Soldier F.

[Highway Man]

Split second life threatening decisions are made under immense pressure. Thinking about the legality and a court room would be too much to ask.

 

[Highway Man]

No. It's not how it works.

Exactly how it works

 

[Highway Man]

And, as long as you do your job, that's what you get.

Shooting civvies isn't in the job description.

Really, so a civilian shooting at you doesn’t become a legitimate target. Ok

 

[Charlie George]

A few weeks ago innocent civilian Adrian Daulby was shot dead by an armed policeman in a Synagogue in Manchester, the attacker the police were targeting had no firearm on him, should he be prosecuted?

One night in the 70s in Belfast, i was staying with my Granny in a flat in Springmartin, there was a gunbattle lasting hours between the Army and IRA and UVF , bullets were flying everywhere, we slept on the floor protected by furniture all night, the next morning the army were marking bullet holes in the houses/flats, we had 5 in our wall, a 16 year old lad(civilian) was killed by a stray bullet yards away, i think several people(mainly civilians) were killed that night, nobody knows for sure who shot who that night?

 

[Brigadier]

Really, so a civilian shooting at you doesn’t become a legitimate target. Ok

In the soldier f case, they were unarmed.

You've just agreed that they were therefore not legitimate targets.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Exactly how it works

You know better than that. Or you should. If...

 

[Highway Man]

In the soldier f case, they were unarmed.

You've just agreed that they were therefore not legitimate targets.

My opinion differs to yours on who is innocent and who is not. Armed or unarmed

 

[Highway Man]

You know better than that. Or you should. If...

I do

 

[Highway Man]

You know better than that. Or you should. If...

Don’t start that s***t with me, you think what you like, make your own mind up but don’t start with making out I am a liar if I don’t agree with you.

 

[Highway Man]

You know better than that. Or you should. If...

ROE
Self-defense: Soldiers always retain the right to use force for self-defense against an imminent threat.

 

[morqthana]

Yes in Northern Ireland it was always against civilians. It was a civil war. If you had permission to shoot then yes why not?

Why not shoot unarmed civilians in the back when they are trying to get away from you?

Are you for real?

 

[Highway Man]

Why not shoot unarmed civilians in the back when they are trying to get away from you?

Are you for real?

Trying to get away from you or running away after throwing a petrol bomb at you. Are you for real

 

[carmanmemoranda]

ROE
Self-defense: Soldiers always retain the right to use force for self-defense against an imminent threat.

Now apply that to people shot in the back.

Whether you like it or not it's the point in question

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Don’t start that s***t with me, you think what you like, make your own mind up but don’t start with making out I am a liar if I don’t agree with you.

Do you know about the personal responsibilities of a soldier regarding lethal force ?

Then you should know better than what you've said if so.

Whether you agree or not is your choice, but the rules is the rules.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

ROE
Self-defense: Soldiers always retain the right to use force for self-defense against an imminent threat.

Highlighted a bit for you