Korean Job Discussion Forums

[TECO]

Canadian soldiers in the news: Capt. Semrau Fires Two Shots into Wounded Taliban

Does this ring of another Somalia type blunder by the Canadian military? Why or why not?

Will it impact Canada's image as "Peace Keepers"?

Not much info has been released on the details surrounding the incident.

[Jandar]

Certainly a sad Case no matter how you look at it.

I'll wait to see how the trial goes and what evidence is put into play.

One thing that was mentioned was the the injured guy was still armed, I imagine that will play into the defense along with PTSD.

Something tells me that mercy killing may be the weakest defense to mount.

"... one was dead, the other, armed with an assault rifle, was apparently seriously wounded. His injuries were deemed "too severe for in-situ treatment.""

Other things to consider, without a body how do you know if he even shot the wounded man?

Testimony is going to be critical.

Here's the excerpts from the Prosecutions opening summary.

"After this process, Capt. Semrau was observed to be the only person in close proximity to the severely wounded insurgent.

"During this period, two shots were heard and at least one witness reports that he saw Capt. Semrau firing his rifle at the severely wounded insurgent.

"After evaluating all the available evidence, the prosecution believes that it was Capt. Semrau who fired both shots, that these shots resulted in the death of the severely wounded insurgent and that Capt. Semrau had no lawful justification for shooting the severely wounded insurgent.

"Immediately afterward, all forces resumed the mission and the body of the severely wounded insurgent was left behind.

"That body has not been recovered."

http://www.thestar.com/SpecialSections/article/562812

[sharkey]

if he killed a wounded unarmed fighter, he deserves to go to jail. This behavior is really unacceptable for any modern affluent army. I really am interested in how this works out.

[TheUrbanMyth]

[Jandar]

[Bigfeet]

I laugh at the people that try to judge a soldier's action in the heat of combat as if it had happened in their home town while they were out on a walk to get some fresh air.

[mises]

[it's full of stars]

[T-J]

The quote that has a little more detail is from the other article linked below.

[khyber]

I heard a segment about this on CBC radio. It sounded to me like it was more of a mercy kill than anything. The problem being is that there are "laws of warfare" that state that injured enemies must be given the same treatment as your own soldiers.
Clearly that was not done.

The taliban dude was not really a threat being far too injured and, from what I remember hearing, his weapon was taken from him.

I think that this guy shouldn't really be derided for his choice, but whether he had legal obligations to follow, that may be another story.

[caniff]

Even if it was a mercy killing, justifying this seems like a slippery slope. Who decides under what circumstances you can put a bullet in someone deemed too far gone to save?

[canuckistan]

Wounded fighters can still kill their opponents, whether they have assault rifles or grenades tucked away with their fingers around the pin, waiting.

Here's a good rule:

Stop shooting only when it doesn't move anymore.

[BreakfastInBed]

At the end of the day rules for warfare are a patent absurdity. With the possible exception of Canuckistan's.

[The Hammer]