* * * * *
I suppose the law to be this: That a sentinel shall not use more force or violence to prevent the escape of a prisoner than is necessary to effect that object, but if the prisoner, after being ordered to halt, continues his flight the sentinel may maim or even kill him, and it is his duty to do so.
A sentinel who allows a prisoner to escape without firing upon him, and firing to hit him, is, in my judgment, guilty of a most serious military offense, for which he should and would be severely punished by a general court-martial.
* * * * *
(Signed) HENRY A. MORROW,
Colonel Twenty-first Infantry, Commanding Post.
[Third indorsement.]
| OFFICE JUDGE ADVOCATE, | |
| MILITARY DIVISION OF THE PACIFIC, | |
| May 11, 1883. |
Respectfully returned to the assistant adjutant general, Military Division of the Pacific, concurring fully in the views expressed by Col. Morrow. I was not aware that such a view had ever been questioned. That the period is a time of peace does not affect the authority and duty of the sentinel or guard to fire upon the escaping prisoner, if this escape can not otherwise be prevented. He should, of course, attempt to stop the prisoner before firing by ordering him to halt, and will properly warn him by the words "Halt, or I fire," or words to such effect.
W. WINTHROP, Judge Advocate.
[Fourth indorsement.]