Whos fault is it?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by BaldricksBullet, Jun 1, 2006.

  1. The soldier who used way to much force

    0 vote(s)
  2. The government who put the soldier in that situation

    0 vote(s)
  3. No one, but court is required for Hearts and minds

    0 vote(s)
  4. No one, an inquiry would surfice.

    0 vote(s)

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. It happens time and time again... You're on Ops, a car crashes through your checkpoint and a civie gets shot. You're in a riot, split aside, and in fear a civie gets shot or less drastic, you're in charge of a prisoner and get accused of abuse.

    No one can train you for these situations - no one - certainly not in the short time you train for peace keeping Ops... So if the govenment can't train you, why do they have the right to accuse you and prosecute you?
  2. Good to see we're all on the side of the soldier. I don't know about the court business though... dreadfully unfair... but you have to be seen to abide by the law if you want to impose the law.

    Thanks for your votes - I didn't know which way it would swing - but now, I think I could have guessed.
  3. I suggest the circumstances are too vaguely stated for there to be any great significance in the vote so far.
    In reality, each incident would be examined on it's own merits. The finding in one situation would not form the basis for examining a similar event as no two situations are exactly the same.
    Nice question but needs expansion before valid voting I think
  4. Yes I agree OldRedCap, It's hard to fit in all the info you want on the poll questions... and I wanted to avoid banging on too long. I started this because of another post where, in an incident in US a victim killed one of his assailants using reasonable force... It got me thinking about the use of reasonable force and how hard it is even for experienced soldiers. I was always impressed about how the RUC could escallate their response as opposed to how I would have reacted. The voting mimics the way I felt... but these days I see things in a broader light, especially in relation to how the law must be applied evenly and how everyone has rights... the kind of views that used to rag me off. Thanks for your post,- C
  5. Things have obviously changed dramatically and for the worse since my young days.

    In Aden in 1965, I was on watch tower duty overlooking a checkpoint outside Al Mansoura townshiip, Checkpoint Golf I think, but that is of no consequence.

    From my vantage point about twenty or so feet up, I could see a large car a few hundred yeards away, which was speeding (foot-down) towards the checkpoint, which was a chicane of scaffold poles resting on empty 50 gallon oil drums. It had to be lightweight as we had to frequently move it.

    I called down to the lads on the ground to warn them and the Platoon Commander called back that they would stop the vehicle but that if he somehow managed to evade them, I was to give him a burst from the GPMG.

    You can guess the rest.....he drove straight through at high speed, scattering scaffold poles, empty oil drums and squaddies in all directions.

    I had already swung the GPMG round to face the direction af travel away from the checkpoint, and as he drove through I gave him a long burst. It worked, made a mess of the paintwork and the driver went to meet his maker.

    At the subsequent board of inquiry (with my CO) I was asked to account for the number of 7.62 rounds expended.

    I did - case closed.

    How much simpler life was back then
  6. so you were allowed to shoot him after he was no longer a threat, rather than when he was driving towards you? :)
  7. Yes if I remember rightly (I'm not that old - stories from my mentor) ... in Aden, riot control also used to consist of you rolling out a banner saying " go home or we will shoot you " and then turning it around where (like robocop) it said they had 2 minutes to comply. And after that you perforated them.

    It was effective, but whether things have changed for the worse... I'm not sure :D
  8. Ahhh.........those were the days. If someone had a weapon and he was not on your side then nobody asked about the morality or legality of opening fire. No coloured cards to consult and no comebacks.
  9. I have never even thought of it in that context, but in today's pc world you are probably correct.

    As far as we were concerned at the time, he failed to stop when legitimately required to do so, drove aggressively and dangerously in a manner lilkely to cause injury or loss of life and intentionally destroyed a military check point. All I did was stop him from doing it again.

    I think the army and I were right at the time and I have not changed my mind.
  10. The banner was written in Arabic and English and said DISPERSE OR WE OPEN FIRE

    I cannot recall if it was two sided or what any other message may have said, but we always made verbal announcements wiht a bull-horn first in arabic and English warning them to disperse and what the consequences would be if they did not. This was given three times and on the final announcement the banner was also opened up and displayed.

    If they did not then disperse, the front rank took aim (we were in a box formation) and if a final verbal warning was ignored, we opened fire directly at them. I do not recall ever firing warning shots over their heads, but this may have also happened.
  11. We did have cards...a red and a green one if I remember correctly, with all sorts of daft instructions making combat or even self-defence nigh-on impossible.

    One of the specific instructions was to give three verbal warnings in simultaneous English and Arabic. This went something like tis:

    Halt waqaf!...... Halt waqaf!..... Halt waqaf or I open fire.

    However......It usually came out as Halthalthaltbang....oh sorry...waqaf!
  12. Can't say the bootie sniper teams had card of any hue...........
    I think we had the good years.
  13. I think that those were the days when you opened fire if somebody came at you with a particularly sharp piece of Mango - (Haig was it?)
  14. Situation in Canal Zone 52'ish was that any death of local arising from military shooting was initially dealt with by sybill. The immediate facts were reviewed by an officer of field rank who would decide whether or not it was an 'IS Incident'. It so decided, all statements and exhibits were handed to the officer and there were no further police investigations. This led to what we would now regard as injustices. I dealt with one where the Brit officer in a East African unit thought his guys were in league with local thieves. He replaced all Africans with Brits. When the team came to the wire, the officer - dressed as a Brit sgt - opened the gate and let them in. He led them towards a dead end and blew his whistle. The searchlights were turned into the camp and guards opened fire with Sten guns. Eight died. The officer freely admitted to giving one of them the coup de grace with his pistol as he was only wounded. This was deemed an IS Incident and my only part was to deliver the bodies to an Egyptian police post. This was at the time when the Treaty was abrogated and there were no formal contacts with Egyptians.
    Oh - and if someone wants to reopen things - I just made this up to illustrate what happens if ROE are not firmly in place and properly monitored.
  15. Don't forget the bugler! Almost forgot the box formation quite effective when allowed to fire into the crowd, although a target was always given, e.g., "Small man in red shemagh" (usually the most voiceiferous). The box formation proved absolutely disastrous in NI some years later at the start of the 'troubles' as there was no incentive for the crowd to disperse (I used to think the hooligan population of West Belfast were impervious to CS) other than baton charges and snatch squads. Not quite as effective as a volley into the crowd!