Sure you can.
Yet, perhaps you should provide greater clarity of the situation.
The map was Game Warden, and you were playing as US. You were riding as a copilot when your pilot decided to rape the NVA main. You bailed while he attacked; which, by the way, you never told him to stop yourself. I warned him and eventually had to kill him because he persisted in his attack on NVA main. Because of his main rape, you were able to steal Mi-8 from NVA, so to keep the game fair, I remotely killed you.
The reason for this is because you received an unfair advantage to steal the NVA helicopter and would have tipped the scales unfairly against the NVA that the US had both helis with only four total players in the game.
There is a precedence for this, and it involved you directly. Months ago, Grizzly Adams raped US main in Mi-8. I warned him, yet he stole US attack huey and flew away. I thought it was unfair that he could rape and only receive the punishment of just a warning because it would put the US at too much of a disadvantage, so I remotely killed him. You were one of the US players and were screaming how unfair it was and that admins did nothing when people broke the rules. You actually thanked me for doing it. If you felt it were unfair then, why is it any less fair now? By the strictest definition of the rules, I should have allowed him to take the huey and let you continue with your complaining. However, in the spirit of fairness, I utilized a little bit of judgment.
Here is something else to think about. Given your scenario, players could conceivably do the same thing, and it could actually be a common strategy to have one pilot attack main while another simply waited to steal with the knowledge that the thief would not be punished. It violates the spirit of the rule.
And on one final note since I know everyone loves reading my messages, do you know why I joined in the first place? I saw where another player was complaining about you main raping.
-Drops mike. Walks off stage.-