posted
I was wondering if any of you had thoughts on the video that was online a little while ago that showed some U.S. Marines throwing what appeared to be a puppy from a cliff.
My question really is whether this reflects negatively on the Marines or just the individuals. We get briefs on this sort of thing all the time, about how our actions reflect upon the entirety of the Corps and people still do dumb stunts like that. Marines are all taught to uphold the highest standards of Honor, Courage and Commitment but obviously not everyone really lives by those values.
If civilians had been responsible, I think people would have viewed it with disgust and moved on. Why then does the fact that Marines were involved cause a media outrage? If a police officer had made the video would it have had the same effect on the public?
And if this further tarnishes the Marine Corps. reputation (as it does seem the Corps suffers more black eyes than praise) how would such a large organization regain it's lost respect?
Posts: 9 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why more outraged? Obviously this incident was not meant to be a representation of an entire organization.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: If civilians had been responsible, I think people would have viewed it with disgust and moved on. Why then does the fact that Marines were involved cause a media outrage? If a police officer had made the video would it have had the same effect on the public? [/QB]
I think it causes such a media outrage because The Marines, at least in my mind, are held in a high regard and should be better people than to fling a puppy off a cliff. After all isn't the Marines slogan, "The few, the proud, the Marines."? Marines are supposed to be the best of the best. At least that's how all their commercials come off to me. It's sad those who chose to do this tarnished the whole Marine name. Apparently I'm in the minority with having respect for Marines though?
I think if a police officer would've done this it wouldn't have caused such a big commotion. Most people would rank a Marine above a police officer anyway. If the President of the United States would've done it that would've been even worse. I think it's all about rank.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they would be more outraged if they were cops because many people don't like cops. Stories about cops doing bad things are always coming up. It's the fact that it's cops doing horrible things AGAIN that upsets people.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So is it the fact of repetition or the act itself? How many would it take to effect an entire organization?
Posts: 9 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cassv, I understand where you are going about the president, but because the Office of President is held by one individual disgrace requires only a singular act.
With somewhere between 175,000 and 200,000 enlisted Marines how would a populace make such a wide generalization from a singular action?
(edit to add) Of course maybe people don't make the generalization so easily, as you seem not to, but I have had the idea drummed into my head that they will and it seems to be largely irrational to me.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I did not think of it that way. The way that the President is only a one individual vs the population of the Marines like you said. My bad.
Yes that one action was bad however, it doesn't really affect (effect?) how I think of the Marines as a whole. I have a friend in the Marines who just shipped off to Iraq a couple weeks ago and I have the highest respect for him and everyone else in the Marines.
I guess i really can't answer your last question. Hopefully someone else can. Yes what this person did was bad and yes it does reflect that way but I think it only reflects badly for how long it stays in the media. Everyone makes mistakes.
Edited for grammar problems.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. There will always be someone doing something that reflects poorly on themselves and others. And maybe after the media lets it go people do forget.
I'm really just trying to figure out how other poeple view these things as my opinion is obviously biased.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to be the messenger (don't shoot) but there is also one additional element.
A soldier's job is to kill, precisely and in a limited way to protect others, but still the job is to kill. The hope is that we hire and train soldiers that, while not "wanting" to kill, do understand that sometimes killing is necessary.
The killing of an innocent, particularly a deliberately provocative one like a puppy, bring up disturbing questions like "Are we sure we're hiring people that only kill when necessary?", "Are we hiring people that enjoy killing?", and "Are our training methods producing people that kill indiscriminately?", and so forth.
There is an element of fear. Granted, this is unfair to rest of the bunch.
But I think this is one element of the uproar that would not be present in a different profession like a police officer (where less emphasis is placed on killing).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Just look at the police thread - we're generally more upset about police breaking the law (for no job-related reason) than "regular" people precisely because it is their main duty to uphold the law.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Half of the marines that I have met are unbelievably brave and honorable people. The other half are insane. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell them apart during the screening process.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I hate to be the messenger (don't shoot) but there is also one additional element.
A soldier's job is to kill, precisely and in a limited way to protect others, but still the job is to kill. The hope is that we hire and train soldiers that, while not "wanting" to kill, do understand that sometimes killing is necessary.
The killing of an innocent, particularly a deliberately provocative one like a puppy, bring up disturbing questions like "Are we sure we're hiring people that only kill when necessary?", "Are we hiring people that enjoy killing?", and "Are our training methods producing people that kill indiscriminately?", and so forth.
There is an element of fear. Granted, this is unfair to rest of the bunch.
But I think this is one element of the uproar that would not be present in a different profession like a police officer (where less emphasis is placed on killing).
I think that's a large part of it, that and what cassv said.
I know I get nervous about marines, and most of the armed forces. This comes in large part from my engagement to an airman, sadly. When I visited him on base, there were rowdy people, underage drunks, underage drunk drivers, a whole host of irresponsible young people with a lot of free time. I know there's a lot of sexual harassment that doesn't get reported or followed up on. They were trained to do pushups, trained to shoot, trained in their fields, trained to obey...
And somehow many of them weren't trained to be decent human beings. But the standard is supposed to be higher for servicemen than for civilians. Servicemen (and women) are supposed to be disciplined. They're supposed to be exemplars.
Incidents like this make those of us already concerned about the seeming lack of moral standards in the armed forces even more nervous. It doesn't come off as an isolated incident. It comes off as "the time someone got caught." It feels like just one symptom of a system that trains young men and women to be soldiers but doesn't train them to be adults.
All of this is said with genuine respect for those soldiers who are decent human beings, and is not intended as a slam on everyone. It's the system that worries me most.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Throwing a puppy off a cliff really isn't that big of a deal. It's not particularly nice, but I'd put it somewhere behind armed robbery. Soldiers do that here every once in a while.
So the Corps still beats out the Army. Rest easy, Marine.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have known some really great, wonderful, awesome people who were Marines (and in other branches of the Armed Forces.) In particular I have occasionally encountered young servicemen in uniform in public who were extremely courteous, helpful, polite, and went out of their way to assist a young mother with several children in any way they could, and have also witnessed them helping others (from a kid being bullied to an elderly woman loading her groceries with some difficulty due to arthritis.)
I have also seen groups of soldiers and Marines on leave get drunk, be rowdy, disrespect women (although no more so, and often less so, than other young men their age who were drunk.)
Having known many other young men of this age, I am inclined to think that probably the former behavior is actively encouraged by being in the service. The latter is probably discouraged by superiors but acknowledged as "something that young guys do, especially in groups."
I will note that behavior when in uniform in public tends, from what I have seen, to be at least somewhat more courteous and exceptional than when not in uniform, or not percieved to be observed.
But I'd say that like any organization the behavior of members of the armed forces will run the gamut from exceptional to unacceptable. Does behavior like this reflect poorly on the Marines as a whole? Probably not, in my view. Does it reflect poorly on the individuals involved? Absolutely. It also raises some questions; were they on base at the time, or otherwise somewhere where they maybe should have been more closely supervised? What is the command they served under like? It might reflect poorly on that particular command if it came out that there had been other problems with misbehavior, discipline, more than the usual number of infractions, etc. But that still would not be the Marines as a whole, it would be that particular command.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Throwing a puppy off a cliff really isn't that big of a deal.
Eh, I don't know if I'd go that far. Personally I don't think this reflects poorly on the Corps. My brother was (or as he says, will always be) a Marine, and I have a lot of respect for him. I've never particularly thought poorly of the Corps. I've always thought of them as a more specialized group of soldiers that get more dangerous missions, and there's certainly something commendable in volunteering for that knowing what they are getting.
But for these specific individuals, I think throwing a puppy off a cliff is kind of sick. As bad as armed robbery no? But it's still pretty wrong. I think willfully killing any animal without the intention of using it for a food source is cruel, and might be signs of something missing upstairs.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Killing a puppy not a big deal?! Armed robbery is for a reason. You steal to get money. Killing a puppy doesn't get you anything.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kind of agree. I think killing a puppy for fun is more sick and wrong than armed robbery. Armed robbery might be done out of desparation or misguided values; killing a puppy for fun is just deranged.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: When I visited him on base, there were rowdy people, underage drunks, underage drunk drivers, a whole host of irresponsible young people with a lot of free time. I know there's a lot of sexual harassment that doesn't get reported or followed up on.
This sounds a lot like the state college campuses I was on....
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I kind of agree. I think killing a puppy for fun is more sick and wrong than armed robbery. Armed robbery might be done out of desparation or misguided values; killing a puppy for fun is just deranged.
Armed robbery does harm to actual humans. A puppy may be cute, but come on, it's a dog. Let's not get totally sentimentally out of whack, shall we?
Also, you do get something out of killing a puppy: To wit, the fun of seeing any number of bleeding hearts bleed at you. Sort of like trolling.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here, my concern is much the same as it was with the Koran target practice incident. We are currently at war with an enemy who doesn't hold our way of life in high regard. This war isn't just a matter of hunting down some insurgents, but of winning the hearts and minds of a population. Any resentment that an individual soldier creates puts all of his brethren at risk. This is one of the reasons why core values are included as a part of basic training. It's not all 'kill kill kill' (although, if you want the green grass to grow...).
Posts: 433 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I have known some really great, wonderful, awesome people who were Marines (and in other branches of the Armed Forces.) In particular I have occasionally encountered young servicemen in uniform in public who were extremely courteous, helpful, polite, and went out of their way to assist a young mother with several children in any way they could, and have also witnessed them helping others (from a kid being bullied to an elderly woman loading her groceries with some difficulty due to arthritis.)
I have also seen groups of soldiers and Marines on leave get drunk, be rowdy, disrespect women (although no more so, and often less so, than other young men their age who were drunk.)
Having known many other young men of this age, I am inclined to think that probably the former behavior is actively encouraged by being in the service. The latter is probably discouraged by superiors but acknowledged as "something that young guys do, especially in groups."
I will note that behavior when in uniform in public tends, from what I have seen, to be at least somewhat more courteous and exceptional than when not in uniform, or not percieved to be observed.
When I was in undergrad, we always loved hanging out with the Marines because yes, they'd buy us drinks and play pool and have fun, but they'd also make sure we got home safely and were fine with just giving us a hug in front of the dorm.
Honestly, when I hear stories like this thing with the puppy, it makes me think that there's a crazy person doing bad things before it makes me think that there's a Marine doing bad things. That probably made no sense except in my head.
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I kind of agree. I think killing a puppy for fun is more sick and wrong than armed robbery. Armed robbery might be done out of desparation or misguided values; killing a puppy for fun is just deranged.
Armed robbery does harm to actual humans. A puppy may be cute, but come on, it's a dog. Let's not get totally sentimentally out of whack, shall we?
Also, you do get something out of killing a puppy: To wit, the fun of seeing any number of bleeding hearts bleed at you. Sort of like trolling.
Killing a puppy says a lot worse about a person than armed robbery. I would say a person who kills a puppy like that has the potential for acts far more evil and reprehensible in terms of effects on humans than someone who commits armed robbery.
The actual consequence? Of course the store clerk or whoever is worth more than the puppy, but I don't think that's being questioned here.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Isn't remorseless cruelty to animals one of the early indicators of a potential psychopath?
Yes, and although this particular incident wasn't exactly early it's still not behavior you want to see from a guy in uniform.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honestly, when I hear stories like this thing with the puppy, it makes me think that there's a crazy person doing bad things before it makes me think that there's a Marine doing bad things.
Just curious, just a thought. It sounds as though the opposite is not the case. I wonder why that is. When they are nice to you, do you think: that's a nice, normal guy? Or do you think: that's the Marines, doing good things ?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I kind of agree. I think killing a puppy for fun is more sick and wrong than armed robbery. Armed robbery might be done out of desparation or misguided values; killing a puppy for fun is just deranged.
Armed robbery does harm to actual humans. A puppy may be cute, but come on, it's a dog. Let's not get totally sentimentally out of whack, shall we?
Also, you do get something out of killing a puppy: To wit, the fun of seeing any number of bleeding hearts bleed at you. Sort of like trolling.
Er, to put it another way... Pretty much everyone has a need for that which motivates the armed robbery. What one gets out of throwing a puppy over a cliff (or trolling, for that matter, to a lesser degree) is not the chord we want to see played.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
