Marine killer deserves clemency

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Osem

You tell me - you were the one who questioned what I'd written not the other way around. You were implying this incident is no different from an effective carte blanche policy to murder within the forces and I explained how it is different.

I made it quite clear at the start of this thread that what happened was wrong and the guy ought to be punished but I'm not going to accept anyone comparing our troops with terrorists.

Originally Posted by Osem

You tell me - you were the one who questioned what I'd written not the other way around. You were implying this incident is no different from an effective carte blanche policy to murder within the forces and I explained how it is different.

No. I was implying that if we didn't prosecute this case, a case where there was a clear execution of a wounded combatant when there was no danger to the marines, then it would be an effective carte blanche policy.

See:

Well what's the difference? This guy was recorded shooting the guy and it was clear that they weren't in any danger, knew they weren't in any danger and knew what he did was wrong. It was all recorded and the shooter said the words himself. If that is permissible then I really don't see how it isn't the same as have carte blanche to murder someone...

I made it quite clear at the start of this thread that what happened was wrong and the guy ought to be punished but I'm not going to accept anyone comparing our troops with terrorists.[/QUOTE]

and I wasn't doing that either.

I agree that the standards don't go both ways which is why we're fighting in the first place.

In fact I don't think anyone was comparing our troops in terrorists. We're talking about a murder conviction here.

[SMG]

Governments pay for a force which will protect its people, & its allies. War has changed, gone are the days of trench warfare, gentlemen s agreements, the real truth is simple, as the boys who took the Normandy beaches said, Germans were surrendering by the dozen, & we shot them. If we had left them, they would have re armed & shot us in the back. Murder. The Germans executed allied soldiers who were troublesome, remember the 50? The Great Escape. fact, not fiction.

When your enemy performs atrocities like this, what do you expect, its tit for tat. You have to be there, pumped with adrenalin, ar*e cheeks tight as a drum, your training keeping you on auto till things settle down. Then you feel like you've done a weeks work & someone dropped a truck on you.

I gave my 3 sons the same advice before they joined Junior Leaders, that my Father gave me, shoot twice & be sure.

[jamiefrost]

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

Then tell that to the homeowners blowing holes in unarmed burglars. An insurgent is multiple times more dangerous than a bog standard burglar. So effectively your murder law is full of crap.

Iranian Embassy 2 SAS commando's execute 2 surrendered terrorists.
Random Brazillian is shot dead by Armed Police in the aftermath of 7/7
Male is shot dead in a London Cab for possession of a firearm. He didn't fire upon officers.
Marine shoots dead an insurgent in Afghanistan (is punished for it)

Some country, some 'law'

Iranian Embassy 2 SAS commando's execute 2 surrendered terrorists.
What we're their rules of engagement?

Random Brazillian is shot dead by Armed Police in the aftermath of 7/7
Who was thought to be a suicide bomber and failed to stop after being told to by police who acting acting under instruction killed him.

Male is shot dead in a London Cab for possession of a firearm. He didn't fire upon officers.
Police following their standard rules of engagement thought they were under imminent threat and shot him
Marine shoots dead an insurgent in Afghanistan (is punished for it
Who acted outside their rules of engagement and were not under threat (according to the evidence) shot and killed someone.


As far as I can tell very different circumstances
J

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by SMG

Gone are the days of "Playing fair", the old saying, "playing by the rules", we are doing that & getting our arses kicked. Until someone comes up with a plan, a breathing insurgent is a danger. Even dead, he is still a threat. Why?, because he doesn't play by the rules.

Marines A,B & C could have turned away, only to see a grenade roll by.

Your arguing with some that would not have a clue what your on about because they have not been there and never will there.

---------- Post added at 21:56 ---------- Previous post was at 21:55 ----------

Originally Posted by SMG

Governments pay for a force which will protect its people, & its allies. War has changed, gone are the days of trench warfare, gentlemen s agreements, the real truth is simple, as the boys who took the Normandy beaches said, Germans were surrendering by the dozen, & we shot them. If we had left them, they would have re armed & shot us in the back. Murder. The Germans executed allied soldiers who were troublesome, remember the 50? The Great Escape. fact, not fiction.

When your enemy performs atrocities like this, what do you expect, its tit for tat. You have to be there, pumped with adrenalin, ar*e cheeks tight as a drum, your training keeping you on auto till things settle down. Then you feel like you've done a weeks work & someone dropped a truck on you.

I gave my 3 sons the same advice before they joined Junior Leaders, that my Father gave me, shoot twice & be sure.

The good old double tap

[SMG]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Your arguing with some that would not have a clue what your on about because they have not been there and never will there.

---------- Post added at 21:56 ---------- Previous post was at 21:55 ----------



The good old double tap

Perhaps now people will grasp the concept eh?

[adzii_nufc]

Originally Posted by jamiefrost

Iranian Embassy 2 SAS commando's execute 2 surrendered terrorists.
What we're their rules of engagement?

Random Brazillian is shot dead by Armed Police in the aftermath of 7/7
Who was thought to be a suicide bomber and failed to stop after being told to by police who acting acting under instruction killed him.

Male is shot dead in a London Cab for possession of a firearm. He didn't fire upon officers.
Police following their standard rules of engagement thought they were under imminent threat and shot him
Marine shoots dead an insurgent in Afghanistan (is punished for it
Who acted outside their rules of engagement and were not under threat (according to the evidence) shot and killed someone.




As far as I can tell very different circumstances
J

The brazillian had a headset on... showed no signs of possessing a bomb and was repeatedly shot. This has since been made very clear.

The lad in the cab had no firearm in his hand and made no move for it. He again was executed on a coppers hunch. An Armed response officer is to attempt to defuse a situation and attempt to attain a peaceful outcome but it's very clear in this case they ran over to a cab window and scattered it with bullets. They've gotten away with it due to a gun being on the person but it was never pointed or used to threaten. Even American police wait until there's a legitimate threat to open fire.

The 2 surrendered terrorists from the iranian embassy were dragged back into the embassy from the custody of police then executed. Last time I checked execution is illegal in this country regardless of your engagement rules.

Saying they're justified is a very dangerous place to go. It's basically giving the impression you're free to shoot anyone as long as you think they are a threat. The SAS execution broke every law in the book.

[spreadsheet]

I'm Glad he shot him

Originally Posted by Sirius

Your arguing with some that would not have a clue what your on about because they have not been there and never will there.

---------- Post added at 21:56 ---------- Previous post was at 21:55 ----------



The good old double tap

does not make us wrong though.
And seeing as the military court and a Maj General both think he is guilty of a crime shows there is a fair chance your may be

[spreadsheet]

presumably the taliban will be sending stiff letters to all those who have mutilated and towed around behind cars memebers of western forces - and presumably us western victims will have no recourse to compensation in their 'courts'

it's a bloody joke


"charging a man with murder in this place is like handing out speeding tickets at the indy 500" - Apocalypse Now quote

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Russ

Only if people on Civvy Street who have been through harrowing life experiences should also be shown the same clemency should they find themselves in court. I for one do not wish to live in a country with a two-tier legal system.

It's not clemency it's called mitigation and it's used in court all the time, bet this chap ends up being used as a scape goat so we can show the Afghan's how civilised we are. Help torture a baby to death and be out in five years, kill some scumbag that was trying to kill you moments earlier and get sold down the river by the government that sent you there, what a country.

---------- Post added at 01:52 ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 ----------

Originally Posted by SMG

Governments pay for a force which will protect its people, & its allies. War has changed, gone are the days of trench warfare, gentlemen s agreements, the real truth is simple, as the boys who took the Normandy beaches said, Germans were surrendering by the dozen, & we shot them. If we had left them, they would have re armed & shot us in the back. Murder. The Germans executed allied soldiers who were troublesome, remember the 50? The Great Escape. fact, not fiction.

When your enemy performs atrocities like this, what do you expect, its tit for tat. You have to be there, pumped with adrenalin, ar*e cheeks tight as a drum, your training keeping you on auto till things settle down. Then you feel like you've done a weeks work & someone dropped a truck on you.

I gave my 3 sons the same advice before they joined Junior Leaders, that my Father gave me, shoot twice & be sure.

Considering the allies jailed Germans for shooting prisoners I say your examples aren't helping your argument.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

does not make us wrong though.
And seeing as the military court and a Maj General both think he is guilty of a crime shows there is a fair chance your may be

I have never said he is not guilty, i say he should not have been in front of a judge in the first place.

---------- Post added at 06:58 ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 ----------

Originally Posted by spreadsheet

presumably the taliban will be sending stiff letters to all those who have mutilated and towed around behind cars memebers of western forces - and presumably us western victims will have no recourse to compensation in their 'courts'

it's a bloody joke


"charging a man with murder in this place is like handing out speeding tickets at the indy 500" - Apocalypse Now quote

Our troops are fighting people who have never signed or agreed to the Geneva convention and should therefor not be protected or covered by it.

---------- Post added at 06:59 ---------- Previous post was at 06:58 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

kill some scumbag that was trying to kill you moments earlier and get sold down the river by the government that sent you there, what a country.

Thats why we are now the weak arsed country we have become

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

No. I was implying that if we didn't prosecute this case, a case where there was a clear execution of a wounded combatant when there was no danger to the marines, then it would be an effective carte blanche policy.

See:



I made it quite clear at the start of this thread that what happened was wrong and the guy ought to be punished but I'm not going to accept anyone comparing our troops with terrorists and I wasn't doing that either.




In fact I don't think anyone was comparing our troops in terrorists. We're talking about a murder conviction here.

Yes a conviction has happened and the argument is now about whether there are mitigating circumstances which I believe there are.

As for comparing troops with terrorists, certainly one 'member' did and yesterday, and in a comment (removed before I had time to respond to it) you made a comment (in response to one of my posts) which, in the brief time it was visible to me, gave me the distinct impression that, given what had happened, you felt our forces could be classed as little better than terrorists. Maybe had you not deleted that post I'd have had the time to form a different, more accurate, impression of what you wrote or maybe not...

Anyway I'm glad you've clarified what you think so in your case the cap doesn't fit and you've no need to wear it...

[Russ]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

It's not clemency it's called mitigation and it's used in court all the time, bet this chap ends up being used as a scape goat so we can show the Afghan's how civilised we are. Help torture a baby to death and be out in five years, kill some scumbag that was trying to kill you moments earlier and get sold down the river by the government that sent you there, what a country.

I know and that's not the point I made.

Originally Posted by Sirius

I have never said he is not guilty, i say he should not have been in front of a judge in the first place.

---------- Post added at 06:58 ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 ----------



Our troops are fighting people who have never signed or agreed to the Geneva convention and should therefor not be protected or covered by it.

---------- Post added at 06:59 ---------- Previous post was at 06:58 ----------



Thats why we are now the weak arsed country we have become

that imo does not help your argument. He should have been clever and not done it on film but he got caught justice has to be seen to be done or our society which is built on us being civilised crumbles