Pages: 1 2
He's 51, not 18. He was sentenced to a minimum of 18 years.Mek-Izzle wrote:
How the fuck can someone join the SAS at the age of 18, I thought you need to be in the Military for at least 3 years until you can even apply, and then there's a few more years of training, and let's not even talk about the fact that it's probably impossible for an 18 year old to pass selection.
But yeah that's fucked up, no matter who you are, you're not exempt from the law
Bertster7 wrote:
He's 51, not 18. He was sentenced to a minimum of 18 years.Mek-Izzle wrote:
How the fuck can someone join the SAS at the age of 18, I thought you need to be in the Military for at least 3 years until you can even apply, and then there's a few more years of training, and let's not even talk about the fact that it's probably impossible for an 18 year old to pass selection.
But yeah that's fucked up, no matter who you are, you're not exempt from the law
Article wrote:
Shanks had joined the SAS at 18 and left the army to train as a doctor
Well people do feel strongly 'bout that smoking ban...The_Mac wrote:
Its easy to smuggle weapons anywhere. I remember some boxer reminded people there was a smoking ban a while back, and they shot him. This was in 2007. I guess the weapons ban didn't work out so well.
This is a case of the media either kicking the arse out of something, blowing something out of proportion or forgetting to add something.Mek-Izzle wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
He's 51, not 18. He was sentenced to a minimum of 18 years.Mek-Izzle wrote:
How the fuck can someone join the SAS at the age of 18, I thought you need to be in the Military for at least 3 years until you can even apply, and then there's a few more years of training, and let's not even talk about the fact that it's probably impossible for an 18 year old to pass selection.
But yeah that's fucked up, no matter who you are, you're not exempt from the lawArticle wrote:
Shanks had joined the SAS at 18 and left the army to train as a doctor
I thought the same thing...FallenMorgan wrote:
The title made me think the girlfriend was already dead when he shot her. That's a bit freaked up.
It is fairly easy to smuggle shit back. Weapons hidden in vehicles getting shipped home is one common way.B.Schuss wrote:
I thought the same thing...FallenMorgan wrote:
The title made me think the girlfriend was already dead when he shot her. That's a bit freaked up.
Also, I am quite shocked that service personnel would be allowed to bring back personal weapons from deployments. I mean, isn't their baggage reviewed when they leave ? It's not like an AK-47 would fit into your pocket..
maybe he only fired 10 bullets and every single was a hit...noobFunky_Finny wrote:
21 bullets in the clip and only hits with 10 of them? Noob.
Maybe she was zig zagging or bunny hopping!!!Funky_Finny wrote:
21 bullets in the clip and only hits with 10 of them? Noob.
The title should have had "dead" after "girlfriend." But it was edited anyway.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
so she was dead before he shot her?
It still is, take "dead" out and itll be fine.Bernadictus wrote:
I edited the title. It was worse than... anything.
daddyofdeath wrote:
Maybe she was zig zagging or bunny hopping!!!Funky_Finny wrote:
21 bullets in the clip and only hits with 10 of them? Noob.
Might have done then.. Minimum use to be 3 years in a unit/Inf Regiment/Troop before you could apply. Those days you could join the army at 15 and a half.buLLet_t00th wrote:
Well he would've joined in the early 60's, maybe being 18 was fine back then to join the SAS.
He seems a pretty fucked up hard bastard anyway, so maybe they made an exception.
Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-03-03 12:29:00)
hmm, sarcasm? probably, but anyway, it wasnt a legal weapon, so introducing or strengthening a ban would be completely irrelevant to the case at hand. who knows, maybe if the bar owner had a legal shotty tucked beneath the bar, the crazed SAS dude would have been shot in the back before he ever pulled the trigger. but probably not (as in kitty genovese).RAIMIUS wrote:
That's pretty F'ed up.
Ban the guns again, quick!
Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-03-03 15:31:42)
Fucking good post.Marinejuana wrote:
hmm, sarcasm? probably, but anyway, it wasnt a legal weapon, so introducing or strengthening a ban would be completely irrelevant to the case at hand. who knows, maybe if the bar owner had a legal shotty tucked beneath the bar, the crazed SAS dude would have been shot in the back before he ever pulled the trigger. but probably not (as in kitty genovese).RAIMIUS wrote:
That's pretty F'ed up.
Ban the guns again, quick!
its a cliche, but there is, in fact, a price to freedom. its not free. the price hardly involves waging vague wars against far-away people. the price comes in the form of the daily risks we take when interacting with our free peers. on any individual basis, these kinds of violent episodes are extremely rare (which is how this becomes world news). the potential for a sociopathic episode is omnipresent, but we can all find solace in the fact that the average person scarcely encounters such brutality in their community.
the vast majority of people refrain from killing each other even under extreme stress. tho it doesnt help that this man was a trained killer. ones threshold for violence under stress reduces as with any form of habituation. war is commonly known to be one of the more devastating experiences for the human psyche and one of very few professions where killing is ever encouraged. for example, war is far more risky, psychologically, than LSD. i base this comment on the lower incidence of PTSD or permanent psychosis amongst respondents that claim to have used LSD (<5%), versus veterans of foreign wars like iraq (where incidence is >15%). we respect soldiers for risking their body and mind for the goals of society, and the risk they actually pose against society as at-risk for violent episodes is almost universally assumed to be offset by the defense they offer in necessary wars. its entirely debatable whether their current deployment is of any net benefit to society, and resolving that matter is overwhelmingly in our best interests, for troops abroad, at home, and for civilians.
and yes, i know this man wasnt in the current ME war, but his actions spur the discussion of war as it impacts the mental health of our culture and our safety at home. on US soil, we saw many more veterans of foreign wars commit murders last year than we saw middle eastern terrorists. but to be honest, im not worried about either. for me, they both reside in a category near lightening strikes. and im not just bashing soldiers, i respect their selfless intent, but i am concerned for their mental health and overall impact on society. in other words, i dont suggest disbanding the military, but we should certainly consider minimizing our need for soldiers and the inevitable unsolicited application of their skills.
and all that aside, my general reply to the article is, "damn, thats fucked up."
More likely scenario is that he was a combat medic assigned to that unit. Not actually 'in' the SAS.Mek-Izzle wrote:
The SAS was probably 'arder (yeah not harder, but 'arder) back then so it would be even less likely for an teen to get into it, I think the BBC just messed that bit up - he probably joined the military at 18
Last edited by daddyofdeath (2008-03-04 06:06:12)
Pages: 1 2