Marine A secures new hearing.

[anonymous-user]

stitched said:

I get that he knew he was doing wrong, really.
The people responsible for dropping atomic bombs on 2 civilian cities could of course keep him company in jail.
Oh hang on.

I don't think they put dead people in jail.

Ayahuasca said:

XCP said:

I don't see many similarities between the cases to be honest.

Both have soldiers accused of murder, but one was treated far more harshly than the other.

It's nothing to do with harsh or not. It's to do with whether or not the offence was made out.

Clegg was very much 'in the heat of battle' and there was disputed forensic evidence, whereas Blackman took 5 minutes to plan to kill the victim and was well beyond acting honestly and instinctively.

[98elise]

Ayahuasca said:

I look forward to the trial of the member of Seal Team 6 who shot (murdered?) an unarmed Bin Laden. When is that happening again?

It depends on what they were tasked to do

If they were told to capture him and bring him back a live then he would probably be charged.

As a serviceman you don't get to choose what rules you follow. That's drilled into you from the day you put on a uniform. Step outside the rules and you are punished, even for the most mundane of things.

[Joey Ramone]

donutsina911 said:

gibberish? Really. Today, right now on higher command and staff course, COIN as executed in Afghanistan has been critiqued and fundamentally challenged. I'm sure we can agree to disagree on that one.

S'not really COIN any more per se, is it. Comes under the catchy rubric of 'stablilisation'. And no one's read that doctrine either.

Some tasty characters on HCSC come January.

[alfa phil]

Zoobeef said:

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.

FFS! He's a MARINE! Marines are in the NAVY!

Jesus wept. What a bunch of Manginas the men of this country are when they don't even know basic st like that.

I think the Marines are sort of their own branch. They certainly operate closer to the Army than anything else. It's irrelevant anyway, the point is that someone serving in the British armed forces should know better. I'm not sure why he did it, but I doubt mercy was on his mind. Likely trying to copy something he saw in the movies.

Definitely says Navy on the I'D card.

Didnt have ID cards we all knew one another.

[agtlaw]

Appeal allowed. Manslaughter, not murder.

Judgment here:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-v-alexand...

Edited by agtlaw on Wednesday 15th March 11:35

[ellroy]

From my perspective this seemed to be the correct result at the start of the process and its ridiclous that it was never an option at the first Court Martial.

He's served what 4 years? Be interested to see what the sentance is in a few days time. my guess he'll be released at that time.

[anonymous-user]

My understanding is this is new evidence not available at the time of the first hearing.

I don't think his defence of trying to make out he believed the chap was already dead at the first hearing was very wise.

This seems like a fair result and balance and I'd expect him to get released upon the sentence review.

[footnote]

If the boot was on the other foot, I don't think people would accept it was anything other than murder if a terrorist put a British soldier out of his misery, no matter how mentally unstable the terrorist was 'later' considered to be at the time of the incident.

[Pebbles167]

Lucky man, that's for sure. I didn't think they'd reduce it, but it's got quite a lot of spotlight in the media I guess.

[footnote]

Yes, a 'victory' for what purports to be 'popular' opinion.

[Pacman1978]

I've never served nor has any of my family so my opinion counts for nowt! No excuses for what he did but I suspect that it's not an uncommon occurrence. I do wonder if his mental health state was known about by any relevant higher ups? A glance at an Google search said that body parts of his colleagues were placed in a tree laden with explosives prior to the event, I wouldn't know if his stress levels and situations were common or not?

Hard to call though isn't it? In a cell or at home, either way the mans future will be a tough one, does seem to have a supportive wife on his side though. What the hell was the person in possession of the footage playing at? Bet he ain't popular.

[tommunster10]

OK so turns out he's now apparently mental....ermmm...OK so let him out into the public..great idea!

I'd far rather a sane person walking the streets who chose to kill a combatant, than a mentalist...as a mentalist could believe any random person walking down the street was trying to kill them in a paranoid state... isn't the law great.

[grumbledoak]

Good. I mean, assuming that he will actually be let out shortly.

I do understand the "high standards" argument, and accept that the who have served have more right to an opinion than I do on this, but him being charged and sentenced as if it was the cold blooded murder of an innocent man out walking his dog didn't make a lot of sense to me. Some time inside for manslaughter seems more appropriate.

[Mike_Mac]

tommunster10 said:

OK so turns out he's now apparently mental....ermmm...OK so let him out into the public..great idea!

I'd far rather a sane person walking the streets who chose to kill a combatant, than a mentalist...as a mentalist could believe any random person walking down the street was trying to kill them in a paranoid state... isn't the law great.

I think you need to do a bit more reading on PTSD, its symptoms and the recovery pathway from suffering it, rather than chucking the tag 'mentalist' around casually. Just a thought...

[ellroy]

La Liga said:

My understanding is this is new evidence not available at the time of the first hearing.

I don't think his defence of trying to make out he believed the chap was already dead at the first hearing was very wise.

This seems like a fair result and balance and I'd expect him to get released upon the sentence review.

As I recall that's not right. The evidence was available, at the time of the first case, but was not put in front of the court martial. That was the basic reason for the appeal.

As it wasn't put before the court manslaughter was never an option open to the Judge, which it seems was the correct decision given today's result.

[anonymous-user]

ellroy said:

La Liga said:

My understanding is this is new evidence not available at the time of the first hearing.

I don't think his defence of trying to make out he believed the chap was already dead at the first hearing was very wise.

This seems like a fair result and balance and I'd expect him to get released upon the sentence review.

As I recall that's not right. The evidence was available, at the time of the first case, but was not put in front of the court martial. That was the basic reason for the appeal.

As it wasn't put before the court manslaughter was never an option open to the Judge, which it seems was the correct decision given today's result.

I'm just going on today's BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39278929) which states:

Article said:

His defence team argued that fresh psychiatric evidence, if available at the time, would have provided him with the "partial defence of diminished responsibility".

You may well also be right I've not looked that much into it.

[DanielSan]

tommunster10 said:

OK so turns out he's now apparently mental....ermmm...OK so let him out into the public..great idea!

I'd far rather a sane person walking the streets who chose to kill a combatant, than a mentalist...as a mentalist could believe any random person walking down the street was trying to kill them in a paranoid state... isn't the law great.

Given the stuff you post on here I'd question whether you're a sane person. The sheer level of bks in this one post alone proves that.

[footnote]

grumbledoak said:

Good. I mean, assuming that he will actually be let out shortly.

I do understand the "high standards" argument, and accept that the who have served have more right to an opinion than I do on this, but him being charged and sentenced as if it was the cold blooded murder of an innocent man out walking his dog didn't make a lot of sense to me. Some time inside for manslaughter seems more appropriate.

I would disagree with both your points.

Experience of life/events of course influences how we see those events and judge others involved in them.

We don't expect all of our judges to have robbed, driven recklessly or murdered - we don't imagine if they had done any of these things that it would make them better judges.

We don't allow families of victims to sentence murderers.

Impartiality does not easily arise from partial experience.

Nobody would doubt a lot of illegal acts have been carried out by 'the good guys' - the experience of war does not on any level excuse the carrying out of those acts. And the soldiers know that - before, during and after.

[tommunster10]

DanielSan said:

tommunster10 said:

OK so turns out he's now apparently mental....ermmm...OK so let him out into the public..great idea!

I'd far rather a sane person walking the streets who chose to kill a combatant, than a mentalist...as a mentalist could believe any random person walking down the street was trying to kill them in a paranoid state... isn't the law great.

Given the stuff you post on here I'd question whether you're a sane person. The sheer level of bks in this one post alone proves that.

Oh yes the general understanding of mental illness is brilliant around these parts!
If this was some chav whose smart lawyer had got him off a crime due to mental illness i'm sure the PH crew would be saying how great the law is....
Fact is regardless of what this soldier did and my opinions on it i hate all this "quick lets have a petition!" bollax when something doesn't go your way.
Haven't we had the Daily Mail brigade bang on about people trying to destroy democracy by over turning brexit....yet they back overturning this? Hypocrisy..
I do find it odd that that being mental excuses him from this as by its very nature any very serious crime the person it must be argued isn't really in sane mind.

Edited by tommunster10 on Thursday 16th March 09:41

[DanielSan]

You've just demonstrated a perfect level of having no understanding of mental illness, closely followed by what can only be just saying whatever cones into your head.

He should never have been sent down in the first place imo, he extended more courtesy than one of our troops would get if they were injured and captured. The second he pulled that trigger there was one less in the world.