Soldier F.

[Highway Man]

Now apply that to people shot in the back.

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

So only shoot an enemy facing you. If he turns his back on you don’t shoot. Yeah right

 

[Highway Man]

Highlighted a bit for you

No need I posted it for you

 

[Highway Man]

So only shoot an enemy facing you. If he turns his back on you don’t shoot. Yeah right

So an enemy might as well fire at you then turn his back on you and keep repeating that process until he kills you then. Great tactic

 

[IT Minion]

As a member of the armed forces you are taught about the legality or not of your actions, are you not ?

And therefore what you are allowed to do, or not.

Actual soldiers are yes.

 

[Highway Man]

Actual soldiers are yes.

Every combat situation is different and ROE is clearly spoken about. However ROE is and often changed to suit the threat at the time. You know nothing as proven by your other post thinking an SLR is still in use today and your silly comment of saying that you was a soldier. Laughable doesn’t come close.

 

[Highway Man]

Actual soldiers are yes.

And you most certainly aren’t, armchair soldier yes real soldier NO

 

[carmanmemoranda]

So only shoot an enemy facing you. If he turns his back on you don’t shoot. Yeah right

Do you understand the personal responsibilities.

If so, it's covered.

I don't believe he/they were shot at.

I'm not denying it's tough to stand and not react, but the rules is (sic) the rules

 

[Highway Man]

Do you understand the personal responsibilities.

If so, it's covered.

I don't believe he/they were shot at.

I'm not denying it's tough to stand and not react, but the rules is (sic) the rules

I have my own opinion on the subject and have voiced it along with the thousands of other vets who have signed a petition over the case.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I have my own opinion on the subject and have voiced it along with the thousands of other vets who have signed a petition over the case.

Doesn't change the legal position though which is what is being debated.

We can all have individual opinions, but they just don't count

 

[Highway Man]

I'm not denying it's tough to stand and not react, but the rules is (sic) the rules

Tell that to a para who is trained to kill and not react to the situation. Paras don’t mess around

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Tell that to a para who is trained to kill and not react to the situation. Paras don’t mess around

They still have a legal personal obligation regardless.

Doesn't matter how much you move the goalposts, the rules is (sic) the rules

 

[Highway Man]

Paras are not ordinary soldiers. They are in the same league as the SAS when it comes to being an elite fighting force. They are incredibly proud of their regiment and extremely tough.

 

[Scally-Ho]

Tell that to a para who is trained to kill and not react to the situation. Paras don’t mess around

I put them on par with Shaldag Unit (within IDF) and they certainly do not mess about.

 

[Highway Man]

I most certainly wouldn’t be throwing anything at a bunch of paras then run away expecting them not to respond how they normally would. My personal opinion is that they were not the unit to put into Northern Ireland. Too highly strung and too highly trained to play nicely.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

Innocent civilians were killed by the security services quite often, most if not all result in no prosecution.

Of the 350 deaths by the security forces, there were only 6 investigations.

....
There were 350 deaths caused by state actors in NI.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/78677/html/

Only six of them were investigated and considered for prosecution,
...