Conservatives see the world in black and white, and it isn't.Well, ignorant ol' me decided to finally finish a movie I had never even heard of before, Tears of the Sun, with Bruce Willis. What I find ironic is that the movie asks the exact same questions I had asked during Scott Roeder's murder trial of abortionist, George Tiller.
You may read a summary of the movie here. The main character, A.K. Waters, played by Bruce Willis must decide whether or not he is going to engage the bad guys, kill rebel soldiers, place his military crew in harm's way, and ultimately saving the lives of the innocent.
Throughout the movie, it is clear that A.K. Waters (Bruce Willis) hears from both sides from the "black and white" perspective. His commander tells him he is wrong and is to only accomplish the mission he was sent in for. His doctor friend tells him he was right for having defended the refugees and killing the bad guys. The only person that seems to understand that this is not "black and white" is Waters, and it is very clear that he struggles with his decision even after saving many lives.
Although one might get the impression Waters didn't want to get involved or that Waters may have felt it was wrong to kill the bad guys, I do not think that was the case at all. My interpretation is simple. Waters knows he is playing God and fears he has crossed the line. Was he appointed by God to defend the villagers and refugees? The answer was obviously "no". But should he defend innocent people from being savagely brutalized at some level? If he does, will his work actually make things worse in the long run on a national scene?
In what appears to be an unrelated real life situation as reported at Slate.com, Scott Roeder's trial should have been "black and white".
A trial that should have been a straightforward reinforcement that murder is the deliberate taking of human life instead will be remembered in part as the forum for justifying why a person's life can be sacrificed to save a fetus.Although this sounds just so easy, it is simply not accurate. Roeder was not sacrificing George Tiller for a fetus, and the judge saw that all too clearly. Roeder's testimony throughout his entire trial had been nothing of the sort. The parallels between Bruce Willis' character and Roeder's real life experience should not be overlooked. As the summary starts,
Navy SEAL Lieutenant A.K. Waters and his elite squadron of tactical specialists are forced to choose between their duty and their humanity, between following orders by ignoring the conflict that surrounds them, or finding the courage to follow their conscience and protect a group of innocent refugees.So while I get labeled the mean guy that doesn't bother to think or research, I find it interesting that I asked the exact questions Director, Antoine Fuqua, asked throughout the movie. I would even suggest that a Kansas Judge saw the same thing. But political correctness made certain these questions would not see the light of day. Meanwhile, Scott Roeder, right or wrong, will sit in prison for the rest of his life for exactly what this movie seeks to explore.
My disclaimer. I think Scott Roeder was wrong, but not for the overly simple "black and white" reasons often stated for News Media. Although there are many parallels, there are also several key differences, which have been discussed here in the past. So I am in no way endorsing Scott Roeder's actions. Nor am I saying his breaking of the law should go unpunished.