Royal Marine says he only shot an injured Afghan insurgent because he thought they were already dead - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24742351[/url] [quote]A Royal Marine accused of shooting dead an injured insurgent in Afghanistan has told a court martial he believed the Afghan was dead at the time. The serviceman, called Marine A, blamed "a stupid lack of self-control and lapse in judgement" for the shooting. Two other marines are accused of being party to the shooting in September 2011 in southern Helmand province. A pathologist told the court martial on Tuesday the insurgent had been alive when he was shot.[/quote]

[quote]"stupid, lack of self-control, momentary lapse in my judgement". "I thought about it over the last year as we get towards these proceedings but I cannot give any other reason than to say that it was poor judgement and lack of self-control,"[/quote] I can see that he regrets it, probably will get a softer sentence. Feel a bit sorry for them in a way, even if what they did wasn't the best idea.

I forgive him, it's normal for troops to experience frequent bouts of extreme anger because that's how they survive, so I can understand why he would shoot the dead body (or the not so dead body in this case), he was probably really pissed off, most soldiers get PTSD and are all fucked up because war does that to people, our minds aren't used to such extreme levels of stress. While I believe he should answer for what he did, I don't believe a court marshal is in order, medical discharge and psych help sounds like the best action.

Shooting an injured insurgent is common practice. They like to do this thing where they hold a live grenade until a NATO soldier, bound by the geneva convention to treat such people, get close, then let the grenade go off. By common practice I mean it happens more than you would think, and there is a practical reason for it

[QUOTE=TheTalon;42701080]Shooting an injured insurgent is common practice. They like to do this thing where they hold a live grenade until a NATO soldier, bound by the geneva convention to treat such people, then let the grenade go off. By common practice I mean it happens more than you would think, and there is a practical reason for it[/QUOTE] Yeah. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the ideology of the combatants, it makes more sense to finish them off then and there than to risk it. Even if he's not holding a grenade, there's nothing saying that he's not strapped and that his buddy is holding the detonator a short distance away.

Sure it happens but these guys got caught in such a spectacular fashion they have to be punished. If you do stuff like this at least turn off your helmet cam and don't talk about doing while you're doing it.

I'd rather he shoot them to make sure they're dead than not shoot them and get himself and everyone around him blown up.

Why the fuck does it even matter hes the enemy that needs to be disposed off.

[QUOTE=Flem;42701146]Why the fuck does it even matter hes the enemy that needs to be disposed off.[/QUOTE] Because its in violation of the geneva convention and he recorded himself breaking the geneva convention and even talked about how he was breaking the geneva convention.

As fucked up as I may sound, I don't believe the shoot to wound policy is a good one. We should shoot to kill. I'd wager that the lifetime of disability that often results from surviving wounds like that, not to mention the massive amount of casualties faced by letting them have the possibility of having explosives or ambushing the medics, the fact they're alive does fuck all nothing for our troops, the psychological damage from engaging in active combat doesn't change because one guy lived or died. [editline]30th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=RainbowStalin;42701180]Because its in violation of the geneva convention and he recorded himself breaking the geneva conventio and even talked about how he was breaking the geneva convention.[/QUOTE] This is literally the only reason he is being tried, he showed what would appear to be cognitive decision making in his actions. I can mostly assure you that he was probably not making a completely cognitive decision, but to a court, he appears to have made one, which is the big issue here.

[QUOTE=Flem;42701146]Why the fuck does it even matter hes the enemy that needs to be disposed off.[/QUOTE] Some people in power don't understand that things like the Geneva Conventions were meant to be mutual things taken up by both sides in an army VS army conflict.

[QUOTE=Flem;42701146]Why the fuck does it even matter hes the enemy that needs to be disposed off.[/QUOTE] I understand the reasoning to an extent but that's a pretty fucked up way to describe another human being

[QUOTE=draugur;42701183]As fucked up as I may sound, I don't believe the shoot to wound policy is a good one. We should shoot to kill. I'd wager that the lifetime of disability that often results from surviving wounds like that, not to mention the massive amount of casualties faced by letting them have the possibility of having explosives or ambushing the medics, the fact they're alive does fuck all nothing for our troops, the psychological damage from engaging in active combat doesn't change because one guy lived or died. [editline]30th October 2013[/editline] This is literally the only reason he is being tried, he showed what would appear to be cognitive decision making in his actions. I can mostly assure you that he was probably not making a completely cognitive decision, but to a court, he appears to have made one, which is the big issue here.[/QUOTE] That's actually the reason for the policy. You injure an enemy combatant, it takes them off the field and takes a theoretical second person out of potential service to care for them. An injured soldier is also a better method of psychological warfare because people see them and the idea that that could happen to them gets into their heads instead of "you killed my <person of interest>! I'll Ger revenge for that". Edit: oh got those run-on sentences of mine.

[QUOTE=draugur;42701183]As fucked up as I may sound, I don't believe the shoot to wound policy is a good one. We should shoot to kill. [/QUOTE] We don't shoot to wound or to kill. We shoot to incapacitate, until the target no longer poses a threat. The goal is not to slaughter the enemy, it's to remove his ability to wage war. For the same reason, we don't shoot medics or bomb hospitals when we can avoid it, and we don't execute surrendering soldiers either. A soldier who poses no threat and is not in a condition to pose a threat is not a legitimate target.

[QUOTE=Grimhound;42701197]Some people in power don't understand that things like the Geneva Conventions were meant to be mutual things taken up by both sides in an army VS army conflict.[/QUOTE] But we're not fighting another army, we're fighting insurgents that have probably never heard of the geneva convention.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42701273]We don't shoot to wound or to kill. We shoot to incapacitate, until the target no longer poses a threat. The goal is not to slaughter the enemy, it's to remove his ability to wage war. For the same reason, we don't shoot medics or bomb hospitals when we can avoid it, and we don't execute surrendering soldiers either. A soldier who poses no threat and is not in a condition to pose a threat is not a legitimate target.[/QUOTE] Which is fine reasoning until you face the reality that these soldiers are in, where even injured combatants continue to pose a threat.

If we kill the injured it could be the deciding factor on how civilians accept us. In their eyes, we either look like we are actually trying to help, or we look like monsters just killing off their people. I know I can't fully understand how the mind of a soldier works, as I haven't been deployed yet. But that's just how I view the Geneva convention, we are better than the enemy because we follow those rules.

[QUOTE=Priori;42701363]If we kill the injured it could be the deciding factor on how civilians accept us. In their eyes, we either look like we are actually trying to help, or we look like monsters just killing off their people.[/QUOTE] The safety of our soldiers comes first in my mind. Requiring them to approach and treat injured combatants who are regularly strapped or who are known to do the grenade thing needlessly endangers them.

The old of my cousins was in the military and told me once that they were wondering how people were still getting injured and killed after all the insurgents were dead. Turns out that when mortally wounded the insurgents would grab a grenade with a death switch on it and lied on top of it so prevent it from going off. When the soldiers turned over the body the dead switch would release and detonate.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42701273]We don't shoot to wound or to kill. We shoot to incapacitate, until the target no longer poses a threat. The goal is not to slaughter the enemy, it's to remove his ability to wage war. For the same reason, we don't shoot medics or bomb hospitals when we can avoid it, and we don't execute surrendering soldiers either. A soldier who poses no threat and is not in a condition to pose a threat is not a legitimate target.[/QUOTE] Except even the injured can pose a threat. You never underestimate your enemy. EVER. And just because they surrendered doesn't mean they don't pose a threat. They are to be bound and treated just as deadly as they were before they surrendered. You don't just suddenly recognize the error of your ways when you have been trying to actively kill someone, you surrender because you will die otherwise, and the second you feel you have the ability to fight again, you will. [editline]30th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Reshy;42701477]Old of my cousins was in the military and told me once that they were wondering how people were still getting injured and killed after all the insurgents were dead. Turns out that when mortally wounded the insurgents would grab a grenade with a death switch on it and lied on top of it so prevent it from going off. When the soldiers turned over the body the dead switch would release and detonate.[/QUOTE] My mates who are deployed told me that you don't check for dead anymore like that. You kick the body in the groin, if they're alive they'll squirm and you shoot them because they're now a potential combatant because of the fact they were pulling a ruse. If they don't do anything, you leave the body the fuck alone. You leave bodies alone, don't even go near them otherwise.

I understand the whole wounded guys are still a threat, but they had time to drag this guy under some trees so a nearby helicopter couldn't see them before they shot him. He clearly didn't pose a threat to them or they wouldn't have wasted time dragging him around.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;42701544]I understand the whole wounded guys are still a threat, but they had time to drag this guy under some trees so a nearby helicopter couldn't see them before they shot him. He clearly didn't pose a threat to them or they wouldn't have wasted time dragging him around.[/QUOTE] Yes, that's not up for debate here, at least I understand that. I'm still arguing that this guy was clearly not in the fully normal state of mind. You hear about soldiers that snap and kill civilians or all that crap, soldiers are subject to so much mental stress that the lines of reality don't really exist anymore. Vietnam veterans get flash backs because of this, your mind literally cannot comprehend the evils you are forced to commit against other humans.

[QUOTE=Flem;42701146]Why the fuck does it even matter hes the enemy that needs to be disposed off.[/QUOTE] seek help

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;42701180]Because its in violation of the geneva convention and he recorded himself breaking the geneva convention and even talked about how he was breaking the geneva convention.[/QUOTE] The geneva convention that our enemy is not bound to.

[QUOTE=draugur;42701514]Except even the injured can pose a threat. You never underestimate your enemy. EVER. And just because they surrendered doesn't mean they don't pose a threat. They are to be bound and treated just as deadly as they were before they surrendered. You don't just suddenly recognize the error of your ways when you have been trying to actively kill someone, you surrender because you will die otherwise, and the second you feel you have the ability to fight again, you will.[/QUOTE] I know, and I agree, I'm just pointing out that we don't shoot to wound [I]or[/I] shoot to kill. If your goal is strictly to kill the enemy at every opportunity, then pretty soon you're not fighting a war, you're committing genocide. Just look at the Burundi Civil War, or the aptly named Rwandan Genocide. The Geneva and Hague conventions are meant to ensure that war is used to settle political differences, not to result in extermination of the loser.

I am the only one who finds it strange that a Court Marshall is charging a soldier for killing the enemy. [QUOTE=Toyhobo;42701725]have you read anything of what people are talking about?[/QUOTE] Yes, and I don't understand the concern.

[QUOTE=The mouse;42701689]I am the only one who finds it strange that a Court Marshall is charging a soldier for killing the enemy.[/QUOTE] have you read anything of what people are talking about?

-snip snip snip-

[QUOTE=The mouse;42701689] Yes, and I don't understand the concern.[/QUOTE] You cant shoot people that doesnt fight back due to the geneva convention.

The soldier said he was wrong so all the people trying to apologize for him are standing on no ground at all.