Marine: Murder changed to Manslaughter

[mr.hobblesworth]

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

 

Do you not think that some self-reflection or discussion is necessary when a member of our armed forces murders an unarmed and injured soldier in in the field, fully aware, it seems from his comments, of the crime he is committing (and laughing about it)?

[geosname]

Do you not think that some self-reflection or discussion is necessary when a member of our armed forces murders an unarmed and injured soldier in in the field, fully aware, it seems from his comments, of the crime he is committing (and laughing about it)?

 

It seems it wasnt murder after all.... but manslaughter.

[mr.hobblesworth]

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

 

What is mentioned 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.

 

So you're saying that a soldier can't be convicted of murder if the enemy is 'not under the queen's peace'?

[geosname]

The "rules" of war are only effective if all sides involved in that war agree to be governed by them.

The days of generals moving large numbers of cavalry and infantry around a large geographically accurate model on a "war room" table are thankfully over.

You cant win by the rules if the other side doesnt play by them.

 

The only effective rule of war is kill them before they kill you.... and unless your boots have been on the ground its difficult to understand how that effects your ability to adhere to the "nice gentlemanly rules"

[Fosse69]

Another aspect, unless I am mistaken, the murder sentence was given by Court Martial whereas as the sentence was revised under appeal by a civilian court? Was the Army sending a message out that the Geneva Convention applies to the British Army, whereas although the enemy does not abide by it, discipline would be maintained. Whereas a civilian court would be more searching in other aspects, such as mental state?

[Regal Beagle]

So you're saying that a soldier can't be convicted of murder if the enemy is 'not under the queen's peace'?

 

I'm saying that in my belief they shouln't be able to be convicted of murder for killing an enemy fighter.

I agree with the geneva convention but I don't agree that breaching it means that you have murdered an enemy soldier.

 

If anything, the state should be culpable in that situation.

 

I think that the crime should be manslaughter and that the sentance can then reflect the severity of the crime, rather than it being murder and seeing mentally ill youngsters going to jail, for life, because their country put a gun in their hand and then prosecutes them for using it in the heat of an actual warzone.

[Hagrid]

Seeing terms like 'in the heat of the battle' and 'warzone' makes me thing a majority of the people have done little to no research on this issue. They've seen 'serviceman' and 'Taliban' and the primal instinct of 'SERVICEMEN MUST BE WORSHIPPED' has kicked in.

 

This wasn't an instinctive thing. The first thing the marine did was to disarm the injured insurgent. So any argument about 'posing a threat' is rubbish.

 

He, along with the 2 other men he was with, then moved the injured and unarmed insurgent to a place where a surveillance helicopter above couldn't see him. The marine knew what he was about to do was illegal and didn't want anyone to see it.

 

He then effectively executes the insurgent, instantly urging the men with him to ensure it 'doesn't go anywhere'. He then fully admits his guilt by saying he'd 'broken the Geneva Convention'.

 

Members of the armed forces have admitted that what Marine A did was wrong: Brigadier Bill Dunham described it as a "shocking and appalling aberration". General Sir Nick Houghton said it was a 'henious crime', and 'murder was murder'. Only you and your narrow, "armed forces can do no wrong" mindset actually think this was a legal act. The lad's only got his sentence reduced to manslaughter due to "diminished responsibility" (due to stress and the consequent hatred of the Taliban), not as the action itself was not murder.

 

I don't know why I'm engaging with the people on here, as when it comes to the Armed Forces people instantly start to fondle themselves and declare they can do no wrong. How would you feel if a Taliban executed an unarmed and injured British serviceman in this way?

 

Actually do some ******* research, think of the future legal ramifications of this, instead of seeing "armed forces" and "Taliban" and saying people should "hand their head in shame" for daring to question the morality of executing an unarmed, uninjured insurgent, after taking the time to move him to an unobserved area and making sure your mates keep it to themselves. At the very best, this was morally depraved and a poor example of the high standards our Armed Forces set.

[upthevale]

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

 

 

 

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

 

Yes damn them! every time we see a terorist attack we hear the goverments say that these people had been on our rader for years, but they have human rights!

 

Sorry, but I have a human right to be able to walk the streets in my country and be safe! I am sick of it!

 

Like FBS said, they are all terrorists, and frankly the sooner we get rid of them all the better. Good on Marine A, in my eyes he is a legend!

[Hagrid]

It seems it wasnt murder after all.... but manslaughter.

 

Only got reduced due to "diminished responsibility". It was argued the man was mentally ill at the time due to the stress of battle.

 

The act itself wasn't an example of manslaughter; in fact, it was so bad they've had to plead for diminished responsibility to make it look less heinous.

 

Weirdly there was no mention of mental illness and diminished responsibility when he was originally convicted...

[FATBOYSTEVE]

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

 

Or put in a metal cage and burned alive whilst being filmed on utube

Let's get real here the geneva convention dosent apply when dealing with mad murdering fanatics who don't value life and see it as an honour to die killing as many as possible in the process

[Hagrid]

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.

 

1. This wasn't a split second decision. It was a calculated move to execute an unarmed and injured man in a private spot so a helicopter couldn't see him. He was fully aware of the illegality of his actions.

 

2. The crime of murder does apply in war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#Contents. Obviously the battlefield wasn't too pressing of an issue at the time of the execution as he quickly tells his pals he'd breached it.

[upthevale]

Or put in a metal cage and burned alive whilst being filmed on utube

Let's get real here the geneva convention dosent apply when dealing with mad murdering fanatics who don't value life and see it as an honour to die killing as many as possible in the process

 

Steve, I agree with you entirely. Their actions go beyond any rules and the sooner we get rid of this scurge of life the better!

[Regal Beagle]

Seeing terms like 'in the heat of the battle' and 'warzone' makes me thing a majority of the people have done little to no research on this issue. They've seen 'serviceman' and 'Taliban' and the primal instinct of 'SERVICEMEN MUST BE WORSHIPPED' has kicked in.

 

This wasn't an instinctive thing. The first thing the marine did was to disarm the injured insurgent. So any argument about 'posing a threat' is rubbish.

 

He, along with the 2 other men he was with, then moved the injured and unarmed insurgent to a place where a surveillance helicopter above couldn't see him. The marine knew what he was about to do was illegal and didn't want anyone to see it.

 

He then effectively executes the insurgent, instantly urging the men with him to ensure it 'doesn't go anywhere'. He then fully admits his guilt by saying he'd 'broken the Geneva Convention'.

 

Members of the armed forces have admitted that what Marine A did was wrong: Brigadier Bill Dunham described it as a "shocking and appalling aberration". General Sir Nick Houghton said it was a 'henious crime', and 'murder was murder'. Only you and your narrow, "armed forces can do no wrong" mindset actually think this was a legal act. The lad's only got his sentence reduced to manslaughter due to "diminished responsibility" (due to stress and the consequent hatred of the Taliban), not as the action itself was not murder.

 

I don't know why I'm engaging with the people on here, as when it comes to the Armed Forces people instantly start to fondle themselves and declare they can do no wrong. How would you feel if a Taliban executed an unarmed and injured British serviceman in this way?

 

Actually do some ******* research, think of the future legal ramifications of this, instead of seeing "armed forces" and "Taliban" and saying people should "hand their head in shame" for daring to question the morality of executing an unarmed, uninjured insurgent, after taking the time to move him to an unobserved area and making sure your mates keep it to themselves.

 

"not as the act itself was not murder"

 

I think you'll find the ACT of murder and manslaughter are the exact same thing. And diminished responsibility has been long established in UK law with a very clear precedent in place.

 

Maybe you should do a little bit more research as well?

[geosname]

Only got reduced due to "diminished responsibility". It was argued the man was mentally ill at the time due to the stress of battle.

 

The act itself wasn't an example of manslaughter; in fact, it was so bad they've had to plead for diminished responsibility to make it look less heinous.

 

Weirdly there was no mention of mental illness and diminished responsibility when he was originally convicted...

 

Can you plead diminished responsibility at a court martial?

Wouldnt that throw suspicion onto the commanding officers and the army itself for allowing a person with diminished capacity to be in that position?

[Regal Beagle]

1. This wasn't a split second decision. It was a calculated move to execute an unarmed and injured man in a private spot so a helicopter couldn't see him. He was fully aware of the illegality of his actions.

 

2. The crime of murder does apply in war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#Contents. Obviously the battlefield wasn't too pressing of an issue at the time of the execution as he quickly tells his pals he'd breached it.

 

Why are you so dismissive of diminished responsibility if you are a legal expert?

 

And I refer you to my earlier point regarding battered wife sydrome. Very often the KILLING of an absuive husband is done when he is asleep and poses no immediate threat. Are these women murderers too?