US admits killing Egyptian with Suez Canal warning shots

[warmwaterdiver]

yeap, poor innocent Americans

[Kalahari Diver]

Before we criticize the Americans in this case, perhaps we should all remember the Stockwell tube. Not a single civilian witness on the train heard a warning being shouted!!!

David.

[yellowduke]

The US have clear rules of engagement for these situations and it would seem that these were applied with ample warnings given. I would question the marksmanship of the person firing the warning shots though. We have to carefully choose where we aim warning shots to minimise risk of injury to anyone. I imagine the US rules might allow for closer targeting.

Jim

[wilbo]

I agree with Sean here..

they warned them both by loudspeaker and by flare before firing warning shots.. ok - so they can't shoot for shit..

While unfortunate that someone was killed - I can't see a problem.

[purple vonny]

Attack on USS Cole - US Department of State

This is why they are vigilant.

[warmwaterdiver]

Originally Posted by purple vonny

Attack on USS Cole - US Department of State

This is why they are vigilant.

yes as has already been said

but this wasn't a marked US vessel

and it still doesn't get round the fact that the Americans lied about the incident until it was proved otherwise

[purple vonny]

I'm no fan of America or Americans. And yes, they can and do lie. And they are obviously rubbish shots.

[Richard Mason]

Originally Posted by purple vonny

And they are obviously rubbish shots.

Not necessarily. Warning shots suggests a burst from an automatic weapon - the problem with firing anything like this over water is that the projectiles can skip a fair distance if they hit the surface at an acute angle, just like ricochets off concrete, so even if firing 100 metres short, it is actually quite within the realms of possibilty for some of them to go a lot further than you anticipated - these weapons aren't actually designed for firing warnings, they are designed for hitting things, so using a firearm to issue a warning is far from safe. If there's any kind of wave action, this can also magnify the problem.

It's also one reason why shooting ducks (which also tend to be on/near watewr) with a rifle, even a puny .22 is generally frowned upon.

[David]

yes reading that they did shoot quite badly only hitting three people with their warning shots, and one of them died. write note.. must practice missing more often.

I am thinking they were not aiming to miss, but after all the warnings I might not aim to miss...

[Richard Mason]

Originally Posted by David

yes reading that they did shoot quite badly only hitting three people with their warning shots, and one of them died. write note.. must practice missing more often.

I am thinking they were not aiming to miss, but after all the warnings I might not aim to miss...

I'm not trying to sound like Rambo or anything here, compared with many on here, my experience of life in the baggy green is quite limited but having actually live fired various GPMGs and LMGs both on a formal range and a field range, I can tell you that it's actually:

a) Quite difficult to hit the things you are aiming at;

b) Almost as difficult to avoid hitting the things you aren't aiming at. I once managed to hit a flock of sheep sleeping peacefully 200m downrange of the targets I was actually trying to hit on a field range, a 10 round burst hit 6 of them. There are many cases of innocent civies getting whacked by stray rounds from firefights many hundreds of metres away, this is nothing new.

That said, it would be a terrible thing to do, even if it was an accident, it would be hard to live with yourself afterwards.