You can shoot this man if you think he's stealing...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by stoatman, Mar 13, 2005.

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. ... Soldiers told:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/13/nirq13.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/03/13/ixportal.html

     
  2. Specially modified for Iraqi my arrse, I clearly remember being told in Bosnia that you could shoot civis for theft from a military establishment


    Kind of puts the act of "Working them hard" into context
     
  3. From the original Telegraph article
    This adherance by the military to the concept of minimum force caused problems in NI where the degree of force used by NI legal authorities in considering incidents wasreasonable force. One may do more that is considered reasonable than one may do that is minimum. This anomaly caused referral of military shooting incidents where it was unnecessary. Perhaps someone who knows can enlighten us as to the actual degree of force under Iraqi law (if, indeed, one such exists)
     
  4. On my last NI stint in 99 during the training phase at L&H we did a justification Shoot using motion pictures, it was great especially as they added an RMP to grill the shooters after wards tosee if it was in deed justifed, this was my 4th NI and it took that long to get something worthwhile


    Question I have is do they do anything simlar for Telic ???? Or a one week round robin thing a la IFOR ?
     
  5. This is what really grips my sh1t.

    When the blokes are under pressure, forced to make a split-second decision and then told that this decision may very well be scrutinised in a court of law for months on end, the only thing this is likely to achieve is that the split second decision will end up being hesitation? This is more likely to end up in more British service personnel not coming home, as they are too scared to defend themselves.

    Bollox to them all. I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Remember Pte Lee Clegg? Only 1 of the rounds he fired was classed as an illegal shot, but they still hung him out to dry for it. Forensics eventually proved that by the time the last round left the barrel, it was physically impossible for Pte Clegg to have reacted to the fact that the vehicle had passed him and ceased firing. Yet he was still made an example to satisfy a larger (political?) need....

    RANT OVER!

    GR
     
  6. "When the blokes are under pressure, forced to make a split-second decision and then told that this decision may very well be scrutinised in a court of law for months on end, the only thing this is likely to achieve is that the split second decision will end up being hesitation? This is more likely to end up in more British service personnel not coming home, as they are too scared to defend themselves. "

    I agree 100%. The man on the ground risking his neck needs to know that the system will back up up on an instant decision which risks his life or limbs.
    CO's answer for troops training and TCH to answer for legal matters, both to accept responsibility for the man on the spot, after all They put him there.
    john
     
  7. we had discussions about this throughout the tour .Most blokes came to the descion that they would fire if fired on or it appeared we were under threat ,but,we would probably get screwed anyway even if we kept to the white/yellow card rules .
    Had one bloke saying we shouldnt fire from top cover as it isnt an aimed shot !
     
  8. This is a comment tha has not been made you understand. If the soldier is allowed/induced to fully describe what was going through his mind immediately prior to firing, it will generally be that his actions were justified on the 'reasonable' use of force. One has to be aware that the legal eagles for family etc. will be trying to trip our blokes up. We found by experience that it would be unwise for shooter to say straight away that man had, say, a rifle. Lawyer would straight away ask 'what sort of rifle?' Squaddy would say either something definate or 'don't know' If he didn't know, how could he say it was a rifle? If he did claim to know he would be queried along lines of eagle eye at x metres in semi-darkness etc. Intention was to bring in error, doubt and confusion. It was only when suspect did something with the "long straight object" such as putting it to his shoulder that it 'might' become a rifle. We had blokes shot when running away - normally right out of order. However, shooter had been told by RUC who man was and he was known for decoying follow-ups and blowing a package as they ran after him round a corner. Coroner accepted it as OK shooting and no legal charges. The after-shooting statements around 70-72 had to be very very detailed and show the state of soldier's mind. Maybe that is why no soldiers went on trial during that period? I suspect that procedures have now changed.
     
  9. Let them eat oil :evil: