TA soldier who shot suspected Taliban bomber in murder investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
Wow, have you ever actually served in the Army?

I don´t see any drama at all,an oppo tells him there´s a guy who may be planting a bomb,he gets exicited and is probably tired due to patrolling in a hostile area,sweating his nuts off all day and and watching a mate get killed.
He was told there was a guy digging a hole. If he couldn't do his job because he was a bit hot, tired and sweaty then he should never have been deployed in the first place. A mate getting killed? Now you're just making things up.

Throws a wobbler after the suspected bomber starts doing what appears to him to be arming the bomb, presses the wrong button and fails to get comms,at the time he didn´t realise that he was pushing the wrong button
Once aging if he isn't capable of remaining calm and carrying out his job he shouldn't have been deployed. Pressed the wrong button? He either had a PRR (1 button), a Field Telephone (2 buttons) or a radio (1 button), again if using any of this equipment was too complicated for him he shouldn't have been deployed.

takes the decision to stop the threat.6 rounds was a bit OTT but if he was still a threat in his opinion then why not,those guys in Gibralter didn´t exactly spare the ammo and the ASU they slotted weren´t armed either.Shit Happens.
The monkey´s should crawl back into their holes and It´s this sort of `Hug A Taliban´ attitude that got 6 of their mates killed.

If you wan´t to start a War and send soldier´s then people are going to die,the ultimate responsibility lies with the politicians that decided to send them,end of.

Brave statement there, it isn't an RMP or ALS thing, this not going around shooting people because they dug a hole comes from ISAF.
 
Wow, have you ever actually served in the Army?

Once aging if he isn't capable of remaining calm and carrying out his job he shouldn't have been deployed. Pressed the wrong button? He either had a PRR (1 button), a Field Telephone (2 buttons) or a radio (1 button), again if using any of this equipment was too complicated for him he shouldn't have been deployed.

Or a PRR (2 button)
 

walrusboy

War Hero
Without knowing the full facts of the case it is impossible to assess culpability. RoE and his CSMs opinion form part of the picture but they do not override honest belief in the common law rule of self-defence. If the boy has any sense he will already have taken some decent legal advice, maybe even financed by interested third parties. Some people might say that this should have been done by his unit after they had completed a comprehensive investigation. There are numerous precedents of unarmed and innocent people being killed by Security Forces where honest belief has formed an integral part of the decision to use force. Some of these have been mentioned on the thread already. We must not forget that it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty, not for him to prove his innocence.

My prediction? No further action. At a different time, with a different leadership outlook and a different unit, who knows, we might have seen his name on an operational honours list. It's all in the writing up, you know.
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
Or a PRR (2 button)

Both buttons would have put him in touch with someone, and as a Fus he wouldn't have needed a DRR as he wouldn't have been required to carry a radio whilst on patrol unless he was a Plt signaler in which case he'd have known how to use his radio/field phone.

Without knowing the full facts of the case it is impossible to assess culpability. RoE and his CSMs opinion form part of the picture but they do not override honest belief in the common law rule of self-defence. If the boy has any sense he will already have taken some decent legal advice, maybe even financed by interested third parties. Some people might say that this should have been done by his unit after they had completed a comprehensive investigation. There are numerous precedents of unarmed and innocent people being killed by Security Forces where honest belief has formed an integral part of the decision to use force. Some of these have been mentioned on the thread already. We must not forget that it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty, not for him to prove his innocence.

My prediction? No further action. At a different time, with a different leadership outlook and a different unit, who knows, we might have seen his name on an operational honours list. It's all in the writing up, you know.

There is no way you can spin a bloke digging a hole and then turning up with a magic disappearing bag as posing a legitimate threat to life.

I expect at least an investigation followed by a bullshit story about how he has developed PTSD after being let down by his unit.
 
I note that the accused says that his CSM said that he had just shot an innocent guy, hmm! so how did CSM arrive at that conclusion unless of course he witnessed the event and failed to stop the situation going TU and if otherwise then the CSM is a twat and should be backing his man, not handing him his head on a platter, but I,ll await incoming from the legalistic ****ing brains here and until then as far as I,m concerned, our lad did his job as he saw it, end of.
 
so easy to blame a STAB for a regulars incompetence !!!!!!!!!!!
 
I note that the accused says that his CSM said that he had just shot an innocent guy, hmm! so how did CSM arrive at that conclusion unless of course he witnessed the event and failed to stop the situation going TU and if otherwise then the CSM is a twat and should be backing his man, not handing him his head on a platter, but I,ll await incoming from the legalistic ****ing brains here and until then as far as I,m concerned, our lad did his job as he saw it, end of.

Do you think anyone takes note of your ramblings? Especially as all we have heard about this story is one, badly reported, side. How many CSMs have you met that wouldn't back their man? He did his job? What job was that? Did he follow the RoE? Isn't that his job?
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
so easy to blame a STAB for a regulars incompetence !!!!!!!!!!!

Regulars incompetence?

It's entirely possible his Ops room had eyes on, either through ISTAR assets or other sangers, they can't stop him firing if he does it off his own back without checking with them first.
 
eyes down, look in, ''WE'' will never know the full facts to this incident. yes, things do stink, however, someone will be guarding there pension.
and shit always runs down hill..
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
I note that the accused says that his CSM said that he had just shot an innocent guy, hmm! so how did CSM arrive at that conclusion unless of course he witnessed the event and failed to stop the situation going TU and if otherwise then the CSM is a twat and should be backing his man, not handing him his head on a platter, but I,ll await incoming from the legalistic ****ing brains here and until then as far as I,m concerned, our lad did his job as he saw it, end of.

Well, that's that then. Close the thread.
 
He's not a bright boy is he?

I can't see this one getting away. 6 rounds, no comms, no threat; the CSM knows he's a wrong 'un.
 
If there's an investigation that leads to prosecution then 'we' will know the full facts, take your tin foil hat off you berk.
 

walrusboy

War Hero
Both buttons would have put him in touch with someone, and as a Fus he wouldn't have needed a DRR as he wouldn't have been required to carry a radio whilst on patrol unless he was a Plt signaler in which case he'd have known how to use his radio/field phone.



There is no way you can spin a bloke digging a hole and then turning up with a magic disappearing bag as posing a legitimate threat to life.

I expect at least an investigation followed by a bullshit story about how he has developed PTSD after being let down by his unit.

If your one sentence describing the circumstances, represent the full facts of the case then I agree. However initial questions a half-decent defence solicitor will ask of the Army are likely to include:

1. Are there any recent reports of IED emplacers burying devices near to CF bases?
2. Are there any reports of these emplacers acting in joint enterprise with others? (one doing the digging, one doing the guarding, one doing the carrying etc)
3. What time of day was it? Population moving about?
4. Provide the radio for examination. He says it may be faulty, prove that it's not.
5. Can you exclude the possibility that the alleged device wasn't taken from the scene?
6. Provide details of the post-incident search team, a copy of the search record, the parameters of the search etc.
7. Provide a copy of the unit leadership policy decisions, post-incident.
8. Provide a written copy of the soldier's contemporaneous first account post-incident.
9. Provide details of the support the soldier was offered post incident.
10. Provide a copy of the briefing the soldier received prior to going on duty.

Etc, etc. You get the idea. And this is just the initial disclosure request. A case like this will be in the public eye. Legal reputations can be enhanced and military reputations can be destroyed.

I'm not saying that I believe him or even that he should be believed. Take some time to read the Baha Musa investigation report. You will get an idea of what a forensic investigation looks like. Make no mistake, nobody will care that there was a war on at the time the incident occurred. Any witness that is found not to have performed to the required level can look forward to having their carcass nailed to the witness box; Private soldier, Lt Col or the Commissioner of Gotham City. As I said earlier, it's not up to him to prove his innocence. And it doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else believes.
 

Balls_out

War Hero
so easy to blame a STAB for a regulars incompetence !!!!!!!!!!!

Idiot. ^
It sounds like shite. This lad shouldn't have given such a detailed interview to a journo.
Why he didn't fully know how to use the comms in the Sanger is beyond belief.
Digging a hole in view of a Sanger should be observed but shooting the guy 6 times is a bit heavy. No warning shot, attempt to communicate etc is a bit odd.
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
eyes down, look in, ''WE'' will never know the full facts to this incident. yes, things do stink, however, someone will be guarding there pension.
and shit always runs down hill..

What the **** are you dribbeling about? If it was a regular soldier in the exact same situation but attached to a TA company I bet you'd be one of the first to call him a murderer and bang on about how the TA CoC are beyond reproach.

The bloke admits in the story he sold to the papers he had no contact with the Ops Room, guard commander, CSM or anyone else, he just opened fire because he claims he believed it was the correct course of action, turns out his CoC, half his unit and the RMPs disagreed and now he might have to defend his actions in a court of law.

If someone is protecting their pension, why would he admit to shooting someone without clearing it with the Ops Room in a interview he gave to the papers?
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
if your one sentence describing the circumstances, represent the full facts of the case then i agree. However initial questions a half-decent defence solicitor will ask of the army are likely to include:

1. Are there any recent reports of ied emplacers burying devices near to cf bases?
2. Are there any reports of these emplacers acting in joint enterprise with others? (one doing the digging, one doing the guarding, one doing the carrying etc)
3. What time of day was it? Population moving about?
4. Provide the radio for examination. He says it may be faulty, prove that it's not.
5. Can you exclude the possibility that the alleged device wasn't taken from the scene?
6. Provide details of the post-incident search team, a copy of the search record, the parameters of the search etc.
7. Provide a copy of the unit leadership policy decisions, post-incident.
8. Provide a written copy of the soldier's contemporaneous first account post-incident.
9. Provide details of the support the soldier was offered post incident.
10. Provide a copy of the briefing the soldier received prior to going on duty.

Etc, etc. You get the idea. And this is just the initial disclosure request. A case like this will be in the public eye. Legal reputations can be enhanced and military reputations can be destroyed.

I'm not saying that i believe him or even that he should be believed. Take some time to read the baha musa investigation report. You will get an idea of what a forensic investigation looks like. Make no mistake, nobody will care that there was a war on at the time the incident occurred. Any witness that is found not to have performed to the required level can look forward to having their carcass nailed to the witness box; private soldier, lt col or the commissioner of gotham city. As i said earlier, it's not up to him to prove his innocence. And it doesn't matter what you, i, or anyone else believes.

you cannot shoot someone for digging a hole.

All the information we have has been released by the bloke who might be getting investigated for murder. He thought it would show him in a good light, it turns out most posters here agree it seems fishy.
 
What the **** are you dribbeling about? If it was a regular soldier in the exact same situation but attached to a TA company I bet you'd be one of the first to call him a murderer and bang on about how the TA CoC are beyond reproach.

The bloke admits in the story he sold to the papers he had no contact with the Ops Room, guard commander, CSM or anyone else, he just opened fire because he claims he believed it was the correct course of action, turns out his CoC, half his unit and the RMPs disagreed and now he might have to defend his actions in a court of law.

If someone is protecting their pension, why would he admit to shooting someone without clearing it with the Ops Room in a interview he gave to the papers?

calm down dear.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top