GregSingh wrote:It's interesting concept of defense for somebody who shot a bystander instead of a person he intended to - inaccuracy of a gun.Even more bizarre is to ask a dead bystander to try to prove that he was not an intended target.
We are all lucky it's only a Forum...
Lucky, yes. If you were a lawyer, with those arguments, your poor client would be doomed
First, while it is not allowed to shoot anyone in civilian life (few exceptions), it is in war time when the attacker follows certain rules. And it is also accepted that innocent bystanders are killed during that attack.
Second, the dead bystander is not asked to prove anything. That would be the job of a court or of a prosecutor of war crimes. And he has or should have (ideally) access to the attack orders issued to the crews, the general doctrine of the air force etcpp., he can gather information about wind, visibity etcpp and then come to a conclosion. Then the court would apply the international law of warfare and decide whether we have a war crime or not.
Third, if the rules are followed and the casualties are the result of the underdeveloped target finding techniques of the day, you can't blame those who use them.
Fourth. Like it or not, but regarding the attacks on Warsaw, the legal situation I explained in this thread is undisputed among experts of the internatonal law of aerial warfare.
By the way, you are aware that - using your srguments - all allied bomber crews of the strategic air forces could be prosecuted as war criminals.