JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
Dom with a #goodpost
Also with regards to "trying to kill them 5 minutes ago, whats the difference now?" The difference seems clear to me. 5 minutes ago they were presumably armed and considered a threat, therefore the heli pilot was given the good ahead to take out that threat. 5 minutes later, you're left with a bunch of dead guys and a few wounded opposition who are of no threat whatsoever, therefore dont need killing anymore, they can be taken prisoner.
End of the day the rules of the Geneva convention are clear, he knew that too, thats why he tried to turn off his camera, the consequences were known and he chose to ignore them and now faces those consequences.
I wouldnt believe the sensationalist Daily Mail headlines either, he wont be in prison for the rest of his life. He'll be out within 5-10 years at most with good behaviour and a display of remorse
|
Cavey
Member
Registered: 11th Nov 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
Indeed. Its hardly rocket surgery.
He killed an unarmed injured man. Regardless of what you would of done. What you think he should not done, what that guy had previously done. Thats the be all and end all of it.
A trained soldier shouldn't do that. And as dom said and I've said earlier, he knew what he was doing, knew he shouldn't.
Also agree that "life" may be harsh, but I'd imagine he's undergone psych evaluations to find out whether he was "in control" of his actions, and they deemed he was. Presumably as he reportedly tried to cover it up
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by JonnyJ
considered a threat, therefore the heli pilot was given the good ahead to take out that threat.
"Considered" ?
So its OK if you're guessing?
Whether or not he had orders, you've got killing and killing. What's the objective? Neutralise the threat with the minimum loss of life? Ordering a helicopter to fly over and kill whoever is standing there is hardly the minimum.
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
If i meant guessing, id have said guessing.
Generally a considered decision is one which has been taken carefully having taken in all the information available to you. Bit different to going, "hey, them guys look a bit dodgy m8, lets fly a heli out to get them at great cost". They must have been enough of a threat at the time to warrant that action, but once you've taken out that threat, any wounded survivors should be taken care of in the correct manor. What does it gain shooting someone at point blank who isnt fighting back? Surely hes worth more to you alive, he could give you important information.
Anyway, nit picking over the wording aside, the rules are clear and he broke them, knowingly.
|
Ben G
Member
Registered: 12th Jan 07
Location: Essex
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gary
quote:
Originally posted by Ben G
I'm pretty sure he won't be in a regular prison mixing with rapists and paedophiles. They'll make him a hero, which is hardly punishing someone.
A proper rehabilitation may be best. He obviously has issues with self control and obeying orders.
Probably due to watching his mates get blown up by these guys. I challenge most people to have self restraint that these situations
I completely agree with you, but that still doesn't make it right.
|
Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
i love how Ian enters a debate like he is still a teacher. knows the right answer and trolls his students for the answer
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
Just think you'll struggle to make it OK for the helicopter guy to also kill people.
Considered, guessed, chanced, wondered, its not 100% threat to life self defence type of argument is it.
Up there in your helicopter, killing people.
I do agree on all points about the guy committing murder. Just struggling to separate that from the rest of it.
|
Dave
Member
Registered: 26th Feb 01
Location: Lancs
User status: Offline
|
Iirc soldiers out there can't even engage someone who they know for certain to be the enemy, for want of a better word, until they are fired upon themselves.
I've no doubt the bloke witnessed some horrible stuff but the "hanging body parts" seems typical DM propaganda and it doesn't excuse his actions.
|
Gary
Premium Member
Registered: 22nd Nov 06
Location: West Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
But if the guy was gonna die anyway what difference does it make?
|
Dave
Member
Registered: 26th Feb 01
Location: Lancs
User status: Offline
|
How do we know he was going to die anyway?
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
We know he broke the rules but it's whether you agree with the rules that's a whole different debate.
Personally I think if you break that particular rule if it's considered murder and is punishable as such then that is very hypocritical, perhaps should be a punishment for breaking that rule but punishable as murder is ridiculous when you take into account ians points.
Jambo had it spot on really, should be stripped of role and that's that.
[Edited on 09-11-2013 by Steve]
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
Just think you'll struggle to make it OK for the helicopter guy to also kill people.
Easy. If they are pointing a rocket launcher at it, then i think its fair to say fire away. A guy, unarmed, injured, not so much.
The difference is one is a threat and needs neutralising and one isnt. Like Dave said, they are under such strict rules about identifying a target and verifying that they are a threat before firing, so it must have been worth firing.
|
Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
Just think you'll struggle to make it OK for the helicopter guy to also kill people.
Considered, guessed, chanced, wondered, its not 100% threat to life self defence type of argument is it.
Up there in your helicopter, killing people.
I do agree on all points about the guy committing murder. Just struggling to separate that from the rest of it.
killing people spotted by a forward air controller and signed off by a high ranking officer. not like they just fire at everyone they fancy blowing up 
|
Gary
Premium Member
Registered: 22nd Nov 06
Location: West Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave
How do we know he was going to die anyway?
Had he not just been mullered by a chopper?
Either way, if he'd have had a gun in his hand I bet one of our lads would have been dead. Armed or unarmed.
|
Welly Wanger
Member
Registered: 5th Jan 12
Location: Cambodia stroke Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
Not really as he would have been a threat and would have been taken care of and he'd be still there now
|
Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
IF he had a gun in his hand they would have fired at him with their SA80 assault rifles while approaching, not point blank in the chest with a 9mm pistol.
|
Cavey
Member
Registered: 11th Nov 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gary
quote:
Originally posted by Dave
How do we know he was going to die anyway?
Had he not just been mullered by a chopper?
Either way, if he'd have had a gun in his hand I bet one of our lads would have been dead. Armed or unarmed.
Unfortunately thats not the point. The point is, he didn't have a weapon. He was injured. And one of "our lads" shot him and killed him. By the rules of his job, and the Geneva convention that shouldn't of happened. Therefore its officially murder.
|
Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
its not even a debate
|
Gary
Premium Member
Registered: 22nd Nov 06
Location: West Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
Shut up Russ.
|
Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
See Gary, you are able to tell me to shut up because we are governed by rules in everything we do, if we werent, i'd come and give you a fucking cuddle.
|
Gary
Premium Member
Registered: 22nd Nov 06
Location: West Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
Soz 'ard.
If there isn't a debate then why is there one?
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
Cos some people want us to be more like the Taliban it seems
|
Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
because the daily mail pray on the ignorant people in the uk with sensationalist headlines.
"afghan veteran charged for murder after killing taliban soldier"
when it should read
"British Marine assassinates unarmed man"
|
Gary
Premium Member
Registered: 22nd Nov 06
Location: West Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
Difference of opinion.
|
Ben G
Member
Registered: 12th Jan 07
Location: Essex
User status: Offline
|
Even the sun said it as it is. No bullshit headlines like the daily mail. Makes a change.
|
