Related to Ace's Question: Would you take a bullet for your head of state?

[allan2]

Would you? Or, COULD you, to satisfy a main requirement for working as a bodyguard/security person for your President, Prime Minister, King or Queen, or whatever, agree to do that if you must?

I say no (as I did in Curt's related thread, although I said "yes" to simply rescuing). I could see myself taking a bullet to save a family member, particularly a younger one, but even my father or mother, in spite of the fact they'd probably wish the other way around. Hopefully I would survive the shot, of course.

Anyway, would you do it for your head of state, or place yourself in a position where that was your duty? And on the side, who COULD you do it for, if anyone?

 

[Smaasnekje]

why should I? I dont even know if i want the Prime minister to be the Prime minister!

 

[philippe]

Im sorry but i wouldnt catch the bullet.
Not gonna leave my mom alone just to catch a bullet for a guy who didnt think about his own security

 

[Cecasander]

I'm not catching bullets for anyone, or perhaps I will in the 'heat of fire'. But now I'm not willing to catch bullets for both our prime minister Balkenende (since I think he's a morron) and our Queen Beatrix (since our crown-prince is better imho)

 

[FredLC]

Hell, no.

And I would never have a job in which the whole idea is that my life (or anyone's life for that matter) is less worth than the life of someone else.

Regards .

 

[CurtSibling]

Your avater works well, Fred!

Depends if I would get instant medical attention.

And the calibre of the bullet!
Depends if the foe fired a:

Potato gun I would selflessly leap in the line of fire!
7mm hand gun: well maybe...
9mm Uzi: I would have to be careful!
20mm Rhinemettal Borsig cannon: I would be slightly apprehensive.
30mm MK108 cannon: I would have to think twice.
Vulcan PIVADS rotary 20mm AA gun: I may have to refuse to help.
88mm FLAK AA gun: The Prime Minister would be on his own there, I'm afraid.

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by FredLC
Hell, no.

And I would never have a job in which the whole idea is that my life (or anyone's life for that matter) is less worth than the life of msomeone else.

Regards .

I voted no in my own poll too, so I agree there. However, I don't think that people in the Secret Service, or whatever the executive's bodyguard force is called in a given country, see it necessarily as "my life is worth less". Do firefighters see it as such, when they walk into a burning building to save a stranger? Does a soldier see it as such, in battle? No, I think that they commit themselves to the POSSIBILITY, yet work hard to be vigilant enough to prevent having to make that choice (i.e. by keeping would-be assassins out of the area as best they can, etc.). Indeed, I have admiration for someone so committed to their profession as a Secret Serviceman--SOMEBODY has to do it. And statistically, the occupational risks, fortunately, are VERY low.

But it's just something *I* couldn't do. And so far the "no"s seem to have it....

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Your avater works well, Fred!

Depends if I would get instant medical attention.

And the calibre of the bullet!
Depends if the foe fired a:

Potato gun I would selflessly leap in the line of fire!
7mm hand gun: well maybe...
9mm Uzi: I would have to be careful!
20mm Rhinemettal Borsig cannon: I would be slightly apprehensive.
30mm MK108 cannon: I would have to think twice.
Vulcan PIVADS rotary 20mm AA gun: I may have to refuse to help.
88mm FLAK AA gun: The Prime Minister would be on his own there, I'm afraid.

Yeah, those last few would hurt pretty bad....

 

[CurtSibling]

I would say that if saving the PM meant grappling a non-gun-weilding madman, I might have a go...
I fought I could take him on!

 

[Cecasander]

Why would anyone try to kill Tony Blair using 88mm Flak? When we have some very nice MRLS instalations nowadays?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Tony Blair is the head of government.
The Head of State is the same as for me - Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. And yes, I would do so, without a shadow of a doubt.

 

[G-Man]

I would, but not because of WHO the head of state is but for WHAT he is.

 

[meldor]

I seem to be the only one who answered yes. Of course, I am probably the only respondant who has served in the military as well.

I would do it not for the individual, although I would most likely "take a bullet" to prevent anyones death, but for the institution. For the office, not the person, if you can understand the difference.

As I said, I would probably do it for anyone. If there was a possiblility of someone being killed, and a possibility of my preventing it, I would feel compeled to act. That complusion would be increased for certain things, children, elderly, females.

That also applies to doing something which might seem illogical to some of you. I would go into a country, even if some innoncents would be killed, to spare a greater number from worse fates.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

nah, I wouldn't. This is different from risking one's life, this would be 'he is worht more than i am'...

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Your avater works well, Fred!

Yeah. Funny, isn't it?

Originally posted by allan2


I voted no in my own poll too, so I agree there. However, I don't think that people in the Secret Service, or whatever the executive's bodyguard force is called in a given country, see it necessarily as "my life is worth less". Do firefighters see it as such, when they walk into a burning building to save a stranger? Does a soldier see it as such, in battle? No, I think that they commit themselves to the POSSIBILITY, yet work hard to be vigilant enough to prevent having to make that choice (i.e. by keeping would-be assassins out of the area as best they can, etc.). Indeed, I have admiration for someone so committed to their profession as a Secret Serviceman--SOMEBODY has to do it. And statistically, the occupational risks, fortunately, are VERY low.

But it's just something *I* couldn't do. And so far the "no"s seem to have it....

I think it's a slightly different situation. One think is to enter a fire to try save someone, at the risk of ending up traped yourself. Another, very different, is saying "burn me instead of him".

So, if what is in your mind is jumpoing AT the president to take him from the line of fire, risking to get shot yourself, but not offering me as sacrifice to the lead god, I might even do it in the event of it being my job. However, if it is as the question originally proposed, meaning, me, knowing that I cannot reach the president in time, jump in the line of fire and offer my life as a sacrifice to save his, than it's a WHOLE other deal.

Regards.

 

[Ohkrana]

I wouldn't take a bullet for my head of state.

I wouldn't even die for my country.

I like living too much.

 

[pi8ch]

I'm absolutely sure that i wouldn't die for an incest-harmed 50-year-old boy without any diplomatic abbilities, without an intelligent face, who wasn't voted to be head of state anyway...

So I can't understand an American who is willing to do so...

I also wouldn't die for the English Prime Minister who is a jerk if you ask me...

But I wouldn't even die for my own chancellor, and I like him and I voted for him!

I think, if I'm dead, what is then the advantage of the fact that my head of state still lives? Donesn't makes any sense t me...

The head of state changes periodicaly anyway, I'm just mysef... Ther are many head-of-states, but only me...

 

[Hitro]

Taking a bullet for Johannes? Don't think so. In fact certainly not.

I won't die for the survival of a complete stranger that is even much older than me and furthermore influences the lives of all people I like in ways I don't like. Why should I?

 

[nixon]

First of all, I wouldn't know what the hell I would be doing in such a place where the Pres gets hit.

Second, I wouldn't take a hit for nobody, except those I love. A loved one? Anytime. Otherwise, never.

 

[Pillager]

For the Prime Minister, no. For Her Majesty the Queen, yes.