Marine A - Right or wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted Member 1156
  • Start date Start date
pauldj42 said:
Not searching for anything as imo he did the right thing, he was going to die slowly and given the choice of risking his patrol or the MERT to get this person to a hospital or end his suffering, Sgt Blackman made the right call imo.
Click to expand...

The judges comments when giving the verdict

http://converseprisonnews.com/marine-gets-life-judges-remarks-in-full/

I'll highlight a few things

When he was moved

to quote what you said: “PGSS can’t see what we’re doing to him.”

He also stated that he thought he was already dead when he shot him

The facts are all in that document and opinions backed up military judges.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
The judges comments when giving the verdict

http://converseprisonnews.com/marine-gets-life-judges-remarks-in-full/

I'll highlight a few things

When he was moved

to quote what you said: “PGSS can’t see what we’re doing to him.”

He also stated that he thought he was already dead when he shot him

The facts are all in that document and opinions backed up military judges.
Click to expand...

Changes nothing Phil, as imo he should never have been charged.
 
HomerJSimpson said:
Apparently not especially when you can call on google to give answers to suit :eek::whistle: Still doesn't change the fact it's conjecture at the moment and no view is categorically right or wrong
Click to expand...
You've obviously changed your mind because initially you stated unless PTSD it's was a very clear cut case!
 
Quite amazed by the naivety of some posters on here who have served in the forces and think all of our forces are whiter than white with the exception of the odd incident like this one TBH.

My view is that, yes he shouldn't have done what he did but I'm staggered it was ever allowed to get as far as it did. Plus I have the ease of my armchair to say he shouldn't have, god only knows what he's been through to that point.

Unless of course the establishment wanted to take the opportunity to give the impression our forces always comply 100% with laws of engagement etc.......

I've never been in the forces myself but a lot of close friends and family who are and first hand accounts of their involvement in certain engagements would make some pass out with shock going by the posts on here. War is a horrendous business, stiff upper lips and handshakes all round don't get the job done a lot of the time.
 
HomerJSimpson said:
I have my opinion. I may be right or wrong but until the verdict is delivered it's simply an opinion and in my mind PTSD is going to be a major contributory factor
Click to expand...
What verdict?
Your first post made sense, the ones that followed are purely petty point scoring and using such a serious subject to get your digs in, is sad imo.
 
NWJocko said:
Quite amazed by the naivety of some posters on here who have served in the forces and think all of our forces are whiter than white with the exception of the odd incident like this one TBH.

My view is that, yes he shouldn't have done what he did but I'm staggered it was ever allowed to get as far as it did. Plus I have the ease of my armchair to say he shouldn't have, god only knows what he's been through to that point.

Unless of course the establishment wanted to take the opportunity to give the impression our forces always comply 100% with laws of engagement etc.......

I've never been in the forces myself but a lot of close friends and family who are and first hand accounts of their involvement in certain engagements would make some pass out with shock going by the posts on here. War is a horrendous business, stiff upper lips and handshakes all round don't get the job done a lot of the time.
Click to expand...


I agree that a lot of stuff goes on that are against the rules. But now and again people get caught doing it and then that person will get punished an example to others and to show that we play fairly, unlike the people we are fighting.
 
MadAdey said:
I agree that a lot of stuff goes on that are against the rules. But now and again people get caught doing it and then that person will get punished an example to others and to show that we play fairly, unlike the people we are fighting.
Click to expand...

Bit selective though isn't it if you're the unfortunate one that is seen/caught? We happy to condone it if we don't see it?

Incredibly hypocritical IMO but then I'm not making the decisions....
 
pauldj42 said:
What verdict?
Your first post made sense, the ones that followed are purely petty point scoring and using such a serious subject to get your digs in, is sad imo.
Click to expand...

I'm not looking to score any points. Sorry if thats how it came across but I do feel (especially as you say on a serious subject) that everyone has a right to a view and sometimes others don't always look at that in full. That however is ALSO an opinion. I was talking about the bail hearing (due Wednesday) and the fact that the verdict call be quashed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...r-blackman-must-wait-wednesday-bail-decision/) Until then surely what may or may not have gone before is on hold and any opinion is subjective. I'm bowing out tonight (early start and don't want this to be a side show)
 
NWJocko said:
Bit selective though isn't it if you're the unfortunate one that is seen/caught? We happy to condone it if we don't see it?

Incredibly hypocritical IMO but then I'm not making the decisions....
Click to expand...


I don't condone what he did at all, I'm just pointing that I'm not naive enough to think that this is an isolated incident. It is unfortunate for him that he got caught and is being made an example of.

But when you break the law you run that risk and that is what he has done. Right or wrong in peoples minds, that is the cold hard facts. Now if it is proven he was suffering with PTSD or there was other mitigating circumstances then that is for legal system to decide, not me.
 
These 'Rules of Engagement' seem rather selective and devoid of the emotions and stress that can affect our judgement. I would like to see Sgt Blackman tried by a civilian jury rather than a court marshal as this would remove the trial from the military that sit in private and allow us to understand better the circumstances of what happened and under what conditions.

When a howitzer is fired at a target are the ROE being applied?
When a Brimstone Missile is sent through a window are the ROE being applied?
When a submarine fires a torpedo at a surface ship are the ROE being applied?
When an HMG is fired indiscriminately into the distance are the ROE being applied?
And so on and so forth.
 
freddielong said:
I have always found it really bizarre how two side who are trying to kill each other have to follow rules.
Click to expand...


BEcause it is those rules that protect innocent civilians in times of an armed conflict. By having those rules it makes people accountable for anything they do that is just plain wrong. Imagine what war would be like if we did not follow rules? Prisoners being tortured and abused, female soldiers being sexually assaulted, innocent women and children being slaughtered.
 
MadAdey said:
BEcause it is those rules that protect innocent civilians in times of an armed conflict. By having those rules it makes people accountable for anything they do that is just plain wrong. Imagine what war would be like if we did not follow rules? Prisoners being tortured and abused, female soldiers being sexually assaulted, innocent women and children being slaughtered.
Click to expand...
Bit like Aleppo then.
 
freddielong said:
I have always found it really bizarre how two side who are trying to kill each other have to follow rules.
Click to expand...

i find it unusual how they say 'we dont like the landmines that jump in the air and spray everyone with ball bearings but the ones that use high explosives and blow your limbs clean off your body are ok'
 
SocketRocket said:
These 'Rules of Engagement' seem rather selective and devoid of the emotions and stress that can affect our judgement. I would like to see Sgt Blackman tried by a civilian jury rather than a court marshal as this would remove the trial from the military that sit in private and allow us to understand better the circumstances of what happened and under what conditions.

When a howitzer is fired at a target are the ROE being applied?
When a Brimstone Missile is sent through a window are the ROE being applied?
When a submarine fires a torpedo at a surface ship are the ROE being applied?
When an HMG is fired indiscriminately into the distance are the ROE being applied?
And so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

Because anything you attack is identified as a legitimate target. When the military attack something they pretty much ask the lawyers first to make sure that they are not going outside of the Geneva convention. With the modern precision strike weapons that are used now they can pretty much hit a flea up it's arse if they want to, reducing the risk of civilian victims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top