Marine: Murder changed to Manslaughter

[cheshirevaliant]

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

 

Yet the evidence suggests that he was not thinking clearly, for whatever reason, as most people don't go around executing others. It's a tricky point, the Forces are put under an untold amount of stress dealing with an enemy who are not playing by the same rules they are but a lot of this case doesn't sit particularly comfortably for the reasons you state above.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

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"

 

Where has anyone said the rules are nice and/or gentlemanly? War is a savage business, the question is what levels of savagery are we willing to accept in our forces? Clearly a certain level is acceptable as it's necessary in a conflict situation but are we really saying that anything goes?

[mr.hobblesworth]

Yet the evidence suggests that he was not thinking clearly, for whatever reason, as most people don't go around executing others.

 

I do wonder how many other incidents like this occur? Are body cams (which I presume was how this incident was captured) standard now? I'm sure if it wasn't filmed then we'd have never heard of this.

[cheshirevaliant]

I do wonder how many other incidents like this occur? Are body cams (which I presume was how this incident was captured) standard now? I'm sure if it wasn't filmed then we'd have never heard of this.

 

Or one of his mates felt uneasy about keeping the secret and told his superiors?

[Regal Beagle]

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...

The act itself was that he killed a human being.

 

That is the act required for both murder and manslaughter.

 

Diminished responsibility refers to the state of mind of the accused. Whether or note he fully intended to kill or cause serious harm, and secondly, whether he had the mental capacity to form intention.

 

This has been written into UK law for 60 years and common law precedents going back much further than that. It's nothing new and is certainly not being used as a tool to help a soldier 'just because'.

[Mattholl]

I agree, but I bet you'll get a lot of responses on here apoplectic you dare criticise a British serviceman.

 

I think any defence of Blackman can be negated by the fact that, mere moments after executing the man, he admits to breaking the Geneva Convention.

 

For me it sets a dangerous precedent for future incidents like this, blurring the line on lawful and illegal killings and allows "exceptional stress" and the consequent hatred of the Taliban to be used as 'diminished responsibility'. I feel this judgement will have serious ramifications down the line.

 

what you have to take into consideration is that the Geneva convention is an ass because in this instance they have blatent disregard for it and do not adhere to it.One of the things which is said to have too have caused the marine in this instance to have suffer mental illness was seeing the bodies of his fellow soldiers desecrated and abused. You cant expect to be protected by the Geneva convention if you don't uphold it yourself. Like many who were captured and sent to US military camps for torture and interrogation, they claimed rights here there and everywhere but had likely killed and tortured prisoners themselves in the vast majority of cases.

 

If we were fighting civilised nations also adhering to the GC then fair enough, when you are fighting terrorists who are quite happy to cut your head off on video and drag your corpse down the street, please forgive me for a lack of compassion to towards you. If the taliban captured you mortally wounded and they put you out of your misery you can class that as a lucky day. This taliban fighter got off very lightly

[Mattholl]

Or one of his mates felt uneasy about keeping the secret and told his superiors?

 

i think it was uploaded to social media and someone noticed it

[Guppy 4 England]

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??

 

 

 

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

 

With respect JA, how would we know about a Taliban fighter doing that? Our big brother system requires army units to wear go-pro's now....

 

The other guy was a terrorist. Simple. I dont see our army trying to kill people in our country? Talk about being argumentative for the sake of it.

[Hagrid]

i think it was uploaded to social media and someone noticed it

 

It was looked at as part of a separate investigation if I remember correctly

[Davebrad]

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?

 

i'd say we are, but if the other fella plays dirty he's the one likely to win, cause every time we go to do something our hands are tied we are abiding by the rules, of which the other fella hasn't heard off...it happened to the US in Vietnam and Korea(and us there too).

We are sending our troops(rightly or wrongly) in harms way with one hand tied behind their back, to beat isis we've got to go all out do what it takes, then when we've rid the world of them and let any other terrorists know what to expect if they try there luck, we can go back to being civilised again...

[Hagrid]

The act itself was that he killed a human being.

 

That is the act required for both murder and manslaughter.

 

Diminished responsibility refers to the state of mind of the accused. Whether or note he fully intended to kill or cause serious harm, and secondly, whether he had the mental capacity to form intention.

 

This has been written into UK law for 60 years and common law precedents going back much further than that. It's nothing new and is certainly not being used as a tool to help a soldier 'just because'.

 

I just find it interesting there was no mention of it at the first trial. Did he not realise he was mentally ill? Did he feel fine until 3 years down the line he realised he wasn't all right?

[jjvale_03]

If I'd spent days trecking through wasteland being aimed at by snipers and seeing dismembered body parts of my friends hung from trees, I'd stick a bullet in a wounded terrorist too.

[geosname]

Where has anyone said the rules are nice and/or gentlemanly? War is a savage business, the question is what levels of savagery are we willing to accept in our forces? Clearly a certain level is acceptable as it's necessary in a conflict situation but are we really saying that anything goes?

 

My rule of thumb in a war situation would have to be... do it to them before the barstewards do it to me.

Is it savagery to order waves of men "over the top" to face machine guns? simply because thats all the generals knew and were playing the great game of war.

I would be willing to accept the same levels of savagery the enemy shows... we are not better than them we are as bad as them.

I dont think wars actually solve anything... but if you go you have to go full tilt to win... kill the enemy not slap him on the wrist and tell him to stop being naughty

[Mattholl]

With respect JA, how would we know about a Taliban fighter doing that? Our big brother system requires army units to wear go-pro's now....

 

The other guy was a terrorist. Simple. I dont see our army trying to kill people in our country? Talk about being argumentative for the sake of it.

 

Totally agree G4E. Jonny the example you have given is exactly what the taliban were doing day in day out to captured soldiers they answer to no one. Are any taliban fighters going to be brought before a war crimes committee for breaches of the GC?

[Mattholl]

My rule of thumb in a war situation would have to be... do it to them before the barstewards do it to me.

Is it savagery to order waves of men "over the top" to face machine guns? simply because thats all the generals knew and were playing the great game of war.

I would be willing to accept the same levels of savagery the enemy shows... we are not better than them we are as bad as them.

I dont think wars actually solve anything... but if you go you have to go full tilt to win... kill the enemy not slap him on the wrist and tell him to stop being naughty

 

Personally I would carpet bomb men women and children in these areas without an after thought if it meant my little boy never had to go to these areas and risk being blown up, dismembered and his body parts hung from a tree. Thank god they dont have the capability because ISIS and the taliban would happily kill everyone of us without regret