Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

He was cleared for combat, passed the health screening to become a sniper and received advanced treatment for his mild brain injury.

Was the treatment good? Did they fail to evaluate him correctly? What about the person who evaluated them? Have they been examined to see if they were incorrect?

What then appears to be for all intents and purposes a healthy individual walks out of a US Base, breaks into three seperate homes and kills the families inside. 8 of which were children. What is there, apart from the horrid nature of the crime, to suggest he has a defence of insanity?

A man that has been deployed more times than he should, who is having, what appears, to be a terrible home life due to the army and who also has a brain injury...

That would send off alarm bells for most behavioural psychologists.

It did send off alarm bells, which is why he went through not one, but two mental health screenings. That they both deemed him fit for combat strongly suggests that this act was pre-meditated and done in cold blood.

Is it really so hard to admit that a US soldier is capable of committing these crimes without being protected by claims of insanity?

Only 2? Are Health Screens infalible? How deep were the examinations?

If the soldier responsible even uses insanity as a defence, the onus would be on him to somehow prove that the psychologists (of which there'd be more than one) were negligent in providing the diagnosis that he was combat ready. All the evidence as it stands points to him being an individual of healthy mind. People with healthy minds commit heinous murders all the time.

It's not hard to admit that anyone is capable of these crimes, but the quality of care the US military has for its soldiers...is pretty low.

Given that I'm pretty sure the Taliban doesn't have health screens at all, we might be using the same argument for them.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

He was cleared for combat, passed the health screening to become a sniper and received advanced treatment for his mild brain injury.

Was the treatment good? Did they fail to evaluate him correctly? What about the person who evaluated them? Have they been examined to see if they were incorrect?

What then appears to be for all intents and purposes a healthy individual walks out of a US Base, breaks into three seperate homes and kills the families inside. 8 of which were children. What is there, apart from the horrid nature of the crime, to suggest he has a defence of insanity?

A man that has been deployed more times than he should, who is having, what appears, to be a terrible home life due to the army and who also has a brain injury...

That would send off alarm bells for most behavioural psychologists.

It did send off alarm bells, which is why he went through not one, but two mental health screenings. That they both deemed him fit for combat strongly suggests that this act was pre-meditated and done in cold blood.

Is it really so hard to admit that a US soldier is capable of committing these crimes without being protected by claims of insanity?

Only 2? Are Health Screens infalible? How deep were the examinations?

If the soldier responsible even uses insanity as a defence, the onus would be on him to somehow prove that the psychologists (of which there'd be more than one) were negligent in providing the diagnosis that he was combat ready. All the evidence as it stands points to him being an individual of healthy mind. People with healthy minds commit heinous murders all the time.

It's not hard to admit that anyone is capable of these crimes, but the quality of care the US military has for its soldiers...is pretty low.

Given that I'm pretty sure the Taliban doesn't have health screens at all, we might be using the same argument for them.

Then the conclusion is that more information is needed to confirm either way. Well, then first he would need to be evaluated with a proper clinician and his brain re-examined without using military people. The dangers with psychosis is the possibility of resurgence. The newspaper article mentions that he has worked through some of his home life problems, but combat stress can invoke a resurgence.

When I was having some depressive issues the Army deemed me after screening to simply be emotionally upset and had a "bad attitude" and sent me out to my unit as was. no meds prescribed, no sessions of therapy. Just get back to work ya lazy SOB. They would be screening to check for his retention of intellect and attitude to do his job as a sniper, which is of course killing folks. So yeah, he likely passed under those criteria.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Then the conclusion is that more information is needed to confirm either way. Well, then first he would need to be evaluated with a proper clinician and his brain re-examined without using military people. The dangers with psychosis is the possibility of resurgence. The newspaper article mentions that he has worked through some of his home life problems, but combat stress can invoke a resurgence.

Fair enough, though as it is the evidence points to him being a sane individual. Whether what comes up in the trial disputes this is something that we'll have to wait for.

shasolenzabi wrote:When I was having some depressive issues the Army deemed me after screening to simply be emotionally upset and had a "bad attitude" and sent me out to my unit as was. no meds prescribed, no sessions of therapy. Just get back to work ya lazy SOB. They would be screening to check for his retention of intellect and attitude to do his job as a sniper, which is of course killing folks. So yeah, he likely passed under those criteria.

As far as I know you didn't crack and kill anyone, so it may have been the appropriate diagnosis.

Mr Hyena wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Better idea. Everyone else, pack up and go with him, burning everything as they leave.

Leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis.

I'd prefer a mass murderer be denied reentry into the country tbh.

Leave him there and see how long he can live out his Rambo fantasies...

I don't see what he did wrong. It wasn't in cold blood, his mind snapped.

Now...the Taliban/Afghans on the other hand...

You don't see what he did wrong? Here, I'll help.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17336587

I'm waiting for proof that he wasn't insane. Which is a far cry different from the Taliban (who are perfectly sane and more murderous)

Ahh, yes, I'm sure that being tortured by the Afghani (or previously Egyptian) military after being captured by U.S. forces has never driven anyone insane enough to join a violent extremist movement. Clearly they're all just mean ol' killers, nothing in that conflict bound region could ever cause mental distress . Come on, try harder then that. If that's really your defense for the massacre of 16 people, mostly children, then you might as well stay silent.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Better idea. Everyone else, pack up and go with him, burning everything as they leave.

Leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis.

I'd prefer a mass murderer be denied reentry into the country tbh.

Leave him there and see how long he can live out his Rambo fantasies...

I don't see what he did wrong. It wasn't in cold blood, his mind snapped.

Now...the Taliban/Afghans on the other hand...

You don't see what he did wrong? Here, I'll help.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17336587

I'm waiting for proof that he wasn't insane. Which is a far cry different from the Taliban (who are perfectly sane and more murderous)

Ahh, yes, I'm sure that being tortured by the Afghani (or previously Egyptian) military after being captured by U.S. forces has never driven anyone insane enough to join a violent extremist movement. Clearly they're all just mean ol' killers, nothing in that conflict bound region could ever cause mental distress . Come on, try harder then that. If that's really your defense for the massacre of 16 people, mostly children, then you might as well stay silent.

Aaaah...the good-old whats good for one group is not good for another. So your a taliban supporter?

As far as I know you didn't crack and kill anyone, so it may have been the appropriate diagnosis.

Well, I agree that he should be checked and evaluated and he likely passed because the Military is not really that interested if you are all puppies and bunnies, his job was killing, so if he slipped, they may have assumed he was just wanting to get back to sniping.

My job was working with Nukes, so with two man control, it would have been harder, and i was merely dealing with depression, no head trauma/brain damage

Mr Hyena wrote:
Aaaah...the good-old whats good for one group is not good for another. So your a taliban supporter?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:
Aaaah...the good-old whats good for one group is not good for another. So your a taliban supporter?

He's great fun at parties, though.

shasolenzabi wrote:

As far as I know you didn't crack and kill anyone, so it may have been the appropriate diagnosis.

Well, I agree that he should be checked and evaluated and he likely passed because the Military is not really that interested if you are all puppies and bunnies, his job was killing, so if he slipped, they may have assumed he was just wanting to get back to sniping.

My job was working with Nukes, so with two man control, it would have been harder, and i was merely dealing with depression, no head trauma/brain damage

Is this a saying or a spell-check fail?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:
Aaaah...the good-old whats good for one group is not good for another. So your a taliban supporter?

You're right HH...
That should have been 'So you're a Taliban supporter?'

Mr Hyena wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Better idea. Everyone else, pack up and go with him, burning everything as they leave.

Leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis.

I'd prefer a mass murderer be denied reentry into the country tbh.

Leave him there and see how long he can live out his Rambo fantasies...

I don't see what he did wrong. It wasn't in cold blood, his mind snapped.

Now...the Taliban/Afghans on the other hand...

You don't see what he did wrong? Here, I'll help.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17336587

I'm waiting for proof that he wasn't insane. Which is a far cry different from the Taliban (who are perfectly sane and more murderous)

Ahh, yes, I'm sure that being tortured by the Afghani (or previously Egyptian) military after being captured by U.S. forces has never driven anyone insane enough to join a violent extremist movement. Clearly they're all just mean ol' killers, nothing in that conflict bound region could ever cause mental distress . Come on, try harder then that. If that's really your defense for the massacre of 16 people, mostly children, then you might as well stay silent.

Aaaah...the good-old whats good for one group is not good for another. So your a taliban supporter?

I think you're missing something here.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Better idea. Everyone else, pack up and go with him, burning everything as they leave.

Leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis.

I'd prefer a mass murderer be denied reentry into the country tbh.

Leave him there and see how long he can live out his Rambo fantasies...

I don't see what he did wrong. It wasn't in cold blood, his mind snapped.

Now...the Taliban/Afghans on the other hand...

You don't see what he did wrong? Here, I'll help.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17336587

I'm waiting for proof that he wasn't insane. Which is a far cry different from the Taliban (who are perfectly sane and more murderous)

Ahh, yes, I'm sure that being tortured by the Afghani (or previously Egyptian) military after being captured by U.S. forces has never driven anyone insane enough to join a violent extremist movement. Clearly they're all just mean ol' killers, nothing in that conflict bound region could ever cause mental distress . Come on, try harder then that. If that's really your defense for the massacre of 16 people, mostly children, then you might as well stay silent.

Aaaah...the good-old whats good for one group is not good for another. So your a taliban supporter?

I think you're missing something here.

I'm not the one who is trying to get sympathy for the Taliban here.

Mr Hyena wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Better idea. Everyone else, pack up and go with him, burning everything as they leave.

Leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis.

I'd prefer a mass murderer be denied reentry into the country tbh.

Leave him there and see how long he can live out his Rambo fantasies...

I don't see what he did wrong. It wasn't in cold blood, his mind snapped.

Now...the Taliban/Afghans on the other hand...

You don't see what he did wrong? Here, I'll help.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17336587

I'm waiting for proof that he wasn't insane. Which is a far cry different from the Taliban (who are perfectly sane and more murderous)

Ahh, yes, I'm sure that being tortured by the Afghani (or previously Egyptian) military after being captured by U.S. forces has never driven anyone insane enough to join a violent extremist movement. Clearly they're all just mean ol' killers, nothing in that conflict bound region could ever cause mental distress . Come on, try harder then that. If that's really your defense for the massacre of 16 people, mostly children, then you might as well stay silent.

Aaaah...the good-old whats good for one group is not good for another. So your a taliban supporter?

I think you're missing something here.

I'm not the one who is trying to get sympathy for the Taliban here.

No, just a mass child murderer.

A man who went insane due to combat stress, yes.

Mr Hyena wrote:A man who went insane due to combat stress, yes.

Ahh, so now you're admitting to knowing the mental state of every member of the Al Queda and the Taliban as well (how else could you make such remarks?). Are you on any travel bans? Should we be concerned?

Now, why not wait until the man is screened and evaluated for his actual mental status, then we can proceed from there. No one is disputing his crime. Just his state of mental health to see why he did it. IF he is sane, and there is no result from his brain damage, then we do have a cold blooded killer, possibly a psychotic, cold, calculating and dangerous.

If he is under the loss of some control due to the damage and stress, then he needs help, and then he can face the crimes better, and deal with his guilt once he realized and can recognize how wrong it was.

In the case of the 1st, he will never be safe amongst people.

as for the second case, they may be able to salvage him.

As for the culture of the Taliban, that is another matter, and we know Al-Q are a terror org.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:A man who went insane due to combat stress, yes.

Ahh, so now you're admitting to knowing the mental state of every member of the Al Queda and the Taliban as well (how else could you make such remarks?). Are you on any travel bans? Should we be concerned?

Nope, But I know pigs like Al Queda and the Taliban ARE murderers and its a massive leap to compare one of our soldiers to them when the evidence flies in the face of it. That much is obvious.

Or do you have proof that every Al Queda and the Taliban is in a constant state of Psychosis?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:A man who went insane due to combat stress, yes.

Ahh, so now you're admitting to knowing the mental state of every member of the Al Queda and the Taliban as well (how else could you make such remarks?). Are you on any travel bans? Should we be concerned?

He will be in jail a very long time. Equating him to Al Qaeda murderers who have no problem cutting off heads of people on tv and setting off bombs in marketplaces and kill girls going to school is...misplaced and beneath the seriousness of the topic. If you really believe there is an equivolency than wow, just wow.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:A man who went insane due to combat stress, yes.

Ahh, so now you're admitting to knowing the mental state of every member of the Al Queda and the Taliban as well (how else could you make such remarks?). Are you on any travel bans? Should we be concerned?

He will be in jail a very long time. Equating him to Al Qaeda murderers who have no problem cutting off heads of people on tv and setting off bombs in marketplaces and kill girls going to school is...misplaced and beneath the seriousness of the topic. If you really believe there is an equivolency than wow, just wow.

Do I think there's equivalency between a dude walking out of his base and killing eight children and eight adults in cold blood than casually returning to it and someone going out and killing reporters or civilians in cold blood then returning to his compound? Yeah. Because there is. You can wave your little flag all you want, but in the end all you've done is proven that you picked a side. That you don't really give a gak so long as your side is the one that's winning. Whether that conflict is moral or militaristic there's just no way that your boys could ever be "bad". Just "misguided" or "disturbed". Hell, they may even be "crazy". "Evil" and "murderous" are only things you can let the enemy be though.

Edit - MT11

"Evil" and "murderous" are only things you can let the enemy be though.

Then what do you believe? You must hate life then. What is there to gain by supporting the people who kill your countrymen (and not just soldiers)?

At least we can agree this was a very bad thing...
Incidentally can US soldiers face the death penalty?

Mr Hyena wrote:

"Evil" and "murderous" are only things you can let the enemy be though.

Then what do you believe? You must hate life then. What is there to gain by supporting the people who kill your countrymen (and not just soldiers)?

Rule #1 Violation

Obviously it was a bad thing. The difficulty arises when you bring insanity into it, as soldiers do not just go out and randomly shoot everyone up.

I don't think he can face the death penalty without his mental state being cleared again.

Mr Hyena wrote:Obviously it was a bad thing. The difficulty arises when you bring insanity into it, as soldiers do not just go out and randomly shoot everyone up.

I don't think he can face the death penalty without his mental state being cleared again.

They do just go out and shoot people up sometimes. This is far from the first event of this kind to occur in this or any war. Part of the conditioning of soldiers and the stressful environments they're in can give them the ability to justify killing innocents, sometimes en masse. Most militaries are guilty of it at some point, it's hard to really say that the entire Japanese or German militaries were evil in world war two, but they both committed horrific atrocities. The united states and the UK engaged in protracted campaigns targeting purely civilian locations. The nature of conflict isn't cut and dry and easy. Sometimes plainly bad people are wearing the uniform and do it for the same reason as they might have done in in a gang or by themselves as civilians.

Does military justice recognize mental issues like civilian courts do?

They do just go out and shoot people up sometimes.

How often though in recent times? I'm not willing to dump one of our soldiers in the middle of a rabble without at least doing proper checks.

Does military justice recognize mental issues like civilian courts do?

No idea. But they probably should, considering how its much more likely to develop something like that in a combat zone. Shellshock was a terrible thing a long time ago.

My uncle came back from Korea crazy. All I know is that his platoon was overrun by Chinese. Dad was a little weird too.

How often though in recent times? I'm not willing to dump one of our soldiers in the middle of a rabble without at least doing proper checks.

Fairly often. We've been pushing pretty hard to keep troop levels high in the theater. Nothing recently of this calibur that's been reported on, but in the last 365 days there have been a couple of incidents similar to this.

No idea. But they probably should, considering how its much more likely to develop something like that in a combat zone. Shellshock was a terrible thing a long time ago.

The military has been historically much slower than civilian courts to recognize things like mental illness.

Mr Hyena wrote:
I don't think he can face the death penalty without his mental state being cleared again.

And even then it's doubtful he'll be executed.

I believe the most recent execution actually carried out from a court martial (in the US at least) was in 1964.

My interest is the Pacific Front, which was more of a US thing than UK. That to me looks like a prime case of a front where mental illness could take hold. Especially with the Japanese-controlled camps.

The military has been historically much slower than civilian courts to recognize things like mental illness.

Part of the reason why the military needs to step up its care for its troops.