[Juha]

Hello
I’m not a lawyer but had based my opinion on two cases, one was the decision of the German war-crime investigation bureau, which decided after complains by some KM sailors that RN acted lawfully, when one RN DD opened fire with a pom-pom against them during Narvik battles in 1940 after survivors from a sunk German DD had reached land. According to the German investigators it would have been illegal to fire the German sailors while they were swimming or on a life boat but at the moment they reached firm land under control of Germans they became lawful targets to 40mm automatic canon.

Second case was the famous/infamous case when a US Army lawyer decided that a Apache attack helo could kill a couple insurgents that tried to surrender because of the helo could not take prisoners. IIRC the decision was seen as controversial, but if an army lawyer can make that kind of decision IMHO it wouls have been difficult to punish a pilot who shot an enemy pilot running away his crash landed plane, especially because LW and USAAF pilots had usually a side arm, IIRC Commonwealth pilots usually didn’t carry side arm.

Juha