RugbyRebels

Conviction reduced from murder to manslaughter:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39278929

I'm not sure how I feel about this tbh.

Any thoughts? Has justice been served?

It'll be interesting to hear from any posters connected with the military as well as other opinions.

It's the right decision. I'm not going to weep about a dead Taliban cunt and we have to hold ourselves to higher standards than them but the stress of the tour has to be taken in to account.

When I think of this case, I think of the Elor Azaria incident in Israel. Both situations have different stories but both involved the killing of a wounded enemy combatant. Imo, Azaria commited a cold blooded murder. He made the decision to get revenge on the Palestinian for stabbing his colleague, then cocked his rifle and fired into his prone body.

The Israeli court deemed that as manslaughter and no doubt, the decision will eventually be overturned and Azaria will be a free man.

If we hold ourselves to a higher standard than surely Blackman's actions are inexcusable?

I'm sure his family and supporters are happy with the news and tbh, if I knew the bloke or if I did his job, I'd be overjoyed too, but I'm wondering how they'd all be feeling had someone taken his life in the same circumstances? Would they have much sympathy for the emotional state of the person who killed him?

I don't agree, Baz. It is the wrong decision and the victim being a Taleban has feck all to do with it.

This man was a professional and highly trained RM SNCO, in command of other professional and highly trained Royal Marines. He knew what he was doing and he knew it was wrong, as evidenced by his comments on the helmet cam recording. This does not allow for a determination of manslaughter on the grounds of his emotional state.

To me, the evidence has murder written all over it and the decision to quash that verdict does little credit to our judicial system or the Armed Forces.

Why? The fact that he was out there speaks more about the institutional failure of the Royal Marines to identify, remove and treat an officer suffering from mental illness.

16 years is not a war, it's colonization...

I HATE AGREEING with Donald Trump. “We made a terrible mistake getting involved in the first place,” he told CNN in October, referring to the war in Afghanistan, which he called a “mess.” “I would leave the troops there begrudgingly,” the then-presidential candidate added. “Believe me, I’m not happy about it.”

You remember Afghanistan, right? The longest war in U.S. history and the most unpopular one, too? The ongoing conflict that’s been ignored by politicians and pundits alike, despite 2,400 U.S. dead and a whopping $1 trillion price tag?

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/15/tru ... calate-it/

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:I don't agree, Baz. It is the wrong decision and the victim being a Taleban has feck all to do with it.

This man was a professional and highly trained RM SNCO, in command of other professional and highly trained Royal Marines. He knew what he was doing and he knew it was wrong, as evidenced by his comments on the helmet cam recording. This does not allow for a determination of manslaughter on the grounds of his emotional state.

To me, the evidence has murder written all over it and the decision to quash that verdict does little credit to our judicial system or the Armed Forces.

Of course it doesn't, I didn't intend for it to come across like that, merely stating I don't care about the "victim".

It's not about an emotional state, it's about his mental ill health. When the story first broke I agreed with you it was murder, pure and simple. Since then I've read about more about the case and if he is suffering from PTSD then he's been failed by the bootnecks as cas says.

WaspInWales wrote:
If we hold ourselves to a higher standard than surely Blackman's actions are inexcusable?

I'm sure his family and supporters are happy with the news and tbh, if I knew the bloke or if I did his job, I'd be overjoyed too, but I'm wondering how they'd all be feeling had someone taken his life in the same circumstances? Would they have much sympathy for the emotional state of the person who killed him?

It's not been excused, he's still guilty, he's still in jail but it's on a lesser charge taking into account his mental ill health.

A lot of the arguments for Sgt Blackman are because the Taliban would have done much worse in the same circumstances. It wouldn't have been a round to the head, it would have been exacting as much pain as possible in the time the wounded man had left.

WaspInWales wrote:Conviction reduced from murder to manslaughter:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39278929

I'm not sure how I feel about this tbh.

Any thoughts? Has justice been served?

It'll be interesting to hear from any posters connected with the military as well as other opinions.

What Sgt Blackman did violated the laws of armed conflict and the British military is obliged to investigate and punish. By violating those laws, he potentially undermined the mission in that region and put the lives of his fellow Marines in greater jeopardy. We are obliged to hold ourselves to a higher standard as a professional military force.

It was right to prosecute him and right to go for murder. However, if there was psychological evidence available at the initial trial, it should have been presented. Mental state of mind is a key component in murder vs manslaughter and should have been taken into account. If an appeal court is content that he was not acting in a sound mind then that's fine by me. It will be interesting to see how much his sentence is reduced by as a result.
What was annoying, and I had this argument in the Times forums, was the number of former soldiers and arm chair generals commenting on the brutality of war, therefore 'so what'? A couple even raised the issue of mercy killings from previous campaigns. This fails to take into account the context. In previous campaigns, the medical evacuation would have been far more primitive; it is quite likely that a seriously wounded man would have been left where he lay for hours, without any competent care. I can understand why in some cases suffering was eased.

However, in Afghanistan, the MERT and Pedro teams could have been on site very quickly, not withstanding the presence of combat medics or actual medical personnel who may have been in the immediate area. All personnel are now trained to apply battlefield first aid and keep patients stable long enough for professional care to arrive. This includes Taleban fighters and civilian, who were routinely treated at Camp Bastion hospital. At the time of the shooting he was not under enemy fire (the situation was dangerous being static in the open for too long, but he was not in contact) and thus could have rendered medical care to the insurgent and at least tried to preserve the life of what was then a non-combatant.

What Blackman did was, in addition to breaking the law, was to deny us a potential intelligence source. It also brought the reputation of the British armed forces into disrepute.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:I don't agree, Baz. It is the wrong decision and the victim being a Taleban has feck all to do with it.

This man was a professional and highly trained RM SNCO, in command of other professional and highly trained Royal Marines. He knew what he was doing and he knew it was wrong, as evidenced by his comments on the helmet cam recording. This does not allow for a determination of manslaughter on the grounds of his emotional state.

To me, the evidence has murder written all over it and the decision to quash that verdict does little credit to our judicial system or the Armed Forces.

Im concerned that psychological reasons can be used to justify any war crime (And will be in the future). War is stressful as we both know, so there is an expected level of stress that we should be able to deal with without losing our professionalism (in my case that is now past tense).

I think the appeal court took into account that there appears to have been issues with the level of command and control in place in that area and Blackman had been subjected to a lot. If psych assessments pointed to reduced mental capacity then manslaughter is probably the correct decision, although I would expect him to still spend some length of time in prison/secure facility and not get away with what would have been a fairly paltry sentence.

What do we think about the argument that he believed he was shooting a dead body, anyone buying it?

bruce wrote:What do we think about the argument that he believed he was shooting a dead body, anyone buying it?

No, not for one second. You don't tell a dead body to shuffle off this mortal coil, he already has.

Its a slippery slope because couldn't any soldier in war claim PTSD/stress? War is a stressful place. In this case, maybe he was over the edge and there have been failures in the ranks above sending him out there but my guess is those policies wont change anytime soon; they need soldiers. And now any killing by a soldier can just be passed off as a mental health issue because of war.

EDIT: I see Sandy has probably covered this issue better than I could.

Sandydragon wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:I don't agree, Baz. It is the wrong decision and the victim being a Taleban has feck all to do with it.

This man was a professional and highly trained RM SNCO, in command of other professional and highly trained Royal Marines. He knew what he was doing and he knew it was wrong, as evidenced by his comments on the helmet cam recording. This does not allow for a determination of manslaughter on the grounds of his emotional state.

To me, the evidence has murder written all over it and the decision to quash that verdict does little credit to our judicial system or the Armed Forces.

Im concerned that psychological reasons can be used to justify any war crime (And will be in the future). War is stressful as we both know, so there is an expected level of stress that we should be able to deal with without losing our professionalism (in my case that is now past tense).

I think the appeal court took into account that there appears to have been issues with the level of command and control in place in that area and Blackman had been subjected to a lot. If psych assessments pointed to reduced mental capacity then manslaughter is probably the correct decision, although I would expect him to still spend some length of time in prison/secure facility and not get away with what would have been a fairly paltry sentence.

Then it might mean TRiM is enforced better to stop that. I don't see a retrospective claim of PTSD being applicable, although you'll have a better idea than me.

The fact that the information was ignored/withheld at the original trial says to me it was no more than a witch hunt.

I suspect the the psych evidence held more sway in this instance because of a potential systemic issue with command, and that it was withheld from the original CM.

I don't think that using ptsd as a mitigation would hold up normally, unless there was clear evidence of excessive stress (to be defined) and a lack of command responsibility. Definitely a case by case assessment.

Completely agree about TRIM. It s a useful tool, provided it's done properly or at all.