Andy Mcnab
Forum
Pages: 1 ... 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 ... 297
Love the McDonalds part
You must be relieved Doc.
Welcome back BadTime..long time?
>>By Lynn (Tuesday, 8 Mar 2005 09:06)
Happy Woman's Day! ^ ^
@-->---
@-->---
@-->---
@-->---
@-->---
@-->---
Rex
>>By Deusrexmachina (Tuesday, 8 Mar 2005 10:20)
V. relieved. Thanks guys now i feel loved! RE training going against you...I had a great barrister who managed to turn (my training) that PLUS my service as an RM Commando into all the more reason why I would have acted with restraint. Haha, the fools. (Jus kidding although if i had been found guilty think i might veru well have gone and done what i had been accused of; sort of getting my moneys worth so to speak!)
Swinging it back to what this discussion board is supposed to be about...Former elite/SF soldiers and/or martial artists out there. Do you consider you have an obligation to act with MORE restraint than your civilian counterpart in a situation in which you or a loved one feels threatened?
Just to give you a heads up on how i feel having been through the mill, no I`d still have to say BOLLOCKS but that`s only my opinion.
>>By docjay (Tuesday, 8 Mar 2005 14:31)
How about....more control instead of more restraint? You should be able to 'take out' someone with not too much 'damage'
Not sure how it would work when your emotion gets in the way because the threath involves a loved one - but then your defense might be to be temporary of unsound mind (or whatever it's called in English)??
Something else to consider - if I were the loved one I'd feel awful if someone would be send to jail because of coming to my rescue.
So - though honoured with the 'gesture' - I'd prefer that person to be a thoughtful hero instead of of unsound mind ;-)
>>By Lynn (Tuesday, 8 Mar 2005 16:16)
<<more control instead of more restraint? You should be able to 'take out' someone with not too much 'damage' >>
Yeah, but who can realistically make that diagnosis in the heat of a fight?? Unless you've fought somebody before, you have no way of knowing how much (or how little) damage they can absorb. (Nor do you have any idea how much damage they intend to unleash on you!)
The restraint should be shown before it ever comes to blows. If you are a badass and know you are a badass, then you shouldn't feel the need to wail on an idiot with a big mouth and sh*t for brains, no matter how offensive the jerk is being. Walk away.
But the second they engage you or a helpless victim, you have a right to protect yourself and your loved ones with whatever you've got. You shouldn't have to ask yourself as you're putting them in a choke hold, "Should I stop at woozy, or go for unconscious and risk killing him?"
BTW, the above doesn't apply to bouncers or security personnel who have their own rules to follow. Obviously docjay's situation was different than if he had met the same @sshole on the street. As a bouncer, it's his job to engage unruly patrons.
>>By Majorette (Tuesday, 8 Mar 2005 16:48)
Hey Maj! I reacted to how I read Doc's question:
"Do you consider you have an obligation to act with MORE restraint than your civilian counterpart"
I think being SF trained you should be able to act with more restraint, imho you could make an exception for the emotions that rise when a loved one is involved - but not for other situations.
Even if you don't know what someone else can physically take, you know what damage you can bring on to that person - and all depending on how the other person is defending himself (or attacking you)
But since I'm not SF trained, nor -fortunately- been in a situation where I needed a hero to safe my butt, maybe it's for some others to continue this convo. Maybe some of the guys?
>>By Lynn (Tuesday, 8 Mar 2005 17:16)
But one more: "I had a great barrister who managed to turn (my training) that PLUS my service as an RM Commando into all the more reason why I would have acted with restraint"
Think if you'd really wanted to do harm - the guy would have been dead, so considering the wounds the guy suffered one might conclude you acted with restraint :-)
>>By Lynn (Tuesday, 8 Mar 2005 17:21)
I thought i acted with admirable restraint! Thankfully so did the jury...
>>By docjay (Tuesday, 8 Mar 2005 19:20)
Too long, lynn!
Been incredibly busy (still enough time to finish Soldier Five). I thought it was a very good read, but I still prefer AM’s style.
I studied martial arts (jap slap as per AM) for a number of years and in my experience, the restraint was a MAJOR part of the training (as a matter of fact you couldn’t get your black belt if you didn’t display control). I was very conscious of avoiding certain “prime” targets. I do have to say that when I became a bouncer after a couple of years study it took some adjustment to be more aggressive rather than strictly defensive. For me I have never been aware of being emotional once it came to blows. It’s funny I may get wound up to a certain point before and scared as s*** after but once I’m sure I can’t avoid it, very analytical.
Docjay was doing his job and if the guy is still alive and is ambulatory, he did a good job. A few times having formal training did make the police more critical of my actions.
>>By BadTime (Wednesday, 9 Mar 2005 06:07)
Ah these days of PC where the scumbag has rights! You lads would have enjoyed bouncing thirty years ago, it was such fun, the police would turn up and enjoy a free pint whilst waiting for their customer to be rendered suitable for stress-free transporting. The fire escape with three flights of concrete steps was a most useful pacifier, happy days!
Can't get that web address of Docjay's to open though, nothing happens.
>>By camban (Wednesday, 9 Mar 2005 11:51)
yes, I agree that as a bouncer/law enforcement officer/security personnel, etc, you SHOULD show some restraint. Docjay did just that and that's why the jury decided in his favor. Congrats docjay, you have a cool head on you.
My thinking in my previous post was that if I'm trained in martial arts and a guy accosts me on the street, I'm going to try to talk my way out of it or just walk away- anything to avoid a physical confrontation. (That's the restraint I'm showing right there.)
But if I'm cornered and I'm forced to be aggressive to protect myself (or my loved ones) I'm not going to concern myself over how much force I should use to incapacitate the guy vs kill him. I'm going to do whatever I have to do to make sure he ceases to be a threat to me: punch him in the throat repeatedly, dig my thumbs into his eyeball sockets, rip off his ear, bite off his fingers, etc.
For all I know, he could have a concealed weapon (rather likely, here in the States) and I'm going to assume he does and that he is going to kill me or worse.
Being a woman, I think the courts would probably decide in my favor if I happened to kill somebody in such a scenario- afterall, I'm just a helpless little girl who was jumped by a big bad man, right? *rolls eyes* Let's hope I never have to find out. However, I'm not sure the courts would favor Badtime or Docjay (or any of the other gentlemen on this board with special training) if they reacted the same way as me.
Nevertheless, I STILL think they have every right to react that way. As long as they avoided the confrontation as long as possible, I don't see anything wrong with teaching a very painful and potentially lethal lesson to scumbags who would do harm to others.
How does that saying go? "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."
>>By Majorette (Wednesday, 9 Mar 2005 21:25)
God lord Maj.. I'm glad we get on well - LOL!
>>By Lynn (Thursday, 10 Mar 2005 00:08)
Seriously.. what you THINK you will do in a bad situation that you've not been in before, is almost always different from what you actually do (speaking of untrained civvies of course). An example:
How often do you say.. if someone would do that to my kid.. I swear I kill the scumbag!!! And you really mean it. And though hard to imagine...very few parents actually do kill the scumbag.
Somewhere there is ration/restraint inside us and SF trained people can't do their job well if they lose that in a bad situation.
>>By Lynn (Thursday, 10 Mar 2005 00:23)
But then again.. I could be talking total crap again ;-)
>>By Lynn (Thursday, 10 Mar 2005 00:24)
What are you saying Lynn ? That you have times you make sense at all ??? ;-)
>>By Ninjawoman (Thursday, 10 Mar 2005 11:03)
If I'm in need of little reassurance / confidence building remind me to call you Ninj - NOT!!
;-))
>>By Lynn (Thursday, 10 Mar 2005 11:52)
After just chatting to Lisle, who is currently wading her way through the Harry palmer films, thisn afternoon.. Hope she is having a great afternoon's viewing.
I got thinking yes this did give me a headache.....But having read the Harry Palmer books as boy... I started to ponde rthis question who is the better hero of fiction.. so below are the nominees for best all time fiction spy, soldier..
Jack Ryan
Harry Palmer
Nick Stone
George Smiley
I have not included james Bond as that what, not be a true reflection on the modern thriller....
As Bond is a classic....
So ok get your thinking hats on f-troop, which modern day fictional hero do you think is the most realistic ...if you have any of your own please feel free to sudgest them, and maybe just maybe we can get a really great debate going ...
As for me, well i'm off to watch teh Ipcress file again, thanks LIsle for the idea of a harry palmer day.
>>By f-trooper bri (Thursday, 10 Mar 2005 17:56)
spelling monkeys have got me again argh!
>>By f-trooper bri (Thursday, 10 Mar 2005 18:02)
Best spy has got to be Adam Hall's Quiller.
Somebody help please. I've lent all my McNab books out and I need to know what the code name was for the job that Stone is given to kill Sarah and dispose of all traces. 'T' something...?
>>By Lisle45 (Thursday, 10 Mar 2005 18:07)
T104.... :o#
>>By am-i-binned (Thursday, 10 Mar 2005 20:31)
Interesting conversation regarding bouncers, etc. I worked as a "doorman" (nicer-sounding term) for a while, and, being a little dude, was much more inclined to use words than force when it came time to throw someone out. Of course, being a little dude, I also found words often failed to work on the more intoxicated and aggressive customers, and in fact once employed a staircase in the manner Cam mentioned above, as the patron involved needed help finding the lovely downstairs area of our establishment.
However...As fun as it was, it was both unnecessary and illegal for me to subject that person to that sort of risk of serious injury considering the circumstances, and, had the guy sued me or gone to the 5-0, I would have gotten what I deserved.
My point is, Docjay seems obviously justified since a jury of his peers looked it over and found it so--but that's the point, a jury DID look it over. Just as in the case of SAS shooting civilians, it's ridiculous, cowardly, and dangerous to say, "These guys have a tough job, don't question anything they do." The correct response is to investigate the incident and then decide right or wrong, as was done with Docjay.
What standards should cops, soldiers, and bouncers be held to? The same standards as the rest of us! Now there's a novel concept.
>>By Just Jon (Thursday, 10 Mar 2005 23:06)
A little unfair to apply the same standards to cops, soldiers, and bouncers as to civilians.
An armed policeman's (for example) actual job is to put himself into an armed conflict situation, and if necessary, end the lives of people. As his everyday job. As his job well done. If a man dies as a result of this armed policeman's actions, doing what he is trained to do, what happens now is that he is immediately suspended from his job, isolated from his peers and sent home, and an investigation set up to see if he can be sent to prison for murder. Investigations of events are one thing but to destroy a man's peace and career continuation merely for functioning as trained is sick. Instead of a 'well done that man, you did what you are trained for' he becomes a murder suspect who is isolated at home dealing with media interest, public hostility and colleagues distance. Not at all right in my opinion.
The standards they should be held to cannot be the same as the rest of us. When under attack cops and soldiers each have their own and different rules of engagement, which, when followed, should exclude them from individual responsibility. Civilians when under attack will react individually and therefore will need to have their actions investigated in a different way, and that's surely what the courts are for.
>>By bookyhelen (Friday, 11 Mar 2005 09:08)
Actually JJ i do agree with your point about "not investigating because they have tough jobs "etc. Although the trial was a nightmare i was found not guilty in a reasonably fair open and transparent process. The guy had a complaint and the police and judiciary had a duty to investigate. Which they did and found the complaint to be a load of old bollocks. It`s not a great system but it does seem to work (sometimes).
Widening the debate to what you where talking about vis. armed soldiers being accused of shooting civies: i feel that SF and elite troops should be held MORE accountable in the same way i was by dint of their higher skill level. By the same comparison that higher skill should help a court martial give them the benefit of the doubt when trying to asess if they were more likely to have acted appropriatley. They shouldn`t however be being "let off" JUST because they`re badged personnel. (Slightly differnent to what you were talking about helen i know)
I`ve always felt that, whatever the political debate about a conflict might be raging back home, i could take heart in the fact that i was one of the good guys and good guys don`t blow civies away, accidentally or otherwise. As soon as that starts happening, well, who ARE the terrorists?
Slight change of tack but all thoughts gratefully recieved.
>>By docjay (Friday, 11 Mar 2005 14:45)
it doesn't matter if your badged or not or if your a civi or not in the heat of violence we are all human and mistakes happen. sometimes people die in the heat of combat due to them being afraid and maybe running the wrong way sometimes people shoot people because they reacted to much on instinct, no one is perfect and if you think sf or normal soldiers should be?, get your head out of your ass, your living in hollywood.
>>By fony (Monday, 14 Mar 2005 00:39)
and actually i don't think they should have any the same rules, we are the only stupid ********* that abide by them anyway, how can someone be tried by the same system that sent them to do the job. idotic crap that so called human rights activists shove in everyones face and then half of the so called civilised population take on board and vent anger to soldiers that are doing it's countrys bidding. no soldiers are not nice when they run into these situations, but they are still that kid you grew up with or your next door neighbour, maybe they have had a reality check but they should not be tried for half the crap that's coming out of this conflict. It's ireland all over again lee clegg on a check point a car drives towards it at high speed he shoots he kills, because a couple of pissed up teenagers think it's funny to drive at a military check point he goes down, lucky enough he only did a few years but it's stupid, you ask us to protect you, you ignore the mistakes that can happen.
>>By fony (Monday, 14 Mar 2005 00:46)
Re: idotic crap that so called human rights activists shove in everyones face
Not necessarilly 'human rights activists' - we've had a case recently because of an overly diligent public prosecutor.
"As a member of the Special Support Unit (BBE) of the Royal Marines, O. was involved in anti-terrorism operations which carried government approval to use violence that might result in fatalities.
The military past of O. has been uncovered during investigations the military police has conducted into the death of an Iraqi looter on 27 December last year.
The victim was killed after O. allegedly fired a warning shot while serving on peacekeeping duties in southern Iraq. He was arrested and flown home to the Netherlands to face murder or manslaughter charges, but was later released and provisionally cleared of any wrongdoing."
No need to tell you that long time has passed since 'he was arrested' and 'later released and provisionally cleared' - with all the stress, anger and fear in between. I'm not at all against investigation when a deadly incident occurs...but arrest and charge for murder is ridiculous if you send a soldier to a war scene. Also created much anxiety and confusing with the soldiers still on duty.
>>By Lynn (Monday, 14 Mar 2005 13:31)
Did anyone get the chance to see the brilliant documentry on Channel 4 here in the Uk last night.
It was called My freind the mercenry, and what a tale it was, absorbing television...
If you didnt get the chance to see this programme i hope they repeat it sometime soon on the late night slot, as its well worth watching.
>>By f-trooper bri (Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 15:57)
How about a synopsis, Bri? What was it about?
>>By Majorette (Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 16:04)
The Documentry was about a journalist who, asked by a friend if he wanted to go and make a documentry about their afiran adventure.
Which turned out to be the failed coup in Equatorial Guinea...Due to a family tragedy, he could not go and make the documentry, only to find out a few days later that one of his friends had been arrested in Equatorial Guinea... the film is about the coup and what happend to his friend the mercenery.. it was a very interesting documentry...
>>By f-trooper bri (Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 18:04)
Sad news
Thu 17 Mar 2005
Commanding officer of Special Boat Service dies on exercise
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=288652005
>>By Lynn (Thursday, 17 Mar 2005 18:39)
Pages: 1 ... 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 ... 297
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW BOOKS