Marine A - Right or wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted Member 1156
  • Start date Start date
Kellfire said:
A worrying result. A cold blooded murder carried out to appease both his own blood lust and to impress those around him. His own words proved he knew what he was doing and how wrong it was. Pathetic decision.
Click to expand...


Is this the thing I saw a little while ago where this is all on video and after the guy shoots the enemy dead he tells his mates... "we just broke the Geneva Convention so lets keep this to our selves" ?

If so, ye this was cold blooded murder.
 
Alex1975 said:
Is this the thing I saw a little while ago where this is all on video and after the guy shoots the enemy dead he tells his mates... "we just broke the Geneva Convention so lets keep this to our selves" ?

If so, ye this was cold blooded murder.
Click to expand...

Yep thats the one
 
Coffey said:
Yep thats the one
Click to expand...


So he waited for helicopters to clear so that they could not see him gun down an incapacitated man yet he had a camera on his person or one of the other soldiers with him did. He then shot the man dead and clearly stated that he knew he had just broken the Geneva Convention by murdering the man and then encouraged the rest of the team to lie or conceal the murder.

I fail to see how people on here are saying they are not in a position to judge? Its as clear as the nose on your face, its premeditated, cold blooded murder.
 
Alex1975 said:
So he waited for helicopters to clear so that they could not see him gun down an incapacitated man yet he had a camera on his person or one of the other soldiers with him did. He then shot the man dead and clearly stated that he knew he had just broken the Geneva Convention by murdering the man and then encouraged the rest of the team to lie or conceal the murder.

I fail to see how people on here are saying they are not in a position to judge? Its as clear as the nose on your face, its premeditated, cold blooded murder.
Click to expand...

That's how I see it as well, he seemed very clear of mind at the moments before, during and after.
I get the "walk a mile in his shoes" argument but at the same time that just makes it a one way discusion, it's ok to back him, but not ok to be against him.
I heard the defendants barrister on the radio yesterday, came across as a grade A tw@t, started to get all anti PC when challenged about having sympathy for the Taliban bloke who was murdered/slaughtered/manslaughtered.
 
Alex1975 said:
So he waited for helicopters to clear so that they could not see him gun down an incapacitated man yet he had a camera on his person or one of the other soldiers with him did. He then shot the man dead and clearly stated that he knew he had just broken the Geneva Convention by murdering the man and then encouraged the rest of the team to lie or conceal the murder.

I fail to see how people on here are saying they are not in a position to judge? Its as clear as the nose on your face, its premeditated, cold blooded murder.
Click to expand...
You, like everyone else is entitled to an opinion and it woukd be a sad world if we all agreed on everything, but instead of making such a judgement over a subject you clearly have limited knowledge of, why not take the time to watch the Panorama programme from last night or read the link I posted above.
Maybe, just maybe it's not as clear cut as you believe, he's now been found guilty of manslaughter by diminished responsibility, so legally it certainly wasn't murder.
 
Beezerk said:
That's how I see it as well, he seemed very clear of mind at the moments before, during and after.
I get the "walk a mile in his shoes" argument but at the same time that just makes it a one way discusion, it's ok to back him, but not ok to be against him.
I heard the defendants barrister on the radio yesterday, came across as a grade A tw@t, started to get all anti PC when challenged about having sympathy for the Taliban bloke who was murdered/slaughtered/manslaughtered.
Click to expand...
Of course it's ok to be against him, it's a free world, but surely any discussion should be reasoned both ways, people using terminology like "blood lust" etc is pure fiction,
maybe we should stick to facts rather than speculation.
 
I've not seen the programme, and have no intention of watching it.

But a question with regards to the judgement handed down. How can a diagnosis of diminished responsibility be given x months/years later?
 
pauldj42 said:
You, like everyone else is entitled to an opinion and it woukd be a sad world if we all agreed on everything, but instead of making such a judgement over a subject you clearly have limited knowledge of, why not take the time to watch the Panorama programme from last night or read the link I posted above.
Maybe, just maybe it's not as clear cut as you believe, he's now been found guilty of manslaughter by diminished responsibility, so legally it certainly wasn't murder.
Click to expand...


Yep yep 100%. I tried to find the Panorama program last night but did not manage too, I will be looking it out. However if "diminished responsibility" is all that come out of it, ill be just thinking the same as I wrote previously. Premeditated Murder! He planned to kill the man, he waited to do so and then did so... he then made it clear on film that he knew what he had just done. Pretty clear cut?!
 
Alex1975 said:
Is this the thing I saw a little while ago where this is all on video and after the guy shoots the enemy dead he tells his mates... "we just broke the Geneva Convention so lets keep this to our selves" ?

If so, ye this was cold blooded murder.
Click to expand...

You should read the blog in the link above
 
Hobbit said:
I've not seen the programme, and have no intention of watching it.

But a question with regards to the judgement handed down. How can a diagnosis of diminished responsibility be given x months/years later?
Click to expand...

His barrister said said he "could" have had some form of mental impairment, just a loophole as far as I'm concerned.
 
Alex1975 said:
Yep yep 100%. I tried to find the Panorama program last night but did not manage too, I will be looking it out. However if "diminished responsibility" is all that come out of it, ill be just thinking the same as I wrote previously. Premeditated Murder! He planned to kill the man, he waited to do so and then did so... he then made it clear on film that he knew what he had just done. Pretty clear cut?!
Click to expand...
So again not waiting to see the programme or read the evidence, just your decision based on the media!
 
Hobbit said:
I've not seen the programme, and have no intention of watching it.

But a question with regards to the judgement handed down. How can a diagnosis of diminished responsibility be given x months/years later?
Click to expand...
Have a read of the secret barrister link I put up Bri, it mentions that in there, that link does not take sides or support anyones viewpoint.
 
He should have been assessed for PTSD before the original charge or trial and it should have been manslaughter because of the PTSD that it appears he was suffering from.
 
Beezerk said:
Yet you want us to watch the media to base an opinion? :D
Click to expand...
I suggested watching the programme and reading the link, at least then his opinion is informed, rather than his initial post of not even knowing what this thread was about.
 
Beezerk said:
For doing the profession he chose to do, yeah right. Anyway, enough of winding you up ;)
Click to expand...
It doesn't wind me up mate, I'd be the first to defend your right to your opinion. :)

I only get wound up when people pass judgement or tell us why how the bloke was feeling etc without at least educating themselves on facts about the subject. :thup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top