Unlawfully killed by an IED

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Trans-sane, Oct 7, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Trans-sane

    Trans-sane LE Book Reviewer

    Caught a snippet of news from the radio last night regarding the inquest into the death of a Rifleman in Helmand (I didn't catch the Rifleman's name and a quick google search didn't help as the Rifles have taken a lot of casualties in the las few months). The young soldier in question was killed on a foot patrol by an IED and suffered "horrendous injuries". The coroner recorded a verdict if unlawful killing.

    Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this verdict? Is it because those likely to have planted the IED are unlawful combatants? Is it because the use of IEDs in war is itself illegal? If the Taliban were a legaly recognised armed forces, and the Rifleman had been shot in a contact would that have been an unlawful killing?
  2. Trans-sane

    Trans-sane LE Book Reviewer

    Ok. Therefore would a death in a declared war against another state where both sides were playing by the rule be considered unlawful killing or would that be lawful due to official state of war and laws of law being followed?
  3. The latter, and would probably be recorded along the lines of "death due to enemy action while on active service".
  4. Generally, if the killer has recognised legal legitimacy, e.g. is a sovereign state, and is in the appropriate context, e.g. war with the deceased's country, then the killing is lawful (whether it is regrettable, moral, etc. is not the point). So for example most combatants killed in the Second World War would have been lawfully killed. An obvious exception to this would be a POW being killed. The Taliban are not recognized as a legitimate entity so killings attributed to them will be ruled unlawful.
  5. Trans-sane

    Trans-sane LE Book Reviewer

    Cheers Madeupname
  6. I think politicians should serve on the front line for a time before being the spokespeople of the nation.

    PM deplores ?? act in ?? country etc etc it means **** all.

    Unlawful lawful, potato tomato, its saying the appropriate thing at the appropriate time, nothing more nothing less, and as per, lawyers/mp's talk shit.