Marine sent to prison

[RED-DOG]

As for the casualness I don't know. Not defending them but I met a company from a unit a few years ago that had a ridiculous attrition rate. 7 of them came back from tour out of a platoon...I can't remember exact numbers but thats like 15% not killed or injured. Absolutely broken guys, almost zombie like. Perhaps casualness can be mistaken for the symptoms of a brutal tour. I really don't know, but would never take things at face value.

Well if they have seen even just a couple of their mates killed you can understand why they would do this. I'm leaning gradually more to that side of the argument after reading more stuff about it.

What it would be a good reason for some insurgents to capture and kill a British soldier?

No idea, you should ask an insurgent lol

You have no opinion when the roles are reversed?

[Woodsey]

As for the casualness I don't know. Not defending them but I met a company from a unit a few years ago that had a ridiculous attrition rate. 7 of them came back from tour out of a platoon...I can't remember exact numbers but thats like 15% not killed or injured. Absolutely broken guys, almost zombie like. Perhaps casualness can be mistaken for the symptoms of a brutal tour. I really don't know, but would never take things at face value.

Well if they have seen even just a couple of their mates killed you can understand why they would do this. I'm leaning gradually more to that side of the argument after reading more stuff about it.

What it would be a good reason for some insurgents to capture and kill a British soldier?

No idea, you should ask an insurgent lol

You have no opinion when the roles are reversed?

That is not what Celtic asked.

[celtic]

As for the casualness I don't know. Not defending them but I met a company from a unit a few years ago that had a ridiculous attrition rate. 7 of them came back from tour out of a platoon...I can't remember exact numbers but thats like 15% not killed or injured. Absolutely broken guys, almost zombie like. Perhaps casualness can be mistaken for the symptoms of a brutal tour. I really don't know, but would never take things at face value.

Well if they have seen even just a couple of their mates killed you can understand why they would do this. I'm leaning gradually more to that side of the argument after reading more stuff about it.

What it would be a good reason for some insurgents to capture and kill a British soldier?

No idea, you should ask an insurgent lol

You have no opinion when the roles are reversed?

That is not what Celtic asked.

It was what I meant. Maybe I worded it wrong? Was battling err, stomach pains at the time

[Woodsey]

As for the casualness I don't know. Not defending them but I met a company from a unit a few years ago that had a ridiculous attrition rate. 7 of them came back from tour out of a platoon...I can't remember exact numbers but thats like 15% not killed or injured. Absolutely broken guys, almost zombie like. Perhaps casualness can be mistaken for the symptoms of a brutal tour. I really don't know, but would never take things at face value.

Well if they have seen even just a couple of their mates killed you can understand why they would do this. I'm leaning gradually more to that side of the argument after reading more stuff about it.

What it would be a good reason for some insurgents to capture and kill a British soldier?

No idea, you should ask an insurgent lol

You have no opinion when the roles are reversed?

That is not what Celtic asked.

It was what I meant. Maybe I worded it wrong? Was battling err, stomach pains at the time

I honestly don't know, I'm not an insurgent, I will guess they would most likely kill our soldier irrespective of whether this had happened of not. If you guys are insurgents and know better then tell me lol.

[celtic]

As for the casualness I don't know. Not defending them but I met a company from a unit a few years ago that had a ridiculous attrition rate. 7 of them came back from tour out of a platoon...I can't remember exact numbers but thats like 15% not killed or injured. Absolutely broken guys, almost zombie like. Perhaps casualness can be mistaken for the symptoms of a brutal tour. I really don't know, but would never take things at face value.

Well if they have seen even just a couple of their mates killed you can understand why they would do this. I'm leaning gradually more to that side of the argument after reading more stuff about it.

What it would be a good reason for some insurgents to capture and kill a British soldier?

No idea, you should ask an insurgent lol

You have no opinion when the roles are reversed?

That is not what Celtic asked.

It was what I meant. Maybe I worded it wrong? Was battling err, stomach pains at the time

I honestly don't know, I'm not an insurgent, I will guess they would most likely kill our soldier irrespective of whether this had happened of not. If you guys are insurgents and know better then tell me lol.

But you are not a soldier and have a view from their point of view..

[Woodsey]

As for the casualness I don't know. Not defending them but I met a company from a unit a few years ago that had a ridiculous attrition rate. 7 of them came back from tour out of a platoon...I can't remember exact numbers but thats like 15% not killed or injured. Absolutely broken guys, almost zombie like. Perhaps casualness can be mistaken for the symptoms of a brutal tour. I really don't know, but would never take things at face value.

Well if they have seen even just a couple of their mates killed you can understand why they would do this. I'm leaning gradually more to that side of the argument after reading more stuff about it.

What it would be a good reason for some insurgents to capture and kill a British soldier?

No idea, you should ask an insurgent lol

You have no opinion when the roles are reversed?

That is not what Celtic asked.

It was what I meant. Maybe I worded it wrong? Was battling err, stomach pains at the time

I honestly don't know, I'm not an insurgent, I will guess they would most likely kill our soldier irrespective of whether this had happened of not. If you guys are insurgents and know better then tell me lol.

But you are not a soldier and have a view from their point of view..

What? I never said I was lol, I just said my opinion was being swayed from what I've read from soldiers and non soldiers, some here but mostly elsewhere.

[Ironside]

As for the casualness I don't know. Not defending them but I met a company from a unit a few years ago that had a ridiculous attrition rate. 7 of them came back from tour out of a platoon...I can't remember exact numbers but thats like 15% not killed or injured. Absolutely broken guys, almost zombie like. Perhaps casualness can be mistaken for the symptoms of a brutal tour. I really don't know, but would never take things at face value.

Well if they have seen even just a couple of their mates killed you can understand why they would do this. I'm leaning gradually more to that side of the argument after reading more stuff about it.

What it would be a good reason for some insurgents to capture and kill a British soldier?

No idea, you should ask an insurgent lol

You have no opinion when the roles are reversed?

That is not what Celtic asked.

It was what I meant. Maybe I worded it wrong? Was battling err, stomach pains at the time

I honestly don't know, I'm not an insurgent, I will guess they would most likely kill our soldier irrespective of whether this had happened of not. If you guys are insurgents and know better then tell me lol.

But you are not a soldier and have a view from their point of view..

What? I never said I was lol, I just said my opinion was being swayed from what I've read from soldiers and non soldiers, some here but mostly elsewhere.

majority of soliders i have spoken too both past and present and this includes my whole family and myself think that marine A broke the law and should be serving time behind bars

a large number of the people shouting about letting the guy off with murder have leanings too right wing parties like the EDL

or dont understand what happened and why its wrong

i would not say all in either case

[celtic]

Hasn't this been happening for years anyway, not just in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm surprised people are surprised.

Can someone explain though, how a British court can try him for a crime commuted abroad? I'm sure there is a good reason.

He wasn't tried by a civil court, it was a court martial. Forces personnel - wherever in the world they are, no matter what time it is - are subject to military law. Quite alot of the time civil authorities will not action offences but just refer them to the military. This is because not only does it ease the admin burden on them, they know the military courts will deal with offences rigidly.

The article states they were charged under Section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

Hadn't realised that lee, cheers for answering.

[teamonkey]

As a former soldier i am of the opinion that yes a crime was committed, and therefore a punishment is required.

However, as in many "civilian" cases there are some mitigating circumstances that should have been taken into account by the court, and the punishment adjusted accordingly.

Exactly what adjustments have or have not been done, is not my, or anyone else on this forum, or even the public in generals, call.

Perhaps a way to think about this is what would you, as an individual, do to protect yourself or someone very close to you, from a life threatening situation? How far would you go, what "laws" would you break, to protect life that is close to you?

[celtic]

As a former soldier i am of the opinion that yes a crime was committed, and therefore a punishment is required.

However, as in many "civilian" cases there are some mitigating circumstances that should have been taken into account by the court, and the punishment adjusted accordingly.

Exactly what adjustments have or have not been done, is not my, or anyone else on this forum, or even the public in generals, call.

Perhaps a way to think about this is what would you, as an individual, do to protect yourself or someone very close to you, from a life threatening situation? How far would you go, what "laws" would you break, to protect life that is close to you?

How does the last paragraph relate to this case?

[david3103]

 I agree, in general with Tom's position which is that his actions were wrong and deserving of punishment. I can't imagine the way this guy felt at the time but the people who prosecuted and convicted him seem likely to be able to.
I do think the whole thing should have been dealt with in camera and the release of his name puts his family at risk and is a far crueller punishment than the jail term.

I'm left with an uncomfortable thought though

It seems it is ok for the US to summarily execute Bin Laden in cold blood but a guy who acted in the immediate heat of a battle finds his family put in the public spotlight as well as himself.

[teamonkey]

As a former soldier i am of the opinion that yes a crime was committed, and therefore a punishment is required.

However, as in many "civilian" cases there are some mitigating circumstances that should have been taken into account by the court, and the punishment adjusted accordingly.

Exactly what adjustments have or have not been done, is not my, or anyone else on this forum, or even the public in generals, call.

Perhaps a way to think about this is what would you, as an individual, do to protect yourself or someone very close to you, from a life threatening situation? How far would you go, what "laws" would you break, to protect life that is close to you?

How does the last paragraph relate to this case?

I wasnt attempting to relate it to the case in question, should probably have started a new thread tbh if this were to be discussed.

[rfgqqabc]

When i first heard about this case I presumed that this must have been a particular brutal case and he had been "grassed up" by other marines. I'm not sure whether I'm more or less shocked having heard he had the footage on his laptop. I really feel for the pressure these guys must have been under despite not truly being able to relate. However, knowingly breaking the Geneva convention means he has to be punished. The audio sounded so casual, it was pretty frightening.

[teamonkey]

As a former soldier i am of the opinion that yes a crime was committed, and therefore a punishment is required.

However, as in many "civilian" cases there are some mitigating circumstances that should have been taken into account by the court, and the punishment adjusted accordingly.

Exactly what adjustments have or have not been done, is not my, or anyone else on this forum, or even the public in generals, call.

Perhaps a way to think about this is what would you, as an individual, do to protect yourself or someone very close to you, from a life threatening situation? How far would you go, what "laws" would you break, to protect life that is close to you?

How does the last paragraph relate to this case?

I wasnt attempting to relate it to the case in question, should probably have started a new thread tbh if this were to be discussed.

Guy was no longer a threat. You can't shoot him. If anything he gets first aid.

agreed

[Royal Flush]

It was clear cut cold blooded killing, much the same way as the British soldier was killed in the streets of Woolwich, anyone trying to defend either act with 'mitigating circumstances' is being far too kind.