Just had this thought, because I myself didn't flinch at 3 unsavoury dudes being shot to save an American captain/husband/dad. But surely there must be a limit - can we snipe away 10 of them? A hundred? Thousands?
Does a $10 million demand and a threat of a murder automatically render a civilian open to undisputed execution by the army?
You kill as many of the criminal kidnappers as is necessary to protect the innocent victim.
share[deleted]
The more, the merrier
shareAs long as the victims are brown, poor and unable to defend themselves properly, the US has no qualms murdering as many as possibly.
share
As long as the victims are brown, poor and unable to defend themselves properly, the US has no qualms murdering as many as possibly.
All of them. There are no criminals worth an innocents life.
shareZero. These people may have been criminals, but they ought to have been arrested by competent authorities and given a fair trial. Instead they were murdered by US soldiers.
shareZero. These people may have been criminals, but they ought to have been arrested by competent authorities and given a fair trial. Instead they were murdered by US soldiers.
Does a $10 million demand and a threat of a murder automatically render a civilian open to undisputed execution by the army?
Film seem to have suffered from wanting to show a successful US navy mission.
Putting all plot holes aside and trying to answer the question, the obvious resolution was to let them land and just pay the ransom, no one dies.
It is explained in the move the reason the 30k wasnt enough to satisfy them was the greedy gang leader, he even threatened the lead pirate with his life if he gave up on the hostage. But its not really explained why the US navy had an obsession with not letting them hit land, on top of sending numerous warships, seal team etc.