Sten Guns Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 He's not had his conviction quashed. He's not innocent. His crime was downgraded from murder to manslaughter. He's spent the allotted time for that offence in jail. He's now being released. He still killed an injured enemy in cold blood. He is not a fecking hero. Correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 A bit uncomfortable with this. In a civilised democracy there has to be rules around waging war. There does seem to be a lot of evidence to suggest they were broken in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon Sailor Posted March 28, 2017 Author Share Posted March 28, 2017 A bit uncomfortabke with this. In a civilised democracy there has to be rules around waging war. There does seem to be a lot of evidence to suggest they were in this case. In the heat of the battle most people do things they would not normally do. It's a mental thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 In the heat of the battle most people do things they would not normally do. It's a mental thing I get that. Was this really the heat of battle though? Seemed very calculated when listening to the voice recordings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taffin Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 I'm not sure about the logic of rules of war etc but that is another argument. Whilst we adhere to the Geneva convention, he murdered someone imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon Sailor Posted March 28, 2017 Author Share Posted March 28, 2017 I'm not sure about the logic of rules of war etc but that is another argument. Whilst we adhere to the Geneva convention, he murdered someone imo. Killed someone who was trying to kill him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddley Walker Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Killed someone who was trying to kill him Nah he killed an incapacitated injured guy. And he knew he was doing wrong, it wasn't a shootout ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon Sailor Posted March 28, 2017 Author Share Posted March 28, 2017 Nah he killed an incapacitated injured guy. And he knew he was doing wrong, it wasn't a shootout ffs. Wasn't a shoot out ? Did he get injured cutting his toe nails like ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Wasn't a shoot out ? Did he get injured cutting his toe nails like ? It's basically a question of where you draw the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddley Walker Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Wasn't a shoot out ? Did he get injured cutting his toe nails like ? They carried an injured guy to a tent, debated for ages about what to do then shot him. Against the Geneva Convention whether you like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 They carried an injured guy to a tent, debated for ages about what to do then shot him. Against the Geneva Convention whether you like it or not. Not murder though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Not murder though. A mercy killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taffin Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Not murder though. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff the Mince Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Killing a Taliban who probably beheads women and children doesn't bother me . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Why not? Because it's manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 A mercy killing. The transcript suggests otherwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddley Walker Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Not murder though. It was. The court have decided that he was going through trauma so have reduced it to manslaughter, but if you view it objectively, past the technicality, it is still murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 It was. The court have decided that he was going through trauma so have reduced it to manslaughter, but if you view it objectively, past the technicality, it is still murder. No they haven't. They have decided he didn't have the required culpability for murder due to his diminished responsibility because of mental illness. To suggest a 'partial defence' to murder is a 'technicality' is nonsense. It's not a technicality that the law recognises differing degrees of culpability and mens rea in the act of killing. A legal defence or partial defence to murder is not a technicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddley Walker Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 No they haven't. They have decided he didn't have the required culpability for murder due to his diminished responsibility because of mental illness. To suggest a 'partial defence' to murder is a 'technicality' is nonsense. It's not a technicality that the law recognises differing degrees of culpability and mens rea in the act of killing. A legal defence or partial defence to murder is not a technicality. I take your point on the decision but he sounded like he knew exactly what he was doing. What a guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 I take your point on the decision but he sounded like he knew exactly what he was doing. What a guy. Well presumably the 2 day appeal hearing of evidence and submissions including the 1100 pages of new evidence from the Criminal Case Reviews Commision to decide whether the conviction was unsafe involved more than everyone just listening to an audio tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargantua Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Killing a Taliban who probably beheads women and children doesn't bother me . Indeed. Massive deal out of nothing IMO. He executed an evil, warped individual. A member of the Taliban FFS. For every jihadist killed, the world becomes a better place. If he had done it moments earlier in the 'heat of battle', no one would have batted an eyelid. But because he done it up close and personal, everyone loses their shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Murdering ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon Sailor Posted March 28, 2017 Author Share Posted March 28, 2017 Murdering ****. Sums up the Taliban pretty well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Rom?n Riquelme Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Wonder if folk that think he's totally innocent would be okay with some boy from ISIS killing an injured British soldier in cold blood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon Sailor Posted March 28, 2017 Author Share Posted March 28, 2017 Wonder if folk that think he's totally innocent would be okay with some boy from ISIS killing an injured British soldier in cold blood? Don't think anyone thinks he's totally innocent. Fact is he isn't - but he's not a murderer. This guy he killed wasn't minding his own business, popping down the shops for a paper and a pint of milk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Not murder though. Of course that's murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Not murder though. Sorry, meant to add - how is killing someone in cold blood, not murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Indeed. Massive deal out of nothing IMO. He executed an evil, warped individual. A member of the Taliban FFS. For every jihadist killed, the world becomes a better place. If he had done it moments earlier in the 'heat of battle', no one would have batted an eyelid. But because he done it up close and personal, everyone loses their shit. He certainly executed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Indeed. Massive deal out of nothing IMO. He executed an evil, warped individual. A member of the Taliban FFS. For every jihadist killed, the world becomes a better place. If he had done it moments earlier in the 'heat of battle', no one would have batted an eyelid. But because he done it up close and personal, everyone loses their shit. That's the point it was an execution no different to what the Taliban do. So that makes the British Army no better than the Taliban if tolerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger Is Back Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Jesus it was an execution. It was cold and calculated. The Taliban are murdering scum, of that there is no doubt, but despite having military family, I'm shocked with the transcript and disappointed that one soldier has proved himself to be no better than one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GforGallo Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Don't think anyone thinks he's totally innocent. Fact is he isn't - but he's not a murderer. This guy he killed wasn't minding his own business, popping down the shops for a paper and a pint of milk. That's beside the point though and is what is annoying some people. It doesn't matter who he was fighting for, the point is he was surrendered. If he was in his right mind it was murder, which is why his supporters celebrating makes people feel uneasy. According to the judge he wasn't in his right mind. Doesn't make it right. Just not murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JyTees Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Wonder if folk that think he's totally innocent would be okay with some boy from ISIS killing an injured British soldier in cold blood? You think ISIS would take them prisoner and abide by the rules of warfare? Pretty sure under similar circumstances a British soldier would be grateful of being mercifully executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDonald Jardine Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 A bit uncomfortable with this. In a civilised democracy there has to be rules around waging war. There does seem to be a lot of evidence to suggest they were broken in this case. Nobody disputes he broke the Geneva Convention. He was still convicted of manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auldy19 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 That's beside the point though and is what is annoying some people. It doesn't matter who he was fighting for, the point is he was surrendered. If he was in his right mind it was murder, which is why his supporters celebrating makes people feel uneasy. According to the judge he wasn't in his right mind. Doesn't make it right. Just not murder. The killing was unlawful of that there is no doubt . Without further details and the evidence outside the transcript it would be impossible for me to determine what his mind was like . Can also see why people are uneasy about the support this has attracted . Unfortunately a lot of people with an agenda to peddle will have jumped on board this ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDonald Jardine Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Not murder though. Because his state of mind was deemed to be such he didn't have the capacity to decide on murder. His actions speak for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDonald Jardine Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 You think ISIS would take them prisoner and abide by the rules of warfare? Pretty sure under similar circumstances a British soldier would be grateful of being mercifully executed. Do we really want our army to behave like the Taliban/ ISIS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tian447 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 I find it hard to know what to think about this to be honest. He knew what he was doing. The videos proved that and he even said "this goes nowhere lads, I just broke the Geneva Convention". That's not manslaughter. That's murder,regardless of who it was against. However, if he had killed the guy in a combat situation where he was under fire, nothing would have been said about it, it would have been another statistic. Not sure I agree with what has happened, but it's a shite situation to be in in the first place. Roles reversed, the guy he shot would have had no second thoughts about gunning him down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollyWolly Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 The only saving grace here is the victim was going to bleed out and die within a few minutes. Not sure if the humanitarian angle was or should be explored,(i.e putting him out of pain) but surely it is was easier just to let nature take its course and let him die of what injuries he already had. To do what he did, to film it, to say the things he said before and after. To me that amounts to inhumane conduct. Its not murder IMO but I think manslaughter fits the bill here. Its an awful thing to have done and a shocking way for a relatively senior man to have conducted himself when there were alternatives on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Killed someone who was trying to kill him No quite correct. The guy was his prisoner. As posted complete lack of discipline by all there. He was correctly punis he'd. He broke the Geneva convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyBatistuta Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Don't think it's the same as if you or I had carried that out in the streets here, as none of us know what he was going through on that day and the days leading to it, he's in a war zone. I know they are trained for these situations, but it must still screw with your head. I do think though, no matter what lead to that point, he crossed the line and did execute him and therefore committed murder. We can't lower ourselves to their levels, but it can't be easy. I know I would hate to have to go through what some of these soldiers go through, being shot at on a daily basis, watching their friends being shot and blown up, it can't be easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JyTees Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Do we really want our army to behave like the Taliban/ ISIS? Absolutely not. I replied to someone making that ridiculous point. It wouldn't happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Sorry, meant to add - how is killing someone in cold blood, not murder? Well in this case it wasn't in cold blood was it so not murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Because his state of mind was deemed to be such he didn't have the capacity to decide on murder. His actions speak for themselves. So not murder then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Well in this case it wasn't in cold blood was it so not murder. Pre-meditated killing, so it absolutely was murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Pre-meditated killing, so it absolutely was murder. I presume you mean your own personal definition of murder as opposed to what legally constitutes murder. Just because a killing is to a degree premeditated doesn't mean it's murder. If a person has a partial defence, as he has in this case then it doesn't mean it's murder just because a killing was to a degree premeditated, but instead manslaughter. In conclusion not murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 I presume you mean your own personal definition of murder as opposed to what legally constitutes murder. Just because a killing is to a degree premeditated doesn't mean it's murder. If a person has a partial defence, as he has in this case then it doesn't mean it's murder just because a killing was to a degree premeditated, but instead manslaughter. In conclusion not murder. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Yeah, he's still a murdering **** though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Yeah, he's still a murdering **** though. In your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollyWolly Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Pre-meditated killing, so it absolutely was murder. It wasn't premeditated though. That's the whole crux of the case. If he had briefed the guys that morning that they were taking no prisoners and any wounded were to be terminated on the spot, that would be premediated murder. In this case, they are taking the view, that, in the heat and the immediate aftermath of a traumatic firefight he made a gross error of judgement ( caused in part by the trauma he had just just been through) in his actions in dealing with the wounded guy (a guy who was going to die within minutes anyway)An error of judgement which amounted to manslaughter, not murder they have now decided after appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 It wasn't premeditated though. That's the whole crux of the case.If he had briefed the guys that morning that they were taking no prisoners and any wounded were to be terminated on the spot, that would be premediated murder.In this case, they are taking the view, that, in the heat and the immediate aftermath of a traumatic firefight he made a gross error of judgement ( caused in part by the trauma he had just just been through) in his actions in dealing with the wounded guy (a guy who was going to die within minutes anyway)An error of judgement which amounted to manslaughter, not murder they have now decided after appeal. Nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.