Victimization of Veterans

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Apologies to you, HB. I was under the impression that this related to the events of January 4, 2018, also in Nova Scotia. They relate to another event of a day or two ago.

However, I still don't see any sign anywhere by the Public of laying this on "another FUBARed soldier", not even the family of the victim of the killing sees it that way, but rather with compassion, and it does not change my underlying argument.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This attitude has been flying around here since people started getting diagnosed and I'm getting tired of it.

I have Mod status, Subscriber status and more.

I also have PTSD.

Now, if you've got it, and physically and mentally know your condition(s) and their effects on you, you're doing better than most out there.

I don't begrudge opinions, everyone is entitled to them. If your guessing, say so. If you want to state fact, back it up.

Keep them civil and keep them informative.

He's the caveat. If you DON"t have PTSD, or TBI, if your going to make inflammatory, unfounded statements on what you THINK is the cause someone, that's diagnosed, did something, maybe you should just shut the fuck up.

That is the true picture of Victimization of Veterans. The ignorant opinion of posters, especially from other military members.

Every single case is different. We're not all deranged killers waiting for an opportunity, then there's the other extreme. The fire team partner you have or yourself may be affected without either of you knowing, but you trust each other with your lives.

I'm not trying to stifle conversation. On the contrary, I want INFORMED discussion, without the melodrama of Frankenstein's villagers.

If you want this thread to continue, sort yourselves out and watch what your saying.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I wonder how much pressure Ontario's fucked up family law system brought him even further down the sewer of unending despair that it causes. I have met many people who are homeless, suicidal and desperate because they lost everything they had, or once were. Mostly men, more frequently veterans. 

 

[OldSolduer]

I'm not an expert but sometimes people aren't in their right minds. TBI etc will have an effect on a person's personality and how they cope with life in general.

 

[FJAG]

From a Canadian legal source,

QUOTE

The Defence of "Not Criminally Responsible" Under s.16 of the Criminal Code (Formerly Referred to as the "Insanity" Defence)

A “mental disorder” is an umbrella classification of a number of mental health conditions and diseases that negatively impact a person’s mood, way of thinking, actions and ability to cope with everyday life. A few examples of these are schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, personality and anxiety and dissociative disorders, suicidal behavior, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder."
https://www.kruselaw.ca/blogpost/not-criminally-responsible

END QUOTE

MM

You left out a very critical part of the definition of what constitutes the "not criminally responsible" defence. From the prior para of the same source:

In very extreme cases an accused who suffers from mental illness may have a defence to the crime they are charged with as their mental health issue prevented them from understanding the nature and quality of their actions or prevented them from knowing their actions were wrong.

There are numerous mental health issues which could underlie or motivate a person's actions but in only very limited circumstances do those issues prevent the individual from understanding that the nature and quality of their actions were wrong. Where the person does understand that what he is doing is wrong, he has no insanity defence regardless of how severe his mental health issue may be.

In respect of this most recent incident, I have no idea as to whether or not the individual was or was not in the requisite state of mind. I doubt that we'll ever really know now. I'll withhold judgement one way or the other.

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

MM

You left out a very critical part of the definition of what constitutes the "not criminally responsible" defence.

Some legal advice I remember from years ago, "Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is the best defence." 

 

[brihard]

I have tried without success to find a successful PTSD based Not Criminally Reponsible defense in a murder case in Canada. I'm not saying it's never happened, just that I cannot find it. There has been at least one instance of a Canadian soldier who murdered his wife, claimed PTSD, and was convicted. There have certainly been a number of cases of soldiers with PTSD who have been involved in some serious domestic violence and have been held to account in criminal court.

I have yet to find any accepted medical literature linking PTSD to an inability to refrain from murdering someone. Psychosis - a sustained break with reality - is not a characteristic of PTSD, though brief dissociative flashbacks can be. A verdict of NCRMD requires someone to be unable to appreciate the nature of quality of their actions, and that is not something Canadian courts have tended to grant in PTSD cases even for lesser offences. PTSD may be a mitigating factor in sentencing, like other mental health conditions may be. It may have significant impact on treatment as a part of sentencing. I've yet to see PTSD succesfully argued anywhere as giving you a freebie for slaughtering your family, murdering your wife, etc. Call me an arsehole I guess, but I draw a huge line. PTSD can absolutely have a huge impact on impulse control, anger, etc, but it does not strip one of one's understanding of right and wrong.

I will cut people a lot of slack for the crap they go through on account of mental illness. I understand first hand the impact that mental illness can have on family members. I know how dismally dark and awful things can get. I also know that some things also stay wrong, no matter what.

My family has been directly impacted by a domestic murder-suicide. Call me callous- but I've earned it the hard way. To hell with the perpetrator in such a case. They have still, at that last, awful moment, made a choice. It may not have been premeditated, it may not have been in cold blood, but it was a choice that ended an innocent life and undoubtedly wrecked several others. Nothing excuses that, and nothing short of an absolute psychotic break with reality would mitigate culpability. Until and unless I see a convincing indication of that psychosis, I'm going to stand firm on this.

 

[Staff Weenie]

I spent seven weeks as an Attending Officer in a First Degree Murder trial of a WO who killed his wife. His defense was based upon an attempt to prove that he was Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) by virtue of PTSD. While FJAG is far more capable than I to comment on this, he did note clearly that for this defense to work, it must be proven that the defendant had absolutely no understanding that their actions were wrong, and had no conscious control over their actions. That is an extremely difficult thing to prove, and there is not a high probability for success. In the case I observed, I got to know the Crown prosecutors, and the Detectives involved. They told me that even if a schizophrenic hears voices telling them to kill, if they still were capable of understanding it is a crime, they are not going to be found NCR should they act upon the voices. None of us can know if Marc Poulin was in such a state that he had absolutely no control over his actions. None of us, aside from possibly his clinicians, will know his state of mind, his full diagnosis, and the effects it had on his ability to form intent.

At this moment, I'm not happy, for as somebody diagnosed with PTSD, I know that it does impact the way others view us and I'm tired of that - I'm tired of trying to prove I'm able to contribute, and I'm not a risk. I'm not happy because some people are trying to find every excuse possible, and heap blame upon the system (are we all so sure that he went to appointments, followed treatment diligently, and did everything possible for his recovery? Is there concrete proof that the system was truly negligent?). But most of all, I'm not happy because two lives have been lost, and others are forever overshadowed by this tragedy.

 

[brihard]

Brihard,

Your PMs are full.

Fixed, thanks.

 

[brihard]

I spent seven weeks as an Attending Officer in a First Degree Murder trial of a WO who killed his wife. His defense was based upon an attempt to prove that he was Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) by virtue of PTSD. While FJAG is far more capable than I to comment on this, he did note clearly that for this defense to work, it must be proven that the defendant had absolutely no understanding that their actions were wrong, and had no conscious control over their actions. That is an extremely difficult thing to prove, and there is not a high probability for success. In the case I observed, I got to know the Crown prosecutors, and the Detectives involved. They told me that even if a schizophrenic hears voices telling them to kill, if they still were capable of understanding it is a crime, they are not going to be found NCR should they act upon the voices. None of us can know if Marc Poulin was in such a state that he had absolutely no control over his actions. None of us, aside from possibly his clinicians, will know his state of mind, his full diagnosis, and the effects it had on his ability to form intent.

At this moment, I'm not happy, for as somebody diagnosed with PTSD, I know that it does impact the way others view us and I'm tired of that - I'm tired of trying to prove I'm able to contribute, and I'm not a risk. I'm not happy because some people are trying to find every excuse possible, and heap blame upon the system (are we all so sure that he went to appointments, followed treatment diligently, and did everything possible for his recovery? Is there concrete proof that the system was truly negligent?). But most of all, I'm not happy because two lives have been lost, and others are forever overshadowed by this tragedy.

I am always very leery when these stories come out about the impact they have on the continued stigmatization of the mentally ill. The contribution to the 'damaged vet' or Rambo narrative is particularly concerning. Veterans, especially those dealing with mental health issues, already have an uphill battle to face. The last thing we need is anything reinforcing the prejudice they face in the rest of society.

If a court of law, after proper consideration of medical evidence, finds someone not criminally responsible, I will accept that. I shy away from the assumption that mental illness mitigates, never mind excuses the more heinous crimes against persons. I know and am friends with many people with mental illnesses, and though there have been some bleak and ugly days, I have not seen that these individuals don't know right from wrong, nor are their abilities to decide and act so compromised that they find themselves uncontrollably doing serious physical harm.

Show me solid evidence otherwise and I will adjust my thinking- but I'm no dummy on this stuff, I understand how the law operates in these cases and where a person is considered responsible. The onus is still on the accused and their defense to show that they are not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder for actions they have committed.

 

[Staff Weenie]

Brihard, we are in agreement. From what I am aware of, PTSD has rarely ever been accepted as a cause for an NCR defense in Canada (I've heard of one case from Western Canada), because it's so difficult to prove the defendant had absolutely no awareness or control over their actions.

As I was told when I was a patient, the statistics Health Services had showed that a person with PTSD is overwhelmingly more likely to be the victim of violence, or to commit self harm, than to hurt others. We're not potential killers, but cases like this lead people with minimal awareness to jump to conclusions.

 

[mariomike]

I have read that PTSD can be taken into consideration when sentencing veterans in the US.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=ptsd+%22mitigating+factor%22+sentencing+veterans&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDh4LuvYvaAhWky4MKHeemAKEQpwUIIA&biw=1280&bih=603

"In certain states, there are some limited opportunities to obtain a reduced sentence based on post-traumatic stress disorder. Having PTSD from military service can be a mitigating factor."

Perhaps our lawyers would know if PTSD is also a mitigating factor in Canadian sentencing?

 

[brihard]

I have read that PTSD can be taken into consideration when sentencing veterans in the US.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=ptsd+%22mitigating+factor%22+sentencing+veterans&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDh4LuvYvaAhWky4MKHeemAKEQpwUIIA&biw=1280&bih=603

"In certain states, there are some limited opportunities to obtain a reduced sentence based on post-traumatic stress disorder. Having PTSD from military service can be a mitigating factor."

Perhaps our lawyers would know if PTSD is also a mitigating factor in Canadian sentencing?

Mental illness can absolutely be a mitigating factor in our sentencing. Sentencing in Canada is pretty complex- I've seen judges describe it in their decisions as the hardest part of their jobs. Mental illness absolutely comes into play. Sometimes it'll mean shorter sentences coupled with treatments. Other times it may mean longer sentences to help an offender get access to treatment and counselling. Other times, mental illness may be disregarded as insufficiently relevant or significant in the facts of the case. Now, this is following a finding of criminal guilt. Mental health can come into play at every step. As a police officer I have apprehended many people under the relevant jurisdictional Mental Health Act for involuntary assessment because they're a danger to themselves or others. I have laid charges in situations where I had discretion not to specifically because I knew that laying a charge (appropriately, and with facts that fit) would also allow me to recommend to crown that they seek mental health assessment for the offender. I have submitted bail packages that strongly urged that a person be held in custody longer for the purposes of such assessment. I have charged someone for assaulting me, and in doing so I impressed upon crown my belief that the behaviour stemmed from mental health disorder and that treatment was the appropriate course of action, but that only the court could ensure it happened. I've put in reports and evidence that helped offenders get diverted from jail to treatment because that was the right approach to reduce their danger to the public. I've also dealt with people who were quite clearly mentally disordered, but who just as clearly understood what they were doing and understood the wrongness of their acts. I've always done my best in cases where mental health is involved to get as full a picture as I'm able to, and to communicate it to crown and the court- something I think I can fairly say I'm more attentive to than most in my profession.

 

[Cloud Cover]

The case of R v Small in 2017 gives a short readable summary of the requirements of the defence of NCR based on mental disorder. Not a lot of recent cases discuss in much detail the precise diagnosis of an accused, but tend to focus on whether the accused was morally blameworthy if the science supports the defence. I suppose one would have to look at cases in the consent/ capacity to stand trial board reviews to see if PTSD alone has been a contributor to the defence. PTSD has been on the scale of recognized disorders since 1980’s so it would be surprising if it has not worked its way into one or two defences for murder.

Insofar as my own personal experience PTSD goes, it is tied to depression, anxiety and dissociation and self harm, never about harming others. That part-harming others- is what has me confused. Nobody in the vet groups I attended in London showed or expressed inclination for that, although angry outbursts and sudden high amplitudeso of rage followed by long bouts of really awful self loathing and soul destroying sorrow usually followed. And then, of course, pulling back and away from anyone and everyone. VAC helping me with the working dog was so helpful, he saved me but above all my girl Tara pulls me through after I lost everything and I hope Iwill always have her with me and that I hope I never let her down. 

That’s my 0.02, but read the Small case. The judge is alluding to something more than a passing state of mental disorder. Again, I am not personally able to reconcile PTSD with harming someone, it’s the farthest thing from my mind at those times and in those awful moments.
I think James Taylor nailed it 48 years ago with Fire and Rain. “ my body’ s aching and my time is at hand, and I won’t make it any other way. ...but I always thought that I would se you again”. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

To those who are going with the 'murdering scumbag' crowd;

- if you have PTSD or any mental health issues, you should know, first off, that not everyone responds to, reacts to the same incidents the same ways.  If you've managed to get by, BZ to you but don't look down your nose at people less resilient. 

- if 'all murders were the same' in Canada, the guy who beheaded that kid on the bus and ate some of him wouldn't be free now, would he?  https://nypost.com/2017/02/11/man-who-beheaded-bus-passenger-granted-total-freedom/

It is tragic that another one of our vets has taken his own life, and even more tragic he took an innocent person with him;  but I'm not going to give the guy the trial he'll never get because of things I think that I can never prove to be facts.  Maybe you can consider him a victim also, of 'himself'.  Suicides aren't victimless actions, right? 

Careful with your tar and feather parties.

 

[brihard]

I have considered all of that and I remain completely comfortable with everything I have said. Guy went through some awful stuff. Got it. Then he killed his wife. PTSD doesn’t make you do that, or at least medical science and the courts have not found it to, and I’m satisfied with the body of knowledge on that. I will allow for the possibility of TBI induced psychosis, and if decent evidence comes out of same, alright. But working off what is known and has been said, that has not been introduced. A woman was murdered and a family destroyed. And yes, there was a suicide too.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I just saw this story on CBC. Very hard to watch as that Easter in 07 was the start of problems for me too.  I'm sick at heart to see these two brothers were swallowed up.

Brothers in arms: Ron and Ryan Anderson both survived tours in Afghanistan — but not PTSD
In a Canadian military family, parents watched their sons die slowly, unable to conquer the trauma of war

Ron and Ryan Anderson were soldiers — good ones, too, according to their friends — but they didn't die on the battlefield. They died at home in Canada, unable to deal with what they saw and did during war.

Ron took his own life in 2014, seven years after he returned from Afghanistan. Ryan, five years younger, also served in Afghanistan and died in October.

"They brought the war home with them," said their father, Peter Anderson.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/anderson-brothers-ptsd-1.4589733

 

[Strike]

Echoing EITS, the attitude against this soldier are pretty shocking.

Yes, murder is wrong.  Yes, he murdered his partner and killed himself.

But unless you've ever had to deal with a major depressive disorder, really, who are you to judge?  Judge the action, not the person.  When a person is in a depressive state all they are looking for is a way to get out - get out of the pain, get out of the trouble they feel they are causing everyone, stop the surge of emotion, or even lack of emotions.  You do things that are extreme and more often than not, end up hurting the people you love the most.  It's very hard to explain and harder still to understand unless you've been there personally**.  No, this doesn't excuse the man's actions.  But focussing only on the actions of the man is not going to prevent this from happening again in the future.  You need to work backwards and try to understand why he was in that state and then find ways to reduce the chances of people reaching that state again.

**Yes, I've been there and am now constantly focussed on when my mood drops, as is my spouse.

 

[brihard]

Echoing EITS, the attitude against this soldier are pretty shocking.

Yes, murder is wrong.  Yes, he murdered his partner and killed himself.

But unless you've ever had to deal with a major depressive disorder, really, who are you to judge?  Judge the action, not the person.  When a person is in a depressive state all they are looking for is a way to get out - get out of the pain, get out of the trouble they feel they are causing everyone, stop the surge of emotion, or even lack of emotions.  You do things that are extreme and more often than not, end up hurting the people you love the most.  It's very hard to explain and harder still to understand unless you've been there personally**.  No, this doesn't excuse the man's actions.  But focussing only on the actions of the man is not going to prevent this from happening again in the future.  You need to work backwards and try to understand why he was in that state and then find ways to reduce the chances of people reaching that state again.

**Yes, I've been there and am now constantly focussed on when my mood drops, as is my spouse.

I want it to be understood that I'm saying this as respectfully as I can, because I have nothing but sympathy and empathy for anyone who has to live with the hell of depression. It's awful, and what it does to the individual and to their relationship with others is awful. I respect that for years you've had to deal with it. I cannot accept though that in this case, one cannot have a meaningful or correct opinion without personally suffering the mental health disorder in question (or others, for that matter). The increasingly huge body of knowledge on mental health comes from a lot of sources, and the scholarly and legal ones are just as in play as the qualitative lived experiences.

We *are* judging the action. To murder someone is awful and wrong. And that action was committed by a person. I absolutely accept and agree that depression and PTSD can have an impact on suicide. That, I think, is a no-brainer at this point. What is in question here though is whether PTSD removes from a person the element of choice when they murder someone- whether that person is incapable of controlling their actions through some sort of automatism or through a psychosis that removes their understanding of the actions they're taking. Show me the predictive or causative, not correlative relationship between PTSD and murder. Until proven otherwise, murdering someone is a choice. And yes, some people with PTSD or depression or other disorders have made that choice. There's absolutely a lot of overlap between violent offending and mental health disorders. There are established correlates showing that veterans with PTSD linked to combat exposure are more likely to be violent and to show antisocial behaviours. But that's not the threshold we're looking at here- we need more than that, we need a mental health condition to have removed from a person choice in whether they kill their spouse.

If someone has a mental health disorder so profound that they cannot control their violence or cannot perceive reality accurately and as a result end up harming someone, then that's where a person may be absolved of criminal responsibly. Anything short of that, tragic as it still genuinely is, remains a domestic partner being killed by someone who became a violent *******, and who still bears accountability for their actions and choices.

This is a really, really hot button for me due to some stuff within the immediate family. I've been taking this as slowly and methodically as I'm able to, and going back and doing a bunch of edits to make sure I'm keeping my tone in check. Please don't think I'm just firing off without thinking here. Unfortunately it's something that has consumed all too much of my thought for some years now.

I wish that we did not have people coming back sick and hurting and broken. I wish we didn't have people so desperate for the pain to stop that they take their own lives - I think I have enough credibility established in that regard. I really, really want all of our people to be OK, and for there to be the right help when they're not. But even my friends and colleagues who have been at their absolute worst have consistently showed some things and not shown others- they are most destructive to themselves and to relationships, and not in the sense of directly and physically harming others. The few exceptions to that even at that are usually much more on the lower end (in terms pf tangible physiological harm) of assaultive behaviour. A murder is so far beyond what is normally seen that it's going to take some solid research showing loss of autonomy or perceptions of reality in PTSD sufferers for me to be able to see the condition excuse the crimes. I trust that should such evidence begin to show itself, the psychological research community, and in turn appropriately informed criminal courts will recognize that.

 

[Petard]

What seems to be the emerging narrative in these kind of extreme cases, is the idea that the actual murderer is exempt from blame because they were overwhelmed by their mental health situation
I think that's a reasonable thing to discuss

To me, it sounds self righteousness to limit that discussion to only those contending with PTSD.
But if somehow "qualifying" one's opinion is needed here: soldiers I was responsible for, and myself, were physically attacked by an ex-soldier diagnosed with PTSD, on more than one occasion. I didn't know that individual, they had been released long before I was posted to their former unit. Yet in their reasoning they were doing what was desperately needed to draw attention to the situation they were in, and to him I had not personally done enough to reach out to ex-soldiers of the unit. During court proceedings, his former spouse made it known she feared for her life. The ex-solder remained unremorseful throughout the court proceedings. That he was suffering with PTSD was a prominent factor considered by the court. Upon his release for time served, he attacked family members again and was incarcerated again.

I've counseled soldiers that have fought with mental health issues, and were able to return to full duty, I've seen some that were not able to and were unfortunately medically released.
Sadly, I don't believe my experience is all that unique, but am I allowed then to at least state an observation?


It sounds like the OP was implying that they don't agree with the expectation, that those diagnosed with PTSD are somehow exempt from accountability for their actions, and not just in the horrific extreme case of murder-suicide. To that degree, from my experience, he has a valid point, and that does not mean I'm tarring everyone diagnosed with PTSD as a grenade with the pin pulled, far from it
I get the "just leave me alone" mindset, and I frequently seen it come up even in lesser matters such as remedial measures (and is discussed on a thread elsewhere on this site)
But those suffering with PTSD do need to be held to account when their behavior threatens others, or when their behavior is clearly becoming detrimental to themselves and/or those around them. Whether it's in criminal court, family court, summary trial or acknowledging a performance or conduct shortcoming, it is necessary. I don't see that as being a bad thing, and to do otherwise would not necessarily help that person recover either. Those incidents that they are being held to account for, tend to be the ever more alarming uh-oh lights, that those providing support and care need to know about. Giving them a free pass in hopes it won't escalate a bad situation, I think, can very well have the opposite effect, and put innocents at greater risk