[Closed] Sergeant Blackman?

I wonder if any terrorists will now be offering up PTSD as an axcuse for why they carried out a shooting or a bombing??

Some posters on here don't seem to know what Blackman actually did. They found the wounded taliban fighter in a field with his weapon, at that point they could have considered him a threat and shot him dead as an armed enemy fighter. But they didn't, they dragged him out of the field at which point he was now an unarmed prisoner of war to a place where they couldn't be seen by either the helicopter or an overhead observation balloon and executed him.

That's my understanding too Natrix.

My issue isn't that he killed the wounded insurgent - I'm pretty sure I'd have done the same thing. My problem is that this decision didn't appear to bother him at the time.

From the transcript:

marines are roughly dragging the injured insurgent across a field and aiming abuse and laughter at him.

ordering his colleagues to get the man out of sight of a British observation balloon.

"Shuffle off this mortal coil, you ****,"

Wouldn't want to be in his shoes in a million years, but I can see how they originally found it a thin line between manslaughter and murder. Daily Mail campaign to get him released didn't help his public perception, as it cemented in my mind that it probably was murder.

Transcript:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/25/royal-marines-court-martial-video-transcript

Lol at the thread, the only thing wrong about Blackman's situation was some plank filming it.
He humanely killed a mortally injured enemy instead of tying up a Medivac chopper, good call.

I work as a paramedic, just to give some of the more holier than thou, detached from reality posters on this thread an idea of what goes on in front line services:

Do you think the medics sent to treat the terrorist in London the other day put the same amount of effort into resusitating him as they would on a typical cardiac arrest call to a private residence where the 'patient' hasn't just killed several people?
You're very naive if you think police, medics, army etc don't tailor their efforts according to the situation or the arsehole they're treating.

That's human nature and unless you've been there, well....

You're very naive if you think police, medics, army etc don't tailor their efforts according to the situation or the arsehole they're treating.

Not naive. I just expect a level of objectivity and professionalism. If you can't do that - do another job, there are people who can and other roles for people who can't.

That's human nature and unless you've been there, well

Perhaps one of the dumbest arguments ever. The ''You've not been in the situation so you can't empathise or judge" position, totally ignores people's ability to empathise and concieve of different perspectives. Now that is dangerously naive.

He should never have gone to trial so his release isn't really justice.

Seems to me that one thing that's not getting enough discussion/thought is what put him in that position. I don't just mean us being in a shooting war in afghanistan (though, yeah, when you send people off to war you take responsibility for all that comes with it), I mean the command/supervision/duty of care side of it. It's all been raised as mitigation- which is right imo- but doesn't seem to have been considered as much from the "how do we fix this" side. Maybe that's all going on behind the scenes and just doesn't make a juicy headline?

But we put people in shitty situations, and it seems to have been accepted that the support and supervision and protection that ought to have been there, wasn't. That's how these things happen, and you know fine well that it's not the only time it's happened.

And it's how people come home more messed up than they have to, even if something like this doesn't happen. A mate of mine was left in the field til he snapped, too, he just snapped in a different way.

He humanely killed a mortally injured enemy

Dragging him across a field wasn't all that humane though was it?

He could have quite legitimately shot him straight away when they found him, but he chose not to.

Deviant - you might want to get that post removed. If I was your employer I'd be very concerned at seeing that on a public forum. Whether it's true or not.

And it misses the point that a live terrorist provides much more useful information than a dead one.

"Do you think the medics sent to treat the terrorist in London the other day put the same amount of effort into resusitating him as they would on a typical cardiac arrest call to a private residence"

They didn't drag him out of sight and kill him, though.

Plus as MCTD says, keeping these people alive is a tactical win, and I assume emergency services understand that.

Dangerous post Deviant.

So you'd put more effort into resus of a 10yo than you would a 62yo?

Or the resus of a "clean" patient over that of one frothing with a tourniquet and needle combo?

Dangerous post Deviant.

Do you think the medics sent to treat the terrorist in London the other day put the same amount of effort into resusitating him as they would on a typical cardiac arrest call to a private residence where the 'patient' hasn't just killed several people

Yes.

"Yes."

I must confess I would have assumed this. Seems totally absurd that emergency services have to form an arbitrary judgement of the worth of every patient to decide how good a treatment they will provide.

I'd have thought it would be much easier to do your best for everyone.

Do you think the medics sent to treat the terrorist in London the other day put the same amount of effort into resuscitating him as they would on a typical cardiac arrest call to a private residence where the 'patient' hasn't just killed several people?

Yes.

Guys, i see both sides of every argument with this case but unlike most here i was in Afghan 3 times and i am very aware of the hellhole that Al and his lads were operating under. Not just for a few weeks but for a continual day in day out, month in, month out extended time. What that type of situation does to you cannot be expressed enough. And it is true to say that unless you have experienced it you cannot imagine it. EVER. Firefights every day, being under no illusion that every step you take could be your last as an IED could easily end it. Watching your mates being shot and maimed regularly. And if anyone thinks that is an exaggeration its most definitely not. I think at the end of one of our tours about a third of the lads on the ground had a significant injury.

War is shit on every level. People join the military for a million reasons that are in no way simple and i doubt many could explain why either. We are not all savages who want to blow the shit out of everything.

I Joined the Royal Marines and served for 12 years. I look back on it and i am glad i did even though my poor mam must have been stressed out with worry for most of it.

Hopefully i can call myself qualified to comment being ex-army and now a trained lawyer who has read many a psychologists/psychiatrists report (although mostly in relation to road traffic accidents). I didn't serve in Afghanistan, but did in Kosovo and Iraq.

Is what he did correct, no of course not, those that say they would of "dispatched" the wounded insurgent are talking shite, would he of died anyway, he probably would have, but all the time he is lying there and clearly isn't a threat, then what was done was wrong. If there had been a medic there, then strictly they would/should of sought to treat him but if not then then he should of been left.

BUT, and like a Kardashian, its a very big but(t), I can understand it, week after week of the kind of action they saw can leave you a physical and mental wreck, your adrenaline through the roof and if unfortunately he was suffering from a genuine Adjustment Disorder, then he had many of the symptoms of PTSD, they fall in the same type of psych disorder, he was failed in being allowed to still be in theatre, but that is the same with many servicemen who are failed whilst still serving and when they have returned from active service to home.

What was said at the time was clearly ridiculous, but like many i developed a very dark sense of humour, it is one of many coping mechanisms used and a sense of humour that i carry to this day often looking at fatal car accidents at work, it doesn't mean you don't give a sh*t, it's just a way of dealing.

So was what he did right? No it wasn't, can i understand it, very much so, to be subjected time and time again to the action they saw, where you are never at rest as you still face IEDs and the like daily, where you have an enemy that can blend easily back into the civilian population easily or disappear over the porous borders between Afghanistan and ****stan and other areas, then it is difficult to comprehend, in terms of STW try thinking of that time in the Alps where you pushed way outside your skill level and your heart was in the back of your throat and your adrenaline coursing, then continue that feeling for month on end, and knowing that it could easily be terminal not just for you but for your mates around you, it is a difficult thing to describe and i probably have done it justice at all, but it extremely wearing and there is a reason so many troops are mentally affected by it.

I've seen friends and people i know commit suicide, lost count of the number of people who drink way to much and of failed marriages and relationships. But there is a reason so many of his mates were there at the Court, despite they know what happened was wrong, they know why it happened.

Guys, i see both sides of every argument with this case but unlike most here i was in Afghan 3 times and i am very aware of the hellhole that Al and his lads were operating under. Not just for a few weeks but for a continual day in day out, month in, month out extended time. What that type of situation does to you cannot be expressed enough. And it is true to say that unless you have experienced it you cannot imagine it. EVER. Firefights every day, being under no illusion that every step you take could be your last as an IED could easily end it. Watching your mates being shot and maimed regularly. And if anyone thinks that is an exaggeration its most definitely not. I think at the end of one of our tours about a third of the lads on the ground had a significant injury.

I can understand it, week after week of the kind of action they saw can leave you a physical and mental wreck, your adrenaline through the roof and if unfortunately he was suffering from a genuine Adjustment Disorder, then he had many of the symptoms of PTSD, they fall in the same type of psych disorder, he was failed in being allowed to still be in theatre

Indeed and all of this was taken into account in mitigation.

That's why he got a light sentence (8 Years) for murder and why he's now getting out after 7 on manslaughter.

Seems to me both sentences were perfectly reasonable & the system has got it right.

Having suffered from mental illness - the feeling of being in constant fear of your life and being unable to relax your vigilance is very familiar to me.

Whilst the external threats to your life were concrete and real - mine were not. Unfortunately I was unable to rationalise, so I felt under very real and indeed terminal threat and that my colleagues and especially my family were also vulnerable for a very extended period of time.

As a result I have huge sympathy for people who are in these situations of constant stress and threat. I know how truly terrifying it can be to move from a space that feels relatively safe to one that leaves you feeling utterly vulnerable.

I also agree with Northwind and others regarding the lack of care and support for our service people in these situations.

However, a crime is a crime and despite mitigating circumstances I believe this man should have been tried and punished. Like many, I regret the suffering he and his family have been through as much as the suffering of his victim and their family.

[i]So you'd put more effort into resus of a 10yo than you would a 62yo?[/i]

Happens already and it's not my call/policy.
At the service I work for all paed cardiac arrests are conveyed to hospital.....adults are worked on for 20mins and if they show no signs of life in that time the resus stops and the patient is ROLE'd (recognition of life extinct), relatives and police informed and we leave....the NHS is inherently ageist, again human nature, don't shoot the messenger.

And for those concerned about my employment status, I dont work for LAS and didn't attend the terrorist incident so don't know what I'd have done but I've spoken with colleagues over the years who've simply gone through the motions on patients who have been wife beaters, sex offenders etc....until the job gets taken over by robots it will forever be.

[quote=jambalaya ]He should never have gone to trial so his release isn't really justice.

Dear troll,
what if he had killed a jewish person the same way and he he was a little tanned, had a beard and did not let you draw pictures of his prophet?

I'd just like to say deviant does not represent Paramedic profession as I know it. 👿

I don't know if it's been mentioned but I think one big issue of this case is perception. Those in support of Sgt Blackman, and commenters who've done military service are all saying similar messages - [i]"he did nothing wrong, I would have done the same thing, his only mistake was being filmed"[/i], and someone else commented [b][i]far worse things go on they just aren't caught on film...[/i][/b] and that's exactly the issue for the public.

If soldiers will summarily execute injured combatants on film, what will they do when no one's watching? The answer appears to be anything goes/much worse and while that may well be the reality it can't be the perception.

The basis for western involvement in the middle east is built on very dubious foundations, one part of which is morality. People opposed to war can still support their military provided they can believe their soldiers will conduct themselves to the highest possible standards (perhaps impossible in reality).

and commenters who've done military service are all saying similar messages - "he did nothing wrong, I would have done the same thing, his only mistake was being filmed", and someone else commented far worse things go on they just aren't caught on film... and that's exactly the issue for the public.

Absolute boll*cks, read my post above again, then climb down from your morale high horse. i think if you take the time to correctly read the posts above by me and "mactheknife" above, neither of us state that, neither of us agree with what happened, we both just tried to explain as to how something like this can happen, and how it shouldn't happen.

If you can say anything constructive and aren't prepared to read things correctly, then step away from your keyboard and go back to putting things in CAPITAL LETTERS under Daily Mail articles....and stop thinking that anyone that ever put on a uniform is a war-monger and out to slaughter innocents.

Good post scud

EDIT - I refer to the first one.

scud

Absolute boll*cks, read my post above again, then climb down from your morale high horse.

I'm not refering to your post. I'm also not moralising, just playing devil's advocate, my point was about public perception. Maybe you should calm down and try to re-read what I've posted and not attached some pre meditated ulterior motive to it.

If you can say anything constructive

What, like instantly dismissing something as absolute bollocks before you've taken the time to digest what they are trying to say or trying to tell them when they should and shouldn't post?

Step away from the keyboard yourself mate. You're clearly not firing on all cylinders. Quoted below are the posts I was referring to ( not criticizing) so you , and others who clearly don't bother to read threads before posting, can see.

mrlebowski

Having spoken to some who were in theatre at the time...

Nearly all agree it was wrong..

Most say they'd have done something similar..

firestarter

The only thing that was done wrong was filming the bloody thing and then not deleting it.

hammyuk - Member

Can honestly say I would have done the exact same thing.

wrecker - Member

I'd have done the same. In fact, I'd have shot him whether he was moving/screaming or not.

derek_starship - Member

Had there been no cameras, I'm sure I would have switched off an enemy combatant with a humane headshot.

 

Scud, MtK - as a non-military type who has a general distrust of war and all things military, from a family that chose to serve as front line medical orderlies and miners because they refused to be asked to kill someone I think what you wrote was reasonable.
I saw you trying to understand not excuse what happened and I think that is a good thing.
A British soldier did something wrong, Britain stood up and said it was wrong - we now need to ask whether soldiers receive the training and support not to do the wrong thing in some quite difficult (understatement) situations.
From what you two have said training probably yes, but support maybe no.
We don't get to walk away from this or we give the green light to the "other side" to act in a similar way against our troops. We say it's ok to do this.
I think that's in line with your comments - no?

As stated, your post before states all those that have served ALL seem to have the same opinion, that what happened was right, when clearly as I stated that simply isn't the case, don't tar all with the same brush, of course it riles me up when i see idiots, usually with absolute no experience of these things at all, just give blanket statements like the one you did above?

My personal experience:

- 6 years with the Royal Hampshires (as was), then with 7 Para Royal Horse Artilley.
- Then left and ran both a travel company taking people to North and West Africa and worked ferrying scientists/geologists/ oil workers and the like in to countries like Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco.
- I was in the desert in Libya with Royal Geographical Society when September 11th happened.
- I was in Morocco when 3 bombs went off in Marrakesh bringing an end to my travel business.
- I was a personal injury lawyer, before it turned ambulance chaser, and have read 100's of psychological reports on PTSD and Adjustment Order
- I have friends who served as far back as the Falklands conflict, who still suffer, are alcoholics, have terrible psychological scars and have lost family, wives and children.
- I speak (badly) both classical and Moroccan arabic.

So i feel i'm quite able to comment, and you?

scud
My personal experience:

So i feel i'm quite able to comment, and you?

I'm a civilian, a member of the public. So I feel pretty confident I can have an opinion as to what a member of the public might think. Do you only offer opinions based on issues where you have direct personal experience or expertise?

Or should members of the public be banned from commenting on military matters?

Not at all, but if you read your post, you state ALL those have served ALL have same opinion and that it a very negative one, the whole point of my long post was actually a counter balance to those views and to try to offer some sort of explanation as to both sides of the coin, instead what i got was personal attack from you trying to tar me with same brush and to which i quite rightly took offence.

At no point have i ever agreed with Sgt. Blackman's actions, i clearly stated what happened was wrong, i then tried to explain in my limited way as i'm not the best at expressing myself, as to why this may happen and that fact that he was failed also (like many members of the armed forces and many in civilian roles also) that any psychological issue was not recognised, someone at that point should not be on the front-line. I then tried to explain why someone could end up with psychological issues and the huge stresses he would of faced.

Perhaps re-read my post and tell me where I stated, what he did was right?

Everyone is allowed an opnion.

But, if you've never been in the armed forces and/or combat, how can you judge fairly? That world is completely different to civilian world (physically and emotionally).

Remember, if you're a civilian (with no direct links to people working in the armed forces) your opinion is just hearsay, media talk and second hand information.

scud

Not at all, but if you read your post, you state ALL those have served ALL have same opinion and that it a very negative one,

Well sorry what I said was "Those in support of Sgt Blackman, and commenters who've done military service are all saying similar messages". Referring to this thread. Which I don't think is misleading or egregious considering the posts I quoted after a quick skim of the thread.

What I should have written was "many of those in support of Sgt Blackman, and commenters who've done military service are all saying similar messages".

Perhaps you took it as being aimed at you, it wasn't since I stopped reading your post at your Kardashians joke.

Perhaps re-read my post and tell me where I stated, what he did was right?

So just to clarify, I didn't say that you said he was right. I was making the point that in general, those in support said he had done nothing wrong. And that for those opposed to war, that attitude is disturbing because it erodes their confidence in, or ability to believe that their military people are opperating to the absolute highest standards. Militarily and morally.

This whole episode does make it easier to spot bellends on Twitter. They all have 'FREE MARINE A' profile pics, have caps locks stuck on and everyone is a TRAITOR!!

ratnips - Member
This whole episode does make it easier to spot bellends on Twitter. They all have 'FREE MARINE A' profile pics, have caps locks stuck on and everyone is a TRAITOR!

I tend to agree with you there, they usually the ones that also have never actually been in the Marines, who think "Britain First" is a great Facebook page and voted Leave, without having the foggiest why they were doing so, except for those "pesky immigrants"

So just to clarify, I didn't say that you said he was right. I was making the point that in general, those in support said he had done nothing wrong. And that for those opposed to war, that attitude is disturbing because it erodes their confidence in, or ability to believe that their military people are opperating to the absolute highest standards. Militarily and morally.

There in lies one of the biggest problems, soldiers don't start wars, politicians do, they usually don't have a clue and are full of hot air and would rarely do the job themselves, sound familiar?

I would be surprised if many of those who piped up with, "executing him was right", "should of just deleted the film" etc actually served either, they'd be smarter than that and if you look, not one of them was prepared to actually stick their neck and say why, where they served etc, they were just talking sh*te and are probably the type of people that just troll and riding a bike with the saddle slammed down all the time...

"I would be surprised if many of those who piped up with, "executing him was right", "should of just deleted the film" etc actually served either, they'd be smarter than that"

Good point. From what I've read of WW2 the response to atrocities from the rank and file was usually "Oh Christ, now we've killed these prisoners, if they get hold of us they'll take revenge".

For the majority of serving soldiers 'upping the stakes' is bad news.

Scud - you are demonstrating one of the things I have noticed many times. Thoughtful ex-service folk are often far slower to glorify the military than some of those who have had limited contact with it.
Some of the best, most considered, conversations I have had on conscious objection have been with people who are ex-forces. Possibly because they've seen some things people shouldn't really have to - but I couldn't say for sure.

igm - Member
Scud - you are demonstrating one of the things I have noticed many times. Thoughtful ex-service folk are often far slower to glorify the military than some of those who have had limited contact with it.
Some of the best, most considered, conversations I have had on conscious objection have been with people who are ex-forces. Possibly because they've seen some things people shouldn't really have to - but I couldn't say for sure.

I think it is more for most people what they see is two things, the "glorification" of warfare, through films, books (I loved those small Commando comics as a lad!), which gives one viewpoint.

Or the Daily Mail/ Fox News version, which would have you believe all soldiers are war-mongering baby killers.

May people's perceptions come from WWII film that showed, good versus bad, modern conflicts are rarely like this, there is little black and white, you have an "enemy" who is dressed in civilian clothes a lot of the time, who can disappear back in to the civilian population, who often prefers to fight using IED's.

The truth is that the armed forces like every career or job, is full of very different people, the good, the bad and the absolute loons. But those people do a very tough job which can see them taken to breaking point. I can honestly say that i met more people with a violent nature, with perverse world views and a militant nature in certain pubs in Essex than i met in the Army. Very few, if any, were the "violent psychopath" some above would have them seen as, most were just young lads who wanted a career that may offer them something different to a call centre or YTS and who i am lucky enough to have led and had some great times with.

I will bow out of this thread i think before i cause any more problems, plus i've just bought a Stooge frame, so i've got 37 pages of Stooge thread to read!!

Scud - bow out by all means, but I think your contributions have been very worthwhile.

I think most here agree legally it shouldnt have been done. But most who have served understand why it happened, and perhaps some who haven't can get their head around it.

To call in a heli would have no doubt put them in more danger that cannot be argued, they are in enough danger every day without waving banners to attract even more attention

Now could he have been left, yes but at what risk, we don't know we weren't there

Could have have been shot immediately, yes, and he probably should have been

And then there is what they actually did, a strange act tbh but it could be they dragged him out of sight to protect their location and then decided they didn't want to burden themselves with him or call in support and risk themselves further

If they had used either of the first two choices then this incident would never have seen the light of day.

Unfortunately they did what they did and filmed it. And this was proof of (regardless of your personal views) an illegal act being carried out.

Is it me or are we all meeting at some kind of compromise in opinion...for once? 😯

Can I ask why the video / audio of the incident ended up in court? Was it flagged from routine review, or brought to light by a college with concerns, or something else?

I think it was found by accident some time after the event. People were looking for something else and came across it. The people who were looking have a three letter acronym which I can't remember.

There in lies one of the biggest problems, soldiers don't start wars, politicians do

Modern war is increasingly becoming a form of contract killing for corporate interests.

That's not to say the soldiers are heartless mercenaries, purely concerned with making a buck (that's what private military contractors are for); quite the opposite; from what I've seen, the majority of people in the forces are conscientious people, with a will to do good; however, the problem is, all too often they're misled.

Of course, as scud mentions, there's all sorts of different people in the forces, but the fact remains, regardless of who's dishing out the bullets and taking enemy fire, far above it all, the same small circle of people plan and promote wars for their profit, with strategies and aims very different to those publicized in the media and throughout the ranks.

Thing is though, in this instance, the criminals who hire the hit men and patsies who'll give their all for Queen and country never get punished.

Blair's lies & actions killed a hell of a lot more people, why not drag him through the courts? Its just degrees of separation innit?

If it's boots on the ground experience in war zones that matters - this man has it in spades and a perspective that would outweigh many... Well worth 20 or so minutes of your time.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04xd4pq ]Ben Ferencz[/url]

Blair's lies & actions killed a hell of a lot more people, why not drag him through the courts?

I've supported this since his first action supporting the invasion of Iraq. The blood of many service personnel and millions of civilians is on his hands. It wasn't a war on terror - it was an attempt at a new colonial adventure.