"The Mercy Shot" Topic

I recently reviewed a book about modern snipers – TMP link – and it raised some questions.

Snipers (and their spotters) often have the opportunity (and the optics) to see the results of their shots. This sometimes put them in the situation of deciding whether, if a target is injured but not dead, to make a 'mercy shot' to end the suffering of their target.

There were examples in the book of snipers who took mercy shots, and those who didn't. It was pointed out that snipers have limited ammo, and mercy shots are a luxury. Extra shots also risk revealing the sniper's location.

One of the grimmest points made was that there were tactical advantages to not making a mercy shot. The cries of the wounded are demoralizing to the enemy, and might encourage an enemy to try to 'rescue' the victim (and thus give the sniper a new target).

Does this fall under 'war is hell'? What are the legal and moral guidelines on this subject?

Well, for probably a year after 9/11, Navy watchstanders were specifically not authorized to fire warning shots. Even after we were, it would take the specific orders of the Captain himself to authorize us to fire warning shot(s). Though I did comment to the Weapons Officer that anyone requiring me to shoot at them is going to get the effect of a warning shot as I walked my shots into their boat.

Back into the laws of war, though, it's seen as 'more humane' to not kill an opposing soldier (see the Hague Conventions). This does mean that wounds that don't kill someone outright are very likely survivable in general, as long as you don't bleed to death before getting to the medics.

I don't think the Geneva Convention requires you to kill someone in the name of mercy.

Of course, there ARE some crazy concepts in there, so perhaps I am just ill-informed.

After 9/11, and seeing ordinary citizens having to choose whether to burn to death in their stricken building, or leap to certain death from 50 stories up to avoid that, I really don't have much compassion for many "enemy combatants" AKA terrorists.

Lion in the Stars: when I served in the Dutch Army (1966-1968) we were told that when being on watch and should be forced to open fire, we were told that a warning shot would be necessary to prevent being court-martialled. So the instruction was to first shoot at the threat and then fire a shot in the air. We were pressed never to forget this.

My Dad was a sniper (USMC) he was instructed to kill leaders & priority targets but wounding others took out 2-3 others who would assist the wounded soldier.

I don't think the Geneva Convention requires you to kill someone in the name of mercy.

I too have never heard that. But generally Snipers shoot to kill, one shot, one kill …

But it was not unheard of in many conflicts that a Sniper or any other Grunt accidently or purposely wounded an enemy. And then use the WIA as "bait". E.g. you saw this in the movie, Full Metal Jacket. As we study the "art and & science" of warfare. We see it can be a pretty violent and brutal enterprise.

Does this fall under 'war is hell'?

Yes, very much so … from what I can tell.

What are the legal and moral guidelines on this subject?

Follow the GCs and ROEs … However "moral guidelines" = survival regardless, of both you and your comrades/troops under your command …

What did Patton say about "killing the other poor … etc."… ?

I really don't have much compassion for many "enemy combatants" AKA terrorists.

Very much so. I'm sure we saw this occur when dealing with the plethora of jihadis terrorists, etc. after 9/11. Or even in Somalia in '93., etc.

Frankly if I was still serving, enemies like jihadis e.g. AQ, Taliban, ISIS, etc. would have a very low survival rate. In the units I would have lead/commanded. We always have to be aware of the GCs, ROEs, etc., of course.

But when in doubt I'd tell my troops to shoot to kill, don't take any chances. For better or worse, events like Blackhawk Down, 9/11, Taliban, ISIS, etc., brutalities, crimes against humanity, etc., Would only make "terminating with extreme prejudice" a standard. If they are still shooting and not clearly surrendering. You have no choice but to kill them. In large numbers and often if possible. Even if you see a Jihadi is wounded and surrendering. When in doubt, wipe him [or her] out.

And as we saw in WWII PTO with the IJFs. Just because someone is surrendering does not mean they actually are. And they want to blow themselves up and take you and/or your comrades with them. Read the book "War Without Mercy" about this in the PTO.

So bottom line IMO, Snipers generally shoot to kill, especially priority targets. E.g. Leaders, Commo, Heavy Weapons, etc. And if you really hate your enemy, that would probably not be too hard to do. E.g. albeit not a Sniper, the SEAL that got UBL in his sights. IIRC double tap head shot.

Again even in both world wars, and on. Hatred of one's enemy is nothing new. We saw this e.g. with the Allies vs. IJFs and Russians vs. the Nazis, etc. in WWII.

Killing the enemy is why you are there. And killing them in combat helps insure not only your own survival but more importantly your comrades. "Dead men [or women] tell no tales." And they can't shoot you either.

You are not legally or morally obligated to finish someone off.

Yes, you are correct … but in some cases it is a matter of survival, I believe, regardless.

Unstated motto of the Corps "Kill them all, it's Gods job to sort them out".

This does mean that wounds that don't kill someone outright are very likely survivable in general, as long as you don't bleed to death before getting to the medics…

Probably depends on the ammo and the weapon the sniper is using. From the examples in the book, if the body remained in view, the person usually bled out and died fairly quickly. In another case, one shot removed the target's arm.

Yes, depends on the weapon and accuracy of the shooter. E.g. a .50 cal Sniper/Anti-Material rifle. If you are hit you'll be dead immediately is not shortly afterwards.