Marine A secures new hearing.
Discussion
castroses said:
MarshPhantom said:
e8_pack said:
I haven't read much, but the guy was fired upon and he killed one of the insurgents at close range.
You put anyone in a kill or be killed situation, don't be surprised if they don't always act rationally.
I hope ISIS are court martialing their guys.
ISIS are a terrorist organization, this chap was in the British Army. You put anyone in a kill or be killed situation, don't be surprised if they don't always act rationally.
I hope ISIS are court martialing their guys.
Jesus wept. What a bunch of Manginas the men of this country are when they don't even know basic s
t like that. p1stonhead said:
SplatSpeed said:
Rovinghawk said:
SplatSpeed said:
war is brutal, what happens in a war zone stays in a war zone!
So if he captures an Isis female it's ok to rape her? By your logic it's fine.Rules are there for a reason & are to be followed, even when the folks involved want to do whatever they like.
eta- If he'd said "This is doing him a kindness" before shooting him I might have taken a more generous POV, but his act was pure malice.
Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 7th December 13:22
castroses said:
MarshPhantom said:
e8_pack said:
I haven't read much, but the guy was fired upon and he killed one of the insurgents at close range.
You put anyone in a kill or be killed situation, don't be surprised if they don't always act rationally.
I hope ISIS are court martialing their guys.
ISIS are a terrorist organization, this chap was in the British Army. You put anyone in a kill or be killed situation, don't be surprised if they don't always act rationally.
I hope ISIS are court martialing their guys.
Jesus wept. What a bunch of Manginas the men of this country are when they don't even know basic s
t like that. MarshPhantom said:
castroses said:
MarshPhantom said:
e8_pack said:
I haven't read much, but the guy was fired upon and he killed one of the insurgents at close range.
You put anyone in a kill or be killed situation, don't be surprised if they don't always act rationally.
I hope ISIS are court martialing their guys.
ISIS are a terrorist organization, this chap was in the British Army. You put anyone in a kill or be killed situation, don't be surprised if they don't always act rationally.
I hope ISIS are court martialing their guys.
Jesus wept. What a bunch of Manginas the men of this country are when they don't even know basic s
t like that. Ayahuasca said:
Foliage said:
Should have been getting out his medical kit, not his sidearm, pretty clear cut really, its all on video.
What, and risk the possibility of a grenade with the pin out under the body?Clue: It's not exactly a gentle procedure, involving knocking any air left in the 'casualty' out of him, rolling the 'casualty' off any possible hidden devices, and immediately dropping him back onto them while your oppo watches to call "clear!" if no devices are seen. Only then can pulses be checked and injuries triaged and prioritised.
The possibility of casualties going 'suicide bomber' on you, or bodies of the deceased being 'booby trapped' is constant and very real. Large chunks of "specific to theatre" pre-deployment training are spent on dealing with cultural differences in both the non-combatant indigenous population, and likely enemy combatants. This theatre-specific training is in addition to normal army training, which, on an annual basis, requires all soldiers to complete "Annual Training Directives". One such directive is "The Law Of Armed Conflict" and it is afforded equal precedence to physical fitness and weapon handling/marksmanship in that it is mandatory to complete it every year, and completion of such training by individual units is audited to ensure compliance. Make no bones about it, the army takes their responsibility to teach "The Rules" seriously.
As much as I can see, and to an extent understand how you get to that stage, there were more soldiers than Marine A present at the time of the incident for which he was tried. And there was discussion,and therefore warning, of what might happen next. ALL those present were obliged to have the moral courage to at least attempt to save Marine A from himself. They didn't, he didn't, he must therefore be guilty. The Court Martial was satisfied that the evidence they tested met the minimum standard required for a guilty verdict, and he was sentenced accordingly. The only thing I'd like to see change is the length of sentence really. Reduce it on appeal, on the grounds that he's unlikely to present a risk of re-offending, and is unlikely to be a danger to the public if released. I'm no longer serving, but if the teaching material for "LOAC" doesn't at least acknowledge this case, and preferably reference it for study, then I'll eat my hat, as 'the system' will have missed a trick. Her Britannic Majesty's Government maintains a professional standing army to do it's bidding in protecting the United Kingdom and her interests abroad. Key word? For me, it's "professional". Otherwise we might as well just recruit a Militia and hand out weapons at the town hall on parade days.
Even if Sgt Blackman is released, he'll struggle to get any sort of life back. There are many Muslims in this country, and a significant minority of them are willing to take up arms against the majority. Militant Islamists will therefore always be a danger to him, and have him looking over his shoulder. I wouldn't fancy that as a way of life for me and my family for the rest of my days. To be honest, the best lesson to be learned here is to restrict personal cameras and video recordings in operational areas. If video is desirable it should be from officially issued cameras and held by the MoD, not the individual. Larking about with cameras, taking "selfies" with stiffs, etc, is nothing new. Plenty of it was going on on the Basra Highway in 1991, and fortunately for some of the cretins taking/featuring in those pictures, there wasn't the social media access there is now, or a few more would likely have been either locked up or invited to leave without a pension.
Ultimately I'm torn. I don't like the idea of a man under such immense pressure being jailed for something that many others in a similar situation would have considered doing. But by the same token, he knew the rules, and must have known about the cameras, yet still chose to continue down that path. So he's guilty, of that there can be no real doubt. It's just a question of the magnitude of his punishment and the fact that his image and name were splashed all over the media that bothers me. Surely there was some validity in perhaps publishing the case details without his name, and his family's identities therefore not being dragged out into the open?
I'm glad I'm out now, is all I can say. According to friends and colleagues still serving, it's becoming less and less like a 'calling' and more akin to 'just another job' for some of the current batch of recruits.
I don't know about the specifics of this particular case but I do know I wouldn't join the forces or police for love nor money these days. These men and women are put in extreme circumstances (sometimes with inadequate training/equipment/backup) that most of us could barely imagine and when they fk up we seem to judge them by the 'lock em up and throw away the key' standard of justice.
Of course there have to be rules for professionals in this line of work but there also has to be some understanding that any person could crack or lack 'moral courage' under these circumstances and sentences should be issued according to that and to risk to the public of re-offending.
k up we seem to judge them by the 'lock em up and throw away the key' standard of justice. Of course there have to be rules for professionals in this line of work but there also has to be some understanding that any person could crack or lack 'moral courage' under these circumstances and sentences should be issued according to that and to risk to the public of re-offending.
VolvoT5 said:
I don't know about the specifics of this particular case but I do know I wouldn't join the forces or police for love nor money these days. These men and women are put in extreme circumstances (sometimes with inadequate training/equipment/backup) that most of us could barely imagine and when they fk up we seem to judge them by the 'lock em up and throw away the key' standard of justice.
Of course there have to be rules for professionals in this line of work but there also has to be some understanding that any person could crack or lack 'moral courage' under these circumstances and sentences should be issued according to that and to risk to the public of re-offending.
Shooting in a direction and accidently hitting someone you are not supposed to is a fk up we seem to judge them by the 'lock em up and throw away the key' standard of justice. Of course there have to be rules for professionals in this line of work but there also has to be some understanding that any person could crack or lack 'moral courage' under these circumstances and sentences should be issued according to that and to risk to the public of re-offending.
k up.Deliberately murdering someone point blank isnt a f
k up. Its no different to any other murder. Possibly worse because they are professional killers who should know explicitly what they are capable of and who they shouldnt be killing.yellowjack said:
Ultimately I'm torn. I don't like the idea of a man under such immense pressure being jailed for something that many others in a similar situation would have considered doing. But by the same token, he knew the rules, and must have known about the cameras, yet still chose to continue down that path. So he's guilty, of that there can be no real doubt. It's just a question of the magnitude of his punishment and the fact that his image and name were splashed all over the media that bothers me. Surely there was some validity in perhaps publishing the case details without his name, and his family's identities therefore not being dragged out into the open?
Completely agree with that. He knew what he was doing was illegal when he did it, however it seems there's a case for some culpability further up the command chain, which would probably help any sort of diminished responsibility plea on his part. Didn't the report at the time say there were plenty of indications about PTSD that hadn't been picked up on prior to the event?How did his name come out, was it one of the papers publishing it when he was official being referred to as Marine A, or was his name officially released?
p1stonhead said:
VolvoT5 said:
I don't know about the specifics of this particular case but I do know I wouldn't join the forces or police for love nor money these days. These men and women are put in extreme circumstances (sometimes with inadequate training/equipment/backup) that most of us could barely imagine and when they fk up we seem to judge them by the 'lock em up and throw away the key' standard of justice.
Of course there have to be rules for professionals in this line of work but there also has to be some understanding that any person could crack or lack 'moral courage' under these circumstances and sentences should be issued according to that and to risk to the public of re-offending.
Shooting in a direction and accidently hitting someone you are not supposed to is a fk up we seem to judge them by the 'lock em up and throw away the key' standard of justice. Of course there have to be rules for professionals in this line of work but there also has to be some understanding that any person could crack or lack 'moral courage' under these circumstances and sentences should be issued according to that and to risk to the public of re-offending.
k up.Deliberately murdering someone point blank isnt a f
k up. Its no different to any other murder. Possibly worse because they are professional killers who should know explicitly what they are capable of and who they shouldnt be killing.Instead he's been barrack room tried by people who have never been in his position. The whole thing stinks.
Removing an enemy combatant from the field was not his job, his job was defined within very specific rules of engagement, which he broke.
castroses said:
Instead he's been barrack room tried by people who have never been in his position. The whole thing stinks.
He had a military court martial, presumably run by people who at least had a reasonable understanding of his position, and pretty much all the ex-military people here and elsewhere are saying they made the right decision. It's the people who have never been in his position who are defending him and saying the sentence is too harsh.Pebbles167 said:
castroses said:
MarshPhantom said:
e8_pack said:
I haven't read much, but the guy was fired upon and he killed one of the insurgents at close range.
You put anyone in a kill or be killed situation, don't be surprised if they don't always act rationally.
I hope ISIS are court martialing their guys.
ISIS are a terrorist organization, this chap was in the British Army. You put anyone in a kill or be killed situation, don't be surprised if they don't always act rationally.
I hope ISIS are court martialing their guys.
Jesus wept. What a bunch of Manginas the men of this country are when they don't even know basic s
t like that. castroses said:
Yes. They should be killing taliban fighters exactly like this individual. Five minutes before this Terry-Taliban was trying to kill Marine A and his colleagues. The situation progressed and allowed Marine A to do his job i.e. Removing an enemy combatant from the battlefield.
Instead he's been barrack room tried by people who have never been in his position. The whole thing stinks.
If we don't follow the rules then it would give the enemy a hell of a lot of a munition for their recruitment process.Instead he's been barrack room tried by people who have never been in his position. The whole thing stinks.
You know the rules, they are hammered in often enough, you follow them.
p1stonhead said:
VolvoT5 said:
I don't know about the specifics of this particular case but I do know I wouldn't join the forces or police for love nor money these days. These men and women are put in extreme circumstances (sometimes with inadequate training/equipment/backup) that most of us could barely imagine and when they fk up we seem to judge them by the 'lock em up and throw away the key' standard of justice.
Of course there have to be rules for professionals in this line of work but there also has to be some understanding that any person could crack or lack 'moral courage' under these circumstances and sentences should be issued according to that and to risk to the public of re-offending.
Shooting in a direction and accidently hitting someone you are not supposed to is a fk up we seem to judge them by the 'lock em up and throw away the key' standard of justice. Of course there have to be rules for professionals in this line of work but there also has to be some understanding that any person could crack or lack 'moral courage' under these circumstances and sentences should be issued according to that and to risk to the public of re-offending.
k up.Deliberately murdering someone point blank isnt a f
k up. Its no different to any other murder. Possibly worse because they are professional killers who should know explicitly what they are capable of and who they shouldnt be killing.VolvoT5 said:
I don't know about the specifics of this particular case but I do know I wouldn't join the forces or police for love nor money these days. These men and women are put in extreme circumstances (sometimes with inadequate training/equipment/backup) that most of us could barely imagine and when they fk up we seem to judge them by the 'lock em up and throw away the key' standard of justice.
Of course there have to be rules for professionals in this line of work but there also has to be some understanding that any person could crack or lack 'moral courage' under these circumstances and sentences should be issued according to that and to risk to the public of re-offending.
An old friend of mine would readily agree with that sentiment. Everything went downhill for the soldiery, when Blair and co initiated the considerable expansion of the MP's at the cost of the fighting regiments . A key reason my own son left the Army. He got the impression that in some mindsets the enemy had more "rights" than the soldier himself. k up we seem to judge them by the 'lock em up and throw away the key' standard of justice. Of course there have to be rules for professionals in this line of work but there also has to be some understanding that any person could crack or lack 'moral courage' under these circumstances and sentences should be issued according to that and to risk to the public of re-offending.
The old friend was a decorated combat soldier in the Falklands . After leaving the forces he worked as a firearms trainer to Police fire arms units. He was asked to go on patrol as part of an armed police response unit. He refused stating that he was not prepared to put his life on the line under such terms and the potential implications and hounding if he managed to get the slightest thing wrong. He stayed on a few more months then resigned.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff