Canadian soldier found not guilty in 'mercy-killing' of wounde

[bloodyminded]

You certainly can't say Latimer's actions were not premeditated so what is your point.

Wyly's point, stated all along, is of whopping inconsistencies.

[wyly]

Wyly's point, stated all along, is of whopping inconsistencies.

yes thank you...

[Wilber]

Wyly's point, stated all along, is of whopping inconsistencies.

He has also stated that Samrau should go to jail for life while Latimer should get a light sentence for doing the same thing with even more premeditation. Apparently a mortally wounded Taliban's life has more value than Tracy Latimer's.

[Oleg Bach]

He has also stated that Samrau should go to jail for life while Latimer should get a light sentence for doing the same thing with even more premeditation. Apparently a mortally wounded Taliban's life has more value than Tracy Latimer's.

Once as a kid I shot a ground hog with my 22 - it was not killed instantly...the poor thing started biting at the barrel of my gun fighting for what remained of it's life...I delivered a quick head shot and it was over..People do not understand who difficult it is to extinguish the life force in a living creature - be it human or animal..My point regarding this matter is...IF I had stumbled upon an injured creature in the woods...I would walk away and let nature take it's course....IF this soldier was the one who shot this Taliban to begin with it is his duty to finish the job....He should not go wandering about the field looking to finish off what he did not initiate..sounds like a jerk looking for a cheap thrill.

[Wilber]

Once as a kid I shot a ground hog with my 22 - it was not killed instantly...the poor thing started biting at the barrel of my gun fighting for what remained of it's life...I delivered a quick head shot and it was over..People do not understand who difficult it is to extinguish the life force in a living creature - be it human or animal..My point regarding this matter is...IF I had stumbled upon an injured creature in the woods...I would walk away and let nature take it's course....IF this soldier was the one who shot this Taliban to begin with it is his duty to finish the job....He should not go wandering about the field looking to finish off what he did not initiate..sounds like a jerk looking for a cheap thrill.

Say what? He was the officer in charge, do you think he should have delegated it to a subordinate or should he have called the attack helicopter's base and demanded the crew come back and finish their job?

[Army Guy]

Once as a kid I shot a ground hog with my 22 - it was not killed instantly...the poor thing started biting at the barrel of my gun fighting for what remained of it's life...I delivered a quick head shot and it was over..

Why is that ?, I'd like to know what is your thought process here....Why would you need to fire a second round....you already mention below that it is not for mercy....or perhaps it is, i mean You are the reason this animal is in it's condition, so why not...seems some what selfish to think you would not end another animals life to ease it's suffering....because you did not wound it in the first place....

My point regarding this matter is...IF I had stumbled upon an injured creature in the woods...I would walk away and let nature take it's course...

IF this soldier was the one who shot this Taliban to begin with it is his duty to finish the job....He should not go wandering about the field looking to finish off what he did not initiate..sounds like a jerk looking for a cheap thrill.

It's not his duty, but rather what he did was clearly again'st the LAW, just so we are clear, outside of the law and into the realm of being a good humanitarian is what we are talking about, to ease this terrorists pain and suffering...The Capt made a call one that he will live with for the rest of his life...wrong according to the LAW, but perhaps right when doing the right thing...I hope i'm never in that situation as i'm not sure what i would do...everything we do in the world is black and white, right or wrong, but in combat there is alot of grey areas...this is one...

[Rue]

both are wrong IMO but for different reasons...

if the letter of the law is followed Latimer is guilty and so is Capt Semrau...Latimer got life Semrau a slap on the wrist, Semrau should have received a life sentence...but I believe the law is wrong not making an allowance for compassionate killing and Latimer should have received a much lighter punishment...

Semrau's action is more complicated because it is runs afoul of International law which is beyond our control...and has further repercussions with other organizations (Taliban)...

Comparing the Latimer case to the Semrau case is illogical. They are not the same at all. Completely different fact situations.

In the Latimer case, the child was suffering from incurable diseases that had left her trapped in pain. She had the i.q. of someone at about age 1-just enough to recognize her parents and feel pain in its totality but not understand why her parents could not hear her cries of pain and stop them.

The Latimer child had a disease wear her bones grew into one another as she grew meaning every joint was a site of inbearable pain and the only thing being done for her was to forefully break the bones.

Her digestive system did not work so they would force fluids into her stomach through a painful inflicted opening for the tube that constantly became infected.

Latimer took his child to numerous doctors only to be told they could not treat the pain.

The reason Latimer was sentenced to jail is simple if you read the case. Disability groups intervened who should not have been allowed to intervene and changed the case from one of father and daughter to the girl as the symbol of all disabled people and Latimer was turned into the symbol of everything disableds fear from society and turned him into the scapegoat for the fears of the disabled community that the able bodied want to get rid of them.

The rhetoric and political inflammatory arguments used by the disabled groups had nothing to do with the Latimer child and everything to do with turning her into an extension of disabled people who feel victimized by mainstream society.

The court proceedings were a disgrace. Interestingly the future Supreme Court Chief justice in that case did not agree with the decision and in fact it was only decided by one Judge, Sopinka who I would contend was a well known religious Catholic and because of his own religious beliefs had a bias against any notion of mercy killing.

The jury in the latimer case was misled. Read it for yourself. They were outraged when they found out Latimer was getting life. They thought he would be found guilty of a lesser charge based on what the trial judge told them.

The Latimer case is a monumental disgrace. It was a miscarriage of justice. The will of the jury was misled. The actual issues germaine to the case were hijacked and the courts allowed Latimer to be retyped as a demon by disabled groups complete with their projecting on to him evil selfish motives.

Ironically the disabled groups that turned Latimer into their scapegoat missed the most crucial point of the case and that is, those with incurable painful illnesses with no hope of escaping the pain are just as disabled as any of the disabled who turned Latimer into a demon. For them, access to qualify of life would mean the right to a peaceful death. Disabled groups so blinded by their fear of being killed by the able bodied forgot that for some disabled the right to access and dignity means the right to decide when and how to die.

No this case was not even remotely close to the Semaru case. The person dying and found by the Canadian soldier was a terrorist who chose to place themselves in a situation they knew could kill them. The Latimer girl did not and her father was not an agent of the conflict that had directly inflicted her suffering on her-the exact opposite.

It is a travesty the courts treated Latimer like a criminal. He had no mens rea-criminal intent. His intent was to end his daughter's hopeless pain because there were no other options. He acted out of compassion, mercy and love for his daughter and anyone of us as a father in the same situation would not sit and watch our daughter with such a vulnerable i.q. and who was slowly starving to death in pain continue like that.

At best he should have been sent home under house arrest and been put on probation. Instead he was turned into a scapegoat and turned into the demon to be punished to alleviate the fears of the disabled and the refusal of the Supreme Court of Canada to set out clear and precise standards for when they will consider mercy killings unique to each fact situation.

The Latimer decision is poorly written by Sopinka who probably was one of the greatest litigators of all time showing he made up his mind because of his religious beliefs and then worked his way backwords to justify his decision.

I will continue this in the next post.

[Rue]

A study was conducted by the Canadian senate that did an excellent job considering the pro's and cons of euthanasia. It now sits collecting dust because our politicians are gutless and do not want to deal with the issue.

In the meantime in the States of Washington and now Oregon a law exists in which people can submit a request to die to a medical panel and if it is determined the person suffers from an incurable disease and has severe pain and is of sound mind and legal capacity, they can choose to die by injection.

The system screens out those with depression or who still have quality of life or whose pain is determined manageable. The system works.

The rest of the U.S. states and Canada ignore the issue. In Australia mp's have tried twice to legalize euthanasia and at one point succeeded only to have it repealed.

In Eastern European states inclunding Poland and Russia, euthanasia is given a lighter sentence than regular homicide. In Holland, the law is so contraversial that if you can find a doctor willing to do it, you pretty much can ask them to help you die.

In the U.S. Dr. Kevorkian a former pathologist was turned into an evil demon for creating a device that allows a terminal patient to administer their own drugs to die without pain or complication and he deliberately allowed himself to be charged with homicide and served time in jail to try bring attention to the issue.

In Canada in B.C. and Quebec parents of children have been aquitted for assisting their terminally ill children die.

In Halifax a case proved the present problem with our inability to deal with euthanasia. A doctor on emergy room duty was called to a room. A man in final stage lung cancer asked to have his breathing tube be removed so he could pass away. His family was there and he made his peace.

The doctor removed his tube. Then instead of gently passing away he slowly choked and gagged and screamed out that he needed help to die.

Under the current law a doctor is told by their physician code to vigorously apply pain medications to ease suffering but can not assist death. So what does that mean in such situations? It means the doctor is left in limbo and placed in the impossible situation of doing the wrong thing whatever they decide in such cases.

The doctor had already administered a heavy dose of morphine. Nothing was working. The doctor injected more morphine and the patient died.

The family was relieved and no doubt that patient was eternally grateful to the doctor.

She was then charged with murder and the Halifax Crown Attorney's office refused to drop the case when told the facts.

It became a political battle with disabled and religious groups painting the doctor as a murderer but the patient's family claiming she did no wrong.

Luckily in this case the Judge pulled a fast one. He said he would never be able to tell if the earlier injections of morphine or later one was the one that actually led to the patient's death so based on that reasonable doubt the case could not go to trial.

However each day doctors are faced with issues where patients find themselves in unbearable pain with no hope of recovery and pain medication no longer working. If they assist such patients with an overdose they would be charged as murderers and have their licenses suspended.

So some do so in secret and others do not.

Have you ever had a loved on in such a situation. I did and watched her drown in her lungs riddled with hopeless pain from cancer. Her kidneys, liver, lungs, all were failing. She was in total and utter pain and they could not get an injection in her collapsed veins.

She could have gone on hours, days, weeks, like that.

I thank the doctor that day who applied a deliberate overdose so she could stop thrashing and die. In fact no one questioned the dose and luckily because this person was jewish no autopsy was allowed.

How many others must go through this? How many Canadians are dying in pain and not allowed to die because some of us fear death or the disabled and rightfully so, fear this could set a precedent to make it easier to kill them off.

Is it not possible to balance the concerns of the disabled with protocols and assure only those with genuine hopeless and painful conditions be allowed to die? Or as the Civil Liberties Association says, should it go further and be left up to the individual.

I favour the model used in Washington and Oregon. The Civil Liberaties Associations of the U.S. and Canada feel only the individual should get to decide. Our politicians in the U.S. and Canada remain gutless and refuse to deal with the issue. In France they have rejected euthenasia but in very close decisions reflecting the fact that the Roman Catholic monopoly on controlling the issue is slowing giving way. Likewise in Italy and other Christian states across Europe.

In Israel, Muslim and Jewish religious laws do not condone euthanasia but interestingly both are pretty much the same and leave it open for the person dying and persons administering to them to act compassionately and so it is quite possible if someone assisted someone die but it was shown to be without malice even the most orthodox of Muslims or Jews have the religious room in the wordings of the Koran and Old Testament to escape punishment. Compassion for those suffering is seen as the paramount consideration.

Hinduism is confused on the topic. Technically it is against euthanasia but then again there are numerous references referring to assisting people in dire consequence which would also suggest compassion trumps any other consideration and it is the Hindus who invented medicine. Buddism technically not a religion but a philosophy pretty much is the same as Hinduism. Vague and cryptical and inexact but it too like Jainism, Siekism, Hinduism, Bahaiism and many other Eastern faiths, does seem to suggest compassion for the suffering is the paramount consideration.

In Christianity some argue it is absolutely prohibited but their is now heated debate by certain Christian scholars that the compassion in the message of Christ based on the principles of Teekam Olum from the Talmud that Christ promoted and updated, would allow under special circumstances compassion to prevail if someone was in unbearable desperate pain and suffering needlessly.

The issue is far from clear religiously or ethically and we need to define it because medicine is at the point where all of us, each one of us is going to live long enough to be caught in limbo and living a life of extreme pain with no escape from it wondering how much longer do I do this? When does quality of life get the same consideration as quantity of life?

cont. next post

[Rue]

The Canadian officer charged with homicide in the Semrau case was a model officer.

Commendable performance. Solid leader. Family man. Community man. In fact the role

model for the ideal human and a true officer and gentleman.

This man found himself not in a civilian situation but a combat theatre. A taliban lay dying

slowly and in pain with his stomach hanging out.

He shot him to put him out of his misery. The alternative would have been that this

terrorist would have layed suffering in unbearable pain for a few more hours before dying.

How is what this officer did a crime or offence? What kind of insane reasoning says we

leave a man with his stomach hanging out to die slowly?

In war, whether it be the first, second or Korean wars, soldiers were faced with similiar

situations and did the same thing.

No you do not leave a man who must die, to die alone in pain even if he is a terrorist. That

is the difference between a human with compassion and a cold blooded psychotic or sociopathic

killer.

This soldier did the honourable thing and he knew he would be court martialed for it. The

person who reported him had their own agenda. The politics in this decision is blatant.

This officer was stripped of his repuation and rank because the military and Candian society as a whole

will not define death and deal with it.

No you do not leave someone who must die to umbreable pain. It is that simple.

No the fact the person with his stomach hanging out is a terrorist does not disqualify him from

being treated like a human. We are not terrorists. We are better then that. We do things based

on compassion and love not just hatred like terrorists do.

What does it make us if we leave a man with his stomach hanging out moaning in pain to die alone

and in fear? What does that make us? What are we asking this soldier to be for us? We ask him to

carry a gun and kill for us. Now we want him to be not just someone who kills for us but a cold

blooded one who has no compassion or follow a code of honour?

This soldier should not have been placed on trial. He was a scapegoat once again for our inability

to deal with this issue and make clear guidelines.

I commend this soldier's actions. I commend his putting his own career in jeopardy and his own needs

to the side, and placing the dignity of this wretched soul first. He did what Judaism, Christianity,

Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, Taoism, Jainism, Siekism, and so many other religions and disciplines teach,

he put the need of his fellow man first and did what a compassionate, loving, caring human would do

at a time when being unfeeling and dettached would have been considered the norm.

For the person who feels because he was a terrorist he sould suffer-remember this-its easy for you to sit

in an arm chair far from the field of battle telling this soldier he should be the cold blooded killing

agent you want. You were not there. You live far from the reality. You could not hear this Taliban moan and gurgle. You did not see his stomach full of insects and smell his pain and see his breaths cause his

insides to flow out. You think this man should suffer needlessly and this soldier should assure that happens for you? You want blood? You want suffering? You want misery? Is that what you want?

How are you expect this soldier deliver it then I say. This soldier is a man with a code of honour. He is

a professional. He was not taught to kill without reason. He is not a robot. Yes he follows orders but if those orders are not based on a code of conduct, he would be nothing more than the terrorist he has been asked to contain.

If you can not see how he would have become a terrorist by walking by this man and doing nothing then I ask you to think again.

This soldier could have easily lied to protect himself and claim the terrorist was reaching for a gun. He did not. He acted openly. He was and is prepared to live with his decision as Latimer did.

Pray you do not end up faced with the same decision and have someone far removed from your life sitting in the distance demanding you be demonized for the decision you must make.

[AngusThermopyle]

Absolutely a first class irrefutable post Rue. I couldn't have said it better if I'd tried a dozen times over.

[eyeball]

He shot him to put him out of his misery. The alternative would have been that this

terrorist would have layed suffering in unbearable pain for a few more hours before dying.

How is what this officer did a crime or offence? What kind of insane reasoning says we

leave a man with his stomach hanging out to die slowly?

If he had a few hours to live Semrau's superiors could have authorized a helicopter be sent to pick him up and transport him to hospital for treatment. Whatever military objective they were pursuing should have been trumped by the civilian objective of winning the hearts and minds of this wounded man's people by treating him.

This soldier did the honourable thing and he knew he would be court martialed for it. The person who reported him had their own agenda. The politics in this decision is blatant.

This officer was stripped of his repuation and rank because the military and Candian society as a whole will not define death and deal with it.

No, what happened here is definitely dishonourable and the only reason Semrau is taking the hit is to prevent his commanders and their political masters and ultimately all of us from collectively having to take it.

This soldier could have easily lied to protect himself and claim the terrorist was reaching for a gun. He did not. He acted openly. He was and is prepared to live with his decision as Latimer did.

Pray you do not end up faced with the same decision and have someone far removed from your life sitting in the distance demanding you be demonized for the decision you must make.

I'd like to do more than just pray thank you, I'd rather that a super majority of Canadians decide by referendum before we ever send soldiers into combat abroad again. Then, when shit like this happens we can all look ourselves in the face and take full responsibility for what our troops do in our name.

I'd also suggest the rules of engagement we give our soldiers incorporate the coup de grace so that everyone from the voter to the injured people who receive it are clear on what's happening and why.

[Wilber]

I'm with Angus on this one.

[M.Dancer]

If he had a few hours to live Semrau's superiors could have authorized a helicopter be sent to pick him up and transport him to hospital for treatment. Whatever military objective they were pursuing should have been trumped by the civilian objective of winning the hearts and minds of this wounded man's people by treating him.

Yeah....something like..

Here is Akbar, we tried to kill him, and he would have died a martyr, but we save his life so you could give him round the clock care, blood loss has rendered him brain damaged...he has no intestines, so change the bag often....do you love us better now?

[AngusThermopyle]

Whatever military objective they were pursuing should have been trumped by the civilian objective of winning the hearts and minds of this wounded man's people by treating him.

What a pile of crap. Do you know the objective or its importance? Do you know what was at stake? Do you honestly think this terrorist or his buds would love us for treating him after blowing his guts out? Do you know if medivac was even feasible at that point? Do you know that a medivac attempt would not have endangered the mission success or the men on it?

As I said, what a load of uninformed speculative armchair crap.

[eyeball]

What a pile of crap. Do you know the objective or its importance?

Of the war or the training/mentoring mission Semrau was on? "Okay men pay attention now, this is how you do the coup de grace". Bang bang. I know that the importance of winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan has been stressed and overstressed to Canadians since day one in this war but we obviously can't even win hearts and minds here at home so I don't know why anyone would expect we could do any better a job on the other side of the planet.

Do you know what was at stake?

Oh I don't know, principles maybe or honour, the law perhaps, you know, real armchair crap. Do you know what's at stake if we leave an army behind that's learned, from what's usually advertised as being one of the best most law abiding armies in the world, that the law doesn't matter? Couple that with leaving behind a thoroughly corrupt government and...well, I really don't know why we don't just put the whole population out of its misery too.

Do you honestly think this terrorist or his buds would love us for treating him after blowing his guts out? Do you know if medivac was even feasible at that point? Do you know that a medivac attempt would not have endangered the mission success or the men on it?

Semrau's crew was ambushed. Someone else already tried to fly that silly little canard about endangering the mission by revealing it's position.

I've posted links to reports on the availability of Medivacs in Afghanistan and other than from apologists in here I've seen nothing to suggest a helicopter or ambulance couldn't have been dispatched in this case. Given the size of the contingent Semrau was a part of it's highly unlikely that a number of medivac helicopters weren't on standby. They whistled up an Apache gunship quick enough when they were ambushed. By all accounts the injured man had a couple of hours to live and according to what I've seen and read the means to medivac soldiers is usually never more than a half hour away at any given time.

As I said, what a load of uninformed speculative armchair crap.

No, it's a load of principled and informed armchair crap.

[Oleg Bach]

Say what? He was the officer in charge, do you think he should have delegated it to a subordinate or should he have called the attack helicopter's base and demanded the crew come back and finish their job?

KILLING IS VERY PERSONAL....who ever instigates the act is responsible for finishing the act if it has failed.. You simply do not wander about a killing zone finishing off the wounded like you are stomping on bugs - that makes killing an industrial team effort - If you are going to do that - forget conventional war fare and be honest - and simply NUKE - or get the hell out of there ....besides - war is old fashioned and those that think it is romanitic and adventurours are idiots...I was raised by parents with bullet markings - suffered famine - revolution - all out war....and there are no winners.

[Wilber]

They whistled up an Apache gunship quick enough when they were ambushed. By all accounts the injured man had a couple of hours to live and according to what I've seen and read the means to medivac soldiers is usually never more than a half hour away at any given time.

An Apache helicopter had attacked nearby Taliban insurgents, firing a devastating volley of shots that blasted off an insurgent’s leg, almost severed his other one and severely wounded him in the abdomen.

A couple of hours? That's one tough mother.

[Oleg Bach]

A human being is not an animal..dispite what some Darwinist fools believe - Army guy mentioned that while shooting as a kid - I had to fire a second round to stop the suffering of an animal that has suffered a poorly placed shot...that I was showing mercy - I actually think that it was not so much the suffering of the creature - but MY suffering watching the creature suffer that is at issue..like people who cry at funerals - they cry for themselves ....Once as a child I saw a kid jump off a bread truck they were hitching a ride on --------The kid flew through the air..and down a rocky embankment - I was about 6 years old...the thud was horrific - the top of his head came off....I ran and hid...I could not stand to see someone bleed and suffer..

My mother on the other hand who was a well versed in suffering and mayhem - dashed out - picked the kid up and held his head together - she delivered the boy to his mother - which kept him from dying from shock..she saved his life..later the kid because of a metal plate in his head - got the nick name "plate" - the locals used to get drunk with him and chase him with a magnet...

I guess my point is _ I would rather be suffering than see another suffer _ I guess I have always been empathetic..it's a bit of a curse feeling the pain of others - so I avoid it..much like this soldier avoided the distress or shortened the duration of his own distress by quickly killing the suffering man - that I understand but still do not approve of.

[Shady]

Just consider it assisted suicide.

[Army Guy]

I guess my point is _ I would rather be suffering than see another suffer _ I guess I have always been empathetic..it's a bit of a curse feeling the pain of others - so I avoid it..much like this soldier avoided the distress or shortened the duration of his own distress by quickly killing the suffering man - that I understand but still do not approve of.

there is another side of the coin as well, soldiers quickly learn of the death and destrution of war, the see pain every day, they inflict it and are inflicted with it. Most will make peace with death and pain, and make pacts with each other that someone will end thier pain it's not as selfish as they can't stand to see pain and suffer, but rather they understand it and considered it human to end it...as they would expect someone to end it for them, because thier afraid of it, and don't want to suffer through it..

[Army Guy]

Of the war or the training/mentoring mission Semrau was on?

In Afghan it's the same thing training is conducted in a live combat operation. in other words there is no difference.

Okay men pay attention now, this is how you do the coup de grace". Bang bang. I know that the importance of winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan has been stressed and overstressed to Canadians since day one in this war but we obviously can't even win hearts and minds here at home so I don't know why anyone would expect we could do any better a job on the other side of the planet.

Actually the Afghan army wanted to leave him die, a painful death...they refused to waste a bullet, but thats the hatred between them. As for winning hearts and minds, first you have to understand the people first, and while we the soldiers get that, it's definatly lacking in those that have to explain this war....to joe public. and while it does play an important role, it's not the primary mission, killing bad guys is, and getting your boys back home alive...

Oh I don't know, principles maybe or honour, the law perhaps, you know, real armchair crap. Do you know what's at stake if we leave an army behind that's learned, from what's usually advertised as being one of the best most law abiding armies in the world, that the law doesn't matter? Couple that with leaving behind a thoroughly corrupt government and...well, I really don't know why we don't just put the whole population out of its misery too.

Even with all the media coverage of Afghan , the population of Canada still has little to no idea what it is like in combat and of the horror's of war, And for the most part that is a good thing, on the flip side it means you don't understand what it is like, and continue to hold us to the same standards we have in Canada....I'm not condoning out right murder,or lawless troops running around the country killing everything. because that is not us it's not the Canadian army....

This is the first time in our history that someone has been tried for murder of a wounded prisoner. i hope we are not that gulliable to think this is the first time it has happend, history is full of examples...

Semrau's crew was ambushed. Someone else already tried to fly that silly little canard about endangering the mission by revealing it's position.

Mission comes first before anyone or any life...i know that is hard to understand, but it is reality in combat. A medivac mission would have drawn bad guys out of the wood work, like ants to a picnik...and posed a greater danger to an inexperienced afghan unit...

I've posted links to reports on the availability of Medivacs in Afghanistan and other than from apologists in here I've seen nothing to suggest a helicopter or ambulance couldn't have been dispatched in this case. Given the size of the contingent Semrau was a part of it's highly unlikely that a number of medivac helicopters weren't on standby. They whistled up an Apache gunship quick enough when they were ambushed. By all accounts the injured man had a couple of hours to live and according to what I've seen and read the means to medivac soldiers is usually never more than a half hour away at any given time.

Medi vacs can be any where from 30 mins to 2 hours, depending on where they are at the time , the priority of the wounded person ( everone is assigned a priority number according to thier wounds), keep in mind medi vac units serve an entire AO, and are not limitless in numbers, these guys are normally in the air most of the time....Having a couple of hours to live is pressing it, remember he had one leg blown of even when tied off you have maybe 45 mins max thats with an iv, it is your femoural arty we are talking about, if not treated you could bleed out in a few minutes. plus he had massive internal injuries, 30 mm does that , infact i don't know of anyone surviving a 30 mm hit ever ...But anything is possiable.

[Rue]

If he had a few hours to live Semrau's superiors could have authorized a helicopter be sent to pick him up and transport him to hospital for treatment....

Eyeball you could have at least made an effort to determine the state of the insurgent's medical condition before you uttered the above opinion.

The facts which were not in dispute indicated the insurgent was so severely injured that it was determined his wounds couldnt be treated on the battlefield.

Further Afghan government forces declined to offer medical care to him.

Your assumption Samrau should have ordered a helicopter to come on a mission to try save a person so severely injured he would have died long before the helicopter could get there makes no sense. No you do not missapropriate valuable resources and endanger the lives of a helicopter crew for such a nonsensical mission.

The rest of your answer which then switches focus from the issue as to whether this was a mercy killing or a cold blooded murder to the issue of whether the Canadian forces should be in Afghanistan is not germaine to the legal issue Semrau was tried for.

Semrau's conviction or the disciplinary action to be handed out should

not be determined by your politican partisan view of being against Canadian

military service in Afghanistan.

Your assumption you can scapegoat him politically is illogical. Semrau did

not control the decision to go to Afghanistan. He was simply a soldier

placed in a theatre of war who as the circumstance arose followed

an ancient code of honour.

What your partisan political views are is irrelevant to this issue.

You also missed the very point of the issue and that is,

one day if you lie dying and suffering and ask to be allowed to die

you had better hope you don't run into a physician with your political

views. He'll walk away from you and leave you to suffer.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Rue

[eyeball]

Your assumption Samrau should have ordered a helicopter to come on a mission to try save a person so severely injured he would have died long before the helicopter could get there makes no sense. No you do not missapropriate valuable resources and endanger the lives of a helicopter crew for such a nonsensical mission.

My assumption is based on my years of experience and training as a first aid attendant. The question of when not to render first aid or when to abandon the attempt is a very common one. The answer is that you do not stop the attempt at first aid, even if you think it's hopeless, out of consideration for your patient's loved one's. They will have a lot easier time letting go of their pain and grief, achieving closure in other words, if they know that everyone tried their hardest to save them.

Edited November 18, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

In Afghan it's the same thing training is conducted in a live combat operation. in other words there is no difference.

That sure doesn't jibe with what Ottawa is saying these days.

[Wilber]

My assumption is based on my years of experience and training as a first aid attendant. The question of when not to render first aid or when to abandon the attempt is a very common one. The answer is that you do not stop the attempt at first aid, even if you think it's hopeless, out of consideration for your patient's loved one's. They will have a lot easier time letting go of their pain and grief, achieving closure in other words, if they know that everyone tried their hardest to save them.

Reality check! The reason he was fatally injured is because up to then they were trying their hardest to kill him, not save him and he them. When a person is trying to kill you, the feelings of their loved ones must of course be taken into consideration first.