Canadian soldiers fatally shoot taxi driver
- Thread starter ErorZ
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I read a couple books recently about Iraq, called One Bullet Away and Generation Kill (both mostly about a Marine platoon's experiences in the early days of Iraq). I don't know if anyone here has read them or how valid they are. But the books claim that whenever the Marines in Iraq would give warning shots at a checkpoint to approaching vehicles it would just panic the civvy drivers and they'd try to run the checkpoint.
It seemed interesting that something similar may have happened in this incident. It seems to be a trend. Some kind of cultural thing going on? It seems to defy all common sense. As I recall, the Marines in these books ended up improvising other ways of warning the locals earlier, before warning shots were needed, (they stole a local Arabic stop sign and used it in front of checkpoints for example). No matter what though I think this kind of thing will happen a lot in this kind of war. You don't know who the enemy is. You've got to protect yourself either way.
It sounds like the guys in this incident did everything they should have done. As far I'm concerned, if it happened the way it was reported, they've got nothing to be ashamed of. But I've never been there so I don't know what I'm talking about. Just giving my support. Maybe one day.
It seemed interesting that something similar may have happened in this incident. It seems to be a trend. Some kind of cultural thing going on? It seems to defy all common sense. As I recall, the Marines in these books ended up improvising other ways of warning the locals earlier, before warning shots were needed, (they stole a local Arabic stop sign and used it in front of checkpoints for example). No matter what though I think this kind of thing will happen a lot in this kind of war. You don't know who the enemy is. You've got to protect yourself either way.
It sounds like the guys in this incident did everything they should have done. As far I'm concerned, if it happened the way it was reported, they've got nothing to be ashamed of. But I've never been there so I don't know what I'm talking about. Just giving my support. Maybe one day.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
2 Cdo said:
As my father once told me, "it is pretty hard to get any work done when you are covering your a$$ with both hands"
Are all the gunners on an M777 taken "off duty" when they fire a round? Of course not.
My problem, like 2 Cdo, is that this soldier has been removed from his sect and platoon, and placed on "other" duties. This is also a "normal" procedure for stress cases, those accused of committing crimes and, IMHO, is done to improve the "optics", and has nothing to do with accountability.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
2 Cdo said:
Funny you should ask, I asked the same thing of an MP during my ILQ course. One of the scenarios was that a patrol came upon a local raping a woman, one of the Patrol members shot and killed the rapist. Us army guys said that yes, there would be an investigation however we would not take his weapon away nor would we finish the patrol early. The MP and the airforce guys were aghast! How could you let this guy keep his weapon, he has just killed someone!!!!
Different scenario but I think it paints a picture. There are people in the Military who don't realize that we are at war and think that dowtown Kandahar is the same as CFB Trenton.
Chimo!
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,188
- Points
- 1,160
Real smart.
So what happens the next time a soldier is standing somewhere and a car passes a roadblock and heads right towards him and his unsuspecting platoon.
Soldier takes a split second and thinks to himself fuck do i really want to shoot this guy? Last time buddy did that they took him out of the section and platoon and made it look like he fucked up. Now he's depressed and shit, maybe I can just...
BOOM.
Giving soldiers in a war zone, threatend by suicide bombers a big reason to second guess their actions is a GREAT idea.
So what happens the next time a soldier is standing somewhere and a car passes a roadblock and heads right towards him and his unsuspecting platoon.
Soldier takes a split second and thinks to himself fuck do i really want to shoot this guy? Last time buddy did that they took him out of the section and platoon and made it look like he fucked up. Now he's depressed and shit, maybe I can just...
BOOM.
Giving soldiers in a war zone, threatend by suicide bombers a big reason to second guess their actions is a GREAT idea.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Ghost.....
it'll still be his training kicking in. He has ROEs to apply, mates to defend, a job to do.
if you followed the ROEs then there's nothing to be worried about.
The ROEs might be wrong - the muckety mucks can change em and let us know what they want done.... in the meantime - the ROEs stand and theyr'e quite clear.
Chimo!
it'll still be his training kicking in. He has ROEs to apply, mates to defend, a job to do.
if you followed the ROEs then there's nothing to be worried about.
The ROEs might be wrong - the muckety mucks can change em and let us know what they want done.... in the meantime - the ROEs stand and theyr'e quite clear.
Chimo!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
2023 said:
We are not at war with anyone, and I'm curious why this Act of War keeps being brought up as a catch all, it simply is not true. Yes we're in a country where the threat level is extremely high, and we have the right to defend ourselves, however in certain cases we must justify this use of force, in other words we must be accountable. Each situation in Afghanistan where there is a death will have to be examined and rest or fall on it's own merits. IMO this soldier will be cleared. However, we are in a particularly dicey situation you can't shoot the locals (particularly if they were not armed) and not expect the military to conduct some sort of inquiry. We must appear balanced, fair and accountable for our actions if we are to win their trust. Your comparison of an MP shooting a "rapist" in "while on patrol" to this situation is like comparing apples and oranges and is irrelevant. In Canada the member's weapon would be taken from him and he would be re-assigned to other duties for two reasons first the weapon would have to be tested forensically it was used in a killing there would be an inquiry/investigation, the weapon is evidence; and secondly the member would be re-assigned pending the results of the investigation and to ensure the member is given adequate counselling (believe it or not, most normal people would be affected by taking the life of another). Finally there are 100 MPs in Afghanistan right now and from the correspondence that I've received from my colleagues they are quite aware that they are not in CFB Trenton.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I disagree. We are at war. A war on terror as gay and overused as it is. Its not as if they "did" a village. You also failed to address those firing the M777's had they killed someone in a fire mission. Will they pull someone off the mountain who killed some in a fire fight? Did they take the wpn's away from those that killed the Afghani that tried to kill Capt Greene? If you say this guy wasn't armed your wrong. First he is armed with a vehicle that can cause damage on its own and it is ideal for delivering VIED. We all agree that he will most likely be cleared, a lot of us don't believe he should need to be cleared.
- Reaction score
- 5,823
- Points
- 1,360
Taking him off duty temporarily is no big deal, in fact I would suggest it is the proper procedure in order to provide a complete debrief so that, in the same situation, he would still react the same way as he did.
Much better than putting him right back in the same possible situation while he is wondering how the investigation is going.......
Much better than putting him right back in the same possible situation while he is wondering how the investigation is going.......
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
CFL said:
You failed to see my point: In the case where the artillery fired their M777s there was a justifiable need to defend ourselves, there was a clear threat and it was engaged, same with the Capt Greene incident. These are cases where the insurgents initiated the contact. In the taxi driver scenario this did not happen, there was a "perceived" threat, the threat in this instance turned out to be no threat at all, the individual was not armed. Therefore, in the cases of accidental or mistaken deaths there must be an investigation. As it harsh as it seems (for the member, and I can only imagine what he is going through) this has to be done. There are elements in our society that will raise a great hue and cry if we start to rack up a number of civilian casualties. i.e the government doesn't want another Somalia. Again the Canadian Government, to my knowledge, has not declared war on anyone. We are nation building. I am not insensitive to the raw emotion that this incident has produced and I agree that it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The guy ran through a road block, ignored signals and waring shots from the Canadians and got to one meter of the patrol, It was the right thing to do. Are we supposed to sit back and wait to see if he does something IE blows up his car, or take action and prevent more deaths?
Similar threads
