But after WWII there were studies that found only a very small minority of soldiers actually fired their weapons.

So by the time the Vietnam conflist came around the changed the targets to ones that started looking a lot more human, faces and all. They also issued a weapon that was most usefull at close range. In many ways, they got the soldiers used to not just firing a weapon, but used to the idea of firing a weapon at a human.

Result, the amount of soldiers willing to shoot at and kill the enemy went way up.

There are ways of turning typical people into efficient killers. But it is not cost effective, nor are most goverments willing to turn large numbers of their general troops into cold blooded killers.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Bayonetting a guy in the back doesn't necessarily reflect an unwillingness to look him in the eye...or an attempt to dehumanize the victim.

ITS SAFER.

The guy can't bayonet/shoot you when you're behind him.

If he's engaged against a fellow soldier, it is safer to bayonet him than to shoot him...as the bullet will go through him and into your bud. During altercations where a bayonet is used it was likely to be a melee with large numbers of troops overunning a position. People bayoneted those fleeing, or as mentioned, those they could approach without risk. One doesn't square off with a guy face to face when one can just stick a guy from behind.

----------------------------------

The maximum effective range of the M-16 is 460 meters. 300 meters is considered the standard maximum range of engagement in most battlefield scenarios. The weapon is considered effective at the former range, but it is anticipated it will be used at the lesser range.

---------------------------------------

I'm not comfortable with Grossman's book. He references "All Quiet On the Western Front" in one chapter...if I recall he was using it to illustrate a point concerning the emotional trauma of the battlefield. This is a work of fiction, folks. The way he references it, one would think it was a factual account...and some readers might not have read AQOTWF and not know it was a novel.

He uses anecdotal accounts and personal reflections of veterans for support of his premises. I didn't see a lot of hard data in his work...but saw a lot of speculation.



Regards,

Steve Scott