Trying to take the suspect down by shooting thru the girl would be a foolish and unnecessary risk. Bullets don’t behave that predictably once they strike their target- and you can’t guarentee it would penetrate and exit her body with enough velocity to disable the bad guy. A clean shot to the CNS is the only viable shot for a sniper (police or otherwise). You’d be well advised to wait for a clear shot at the head or heart.
Great post! Hypothetical is too vague.
Hey! Who makes the rules around here? I say what ways are available and which arnt! Sheesh. Simple choice. Theres a VERY good chance the guy will detonate the bomb. Let me add that he has already killed one hostage, so you know hes for real. And he is suicideal, AND hes counting down. Whether or not he blows the place at the end of the countdown is unsure, but hes a suicidal maniac who has shown he has no problem killing innocents. So make up your mind. Assuming he does blow the place at the end of the countdown, theres absolutely no alternative but to shoot through the girl. And its a special type of bullet that DOES go through. And youre a hell of an accurate shot, but the only shot that will prevent him from detonating is to his head, and the girls head is in the way. Now that weve flushed out some variables, do you shoot or not? Theres always the chance hes bluffing, but like I said: Suicidal maniac that has proven he can kill.
I would let him shoot her… for my own sanity primarily, but that would give me a clear shot to take him out (after she is out of the way).
Um, read the question clearly troy. Hes not shooting anyone. Hes threatening to blow up 50 people. And your only shot to stop him is through the girl.
If that is the case - For the shooter it’s a lose-lose situation, damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t - so from a cold logic POV - he should shoot and save the 50 people - since, though it doesn’t affect the outcome for himself (he’s screwed anyway) it saves the greatest number of ‘innocent’ people.
But from a personal point of view - I don’t think I would shoot actually, because in the time it would take for me to overcome the instinct to not shoot the girl… the moment for the shot would be passed - unless the guy just stands there for five minutes, ah, but he would wouldn’t he, the bad guys always monologue…? 
“Hoo-boy, you’re good - you got me monologueing…me…!”
Nemesis to Mr. Incredible.
Regardless, I’m an ethical intuitionist… any amount of speculating about my actions now, won’t affect how I would actually act. So, I don’t know untill it happens.
I consider it a societal question. If I lived in a society that had the policy of just going after the hostage taker regardless of the loss of human lives, then I would shoot. If I lived in a society where the injuring of anyone or even a kitty cat during a hostage situation when there is any of the slightest hope that the hostage taker could be taken without harming any one or any cat would be considered unacceptable, then I wouldn’t shoot.
Both sides have their upsides: shoot the cat and girl and save 50 people, or;
risk 50 people’s lives and maybe save 51 people and a cat.
I just don’t want to lose my job or go to jail. 
I don’t shoot if I have to shoot the girl.
Reasons…
-
He is a moral (or immoral) agent - not a natural disaster. You don’t do moral calculations with cause and effect that include other moral agents, as though they were a mindless link in the chain without a choice of their own. In other words, you refuse to take on the “option a = x, option b = y” mentality when there is another moral agent in the loop. Evil people will often try to frame good people into that line of thinking in order to deflect the responsibility of their decisions onto others. This reasoning must be rejected out-of-hand in order that evil people not rule the world through ultimatum. If 50 people die, he and he alone will be the responsible party.
-
If you shoot the girl, you will be the murderer (and incidentally savior of 49 people). You decide what kind of person you are and that’s that.
-
It is acceptable for an individual to sacrifice him/herself for the good of the many. But it is not acceptable for another person to decide for someone else, that they will be sacrificed for the many.
Like in “Speed,” I take the hostage out of the equation. I’d shoot the little girl, but at a point in her body that would just wound her and not kill her. The object of this first shot is to get a wounding bullet to the terrorist. This will likely cause him to drop the girl/fall down/startle the senses. In the next split second when the girl is out of the way, the next shot is a kill.
Of course, this scenario is very academic…for me to make a more in depth response as to whether or not I would shoot the girl would depend on the actual position the girl is being held and the angle of the shot. For instance, depending on favorable circumstances, I could make a shot through her hair that would blow his face clean off.
Again…it’s very academic.
is there even a right or wrong here?
this is more of a personal question addressed to everybody who listens than a rulebook choice that you must be ready to face. it is obviously, as stated up to the sniper, and since everyone of you is different, the choice will be different every time. well, minus the fact that theres only two major choices here. you must also remember that the pressure youre facing at the time will surely cloud your judgement, to at least some extent, so while you are calculating how youre going to go around this situation at home in the privacy and solitude of your personal space, being there will not allow you the solitude to come up with a cool, reasonable answer on which you should act. theres a good chance that you will decide to walk away, but while tense, you hear somebody shout “shoot” and you pull the trigger. theres always the on-site variables that you really cannot prepare yourself for until you actually get there. so i dont know if the shot should be taken or not. it would simply depend on the person’s heartlessness and ability to use cool logic in the midst of a very heated situation.
shooting through the leg is cheating. the point of the post is to pick from 2 choices,shhot or no, just to see own what you would do. if you say “id shoot her in the hair” it means you didnt understand the post.
personally, id shoot. id be a pretty simple choice, kill 1 or let 50 die. (by my own morals i dont see anything wrong with shooting everyone in the building, but that doesnt matter much since id probably get paid more for saving the most lives)
of course it would always be a judgement call. if say, it was 5 people hostage, theres no way id shoot. anything in between and id have to decide on the spot.
obviously, none of this would really apply in real life, since with todays freaks, i could shoot through a 90 year old man on his deathbed to save 100 people and still be sued and probably fired, so id have to just sit back and watch it happen, and blame the killer for the ensuing deaths later
What’s the point of choosing between putting a bullet into the girl’s head and watching her being blown up allover? If the shit doesn’t have to blow, then what’s the point of this question?
Killing someone on purpose is wrong. We all do things so that we can either be recognised for doing them or fell good about doing them. Shooting the little girl will make you feel bad and everyone will hate you. Just let them all die
Once you allow that the ends always justify the means, anything can be rationalized.