Sniper Investigated for 'lack of warning'

I cant see any more come of this, just media hype, the fact that this is getting dragged up is stupid and expensive, and just grasping at straws, but this incident is is a regular self defence engagement.


i5aces said:
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.”
Click to expand...

This!
Just 1 part of the right to self defence that covers the incident, which every soldier is taught over and over, and is the basis of most armed engagements. Other ROE may be saught but in this situation i dont see why it would be needed.
"A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike."
Click to expand...
Also note that it isnt just the firers life that must be at risk, any human life!

If the insurgent was in the aim, that along with previous patterns/J2, local knowledge etc is more than enough to give the soldier the honest belief of imminent threat to life he needs to justify his action.
 
Even if the person could have issued a warming the target was 1200 metres away. That's 1.2km that would have taken me 6minutes at standard running pace to cover that distance. I very much doubt if you screamed at the top of your lungs it would have been clear what you were saying or your intention was at that distance, other then giving away your position as a sniper something you just don't do but meh what do I know.

I think given it seems the person was clearly about to fire an RPG this shouldn't really need investigating. I always carry an RPG with my finger on the trigger ready to fire what's all the fuss about....!!!!

This sort of thing must play on the minds of people looking to join up. I understand why war crimes should be followed and soldiers rightly punished for crimes but I don't feel this is one.
 
steve45 said:
I cant see any more come of this, just media hype, the fact that this is getting dragged up is stupid and expensive, and just grasping at straws, but this incident is is a regular self defence engagement.

See above. this is just 1 part of the right to self defence that covers the incident, which every soldier is taught over and over, and is the basis of most armed engagements. Other ROE may be saught but in this situation i dont see why it would be needed.

Also note that it isnt just the firers life that must be at risk, any human life!

If the insurgent was in the aim, that along with previous patterns/J2, local knowledge etc is more than enough to give the soldier the honest belief of imminent threat to life he needs to justify his action.
Click to expand...

Probably the lack of death or injury in the weeks of similar behaviour by the guy with the RPG points to an expectation rather below that of risk to life. RPG guy was, perhaps, something of a 'show of force', or mere posturing. Shooting him without expectation of prevention of harm is probably outside of ROE. (not that I know anything much of military action, I should clarify)
 
cheesyboy said:
Probably the lack of death or injury in the weeks of similar behaviour by the guy with the RPG points to an expectation rather below that of risk to life. RPG guy was, perhaps, something of a 'show of force', or mere posturing. Shooting him without expectation of prevention of harm is probably outside of ROE. (not that I know anything much of military action)
Click to expand...
Could you make the call whether todays RPG kills someone or not? He has a deadly weapon, aimed, ready to fire...:rolleyes:
I wouldnt want to take that risk if i could do something to stop it.
 
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...

Stop drinking cocktails cocktails from Brasso and Mr. Muscle.
 
Typical lawyers trying anything to get a cut of some gold.

What makes it worse is that these are British lawyers (according to the telegraph) who are putting forward these cases.

Surely no court is going to accept that case.

We all know there are certain acts and things to prevent the torture etc of enemy prisoners, but shooting dead an enemy who's about to fire an RPG into a friendly base is exactly what war is about.

What's the point sending troops over there if you're going to just prosecute them for shooting at people.
 
steve45 said:
Could you make the call whether todays RPG kills someone or not? He has a deadly weapon, aimed, ready to fire...:rolleyes:
I wouldnt want to take that risk if i could do something to stop it.
Click to expand...

I guess the case might be that death or injury was unlikely enough to be insufficient for a defence/reason to shoot.

It might be that the base was a solid structure within a walled compound, in which case the RPG wouldn't be especially effective at anything other than making a bit of a racket.

We don't know, since we have so little detail, but we should probably assume there is some sort of a reason for the case being brought beyond what has been reported by the veterans' advocacy group (whose default setting is supporting the vet in question, of course)
 
You there! The quite discernible chap with the robe and rocket. Please cease from aiming your zoomie boomie at our persons or I will be forced to take action!
 
Terminal_Boy said:
Stop drinking cocktails cocktails from Brasso and Mr. Muscle.
Click to expand...

aww come on ttaskmaster even says it is "What you are meant to do" but in reality it doesn't or cant happen so easily for the obvious reasons.

I wasn't saying crazy stuff just adding to the debate. :p
 
cheesyboy said:
Probably the lack of death or injury in the weeks of similar behaviour by the guy with the RPG points to an expectation rather below that of risk to life.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this point,
because no-one died in the previous attatcks you could assume no-one would die in this one.

so if i have a friend who drink drives without crashing I should let him do it as it would be safe to assume he wont crash this time.
 
glen8 said:
It seems the sniper didn't give him enough warning before being shot. I assume, you are supposed to shout across the battlefield to ask him nicely to stop whatever it is he's about to do. Then if not, if he really does fire his RPG killing you and your unit, then you fire......again, assuming from the grave :confused:

I've never actually seen a ghost, nor heard of one shooting a sniper rifle, but again I guess anythings possible in this mad world.
Click to expand...

it isn't a battlefield though and they're not in the war fighting stage then... it is a city and there are a bunch of civilians standing around... in theory, if you're operating under UK law then you should usually be shouting a warning just as say an armed police officer would over here when confronted with a criminal with a firearm. However if someone is literally about to fire then that warning isn't practical, especially if you're a sniper over a kilometer away. I doubt anything is going to happen to this soldier - they're really scraping the barrel by trying to investigate this...
 
ttaskmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

Makes sense, the do not fire unless fired upon bit doesnt work against rpg's.

As much as i admire our attempts to civilise warfare the short of it is an army is no use if every man on the ground is afraid to pull the trigger because he might get sued in several years.

I guess this is the problem when the people we're fighting wont wear a uniform so we know who to shoot at and who not to shoot at.
 
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.....
Click to expand...

not in war no, that would be ridiculous...

completely depends on the situation - fighting the taliban in some area of Helmand you might well have some area where only fighters are present, you'll shoot them without any warning at all or direct artillery/airstrikes onto their positions


on the other hand patrolling Basra, working with the local security forces, polices etc... you might come across armed individuals, they might be insurgents/local militia, they might not be... your ROE there will probably tell you you're supposed to shout some form of warning to them much like a police officer would... then again if they're about to shoot at you or your budies that could all go out of the window


rules of engagement can and do vary - even the instructions to issue a specific warning might also give you a few get outs like the warning doesn't have to be completely as stated but something along those lines 'stop you **** or I'll shoot' perhaps being shouted out instead... there might also be something covering you if it isn't practical to issue a warning. Most importantly they don't override your inherent right to self defence - if someone sticks a gun in your face or shoots at you then ROE don't matter, you're free to shoot the ****.
 
adolf hamster said:
Makes sense, the do not fire unless fired upon bit doesnt work against rpg's.

As much as i admire our attempts to civilise warfare the short of it is an army is no use if every man on the ground is afraid to pull the trigger because he might get sued in several years.

I guess this is the problem when the people we're fighting wont wear a uniform so we know who to shoot at and who not to shoot at.
Click to expand...

Quite.

Its so hard to call and like in so many avenues rules made up many years ago don't always stand the test of time.
Years ago tinpot dictators were usually seriously into uniforms so their troops were usually uniformed up, now the "bad guys" tend to try to hide behind civilians (by masquerading as one).

The main criteria should be a reasonability test.
Eg a guy with a gun in a holster has the potential to be life taking but is not acting in such a way. A guy just picking up an AK likewise but in both cases preparing to fire would be reasonably obvious and would take them from potential threat to actual threat surely
 
Once again, for those in the cheap seats and assuming the article is reporting correctly...

The RoE does not apply here, as the soldier was in perfect compliance with them.

He is in the spit for going off on his own initiative.
He is in more spit for opening fire, having already been told not to.
He is in deep spit because that shot could have thrown the RPG-er's aim off and resulting in a blown-up crowd of civvies.

That, according to the article, is the issue, not whether he was right to shoot under the RoE.
 
Not that I actually disagree with what you are saying, nor saying the article is at all correct.

However:

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...

Wouldn't that fall under the correct RoE? Investigated because he did not engage correctly with an opening warning?

An investigation into him apparently going off on his own, or ignoring commands I can understand. But an investigation over sufficient warning?

But like has been said numerous times. Not enough information. Media gonna Media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom