Marine: Murder changed to Manslaughter

[darren1810]

Hang your head in shame Mr Hobblesworth for this thread...just my opinion

[JOHNNYAITCH]

What happens on the battlefield should stay on the battlefield.

 

So that means you're Ok with (for example) a Taliban fighter seizing a wounded British soldier, torturing him then killing him and that he should not face punishment? After all what happens on the battlefield stays on the battlefield??

 

Glad he killed him, if not he could have been one of these nutjobs trying to kill people in our country, still so long as its not your family who is affected i suppose that makes it ok to criticise.

 

And the guy who was killed may well have had a family too..I suppose that makes it Ok..wasn't your family and he isn't one of ours. It would be OK if one of the enemy did the same to one of ours I guess?

 

I suspect you are Ok with this cos it happened to one of theirs and not to one of ours

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I've tried really hard to just read this thread, but its reeled me in... "in the heat of battle" a telling phrase, these things happen in every conflict. If you've just had a fire fight and some of your mates have been killed then you capture one of them, it would take a strong person not to react. Plus the mental make up of recent foe's ie Japan, Vietnam, Korea, and now Taliband and isis are ruthless to prisoners and boobytrap their dead and wound, to kill more of us, they also use explosive vests even on children sometimes. It's a sad day and sign of the times that even the dead are used to kill... "the middle and far east adversary's don't fight civilised wars.

 

But don't we set ourselves up as being better than the enemy? Do what they do and we aren't. Of course in a battle situation the stresses are unimaginable but the alternative is "anything goes"...aren't we supposed to be better than that?

[WalterJ]

War is war was Blackman supposed to offer this insurgent the chance to kill in the future. Seems to me he put a badly injured guy out of his misery. During both world wars it wasn't unusual to put a colleague or enemy out of their misery if they were beyond saving, this a soldiers code beyond Geneva convention which has lasted hundreds of years. Blackman ensured that this guy wouldn't ever be able to kill anyone else. Rough justice I agree but war is entirely different to going down to Tesco. In Ireland insurgents were killed by the army by security and dumped behind a hedge without thought to keep others safe. i am sure our security services are taking people out know to keep us safe, just that we don't know about it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using onevalefan

[geosname]

What is an immediate threat?

Does a suicide bomber become an immediate threat when he makes the decision to join isis?

When he agrees to kill others?

When he buys the necessary equipment/chemicals to produce a bomb?

When he has made the bomb?

When he straps it to his chest?

When he walks into a crowded market?

When he has the detonator in his hand?

When he pushes the button?

 

When does a terrorist who vows to kill westerners become an immediate threat?

When he buys a gun?

When he loads the ammunition?

When he carries it to a shopping center?

When he takes it from the bag it was concealed in?

When he raises it towards people?

When he places his finger on the trigger?

When he fires into the crowd?

[Regal Beagle]

And the guy who was killed may well have had a family too..I suppose that makes it Ok..wasn't your family and he isn't one of ours. It would be OK if one of the enemy did the same to one of ours I guess?

 

If only it were so simple

 

No one is saying it's ok to execute an unarmed injured man.

 

Generally, some of us feel, that the crime of murder doesn't really apply in a warzone, on a battlefield when the people trying to kill you have never even heard of the geneva convention.

 

I do think soldiers are owed a little breathing room when it comes to split second battlefield decisions, given the stresses that they are under.

 

We afford breathing room to a battered wives for example, I don't see many people lining up to have a pop at them when they get charged with lesser crimes, or no crimes at all.

[mr.hobblesworth]

What is an immediate threat?

Does a suicide bomber become an immediate threat when he makes the decision to join isis?

When he agrees to kill others?

When he buys the necessary equipment/chemicals to produce a bomb?

When he has made the bomb?

When he straps it to his chest?

When he walks into a crowded market?

When he has the detonator in his hand?

When he pushes the button?

 

When does a terrorist who vows to kill westerners become an immediate threat?

When he buys a gun?

When he loads the ammunition?

When he carries it to a shopping center?

When he takes it from the bag it was concealed in?

When he raises it towards people?

When he places his finger on the trigger?

When he fires into the crowd?

 

The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind,

the answer is blowing in the wind.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

War is war was Blackman supposed to offer this insurgent the chance to kill in the future.

 

So it would be Ok for them to kill one of ours to prevent him form having the chance to kill in the future?

 

Seems to me he put a badly injured guy out of his misery.

 

Didn't know he was medically qualified to make such judgements; you'd be Ok with a Taliban fighter killing a British soldier with a leg wound cos in his judgement he was being put out of his misery?

 

During both world wars it wasn't unusual to put a colleague or enemy out of their misery if they were beyond saving, this a soldiers code beyond Geneva convention which has lasted hundreds of years.

 

Given the words he used this does not seem to have been his motivation

 

Blackman ensured that this guy wouldn't ever be able to kill anyone else. Rough justice I agree but war is entirely different to going down to Tesco. In Ireland insurgents were killed by the army by security and dumped behind a hedge without thought to keep others safe. i am sure our security services are taking people out know to keep us safe, just that we don't know about it.

 

So anything goes cos the end justifies the means..I thought we were better than that. We can't really complain about how our enemies behave then can we as we are acting just like them. They can justify executions and so on cos they are just making sure the soldier/pilot they have captured won't be able to kill again.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using onevalefan

[mr.hobblesworth]

No one is saying it's ok to execute an unarmed injured man.

 

Generally, some of us feel, that the crime of murder doesn't really apply in a warzone, on a battlefield when the people trying to kill you have never even heard of the geneva convention.

 

I do think soldiers are owed a little breathing room when it comes to split second battlefield decisions, given the stresses that they are under.

 

We afford breathing room to a battered wives for example, I don't see many people lining up to have a pop at them when they get charged with lesser crimes, or no crimes at all.

 

So this will now apply across the board, will it? Look forward to you being so understanding when the 'murderer' kills one of 'our brave boys'.

 

There's breathing room and then there's mocking the guy, joking and coming out with some shitty one-liner and then warning your mates to keep it schtum and admitting you were aware you were breaking the Geneva Convention.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

No one is saying it's ok to execute an unarmed injured man.

 

I'll think you'll find some are..one post stated "Glad he killed him"

 

Generally, some of us feel, that the crime of murder doesn't really apply in a warzone, on a battlefield when the people trying to kill you have never even heard of the geneva convention.

 

Generally, some of us feel, that the crime of murder does really apply in a warzone especially when those carrying out the act have heard of the Geneva convention

 

I do think soldiers are owed a little breathing room when it comes to split second battlefield decisions, given the stresses that they are under.

 

Of course they are..no one is suggesting that all the normal rules of society should apply to them in a conflict situation..that's why there are specific rules that only apply in a conflict situation.

 

We afford breathing room to a battered wives for example, I don't see many people lining up to have a pop at them when they get charged with lesser crimes, or no crimes at all.

 

For me that's a poor comparison, they aren't trained to cope with such situations, they don't necessarily have any other choice other than to lash out and so on.

 

In this case the issue is whilst he reacted in a very human way and it's difficult when you haven't walked in his shoes to judge..there are rules and laws that apply and many are not happy with how they have been applied. Plus it's about the principles involved as much as it is about this case

[Trampilot]

I would say very few people have been in a warzone which is why soldiers should be given some benefit of the doubt. The effect this must have has to be extreme - the common occurence of ptsd proves that I think.

 

If the trauma of war had clouded his judgement and his ability to think clearly then should his commanding officers noticed this and perhaps withdrawn him from action?

 

Murder in war is possible but the extreme situation means it isn't cut and dry. A soldier is acting on orders. If the soldier isn't functioning correctly then they should be withdrawn. Blackman should have been withdrawn.

[FATBOYSTEVE]

simple. One was injured & disarmed, posing no immediate threat. The other armed & on a killing spree...

 

both were terrorists !!

[mr.hobblesworth]

I just don’t get this. How can there be rules in War?

How can we expect young men to put their life on the line, but still follow rules?

 

So war is fair game and let's just let them all do whatever they like?

 

This country is full of do gooders, and that’s the reason it’s such a mess!

 

Yeah, these bloody do-gooders, going round and doing good. Damn them!

[Ben]

A former marine who shot and killed an injured detainee had his sentence reduced from murder to manslaughter today and is expected to leave prison within a month after serving around 3 1/2 years.

 

 

 

I'm sure that many on here will disagree with me but I think this murderer should still be in prison and the footage of his mates whooping on the court steps whilst drinking champagne was pretty foul.

 

If it had been the other way round he would probably have been decapitated:ohmy:

[Regal Beagle]

So this will now apply across the board, will it? Look forward to you being so understanding when the 'murderer' kills one of 'our brave boys'.

 

There's breathing room and then there's mocking the guy, joking and coming out with some shitty one-liner and then warning your mates to keep it schtum and admitting you were aware you were breaking the Geneva Convention.

 

Sorry but mocking, joking and shitty one liners are not mentioned anywhere in the crime of murder.

 

What is mentoned in the crime of murder is that it must be under the queen's peace. I would say that a taliban fighter is not under the queen's peace.

 

 

And with regards to your first point, I'm not quite sure I see your point. First of all it is you calling people murderers not me, secondly why the 'brave boys' dig?

 

It makes me sad when a British soldier is killed in combat but I have never once in my life started asking whether he was a war casualty or a murder victim, and I don't think it would make any difference to my views on their death.