Talk:Execution by firing squad

First paragraph needs sources
First paragraphs is full of "usually", "sometimes" and stuff like that referring to certain practices or anecdotes, without a shred of source to back it up. Quote: "[...] thus preventing both disruption of the process by a single member and identification of the member who fired the lethal shot". Who said that? Where? "There is a tradition in some jurisdictions" which jurisdictions? And later on the same paragraph, what does it mean "by some accounts"? This doesn't seem an academic approach to me. Davide (Turin, IT) 8:29, 24 Jun 2020 (UTC)

In North America
Surely "in North America since 1600"? PML.
 * Will clarif to "...English speaking parts of North America..." -- knoodelhed 06:39, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * The original source is explicit saying "340 in the US since 1600". I found exactly that same wording on a website (that did not cite references). As you point out, that's a logical impossibility since the US didn't exist as a legal entity then. Perhaps they meant "US and predecessor territories" but I have been unable to confirm.  Given the confusion (and the inability to cite references for this estimate), I am going to pull the sentence.  I don't think it adds that much to the article anyway.  If someone can clear up the confusion with a validated reference, please revert. Rossami 19:48, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Returned with reference Rmhermen 20:12, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Possible anti-mormon statement
As written, this comes across as an anti-Mormon statement that IMO violates the NPOV policy. Please clarify who believes this before reinserting it into the article. Rossami 21:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Many have suggested that its use in Utah is related to a supposed Mormon doctrine of blood atonement, although the Mormon church has strongly denied that this doctrine exists.
 * Until these 'many' are identified, the article has been changed to give Taylor's own reasoning.

A 17 June 2010 BBC News article provides the above information and itself cites a Salt Lake Tribune article that draws quotes from a state representative and a law professor and former Mormon missionary. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10254279.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.55.220 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Link to CNN article
The link to a CNN article about firing squads (link 1) that appears not to be working. The URL is http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/17/firing.squads.ap/index.html Has anyone got another link, or should it just be removed? Kingal86 13:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'criminal' inappropriate
Many people who weren't criminals have been executed by firing squad, e.g. persons captured in wars or revolutions or killed in wartime reprisals. I've replaced the first use of the word 'criminal' with 'person' and the second with 'victim' (which may not be the best word either, but is clearly more appropriate than 'criminal').Palmiro 18:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think changing the wording makes this article a bit harder to follow. The vast majority of executions by firing squad are of criminals.  In fact, I'm tempted to say all of them.  Can you provide evidence of executions by firing squad in these situations?  I know of examples of execution by gunshot in non-criminal wartime reprisals, etc. but none of execution by firing squad.  I do consider that a significant distinction.  Of the cases of persons captured in wars or revolutions, all the examples I know that ended in a firing squad were preceded by a trial.  If there was a conviction by trial (even if the trial was seriously flawed), the term "criminal" remains appropriate.  Changing the wording for trivial exceptions does not seem to benefit the article. Rossami 19:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rossami. Personally, I don't think the changed wording makes it harder to follow (although as I said, 'victim' may not be the best word - I can't immediately think of a better one though). In relation to the distinction you draw between execution by gunshot and execution by firing squad, I'm not sure that I'm entirely clear as to what falls into which category. Where a large military squadron executes a number of prisoners by firing a volley of shots (which I think was a common practice in a variety of wars, cf the famous Goya painting of the execution of the defenders of Madrid), which category does that fall into?

"If there was a conviction by trial (even if the trial was flawed), the term criminal remains appropriate." I have to say I disagree (even leaving aside the issue of innocent persons who are convicted). I don't think 'criminal' is an appropriate term for persons convicted of political offences. To judge from the content of this (excellent) article, and also given that political trials aren't a very common phenomenon in the US, this may not be a serious issue in relation to the use of the firing squad in the US. However, in many jurisdictions execution by firing squad is commonly used when a person has been convicted in military or special security courts. These are courts which typically try political offences.

You asked for specific examples. First of all, I arrived at this page by following a link from Patrick Pearse. This is a case of a person convicted of an offence by a court martial, but I don't think many people would agree with the use of the term 'criminal' in his regard. It would be a highly controversial judgement, to say the least.

As a second example, during the Irish Civil War the government ordered the execution of 77 captured Republicans. As far as I know all these prisoners were executed without trial and by firing squad (quite a few other killings of prisoners without government authority also took place). The most notorious case is the first one. Four men who had been imprisoned since the start of the war, without undergoing any trial, were executed by firing squad in what was officially stated to be a reprisal for the assassination of a senator from the governing party, an assassination which took place while the four men were in prison. The four were selected primarily on the basis of their origins - symbolically, one from each province.

I'm sorry that both these examples are Irish, as I suspect I could find a good few from elsewhere, but I don't have any reference sources available relating to other countries.Palmiro 23:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I would consider the example you describe in the first paragraph to be many things but not "execution by firing squad". I may be splitting hairs but the term firing squad is specifically and, I believe, universally used in the context of capital punishment.  Firing into a group of prisoners is just that - firing into a group of prisoners.  None of the other characteristics of a firing squad execution are present.


 * Your other two examples are more difficult to parse. You raise a good point that political prisoners are sometimes (and at certain points in history, were often) executed by firing squad.  You are correct that some of those prisoners are or were denied a trial.  I would counter with the argument that they were deemed criminals by some representative of the government even if that designation would be challenged by any independent observer.  (My rule about a trial was, therefore, not a good one.)  I think Patrick Pearse still qualifies - even if you and I would not consider him a criminal, the courts martial did.  (If I remember right, the charge was treason.)


 * To rebut your second example, I am forced to define the executions as extra-judicial killings - an exception that is, hopefully, rare enough that it stays worthy of comment. I'm not sure I agree with all your arguments yet but you've convinced me that the more general term "person" may be appropriate in some circumstances.  I'm uncomfortable with "victim" though.  How about "condemned"?  We use that word pretty extensively in other paragraphs.  It feels like overuse but perhaps that's the only technically correct term. Rossami 01:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, 'condemned' sounds like the best option. It avoids the infelicity of 'victim' (which I agree is a problematic term to use when the condemned may be under sentence of death for murder and there's therefore a prior victim in the case) as well as the problems associated with 'criminal'. I've therefore changed 'victim' to 'condemned person'.

re: third theory
Anonymous User:12.216.183.219 added the following as a "third theory" of why a blank cartridge may be used in the firing squad. While I am familiar with this superstition and do not doubt its existence, I have never heard it advanced as a justification for the blank cartridge. Please cite your sources for use of this particular reason for including a blank cartridge. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Third, many consider it an omen of bad luck to know who the executioner was. This is also true for other forms of capital punishment, most similar to the black hood which many executioners will wear.

expansion of China practice
At 23:52, 26 Jan 2005, Centralman expanded the paragraph on the Chinese practice of execution as shown below (italics added). While it's an interesting fact, it is a distraction from this article's core topic of "execution by firing squad ". Any suggestions on where this could fit better? Rossami (talk) 13:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) Execution by firing squad is distinct from other forms of execution by firearms such as the "single shot from a handgun to the back of the neck" practiced by the People's Republic of China'' in the past. It has since changed to "single shot from an assualt rifle to the back of the head with a special bullet that expands upon impact." It usually results in the disintegration of the upper half portion of the head.

In Thailand, before lethal injection is being adopted in the 21st century, execution is being carried out by a single executioner firing a mounted Heckler & Koch mp5, which fires in 3 round bursts aiming at the heart of the condemned prisoner.

Until there has been a decision made or otherwise, please allow me to post up there, thanks.


 * This is where and hopefully when we make the decision. I think the section is a tangent that does not belong in this article (though it probably does belong in some other article on executions).  Execution by a single shooter is, by definition, not execution by firing squad.  Many of the core issues of this article (such as diffusion of responsibility) are not relevant to execution by a single shooter.  The only reason to have had the sentence in this article in the first place was to clarify a reader's understanding of execution by firing squad with a brief example of what it is not.
 * You obviously feel that the section does belong here. I'm willing to listen to your arguments why it should stay and I encourage others to join the discussion.  In the meantime, the general Wikipedia concensus is that disputed sections are removed to Talk while the discussion continues.  I'm pulling it back out until we get closer to agreement.  With your permission, though, I am going to update the blockquote above with your expanded section.  As I said, I don't think it belongs here but it definitely belongs somewhere.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 03:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Moving the block to execution by firearm was an elegant solution. I should have thought of it.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk)

Merger of Execution by firing squad in the United Kingdom
I'm not sure who posted the recommendation for the merger, but looking at the current size of the articles, they could easily be merged. We can always split them out again if they ever do become too large. Any objections? Rossami (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove reference to Ceauşescu
C.'s execution should not be quoted as an exemple of "Execution by firing squad". He and his wife were shot by a single executioner with a submachine gun. (see article Nicolae Ceauşescu). Kauko, 16:22, 6 March 2006 (CEST)


 * Actually, I heard that it was a firing squad, but maybe I misheard. Also, Mr. Ceausescu was hardly executed for "Political" crimes. I harbor no illusions that the trial was not something that even bothered to be impartial, and was political in nature, but it sounds currently in the sentence like he was executed for merely BEING a Communist, like some would kill people for being Jews/Catholics/Protestants/Royalists/Republicans/Dissidents etc. Like it was a carpet policy. The Ceausescu's were killed for their disgusting and quite frankly horrific Tyranny and abuses of power, not for being Communists (though that might have had a role in there somewhere.) ELV

Firing squads in Finland?
I question:


 * Since Finland has conscription, it is widely assumed the death penalty by firing squad will be immediately re-estabilished if the country enters a military conflict.

Ummm, I know almost nothing about Finnish law or military affairs but this seems like a stretch because 1) Finland seems ill-disposed to enter a war, nor does it appear that hostilities are going to break out among Finland's neighbors in the near future (I know, I'm being presumptive in light of history...) 2) Finland is in the EU which require member states to forswear use of the death penalty in all cases. Am I completely off the mark here, or what? Ellsworth 00:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a complete non sequitur in any case; there's no logical link between having conscription and using firing squads in military conflict. And yes, it does also strike me as highly unlikely. Palmiro | Talk 16:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-introduction of death penalty at wartime is considered as a self-evident issue here in Finland, no matter what the EU legislature might say. The grim realities of the war and necessities of keeping discipline on the conscripts override the ideals of the Brussels legislators. Hell, how do you expect to keep discipline on those conscripts who are craven, unwilling or have weak nerves if you don't show them the choices are either probable death from ahead or certain death from behind???
 * That kind of bigoted and ignorant comment does not deserve a reply. Go talk to someone actually serving in the military.  Stop wasting our time with such nonsense.  Rossami (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have myself served in the Finnish Army, I am a reserve officer and I know exactly what I am talking about. So does each and every Finnish reservist, and in Finland almost each and every able-bodied male is a soldier. It is a common assumption in Finland the death-penalty will be reinstated for disciplinary reasons in wartime just as it was 1944. It is not perhaps nonsense to say that swift executions of deserters showed an example for the would-be deserters and saved the front from breaking in the Soviet Summer Offensive 1944.


 * If it is in fact "widely assumed", then you can no doubt easily provide a verifiable citation from a reliable source demonstrating so. As to your ideas on leadership, that is a concept that was outmoded during the Napoleanic Wars.  I am appalled to hear someone claiming to actively serve still espousing such discredited ideas.  Rossami (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That is what our drill sergeants and commanding officers unianimously said. Some units even carried out mock executions with blanks. Likewise, that issue arises every now and then on Finnish discussion forums, and the common opinion is that death penalty will be reinstated immediiately at wartime. A verifiable citation might be sergeants Pinola and Klevdahl who said that in situ while I served. United States does not have conscription while we have. If you need to drag on the unmotivated, craven, unwilling or neurotic, you have to deal with them with extreme methods if needed to keep discipline and to prevent them from undermining the motivation and morale of the whole unit. I do not know if you have yourselves served and if you have been in a conscript army, but I served - against my will - and I was a conscript, because if I hadn't served in the army, I would never have gotten any decent job in the civilian life. I know exactly what I am talking about. Small nations simply cannot afford any idealism or humour on miiitary matters. I know exactly also what the fate of the conscientious objectors will be in wartime. They are given rifle and they are ordered to fight. If they don't, they are shot. Exactly what happened to Arndt Pekurinen in 1941. Sorry, no conscientious objection here in wartime. No leeway for individualism or dissidents when the existence of the nation is at stake. Conscientious objection at peacetime doesn't free anyone from military service at wartime.
 * Per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, et al, an allegation from a Wikipedia (whether signed in or anonymous) about a personal conversation is not a verifiable citation. Please do not add this line back until you have a citation which meets our requirements for verifiability. Rossami (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As to your second question, yes I served. (CPT, FA, US Army ret.)  And more importantly, I learned my lessons from NCOs and officers who led troops in combat.  I am trying to not cast aspersions on your NCOs but it has been a while since Finland was in a shooting war.  I do have to question their experience.  The men I learned from knew that they were giving potentially lethal orders - situations in which the threat of a firing squad is moot.  They also understood that they were giving these orders to men with automatic weapons.  You can not threaten your men to charge a machine gun nest.  You must lead them.  By the way, the US does not have conscription right now but it hasn't been that long since we got rid of it.  You are fooling yourself if you believe the lessons of other countries have no applicability.  Rossami (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to second Rossami's remarks about verifiable citations. Please don't add this information in again without such a source. Palmiro | Talk 17:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this: "Officers and NCOs also had (and still have) the right to shoot a disobedient subordinate on spot in case the subordinate is endangering the unit in a battle or in a severe storm." Citation definitely needed. Also, I want to add that death penalty during wartime is also prohibited by the Finnish constitution, and I seriously doubt that Finland would reinstall capital punishment during war. At least not officially.

Vidkun Quisling was Prime Minister of Norway from 1940-1945. While it is true that he was later executed by firing squad for collaboration with the German occupants, he was clearly not a Finn. Guest 18:09, 15 Jun 2006 (UTC)


 * In Finland, some individuals inside and outside the Defence Force might believe that death penalty could be reinstated. However, this absolutely not the view of the Defence Force judicial personnel. For example, the former advocate general Katariina Buure-Hägglund denies vehemently in her book about the legislation for crisis situations that there would be even a possibility to reintate the capital punishment. The same has been noticed by the constitutional board of the Finnish Parliament, which is responsible for the interpretation of our constitution. In addition, Finland is party to the convention on the abolition of the death penalty and has bound itself not to use it even during wartime. There is no official support to any claims about death penalty during wartime in Finland, as far as I know. (We have a democratic constitution, so the opinions of certain officers do not have very much importance.) Practicing executions is but a fulfillment of the fantasies of some individual, who would, were his/her actions known, probably face disclipinary action.


 * On the other hand, the officers, NCOs and even privates in positions of superiority have the right to use force to stop a subordinate who is endangering the unit by deserting, violently resisting the superior, or disobeying an order aimed to remove the danger, if the unit is in combat or in distress at sea. The use of force must be relative to the dangereousness of the act by the subordinate and to the danger faced by the unit. This may, in exceptional circumstances, include the use of weapons against the subordinate. However, the use of such force was extremely rare even in the WW II, and is generally discouraged. (The famous pacifist Arndt Pekurinen was shot on the front and his superiors founded their actions to this section, but it is quite clear that the circumstances did not warrant their actions. The death of Arndt Pekurinen may be considered more an extra-judicial execution than any legal one.)


 * The translation of the section 26a of the 45th Chapter of the Penal code, follows
 * ''Section 26a – The use of forcible measures (515/2003; enters into force on 1 January 2004)
 * ''(1) A soldier who is on duty as a sentry, in the day detail or as military police and who meets with resistance has the right to use such forcible measures as can be deemed justified in view of the security of the military unit or the object being guarded, the nature of the duty or service, and the dangerousness of the resistance. On the grounds mentioned above a sentry has the right to use forcible measures also if, despite his/her command to stop, someone approaches a guarded area to which entry is prohibited.
 * ''(2) If in combat, distress at sea or in another similar situation that is especially dangerous to the military unit or its operations, and despite the prohibition of a superior officer, a subordinate deserts, violently resists his/her superior officer or does not obey an order that a superior officer has given to repel the danger, even though this order was repeated, the superior officer has the right to use such forcible measures against the subordinate to restore obedience and discipline as can be deemed justified in order to prevent the act or to have the order obeyed, taking into account the dangerousness of the act of the subordinate, and the situation also otherwise.
 * ''(3) Should a prisoner of war attempt to escape, the person who is assigned to prevent an escape has the right to use the forcible measures referred to in section 2(11)(b) of the Act on the Enforcement of Punishments (39/1889).
 * ''(4) The provisions of chapter 4, sections 6(3) and 7 apply to excessive use of forcible measures.


 * The language is somewhat unclear, the translation of the Department of Justice using form "superior officer" for Finnish esimies. This is strictly not right, as esimies means any superior, including officers, NCOs, and even rank and file temporarily in positions of superiority. (The Finnish criminal law does not discriminate between offences against officers and enlisted superiors.) --MPorciusCato 05:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, while the superiors have right to defend the troops by use of force in cases of insurrection and rebellion, this can hardly be called "capital punishment". Section 26a justifies the use of force by soldiers in different situations. It does not describe any form of capital punishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.50.237 (talk • contribs) at 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Huhtihniemi graves
Huhtiniemi graves are no more mere "speculation". On the excavations on 17 October 2006, eleven skeletons, all male, aging 20-22, were exhumed. All were buried without coffins and in a row. All show signs of bullets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.87.65 (talk • contribs)
 * Interesting but not really relevant to this article. I'm sure you can find an article on Wikipedia where that story will fit better.  Rossami (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A link to Huhtiniemi mass grave would do in my opinion, no need to bloat the article with it as of now. Scoo 10:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The number of executed in the Civil War is great, but the number given here, 9700, is based on misinterpretation of the statistics held by the National Archives. The number 9 700 is "Teloitettu, ammuttu, murhattu", 'executed, shot, murdered'. There is a very detailed study of political violence in Finland in two volumes: Jaakko Paavolainen (1966): Poliittiset väkivaltaisuudet Suomessa 1918, 1 Punainen terrori Jaakko Paavolainen (1967): Poliittiset väkivaltaisuudet Suomessa 1918, 2 Valkoinen terrori. It is absolutely clear that a great part of victims were simply murdered without even a mock trial. Many POW:s were shot just to get rid of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalju-Kalle (talk • contribs) 13:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

rationale for blindfold or hood
"The condemned is typically blindfolded or hooded..." What is the rationale behind this custom?--Soylentyellow 12:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It hides the face of the condemned from the executioners (who might not necessarily enjoy their work and who most certainly don't want to remember the face of the man they executed). Also, it is in the 'interest' of the condemned, the sight of the firing squad is certainly not something enjoyable and helps them cope better with the unfortunate event (if I am not mistaken the Germans, when guillotining persons that could have struggled during the execution, used to hide the guillotine from their sight using a curtain, so that it would make it easier for both the executioner and the condemned).

Francisco Goya Painting
Fixed. Thank you.

just before i clicked on this page, i thought "i hope they have the goya!" thanks! good work--86.146.230.113 21:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blank Cartridge
Firstly, the "blank cartridge" story is a common myth (not to say a "lie") among soldiers and war novel readers. It might be that it was used in official executions in civilian justice, but to my best knowledge in martial law executions sure all the rifles are loaded! However I have no factual sources for this so I leave the article unchanged (somehow my old basic recruit training handbook misses the chapter - "firing squad executions :) )

Secondly: "While an experienced marksman can tell the difference between a blank and a live cartridge based on the recoil " - this is equally true, as it is irrelevant - if you ever (were forced to) fire a rifle at another man, you might know that almost anyone's nerves are so wound up at the moment, that they don't feel any recoil or anything else

--Albert Cuandero 22:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to second Albert Cuandero's doubts regarding the blank cartridge story (which btw. features quite prominently in the article); are there any references/sources for it? I could cite a source to the contrary: For his book Die Erschiessung des Landesverräters Ernst S. (roughly: the execution of the traitor Ernst S.) swiss journalist Niklaus Meienberg interviewed a member of the firing squad about the circumstances of the execution and specifically asks if blank cartridges were issued which the former soldier expressively denies (However, they were given coffee and "Schnaps"(spirits) after having conducted the execution).
 * To me the rationale for issuing blank cartridges given in the article - albeit adding quite some psychological "drama" to the whole story - shows a total disregard of how armies and their justice systems rely on command structure, unit cohesion, shared responsibility and shared accountability to function.
 * Btw: Switzerland has officially executed 13 people during WWII, most of them members of its armed forces; all of them were shot by firing squad, preferably by members of the same army unit the "traitor" belonged to - in at least one case a unit apparently refused to participate so some other unit had to be press ganged into providing a firing squad. And we're talking about the swiss army here - experts in establishing standard procedures... Nouly (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've found a reliable source for the practice of including blank rounds among the live ammunition used by firing squads, namely the 1947 US Army Manual 27-4, "Procedure for Military Executions". This manual describes the procedures for hangings and firing squad executions in considerable detail, and in the latter case specifies that eight rifles be used, of which at least one but no more than three will be loaded with blank ammunition. I will add a sentence to the article saying this. It would be interesting to know how widespread the practice of using blank rounds was in other countries, or for civilian executions, and what the rationale was. Manual 27-4 gives no rationale, just the procedures.CharlesHBennett (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Albert Cuandro: How do you know? Have you ever done it? Some squads are hand picked men Eager to shoot a traitor, spy, enemy. They are not "tense".

Any One, not just a "trained marksman" can Feel the Kick of a big Mauser rifle or .30-'06. They Kick, Hard. Even an automatic Grand or little Winchester model 94 in .30-30. There is no: "memory of soft recoil" or even "tensed muscles" to negate it. A big man feels it the most; a small man pivots a bit from it. An automatic rifle, if used, will usually not cycle the expended round out and then lock open if it's a blank. A Sure sign of a blank being used. No blank plugs would be installed--too much chance of it being forgotten and a live round being used in it, causing damage to the gun. Newton's Law is not abrogated becauase of psychology...Tintinteslacoil (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the reason for the blank cartridge is so the members of the firing squad don't know before firing who has a live round. Wschart (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Cruel and Unusual Punishment?
Since the consitutionality of gas chamber, lethal injection and electric chair is under scrutiny, has execution by firing squad ever been considered to be a cruel and unusual punishment? And if the aforementioned methods are found unconstitutional, will it result as resurgence of hanging and/or firing squads?62.237.141.27 21:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

shot at dawn
A redirect for this well-known phrase has been set to this article, so I've tried to add a minimum of relevant material, including some mention of the recent 'shot at dawn' campaign. (IMHO a redirect should be to an article with at least some note on the redirected usage!). The phrase 'shot at dawn' has a long tradition (but what was done in Cromwell's time??) and is not, on due inspection, completely self-evident (eg some of the drama in the final moments of Tosca is because the execution of her lover is at sunrise ). Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Above the Arctic circle, they have to be careful about the "shot at dawn" stuff, as it could involve a long wait. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Russia
Russians claims they have shot looters in the South Ossetia/ Georgia conflict by firesquad.Probably hundreds of thousends if not millions of people where killed by firesquad in Russia and the Sovietunion in the 20th century alone.Someone should write more on this. As well as China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.12.208 (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to research the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Article only supports actual facts, that can be cited, not cold war propaganda.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.152.158 (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This article omits...
...the time-honored tale of the Polish format for firing squads - they form a circle around the condemned. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this supposed to be funny, you dirty yank?Most of prominent people in US are '*ski' and '*vich' so flee off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeh, like Clintonski, Bushski, and Obamavich. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mean just politicians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_American and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Polish_Americans

Firing squads in Finland
Known locally as "The Finnish Line". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

reason for tying condemned to a wooden pillar?
Anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Because if they tied him to a metal post, the bullets might richochet. Duh. (See Polish firing squad, above). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do they tie a condemned to a post (any, not specifically wooden) at all, smartass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, let's think about this... if they don't, do ya think there's a chance he might try to *run away*? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems quite obvious to me that a doomed person, surrounded by armed men would accept his fate rather than try to escape and thus risk a non-lethal shot that only would provide him with needless suffering before his end. It's especially unlikely with a military, 'cos e.g. officers mostly present some dignity and would not risk blaming them for cowardice. If you watch the execution of german general Anton Dostler e.g. on youtube, you'll notice that he's tied to that wooden pillar by knees, also his hands are tied behind the pillar, so after the shot, I guess, it prevents him from hitting the dirt, and he simply bends over instead of slipping all the way down to the ground. What's the purpose of this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And it seems quite obvious to me that someone in that spot would figure he has nothing to lose, so he might as well try. Also, if he's securely tied to something, it gives the shooters a better shot, i.e. not a moving target. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, am I to believe it is that simple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say there are several reasons: (1) to prevent the person fleeing, lying down or engaging in other physical activity that might be "embarrassing" for all involved; and (2) to prevent the person from being knocked over by the first, and possibly non-fatal, bullet, as I would imagine that absolutely simulataneous firing is hard to achieve 99.240.142.65 (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've hit upon the practical answer, which is simply this: To make the executioners' job as easy as possible; for precisely the same reason they immobilize a guy who's about to be hanged, decapitated, electrocuted, gassed, or injected. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Mexico?
Most executed in the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920 were hung. By both the rebels and the federal troops. Pancho Villa later "stacked" prisoners to save ammo. One rifle bullet would kill up to 7 men; a pistol, up to 3.

See "Insurgent Mexico". John Reed.Tintinteslacoil (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Since which war?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik he was the only soldier to be executed since the phil.-american war. This article states that it is since the civil war. Which is it?

Actual execution photos
Are the pictures of actual executions by firing squad (the German firing squad executing civilians in Bochnia and the Soviet infiltrator being shot during the Continuation War) necessary? It seems a bit over the top to show real pictures of people being killed, and the other images in this article convey the point quite clearly without them. Alexjcharlton (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with the pictures. They are not graphic in nature, they depict events that happened half a century ago, and they add valuable content to the article. You say the article conveys the point clearly without them. I feel that this is not entierly true. A picture tells a thousand words and theese images complement the textual content of the article perfectly. They are no different than the pictures beeing used in any kind of encyclopedic publication. Long storry short, this is an encyclopedia, not a childrens book. Granted, kids use wikipedia for school projects and the like, but any kid able to read and old enough to be handed an assignemnt concerning execution is old enough to handle theese pictures. I say keep the images. ~  Fenrisulfr  ( talk  ·  work  ) 08:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bahrain
The Bahrain section describes the method of execution as being by a single sharpshooter. This doesn't fit the definition of firing squad as given in the first paragraph. The section has also been tagged as needing citations for over a year now, so I've deleted it completely. Rojomoke (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Denmark
The Danish authorities executed 46 prisoners as part of the legal purges following World War 2 and the Occupation of Denmark. The executions took place in two different locations in the country and was conducted by a firing squad of 8 policemen.

I intend to start a new article on the legal purges and the executions, but figured I might as well add a new section here as well. It won't be today though, as I'm busy elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KDLarsen (talk • contribs) 16:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Idaho and Utah on the Map
Since according to the "Firing squads in the United States" section, Idaho has now outlawed firing squads, shouldn't the state be painted green, in the map? Thanks-- Kingsfold (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, Utah's law banning firing squad is not retroactive, as stated in the article. So no new convicts can be sentenced but as of 17 June 2010 there are still men on death row who can be executed this way.

This map keeps getting more outdated. I'm moving it from the article to this talk page hoping someone will fix it. Leaving it in the article is just too confusing to readers at this point. Tripleahg (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ineffective round
The Wikipedia article refers to one person in the squad using a blank, but according to this CNN article one person is issued an ineffective round. The round causes the same feedback in the rifle. Suggestions?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/09/utah.firing.squad/index.html

129.174.161.41 (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What's with the "scare" quotes?
The article quoth:

''Regardless if is carried out properly, execution by firing squad is debated as to whether or not it is a "humane" practice. It is possible that it can be a "relatively" painless and extremely swift but fairly messy way to kill a human being. If the executioners aim at the head, a single hit in the brain, especially the brain stem, is "usually" immediately fatal. Since bullets are faster than neural impulses, it is "unlikely" the convict will feel any pain.''

If those are quoted from somebody, they should be cited; if they're not, the scare quotes should be removed. Jpatokal (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Indonesia
Boneyard: You have deleted (well) sourced material with no good cause. No, the cause you gave was not good enough. The article is not only about the act of execution by shooting (which by its nature must be in the past) but the policy of execution, and this is especially relevant for a country which, having not executed anyone for ten years, has announced it will recommence capital punishment. Or do you think a death sentence is irrelevant to an execution?

On another note, I notice you are now claiming it is an unnecessarily detailed edit when in fact it is only as detailed as it was before; whereas previously your only beef was with the fact that it was unsourced. That I rectified. You never mentioned unnecessary detail earlier, so don't now. I am going to now replace the relevant and verifiable information you deleted. TTFN. Basket Feudalist 15:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I find it detailed and unnecessary until the sentence is carried out. Would the information have been included if it was an Indonesian person (in Indonesia) sentenced to death, or is this solely because it is of some interest to British (or Western) readers because it's a British/Western person in a Southeast Asia country. Sounds like it violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. I think you ought to re-consider the relevancy of the information, or explain the relevancy better. But a simple mention of what might happen, is irrelevant. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What's relevant here is not her ethnicity (or age, or gender...) but the apparent shift in Government policy. Which I have already pointed out. If it was -for example China, where executions are not exactly uncommon- then no notability of course. It is disingenuous to suggest the sourced material said what might happen; it didn't. It stated one bald fact that HAD already happened- her sentencing. The until-recent rarity of the event means iit does not violate WP:NOTNEWS and being an established, single fact means neither does it 'overburden' the article which is in turn not based on 'flimsy, transient merits'; only that would violate WP:RECENTISM. Since you arre so keen on policy and proceedure, how 'bout WP:AGF...? It strikes me that your instinctive response was effectively an attack; to accuse me of tendencious editing, to assume my personal background, and to infer some Nationalist-Eurocentric-proto-Colonialist ETC agenda on my part! Which is ironically, laughable. But unfortunately still highly offensive behaviour from an editor of such note. Basket Feudalist 16:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ha, you are really reading too much into my correction and my comments, but thank you for the compliment. I have assumed good faith; otherwise I would have called it vandalism. But the edit still does not explain the significance. A lady was sentenced to death: so what? Why is it significant? You say it represents an "apparent shift in Government policy". Really? It doesn't look like it. The section states that five people were executed as recently as 2008, both foreigners and native Indonesians. So what is significant about the possible execution of a convicted foreigner? Aside from your explanation (your POV), what source do you have? And why write "subject to change"? Such edits are a hassle, because the reader does not know if the situation has changed, because quite often the original contributor never bothers to return and update the info. Account for these issues, and I'd be in a better position to support the inclusion. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't write 'subect to change', that was already there and therefore returned when I reverted, and yes it frankly is crap prose I agree. My reasons are as above; it is a factual, historical, and sourced event that is relevant to the subject. I have spent the last ten days recovering from the outrageous slur of being accused of IMPERIALISM. Basket Feudalist 12:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

F*ck it. | Looks like I might be wrong... Apologies. Basket Feudalist 12:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In Cuba the death penalty is by firing squad too but nothing is said about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.219.123 (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

India
Where is India?First incident of execution by firing happened in India.After 1st battle of Panipat,prisoners were executed by firing.Ovsek (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you on drugs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.231.189 (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not on drugs,dear,see here-Babur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovsek (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Globalize tag
I've removed the 'Globalize' tag because with some fourteen countries represented, it did not seem relevant; I could not see the need for it. RASAM (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Josef Wende
He is wearing German uniforms on all pictures, unlikely that he was captured in any other clothing. --41.151.42.254 (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Austria/Serbians Photo
Perhaps I should ask this over on Wikimedia Commons, but is there any sense of how authentic the photo is of Austrians executing Serbs in 1917? I clicked through the one active link on the file's page to the National Archives | here, and the photo description reads as propaganda, which is a bit unsurprising as it was put out in 1917 by the US War Dept. My bigger question is that looking at the soldiers' boots, they seem really mismatched to the ground that they're standing on, almost like a cut-and-paste. Konchevnik81 (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Utah - March 2015
"Utah to resume use of firing squad for executions": Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Blank cartridge: how many?

 * If the blank cartridge system was used, how many of the squad had live rounds? One? All but one? Half the squad? Likely it varied? See Execution by shooting. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See the comments under "Blank Cartridge" above re: US Army procedures. However, undoubtedly this varied by country and time period and I suspect that actual procedures in the US Army varied due to circumstances. Blank cartridges were probably not routinely shipped to combat zones, although one could improvise by prying the bullet out of a cartridge and putting in some wadding to contain the powder. Wschart (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

North Korea article stating education advisor executed by shooting squad
In the North Korea article, it states that Kim Jong Un ordered his education advisor executed by shooting squad for "slumping in his chair at a meeting". Should this be added to the article about where shooting squads are used? Planer 12346578955 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Execution by firing squad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617190404/http://www.sunstar.com.ph:80/static/ceb/2006/06/25/news/arroyo.kills.death.law.html to http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/06/25/news/arroyo.kills.death.law.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014041356/http://web.amnesty.org:80/library/Index/ENGMDE250012002?open&of=ENG-ARE to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE250012002?open&of=ENG-ARE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Execution by firing squad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070320104934/http://yliopistolehti.helsinki.fi/yl14art.htm to http://yliopistolehti.helsinki.fi/yl14art.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130903065256/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWlaval.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWlaval.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100406062256/http://nsla.nevadaculture.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1691&Itemid=95 to http://nsla.nevadaculture.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1691&Itemid=95
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100718113236/http://www.nvbar.org/publications/NevadaLawyer/2010/June/capital.htm to http://www.nvbar.org/Publications/NevadaLawyer/2010/June/capital.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposition of new image in the introduction
Hello, the painting Tres de Mayo (Third of May) is an artistic representation of a firing squad. I think this photograph could ba a better candidate : This is an actual photograph of a firing squad, all the elements are clearly visible (soldiers and victims) and centered. What do you think ? Skimel (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree. The photograph is better. The painting can be moved lower down. Also, you can remove red links because their (unproven) WP:NOTABILITY needs to be established first.  Poeticbent  talk 20:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I think the black and white image of wartime Nazis in Russia certainly has a place in the article, but I tend to think that the 1814 Goya painting, by virtue of its artistry, has a wider reach both emotionally and in terms of historical relevance. In simple terms, I think it's a better lead image because it's more general. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can certainly appreciate world-class art when I see it, and I do emphatically. The only problem is that the artistic representations are based on wp:hearsay and personal wp:point of view by the artists themselves who probably never witnessed an execution by a firing squad. We can do better than that.  Poeticbent  talk 21:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Édouard Manet also deserves to get the boot in favour of something more realistic? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You can also search in this category: Photographs of firing squads for an appropriate picture. I don't think artistic representation suit the introduction, but rather a real photograph of a real firing squad. Skimel (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

April 2022 Dubious Tag
I've inserted the dubious tag as to blank rifle cartridges exhibiting less recoil than live ammunition. First the background. Boyle's law states that a gas will expand equally in all directions to fill the space which contains a gas. Dalton's law states that pressure of a gas mixture is equal to the sum of partial pressure of the constituents of a gas. This in turn means that recoil is caused by backward expansion of gas generated from the powder charge such that the amount of gas generated is dictated by the size of the propellant, which in the case of a firearm is usually a black powder charge. Because Einstien's GR states that both engergy and mass are properties of mater that can be neither created nor destroyed (i.e. double law of conservation - neither engergy nor mass can be created nor destroyed) it then therefore follows that recoil is the force caused by gas expansion towards the breach of the weapon, not the gas traveling forward which can escape the barrel. This in turn makes the references highly unlikely to be true when combined with a working knowledge of the laws of physics, such that a second independent verifiable source is needed to verify the accuracy of the facts claimed. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This analysis is flawed. A standard cartridge shoots a bullet which is accelerated by a force exerted by the expanding propellant gases. By Newton's 3rd law, an equal force is exerted in the opposite direction on these gases, which is also exerted in turn on the breech of the gun and is felt as recoil. (There's probably some compression effects on the gas... I'm not a physicist.) Without a bullet, the mass being accelerated is much lower, so the recoil is too.
 * The existing book source is hard for me to verify at the moment, so I'll leave the tag for now. Radioactivated (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * On second thought - I think this book is still verifiable, so I'm removing the tag until someone can actually check. I question how dubious the claim actually is. Radioactivated (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
I am proposing that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_shooting be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad, or vice-versa. The topics are substantially similar and the former talks mostly about firing squad executions rather than non-firing squad shooting executions. Even the top photo on Execution by shooting is a photo of execution by firing squad.

E.g., under Asia "Bahrain uses firing squads for execution" and "In Indonesia, capital punishment is administered by a firing squad which aims for the heart." Under United States: "Since 1608, about 142 men have been judicially shot in the United States and its English-speaking predecessor territories, excluding executions related to the American Civil War" (the source speaks of all shooting deaths, including firing squads).

To be clear, execution by shooting is distinct from execution by firing squad. All executions by firing squad are executions by shooting, but a singular executioner using a gun is not execution by firing squad. Thus, it may be easier to rename this article to "Execution by shooting" with a header explaining executions by firing squad. A good reason to keep the name "...firing squad" is that people typically refer to executions by firing squad as the method of execution involving guns and, at least in American English, "execution by shooting" is a relatively rare turn of phrase. Jbp192 (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)