Taking things in such a simplistic fashion doesn't work, though Xenophonz. If we take another crime - gun crime for example. Shooting another person is wrong, correct? Especially if done without provocation, or where there was no threat to the shooter by the victim. And yet this becomes muddy when commited by soldiers in times of war, when innocents are, both accidentally and deliberately, shot and killed by members of the armed forces. Should soldiers who do such things be brought up on criminal charges? Or are they exempt from this because of the fact they are in a high-stress environment, having to make split-second decisions in order to save their own lives and those of their squad-mates? Because you could argue that for a gange member on the streets, life is a high-stress situation, and they have to sometimes make split-second decisions in order to save their own lives and those of their compadres as well. I'm not condoning either action, only saying that you cannot lay down a blanket rule and enforce it equally in all areas. Hell, the legal system is full of loopholes, amendments, get-out clauses, exceptions and os on. If we had a legal system that was so cut-and-dried, we wouldn't need a legalprofession. We could simply ascertain whether or not a given person commited a given act that contravened a simple set of rules, and they would be punished accordingly. But life isn't like that.

JonTheCelt