Marines Shoot Injured Man [Archive]

Murrie

11-16-2004, 12:48 PM

lots of them pretend to be injured and attack or set off bombs when we go to assist them. Not to let this guy off since we should hold our boys to the highest standard but it is war and war is hell.

as for why he was back on the line, he probably wanted to be there. Soldiers fight for the man next to them, they arnt fighting day in and day out for the politics and all the other BS, which they may or may not believe in. They fight to keep their brothers alive. The absolute last thing many of these men want to do is let their buddies down.
Watch some (or read the book) Band Of Brothers. It does a great job of illustrating this point, many soldiers basically "escaped" from the hospitals to return to their units just so they didnt let them down. They talk about fighting for the guy next to them, and explain it al hell of alot better than I can.

Basically I doubt there was much anyone could do to keep that soldier from returning to his unit.

Swifty_Johnson

11-16-2004, 12:53 PM

The media is spinning this one.

What happened is another marine unit engaged insurgents at the location killing many and leaving some wounded behind. The next day, this marine unit went into the location spotting some dead bodies. One of the bodies twitched and the marine killed him. They did not know these were wounded leftover from the previous day.

I don't expect the marine to get into trouble, but the troops that left the wounded there all day will.

Swifty

Gwylenna

11-16-2004, 01:22 PM

What gets me is after every noble and great thing a Marine has done in Iraq, you never made a thread about any of them. But as soon as 1, ONE, questionable thing happens we have a thread. This is typical of the media, and the anti-war people on this message board.

Yes, that's all we are doing in Iraq. Maybe Tom Brokaw can come to this same conculsion and the insurgents could use it to recruit some more terrorists to shoot at our troops.
I notice how you didn't quote me when I said that I understand how this could happen. You also ignored the part of the artical I included in my post which was all about the person in the same unit killed the day before by a booby trapped body and the guy being shot at the day before. Seems you want to ignore my concern that we have men back out on the line after being shot the day before. Even if he wants to be there, that is not the place for him so soon after being shot himself. I am concerned that our men are not getting the support they need to deal with all the shit that is happening over there. I don't like that their judgement is being hampered by the circumstances.

Right now I am more concerend about the emotional/spiritual well-being of our men than the life of some combatant who was shooting at our men the day before. I would prefer our guys be able to be perfect, but that is not going to happen in any war, so they will at times make questionable judgement calls.

What worries me most is these men will come home at some point and time and if we don't have the support they need in the field, I have to question if we will have it for them when they get home.

Allison

11-16-2004, 01:35 PM

What gets me is after every noble and great thing a Marine has done in Iraq, you never made a thread about any of them. But as soon as 1, ONE, questionable thing happens we have a thread. This is typical of the media, and the anti-war people on this message board.

Be fair, Roscoes. You're trying to make it sound like something it's not. What's typical is that people will talk about things that are extreme or out of the ordinary. If a fireman runs into a burning building, pulls out a family pet and revives him with mouth to mouth, it'll make the front page. But a common housefire will not. The same is true on this forum.

There is no "anti-war" sentiment being expressed here. Gwylenna brought up a valid topic. Everyone knows the stress these boys are under and everyone knows these things will happen. And I'm sure that the military is experienced in recognizing and dealing with battle stress. But there's nothing wrong with talking about it, or talking about how these things can be minimized, if for no other reason than to reduce the emotional trauma these boys may have to deal with down the road.

Swifty_Johnson

11-16-2004, 01:36 PM

Right now I am more concerend about the emotional/spiritual well-being of our men than the life of some combatant who was shooting at our men the day before. I would prefer our guys be able to be perfect, but that is not going to happen in any war, so they will at times make questionable judgement calls.

If there was any doubt over the man's ability to do the mission, he would not have been there. This was a simple mistake, nothing more. He did not know those were wounded leftover from the day before. I'm pretty sure that Marine is feeling really really bad right now over what he did. I hope he isn't punished, as he was just doing his job.

Swifty

Gwylenna

11-16-2004, 02:08 PM

If there was any doubt over the man's ability to do the mission, he would not have been there. This was a simple mistake, nothing more. He did not know those were wounded leftover from the day before. I'm pretty sure that Marine is feeling really really bad right now over what he did. I hope he isn't punished, as he was just doing his job.

Swifty
Nope I don't trust our military to keep some one out of the field if their are questions over his ability. I think they send people who are teetering on the line out way too often.

Boom

11-16-2004, 02:09 PM

Hey, I got an idea. How about every time someone posts bad news here, we attack that person and question their motives. Then maybe people will stop posting about the bad things that are happening in the world. Then we can pretend that everything is wonderful and skip around in a circle singing the Smurf song, "La la, la la la la, la la la la la!!!!"

Let's just all talk about how wonderful everything is, and how perfectly everything is going. The post-invasion of Iraq is going as smooth as buttah, all because of Bush's brilliant post-invasion plan. They will be having trouble free elections and baseball and apple pie within weeks. If you try to tell me differently, I will cover my ears and close my eyes and scream about your bias and blinders till you stop talking.

Post

11-16-2004, 02:11 PM

"Let's just all talk about how wonderful everything is, and how perfectly everything is going."

No, we only do that if we're happy how everything is, not if it's wonderful or not. There's a difference (unfortunately).

Swifty_Johnson

11-16-2004, 03:13 PM

Nope I don't trust our military to keep some one out of the field if their are questions over his ability. I think they send people who are teetering on the line out way too often.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. My Fiancee supports the 1st ID and she is really really busy right now. They do not send someone who is questionalbe into the field because he can get his own people killed. If there is ANY doubt to the person's mental ability to execute the mission, they are sent to see a psycologist. If the psycolgist thinks there is a problem, they are sent to Germany for treatment.

This isn't a case of a mental laspe, this is a case where one unit carelessly left behind wounded Iraqi who got found by another unit. One of them twitched, and was shot becasuse the other unit thought they had found a bunch of dead bodies, and the insurgents had used dead bodies as cover to attack Marines.

The mans reaction after he was told of his mistake was "I didn't know", which means if he knew they were wounded left behind, he would not have shot.

Swifty

Gwylenna

11-16-2004, 03:43 PM

Sorry, but that is incorrect. My Fiancee supports the 1st ID and she is really really busy right now. They do not send someone who is questionalbe into the field because he can get his own people killed. If there is ANY doubt to the person's mental ability to execute the mission, they are sent to see a psycologist. If the psycolgist thinks there is a problem, they are sent to Germany for treatment.

This isn't a case of a mental laspe, this is a case where one unit carelessly left behind wounded Iraqi who got found by another unit. One of them twitched, and was shot becasuse the other unit thought they had found a bunch of dead bodies, and the insurgents had used dead bodies as cover to attack Marines.

The mans reaction after he was told of his mistake was "I didn't know", which means if he knew they were wounded left behind, he would not have shot.

Swifty
Swifty did you actually read the entire article??

Also I do not doubt that your Fiance is dedicated and does her job to her best ability, the same can not be said for all in the military. Thier are comanders out there who know they have people teetering and still they keep sending them out. Anyone with a basic knowledge of psychology would have kept a guy who had just been shot the day before out of the field a few days to evaluate him.

Boom

11-16-2004, 03:47 PM

No, you are wrong. The military and everyone in it are perfect. There is zero chance of them sending someone out who isn't ready to fight. If you took off your liberal blinders and stopped being brainwashed by Micheal Moore you would know this.

Now who wants to join me in pretending everything is wonderful and skipping around to the Smurf song?

La la la la la la la...........

Gwylenna

11-16-2004, 03:48 PM

I loves you Boom

Roscoes_C&W

11-16-2004, 03:58 PM

O jesus, the military is now shooting innocent wounded civilians. Great, now we Americans are out there killing innocent civilians so we can conquer more land. If it's not American Military out there raping and pillaging then it's American Military shooting wounded people crying for help on the ground. I wonder if the military man proceeded to piss on the dead corpse, I bet he did.

Swifty_Johnson

11-16-2004, 04:01 PM

Swifty did you actually read the entire article??

Yes, are you aware there is more then one article on the story? CNN ran one with the Marine's reaction after he was told that was a wounded person left there from the day before.

He said "I didn't know that, I didn't know that sir."

Thier are comanders out there who know they have people teetering and still they keep sending them out. Anyone with a basic knowledge of psychology would have kept a guy who had just been shot the day before out of the field a few days to evaluate him.

Why? There are many Marines getting shot, fortuantly the vests protect them and they are unharmed and keep on doing their duty. The man didn't run around shooting wounded Iraqi on a whim. He felt it was a threat and reacted, as he should have. If anyone is at fault it's the people who left the wounded behind.

Swifty

Saorise

11-16-2004, 06:56 PM

The men and women that are sent back into battle are evaluated on a personal level, so its not as easy to say he shouldnt of been there just because he was wounded the previous day. I am sure there are some in battle now that havent been wounded yet and shouldnt be there more so then some who have been wounded and are back out the next day. It really depends on the person and I am sure we will hear all about this guy soon.

Its war....and personally I dont blame the marine at all. If it was me and my buddies were dying and getting wounded around me I would do the same, its a him or me situation. Unfortunatly.

Noleader

11-16-2004, 10:23 PM

They had to make sure he was not faking... Shit happens in war, thats why we should be more reserved about getting into a conflict in the first place.

Swifty_Johnson

11-17-2004, 09:33 AM

I have access to internal army websites and the debate there is split between two camps.

Leaders (officers,NCO)
enlisted and civilians

The enlisted and civilians are taking the Marines side, that he was just responding to a percived threat as he didn't know they were wounded from the day before.

The leaders are stateing that he violated the ROE and he should pay.

An enlisted person bought up a good point, the officer who ordered his men to leave the wounded behind could face manslaughter charges if he failed to inform command that the wounded were left in the building. Several of the wounded died before the 2nd squad got there.

Swifty

Allison

11-17-2004, 10:49 AM

Leaders (officers,NCO)
enlisted and civilians

The enlisted and civilians are taking the Marines side, that he was just responding to a percived threat as he didn't know they were wounded from the day before.

The leaders are stateing that he violated the ROE and he should pay.

That doesn't surprise me. Most people seem to agree that his actions were understandable. Fighting in a war like that against guerilla tactics, it would be a bloody miracle if the Rules of Engagement weren't broken here and there. I suspect everyone knows this. But, one of the reasons we have such an effective fighting force is discipline. Officers are tasked with maintaining that discipline. They can't really take any other stance on such a public violation without sending a message that the rules don't matter.

Andolinni

11-17-2004, 11:11 AM

I think it's wrong to shoot an injured unarmed man. However, the chivalry portrade in some drama movies were a guy saves an enemy combatant, i think thats all crap. The thing about todays warfare is there are absolutly no rules, i think thats something that the older people kinda don't realize. A lot of older people would never think of surrendering to lure troops out of position. I mean, theres a lot of dirty tricks i don't think most people would think of.

Hard to say that the soldier that appearently shot an unarmed man was in the wrong, hard to say he knew of what his mindframe was. His buddy had been appearently shot recently, combat fatigue might be the one to blame in this case. Lets not forget some of our troops come home and lives are completly changed after combat, if it's so bad when their on safe streets of america, picture how they must think while in a warzone. Some veterans can't so much as drive on the freeway for fear of when a car drives along side of them that that car might throw a bomb in the veterans vehicle.

Andolinni

11-17-2004, 11:20 AM

Okay so this really sucks, now we are shooting un-arrmed injured men. What gets me is why was this Marine back out on duty in such a tense situation so soon after being shot in the face. Under the circumstances I get why he did it.

I thought it was noble to go back into combat with the members of your unit. Realisticly if you're on the frontlines, everyday is ganna have consequences that will stress a unit and it's members. But if ya pull out 2-3 guys everytime an incident occurs, then no one will be left on the ground to fight the battle.
Depending on the severity of his wounds, it's possible he could have had time off. Realizing as he did that his unit had been through just as much as he had the last few days, i think it noble he goes and endures the same hardships as the rest of his unit and friends.

To me it's kinda like a quarterback that gets rolled over by a defensive lineman. Now the quarterback is hurt/pissed off and ready to deal blows. His head is hot so he might make too hasty a decision that results in an interception, or he can throw a touchdown that lights up NFL highlight reals for decades to come.

Gwylenna

11-17-2004, 11:34 AM

But, with rare exception, Football is not about life and death, War is.

Swifty_Johnson

11-17-2004, 12:06 PM

But, with rare exception, Football is not about life and death, War is.

Yes it is. You are acting like what the man did was wrong.

Please try and understand that may not be the case.

You are in Falluja,

What would you do if you entered a room of dead bodies and one of them twitched and was breathing?

Swifty

Gwylenna

11-17-2004, 12:45 PM

Wait are you saying that Football is about life and death??

Swifty you seem to be missing my point. My point is not that the soldier did something wrong, but that I question his chain of commands decision to have him in the front lines at that time. I also question how clear his judgement was under the stress and circumstances he and his buddies had been under in the two days before this incident. My concern is not that the Marine screwed up, but that we do not have enough emotional/spiritual support for our guys out there or when they come home.

I get that in a war situation we are never going to have it perfect, shit happens. But when the "shit" includes loss of life I would like to do everything possible to keep that shit to a minimum, wouldn't you?? And being the type of person I am, I really would like a clearer picture of exactly what our military is doing to do that.

Ivyrielle

11-17-2004, 12:49 PM

I keep hearing "injured, unarmed man"...

... and I keep wondering what no one else seems to be asking... why was he injured? He was injured because he was firing on our soldiers from a "holy" place... He was injured because he was a combatant. He was injured because he was engaging in guerilla warfare against our troops who are supporting the Iraqi people in securing a volatile place, so volatile it's been a policy of containment and not maintaining the peace until now.

This isn't peaceful father of 5 walking down the street to the market to feed his children. This is blow our people up because the west are the infidel dogs.

I support our troops, and the Marine who had the make the split second decision to fire which may have saved his life and those of his patrol.

Gwylenna

11-17-2004, 12:50 PM

You are acting like what the man did was wrong. Swifty
No I am not, see my previous post. However according to your own posts, his comand structure is acting like what he did was wrong and broke ROE. Since they make the rules, maybe the are best at judgeing when they are broken.

I have access to internal army websites and the debate there is split between two camps.

Leaders (officers,NCO)
enlisted and civilians

The enlisted and civilians are taking the Marines side, that he was just responding to a percived threat as he didn't know they were wounded from the day before.

The leaders are stateing that he violated the ROE and he should pay.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

11-17-2004, 01:00 PM

Wait are you saying that Football is about life and death??

No, war is.

Swifty you seem to be missing my point.

No, I am not.

but that I question his chain of commands decision to have him in the front lines at that time.

Why, if he didn't do anything wrong, then what would the issue be with him in the front lines?

I also question how clear his judgement was under the stress and circumstances he and his buddies had been under in the two days before this incident.

Every Marine in that town knows what has been happening. We are only seeing one case, but you can bet that many bodies that are in piles of dead are now getting shot if they twitch or show any signs of life. This is a life or death situation, the Marine reacted as he saw something that indicated to him the insurgent was playing possem, and was a threat.

I would like to do everything possible to keep that shit to a minimum, wouldn't you??

I might sound like a mean bastard, but I want the loss of life reduced for our side. If that means we kill a few wounded insurgents who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, so be it. It is not our troops fault that some have been using the ploy of wounded body to kill our troops. They have to defend themselfs.

However according to your own posts, his comand structure is acting like what he did was wrong and broke ROE. Since they make the rules, maybe the are best at judgeing when they are broken.

Well that is the Army command structure, I have no access to the Marine websites. Allison had a good take on this, what they are saying in public maybe differant then what they feel.

Swifty

Allison

11-17-2004, 02:22 PM

Allison had a good take on this, what they are saying in public maybe differant then what they feel.

Well, let me clarify what I said a bit. I think that everyone understands why things like this do happen and will happen, that includes the command structure. But there are reasons why we have rules of engagement, one of them being to maintain discipline.

In a state of war, (especially one like this where it's sometimes difficult to determine innocent civilian from enemy combatant) where your buddies are getting hit, people are dying, and you've been trained to kill the enemy, it is the easiest thing in the world for things to get out of control ... and before you know it, achieving your military objective suddenly snaps into a kill kill kill mentality that results in a slaughter. That sort of thing hasn't happened in today's military because we've learned from past experience to recognize problems before they spread to the rest of the unit like a virus. (Swifty, I'd be interested to hear what you g/f says about this. I forget what it's called when a mass of people behave in unexpected ways, just going along with the flow in a sort of mob mentality ... like if you're mugged, you're more likely to get assistance from a bystander if there's only one witness as opposed to 30 witnesses.)

Anyway, what I'm saying is this: Yes, this guy probably didn't stop and think, Hey, here's an unarmed, wounded combatant who is no threat to me. I think I'll shoot him in the head. But, I've seen the tape, and I don't think it was a simple case of twitch-and-fire, either. There was a brief amount of time, which included some very brief conversation, between when it was noticed that the man wasn't already dead, and when the marine fired. If he had thought about it for a minute, he probably wouldn't have fired. But he didn't think; he reacted. I'm not laying any blame here, I'm just saying that the incident is probably somewhere between the two extremes of "twitch-and-fire" and "completely reactionary," and there's no way for us to know which way the truth of the matter leans.

Is it understandable and forgiveable under the circumstances? Probaly, as long as it's an isolated incident and this particular marine isn't known for walking around shooting unarmed civilians or wounded combatants willy-nilly. But, technically, he probably did violate the ROE. And, what I was trying to say before was that the command structure, even if they understand why it happened, has to take things like this seriously ... not just because it's so public, but because they have to maintain the discipline of our fighting force. They have to look at this guy and ask the question, Is he teetering on the edge? If not, that's fine. And I'm not saying he is. They may determine that it was a completely reactionary incident and just ask him to give a little more thought to the ROE. But if he is, they have to get him out of there before a "the rules don't apply" mentality can spread to other marines.

PoxTheSmall

11-17-2004, 03:02 PM

But, with rare exception, Football is not about life and death, War is.

Yes it is. You are acting like what the man did was wrong.

Please try and understand that may not be the case.

We don't know the truth about this situation, and it's unlikely that we'll get any clear indication of why the dude shot that guy. It's war and stuff like that happens from time to time.

The footage that I saw, showed a guy with his arms behind his head on the ground get drilled by a soldier who stormed into a held building. There were soldiers in the foreground and even a camera person filming the room, so it appears that the room was completely secure. The soldier walked straight to the body on the ground and let lose a burst on the person in a position that appeared to be complete surrender.

That is just what I saw without interpretation involved. There definately could be good reason for that to occur, that would be completely valid or he could be a psycopath.

Swifty_Johnson

11-17-2004, 04:05 PM

The footage that I saw, showed a guy with his arms behind his head on the ground get drilled by a soldier who stormed into a held building. There were soldiers in the foreground and even a camera person filming the room, so it appears that the room was completely secure. The soldier walked straight to the body on the ground and let lose a burst on the person in a position that appeared to be complete surrender.

I though he shot the guy leaning up against the wall, not the one who was lying on the floor talking to the marines.

Swifty

PoxTheSmall

11-17-2004, 04:10 PM

The footage they're showing is the guy on the floor getting shot. They show the Marine walk right up to the guy and drill him. They cut the scene right as blood goes flying up at the wall. So far, I've seen it about 4 times.

Edit: My immediate reaction was thinking "That's gotta be a movie", then right after thinking "omfg, did that really just happen?". Although, in all fairness the scene shows nothing of what happened before, it litterally is only a snippet of a Marine killing a guy in what appears to be a secure room. The uproar is about what would constitute the execution of someone who is captured.

The story: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/15/marine.probe/index.html

From the article:
Four of the men appeared to have been shot again in Saturday's fighting, and one of them appeared to be dead, according to the pool report. In the video, a Marine was seen noticing that one of the men appeared to be breathing.

A Marine approached one of the men in the mosque saying, "He's [expletive] faking he's dead. He's faking he's [expletive] dead."

The Marine raised his rifle and fired into the apparently wounded man's head, at which point a companion said, "Well, he's dead now."

Boom

11-17-2004, 04:38 PM

Yall, are missing the most important point. Gwylenna loves me. :D

I don't think I have enough information to decide whether this soldier acted appropriately or not. I mean, its war and lives are at stake and you can't take risks, but if they thought the guy was faking death, couldn't they point their guns at him and yell, "WE SEE YOU MOVING! DO NOT TRY ANYTHING OR WE SHOOT YOU!!!" I know the Iraqi's don't understand much english, but they gotta understand 10 guns pointed at their head while soldiers are screaming at them means, "Don't try anything or you die." Or maybe they coulda just kicked him in the head a few times till they were sure he was too fucked up to fight back. A few good kicks in the head does wonders. I mean the room was clearly secure, was shooting him really the only option? Couldn't they have just grabbed him and beat him up a little? Anyway, I wasn't there, I don't know all the details, so for now I will take this soldier's side. I am willing to bet he thought he was doing the right thing to protect his company and wasn't just being a dick. I hope he doesn't get in any trouble.

And just so I understand, shooting an unarmed, injured guy who is lying on the ground with his hands behind his head, pretending to be dead, is cool, but shooting a guy who just hit your boat with a grenade and is still carrying the grenade launcher is bad?

I looooooooooooooooooove the double standard! And before you accuse me of a double standard, reread this post carefully. I always take the soldiers side and give him the benefit of the doubt. One standard, thank you very much.

PoxTheSmall

11-17-2004, 04:47 PM

Well, that soldier might've been given the order of: "If you have any question shoot first and ask questions later." It is the military, after all. These aren't cops, they're Marines, and thier first job is their own safety. If he felt that the guy was faking death for malicious reasons, or even if he just thought there was a .1% chance this guy potentially had a bomb strapped to himself, then I really can't blame him...

Boom

11-17-2004, 04:58 PM

I don't blame him either (if I hadn't already made that clear). Even if what he did was officially wrong or technically in violation of the rules, I don't blame him. War is hell, and these guys are in hell. And this is a particularly nasty hell where you can't tell the difference from the people you are protecting and the people trying to kill you. And our leaders keep changing their minds about why we are even there. Its amazing that the whole army doesn't just go on strike till someone makes some sense out of this whole thing. Every American soldier in Iraq should get a special medal every single day he/she is over there. Its a freakin nightmare that no one signed up for. If this soldier gets in a lot of trouble, I will be upset. If the Pentagon decides that what he did was wrong, they should just apologize to the dead guy and make sure that our soldiers know what the rules are for now on. They shouldn't give this soldier a hard time about it.