8 reactions
#warcrimes #earn activity
By:
Sponsored by:
Scene 1:
No, it was not a war crime because the soldier helped starving children by giving them food.
Scene 2:
Yes, taking the car was justified because Beez was injured and needed to reach the hospital quickly.
3.Explanation:
It means if the military finds no violation of the law, then the act is not considered a crime.
By:
Sponsored by:
Scene 1:
No, it was not a war crime because the soldier helped starving children by giving them food.
Scene 2:
Yes, taking the car was justified because Beez was injured and needed to reach the hospital quickly.
3.Explanation:
It means if the military finds no violation of the law, then the act is not considered a crime.
3
1
5 reactions
#warcrimes #earn
Here is my response on given questions in the activity.
Did Buzz commit a war crime?
In my opinion, Possibly YES
In war law, pillage (looting) of civilian property is prohibited. So here
✔️Buzz broke into a grocery store.
✔️He took food and gold jewelry that belonged to civilians.
✔️Taking jewelry especially shows it was not purely for survival or military necessity.
Soldiers cannot steal civilian property and the act itself could still legally be classified as looting.
Was taking the car justified?
Possibly YES because,
Factors that could justify Beez's action are ,
✔️He was wounded.
✔️His ammunition and food were gone.
✔️He needed urgent medical care.
✔️The vehicle was used only to reach a hospital.
Emergency use → possibly lawful
Keeping or transferring the car → likely unlawful
When there is no crime punishing the military then no crime is committed.
A person cannot be punished for an act unless a law already defined it as a crime when it happened.
The military cannot be punished arbitrarily for acts not defined as offenses.
However, this doesn't mean soldiers are above the law.
Here is my response on given questions in the activity.
Did Buzz commit a war crime?
In my opinion, Possibly YES
In war law, pillage (looting) of civilian property is prohibited. So here
✔️Buzz broke into a grocery store.
✔️He took food and gold jewelry that belonged to civilians.
✔️Taking jewelry especially shows it was not purely for survival or military necessity.
Soldiers cannot steal civilian property and the act itself could still legally be classified as looting.
Was taking the car justified?
Possibly YES because,
Factors that could justify Beez's action are ,
✔️He was wounded.
✔️His ammunition and food were gone.
✔️He needed urgent medical care.
✔️The vehicle was used only to reach a hospital.
Emergency use → possibly lawful
Keeping or transferring the car → likely unlawful
When there is no crime punishing the military then no crime is committed.
A person cannot be punished for an act unless a law already defined it as a crime when it happened.
The military cannot be punished arbitrarily for acts not defined as offenses.
However, this doesn't mean soldiers are above the law.
4
0 reactions
#warcrimes #earn
1. Scene 1:
Yes, it is a war crime. Buzz broke into a store and took items without permission, which is considered theft or looting , even if his intention was to help starving children.
2. Scene 2:
It may be understandable because Beez was wounded and needed medical help, but taking the car without permission is still not fully lawful. It can only be considered an act of necessity .
3. Explanation:
The phrase means that if there is no law that punishes a certain military action , then it cannot legally be considered a crime. ⚖️
“Geeeezz I’m part of the
only here at Tangled