Sniper Investigated for 'lack of warning'

McBain said:
Insurgent is ready to fire an RPG, sniper takes him down without warning.
What's the problem?
Click to expand...
"Soldiers were told not to return fire for fear of hurting bystanders who gathered to watch after they left the local mosque"
^ That is problem 1.

"Then one Thursday a patrol returned without a sniper team – either by accident or design"
^ That is problem 2.

1 is disobeying orders and potentially endangering innocents, either from the round itself or the RPG being misdirected.
2 is arguably a premeditated thing... whether it can be decided as murder is debatable, given the target's activiy at the time, though. But that's likely what the guy is in **** for.... and I have to say, I'd likely have done the very same thing!!
 
Dj_Jestar said:
Yes balky12, I'm sure you do know more than the people actually investigating this incident.
Click to expand...

One thing I do know is that you need more sleep :P

Despite what the exact details are, it's safe to say this was many years ago, in an active warzone.

It's hard to imagine any evidence existing that will prove any story beyond reasonable doubt. So why bother with an inquest?
 
matt_fsr said:
From the article...

So... he obviously hasn't thought much about the number of British soldiers who died in this not-a-war, or even taken a look at something as simple as the Ross Kemp in Afghanistan series, where he positively doesn't get shot at and RPG'd at all, nope. None of that. No air strikes being called in to drive back a skilled and determined enemy force.
Click to expand...

Peacekeeping or warmaking are one in the same, you are on someones land when they don't want you there. But of course you try to justify it with soldier deaths who actually have a say when deciding to join up or not, not the family who just got blown up by a drone strike.
 
A British sniper is being investigated for shooting dead an Iraqi insurgent preparing to fire a rocket propelled grenade because he did not shout a warning
Click to expand...

did they shout warning before they attempted to fire the rocket, i bet not

one rule for one and all that
 
GSXR Gaz Mc said:
did they shout warning before they attempted to fire the rocket, i bet not
one rule for one and all that
Click to expand...

The crowd of innocent onlookers gathering outside the front door, combined with the weekly ocurrence of RPG attacks is possibly sufficient warning... certainly it gave one bloke a whole week's advance notice of the attack!
 
Just to bring the discussion back to earth........ in war/peacekeeping assignments isn't the mandate exactly that you must issue such warning before using lethal force.... The same way a policeman has to shout "tazer" before he fires it for example.....

Yeah its undeniably silly, but are these rules not what separate us from them in the first place? Should soldiers just be issued licenses to kill and mow down anyone in their path that gets on their nerves?
 
Efour said:
Just to bring the discussion back to earth........ in war/peacekeeping assignments isn't the mandate exactly that you must issue such warning before using lethal force.... The same way a policeman has to shout "tazer" before he fires it for example.....

Yeah its undeniably silly, but are these rules not what separate us from them in the first place? Should soldiers just be issued licenses to kill and mow down anyone in their path that gets on their nerves?
Click to expand...

What separates us from them is that they're fighting unconstrained and winning, where as we're shooting ourselves in the foot at every opportunity.
 
What happened to the days where the armed forces did what was required without fear of procession to protect and server his country and fellow officers?
 
adolf hamster said:
Isnt the point of a sniper that you dont know where he is? Shouting across a battlefield seems a bit contradictory to this.
Click to expand...
It's debatable whether he was in an officially designated sniper role, or merely acting on his own. The fact that he supposedly went directly against orders is the bigger factor rather than the RoE.

Efour said:
in war/peacekeeping assignments isn't the mandate exactly that you must issue such warning before using lethal force
Click to expand...
Not really, no.

The RoE Cards we got issued do state that you should try and detain the target, warn them of your presense and that you are armed and will open fire if they do not comply (three warnings, in fact)... unless the target has just or is about to endanger innocents or members of your military force and they have not responded to your warnings and if you are not able to issue warnings and there is no other way to stop them, yadda yadda yadda... all to be factored in to a couple of seconds' thought process.

Basically, if their finger is on the trigger and you have a good shot, with no time for any other measures, you can quite freely blow their head off.

adolf hamster said:
Yeah its undeniably silly, but are these rules not what separate us from them in the first place?
Click to expand...
No. These rules are just what keep us from being done by public enquiries and lawyers and concern groups.

adolf hamster said:
Should soldiers just be issued licenses to kill and mow down anyone in their path that gets on their nerves?
Click to expand...
Some are - It's called a maroon beret! :D
But in all seriousness - If you tried this case simply against the established RoE, this soldier would be *completely* in the clear. Everything he did was in perfect textbook compliance with the Rules.... Just not the (supposedly) issued orders covering the overall situation.
 
He was about to fire an RPG and he got dropped. I don't see the issue.

Now if the RPG was fired and hit a watch tower and killed 2 soldiers where would we be?

I wish we could send these cry babies over to a war zone and see how they fair out while under fire. Maybe they could talk the bullets down?
 
Challenges / warnings should be issued however,
There is no requirement to issue a warning if “ You honestly believe a human life to be in imminent danger, and there is insufficient time to issue a warning or to issue a warning would increase that danger.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom