You are reading a single comment by @The_Seldom_Killer and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Actually no. Even at long range it would have been possible to determine that the enemy combatant was injured and thus protected under the relevant articles of the Geneva convention. Furthermore, at the greater remove he would have posed less of a threat to life and health so arguably a kill at range would have been more illegal.
The_Seldom_Killer
The Taliban don't subscribe to any of those conventions and laws, which makes me suspect that even the best-trained soldiers fighting them will begin to lose their will to be quite so diligent in their obedience by the time they've been under attack for 6 months.
In this case the line between legal and illegal is technically just distance and time. If he took two quick shots to kill him at far range, the first wounding and the second fatal, that would have been legal, so it can't be black and white that shooting a wounded combatant is in itself illegal. It's the gap between the two shots that makes this a breach of the Geneva convention.