Troy Defense Rifles?

[Tirod]

The employees they hired have nothing to do with the engineering, product research, or manufacture of the products. They were "professionals" who demonstrate the products to their professional customer base.

If you sign on as a sniper who's directed to shoot people by your superiors then the decision to shoot or not shoot based on the circumstances was resolved long before. There are plenty of others who would have followed thru just the same. What we have are two who are proven to accept and who made the decision prior to the act.

All Troy did was hire them to demonstrate their products to others who are very much the same. It has very little to do with the provenance of their products, which function reliably exactly as they describe them.

And that's the sticking point when deciding to buy or not - ANY precision shooter who uses other products in the same circumstances would make the same decision. It's the other side of the coin when pursuing that career - one that few care to discuss.

edited to add: don't forget the thousands of bombardiers who dropped incendiaries on dozens of cities in Europe, burning down entire cities and killing the men, women, and children in them. WE made that decision then, too. Armed conflict kills innocents.


PS to add - lets not forget the thousands of bombardiers who dropped incendiaries on large metro population in Europe. Whole cities were burned to the ground, men, women, and children. WE made the decision there, too.

How many have shot a underage young male or female of any age carrying a firearm, grenade, or bomb against "friendly forces?" It happens a lot more than you think. What we have is a lot of people who don't like what the shooter did and know his name - what we don't have is a lot of talk about who made the decision and directed him to do it. They made the same decision yet we don't assign the same issues to them. Why do they get a free pass on that?

Snipers sign off that they will shoot who they are told to. Part and parcel of the job. It's not always what we want. It's the tactical decision of the person in charge of that specific operation, yet we blame the sniper when the original decision was made a lot higher up. Ignoring that and who was in charge, why, according to what directives by his superior only covers up the original mistakes in judgment.

I'm not going to take it out on Troy when selecting the best product suited for my shooting needs. I am going to remember it when I select who I vote for and how they promote their subordinates.

It's not Troy who's the problem child, it's the complete lack of paying attention to who sent the team in the first place. Major fail there not following up on that. Snipers accept they are stone cold killers and that's their job. Worry more about who directs them.

Edited to add: lets not forget the thousands of bombardiers who dropped incendiaries on dozens of cities in Europe, burning down entire towns and killing the men, women, and children in them. Many were innocent victims, too. Armed conflict does that.

 

[Sam1911]

That's an invalid argument.

Law enforcement officers are not soldiers operating in a theater of war. Period. If you feel that as an American police officer or LEO agent of whatever type, you would look through a scope, identify a target and execute that target without being able to analyze the legality, tactical necessity, and morality of shooting that "target" then I do hope you aren't ever employed in that role.

If you can conflate "a underage young male or female of any age carrying a firearm, grenade, or bomb against "friendly forces?"" with a mother holding a baby and standing in the doorway of her home, I think that's an alarming disconnect.


And NO. Absent a clear and very explicit directive to execute a specific person who is a high value target -- or a direct visual confirmation of that person performing or preparing to perform a violent act against your fellow soldiers -- military snipers are neither directed to, nor do they make a practice of peering through their scopes and "stone cold killing" unarmed people. Even in the heat of battle, we charge every one of our soldiers, snipers included, with making judgment calls that follow the rules of war, the rules of engagement, and moral judgment.

 

[Hanzo581]

How long do we punish those in a bad shoot who are not criminally convicted? I am guessing by the folks here the answer would be one mistake, and you get a life sentence of persecution.

As far as them defending that they were in the right, well people usually try to justify their actions after a mistake, it's human nature.

At any rate, all I wanted to know is if the product is quality and will serve well. Anything else in my opinion is off topic.

 

[Orcon]

Sorry for hijacking your thread Hanzo.

Tirod, your proposal is rife with moral equivalence fallacies. Not to mention that "just following orders" is no grounds for dismissal of one's actions. I will concede, however, that this was a top-down bungling of great magnitude. The fact of the matter is, these guys went in with an ROE that was so lax it was essentially shoot on sight. The ROE was so lax that the SWAT team involved didn't follow it and instead deferred to the more conservative, standard FBI ROE.

It was a hit job, plain and simple, with the express intent of making an example of the Weavers and their associates.

 

[Sam1911]

How long do we punish those in a bad shoot who are not criminally convicted? I am guessing by the folks here the answer would be one mistake, and you get a life sentence of persecution.

Some things do indeed haunt one for their entire life. Some mistakes are that grave. Especially if the actor does not express remorse. A man who atones, or tries to, may be forgiven. A man who does not, and maintains the rightness of his act, needs to be viewed with that deed always in mind.

However, in this case we are not trying these people, themselves. We are judging a corporate entity (Troy Defense, Inc.) by the measure of the company THEY CHOOSE to keep and employ.

That is fair. That is legitimate. That is right.

As far as them defending that they were in the right, well people usually try to justify their actions after a mistake, it's human nature.

And if human nature was right, we wouldn't need laws, mores, codes of conduct, morals, or the ability to discern and discriminate who we trust and who we willingly support.

At any rate, all I wanted to know is if the product is quality and will serve well. Anything else in my opinion is off topic.

Guess you got a little "extra" info then. Make use of it or don't, as you wish.