Alexander Blackman

MeEsH BaKkA said:
Not that what he did was right at all but, from what I've been told/read J company had a pretty rough tour losing a fair few men. I don't think cases like this should be treated black and white, I sure don't know how I'd hold up, months away from home, losing friends and getting shot at daily.

Edit: I believe that tour 42 Commando lost 7 men with 45 injured for a little context.
Click to expand...
The context and Blackman's character would have been taken into account by the judge when imposing a life sentence with a minimum term of only ten years (reduced to eight years on appeal) - a light touch for murder with a firearm. And I'm sure the military jury, which is typically made up of a wide variety of ranks, also had it in mind when it convicted him.
 
Maybe those top five top Court of Appeal judges have access to the evidence that we/the media don't have, and could make an informed decision based on the evidence presented and taking into account any extenuating circumstances that the initial court case failed to take into proper consideration?

That would be my guess....
 
Absolute miscarriage of justice that it's only been reduced to manslaughter. Soldier's job is to kill the enemy, he did that Taliban a favour imo.

MikeTheNative said:
It was something about a previously unknown mental illness, I don't think they have said what it was.
Click to expand...

PTSD I believe :(
 
scorza said:
Absolute miscarriage of justice that it's only been reduced to manslaughter. Soldier's job is to kill the enemy, he did that Taliban a favour imo.



PTSD I believe :(
Click to expand...

No, it's called being a psycopath - I wonder if you would have the same reaction if Lee Rigby's murderers got off on manslaughter charges you damn hypocrite.
 
scorza said:
Absolute miscarriage of justice that it's only been reduced to manslaughter. Soldier's job is to kill the enemy, he did that Taliban a favour imo.
Click to expand...

A soldier's job is to kill the enemy within the rules of war. This guy knowingly broke the Geneva Convention. That's a one way ticket to 'guilty of war crime.'
 
What a truly bizarre day of awful judge rulings, between this and the inheritance appeal case!
 
Just seems like it is all the rage to be fickle with court rulings and politics.

When you so clearly announce you are knowingly break the law, it shouldn't be tolerated.
 
should have just tossed a grenade and said it fell short...so stupid to do it on film


do the taliban count as soldiers and are our troops bound by the geneva conventions when fighting them?
 
Well i assume there is a distinction between a captured prisoner who is of no threat and a soldier who is armed and fighting.

I am not sympathising with the killed prisoner. It is his blatant disobedience and acknowledgement that should not be tolerated for the sake of order. Turn a blind eye to obvious rule breaking like murder and it may make other people think that they can get away with other crimes involving POW.
 
diamount said:
No, it's called being a psycopath - I wonder if you would have the same reaction if Lee Rigby's murderers got off on manslaughter charges you damn hypocrite.
Click to expand...

he was stupid to do what he did, the correct course of action would have been to either attempt some form of first aid or do nothing as the Taliban was already dead

basically he's either put a bullet into a dead guy or he's finished off a guy close to death already, if the latter then I think that is indeed murder and should be punished but as far as murder cases go it probably warrants the lowest sentence - which is what he was awarded in the first place

this manslaughter ruling for mental health etc.. is the dubious bit, I'm generally a bit skeptical when people get away with murder as a result of some diminished responsibility. But comparing his situation with that of the Lee Rigby killers is frankly ridiculous.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Well i assume there is a distinction between a captured prisoner who is of no threat and a soldier who is armed and fighting.

I am not sympathising with the killed prisoner. It is his blatant disobedience and acknowledgement that should not be tolerated for the sake of order. Turn a blind eye to obvious rule breaking like murder and it may make other people think that they can get away with other crimes involving POW.
Click to expand...

it was the whole showboating speech that ruined things for him, the Taliban wasn't exactly 'captured' yet. Frankly they could have put a few rounds into him before approaching him and they'd have been fine... he had a weapon and was a threat. It was once he was so clearly not a threat and he did the showboating thing for the rest of the guys before putting a round into him that screwed things up for him. Stupid thing is he may or may not have been dead already at that point and this guy was simply posing while putting some rounds into a dead body. Stating on camera that he'd broken the Geneva convention and jokingly asking if anyone wanted to treat the guy completely screwed things for himself.
 
dowie said:
he was stupid to do what he did, the correct course of action would have been to either attempt some form of first aid or do nothing as the Taliban was already dead

basically he's either put a bullet into a dead guy or he's finished off a guy close to death already, if the latter then I think that is indeed murder and should be punished but as far as murder cases go it probably warrants the lowest sentence - which is what he was awarded in the first place

this manslaughter ruling for mental health etc.. is the dubious bit, I'm generally a bit skeptical when people get away with murder as a result of some diminished responsibility. But comparing his situation with that of the Lee Rigby killers is frankly ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I'm saying he was completely in the right frame of mind if he wanted to make a quip about breaking the Geneva Convention, the combat was already over and the combatant was on the ground bleeding out and no longer a threat. Regardless, that's not his call to make - if he was going to die anyway, then that would happen while waiting for medical assistance. Their job is over as the threat was pacified. The comparison to Lee Rigby is a valid one, in their eyes Rigby was an enemy combatant and they were fighting a holy war, doesn't matter if he was unarmed and defenceless. Both fully aware of their actions and the consequences of such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom