# RM commando sentence.



## J•RED (Feb 10, 2013)

Is anyone else disgusted with the way this marine is being sentenced? As far as I know he's going to get a far worse term than that of a child killer on our streets.

Just totally shocked. It's nothing that they wouldn't of done to us. He killed an armed combatant that was probably going to die anyway.

Sent to do a job and this is how it ends up. Grips my sh*t. Our "leaders" should serve in any conflict they enter us into.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Callum-TT (Jun 3, 2013)

Erm guy really?

Regardless of wether the "other guy" would have done the same is irrelevant.

The royal marine knowingly disregarded the rules of engagement and the Geneva convention.

He was sent there to clear the area after an apache attack. They dragged the injured "soldier" to an area covered from view of the gunship then joked about who would kill him.

Personally as an ex serviceman who served in Afghanistan & Iraq I am glad he has been sentenced to life.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

Good job all the other countries we fight go by the rules isn't it........

That guy was there trying to kill marines, he deserves to die before he killed any of our guys! The only things the marine did wrong were to brag about it and get caught.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Danny1 said:


> Good job all the other countries we fight go by the rules isn't it........


You can't have it both ways. You can't justify our presence in their country by claiming the moral high ground, then say we should sink to their level when we feel like it.

The guy executed an injured man. If you think that's acceptable, then I honestly wonder what you think we're over there fighting for.


----------



## prop135 (Aug 8, 2011)

Callum-TT said:


> Erm guy really?
> 
> Regardless of wether the "other guy" would have done the same is irrelevant.
> 
> ...


Ditto mate. He wasnt putting the bloke out of his misery and he wasnt following rules of engagement.

I understand the arguement about our enemies not following the Geneva convention, I understand the frustration of being shot at and not being able to fire back, anyone who has served in the last 20 years or so knows what it is like to lose a friend.

What makes us stand out against all other countries is the fact we follow the rules and that includes treating injured enemy combatants properly. The RM Sgt broke with that and has been caught, found guilty and will now serve his sentance.

He is also not representative of British troops who uphold much higher standards (when not drunk or wearing womens clothing)

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Yes, he was sent there to do a job but he didn't do it properly and it wasn't an armed combatant - he was disarmed and injured. Saying he was going to die anyway is doubtful and devaluing life only belittles the very principal of the Geneva convention and removes any claim to moral justification. The most you can say is that the soldier was mentally affected by his circumstances, which is an argument for sentencing but there is no argument to say that what he did was right.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

The sentence is set by law in this case as a life sentence, which can mean anything from a 15 year sentence up to a whole life sentence, i.e. he never gets out. His final sentence depends on what recommendations are made at final sentencing which is adjourned until 6th December. but sentencing is governed by very strict guidelines.

What he did was obviously wrong, but i do hope that the prolonged emotional stress under which these guys serve for long periods is taken into account at sentencing.


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

igotone said:


> What he did was obviously wrong, but i do hope that the prolonged emotional stress under which these guys serve for long periods is taken into account at sentencing.


+1


----------



## J•RED (Feb 10, 2013)

Obviously there's a lot of debate around this topic, and I wouldn't expect anything less as we are all human and have different opinions. 
Just a had a read of this.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/4246911

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## prop135 (Aug 8, 2011)

Its a very good arguement and a well written article. So we allow the 'fog of war' and combat stress to define the way our forces operate on the ground? Only apply the rule of law when fighting those spiffing chaps ze germans?

About 80000 uk troops have beem through afghan about 8000 of those have been front line troops, 466 of them are dead, many thousands injured.

God knows how many of these incidents have happened but every squaddie knows if you cock up and get caught the book is going to get thrown at you. Marine A has been to hell and back but he broke the 11th commandment and got caught, more importantly though for me is he let down everyone of his mates who went to hell with him but played by the rules. Just my opinion though

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Without getting into the morality of it, what's so pathetic is that three guys couldn't keep this between themselves, leaving video evidence to be found , and one guy actually writing a journal about it FFS!


----------



## neilc (Aug 8, 2011)

This is a hard one really , having personally served in the forces before I can associate with what has happened , and the stress of combat , seeing your friends killed and wounded it is almost impossible to stop this happening on occasions.

One thing that does strike me about this particular case is that it's well known fact that our Special forces along with the Americans actively hunt down and kill insurgent leaders and often would complete their missions in dubious legality. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And if you want to talk about the Geneva convention and the way we conduct this war , then perhaps the use of drone strikes needs bringing into question , is killing 20 civilians in one strike acceptable just to eliminate one target :?

War is brutal and terrifying and not a game like Call of Duty. Right or wrong this man deserves our understanding.

Free Marine A.


----------



## J•RED (Feb 10, 2013)

neilc said:


> This is a hard one really , having personally served in the forces before I can associate with what has happened , and the stress of combat , seeing your friends killed and wounded it is almost impossible to stop this happening on occasions.
> 
> One thing that does strike me about this particular case is that it's well known fact that our Special forces along with the Americans actively hunt down and kill insurgent leaders and often would complete their missions in dubious legality. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
> 
> ...


Well said Neil.

If any of you have the time and support marine A would you sign this petition? It only takes two minutes. Some of you may already have and I thank you for it.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/56810

Regards, Jason.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Lollypop86 (Oct 26, 2013)

Done and stuck on my book of face

J
xx


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

What people are missing the Geneva convention is for war and soldiers the taliban are terrorists who string peoples body parts in trees, and quite happily detonate a bomb anywhere. I personally say tough sh t, they don't care so when someone acts the same all hell breaks loose, double standards


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

robokn said:


> What people are missing the Geneva convention is for war and soldiers the taliban are terrorists who string peoples body parts in trees, and quite happily detonate a bomb anywhere. I personally say tough sh t, they don't care so when someone acts the same all hell breaks loose, double standards


I don't think anyone is missing that point. But are you really suggesting that it's ok to behave like they do? If so, why are we fighting them?


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> robokn said:
> 
> 
> > What people are missing the Geneva convention is for war and soldiers the taliban are terrorists who string peoples body parts in trees, and quite happily detonate a bomb anywhere. I personally say tough sh t, they don't care so when someone acts the same all hell breaks loose, double standards
> ...


Good point, exactly why are we fighting the Taliban anyway? It's a pointless un winnable "war". Forcing democracy on people doesn't work. Afghanistan would have come out the dark ages all by it's self in time.

All this "war" has achieved is creating piles of dead people that should still be alive. Once we leave Afghanistan it will quickly revert back to as it was. And it will all have been a tremendous waste of life money and time.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> robokn said:
> 
> 
> > What people are missing the Geneva convention is for war and soldiers the taliban are terrorists who string peoples body parts in trees, and quite happily detonate a bomb anywhere. I personally say tough sh t, they don't care so when someone acts the same all hell breaks loose, double standards
> ...


I think that makes the argument succinctly - well put.

In a similar way you wouldn't want the police to be above the law and behave like the criminals they oppose :roll:

Interesting contrast - when a police officer breaks the law there's no public sympathy with accusations of double standards, hypocrisy and claims that they should have higher standards, should know better, so harder sentencing.

When a soldier beaks the rules apparently the rules don't matter? :?

Whether they should have been sent in the first place is another point. Perhaps we are all to blame for that?


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

John-H said:


> Whether they should have been sent in the first place is another point. Perhaps we are all to blame for that?


  really how can we be to blame, most people opposed this "war" but our idiot governments are hell bent on sticking their noses where they are not welcome, who made us "protectors of the globe" anyway? 
Country's like Afghanistan, Iraq etc...... cannot be forcefully made democratic havens of free culture. Most of the time when we interfere we leave the place in a worse state than when we started. Terrorist attacks have increased and the universal hatred of our ways has spread thought these country's we are achieving nothing.

But then perhaps it's not about "liberating" these people from tyrannical rein, perhaps it's about more, dare I resources.

If it's not why are we so reluctant to liberate country's who have no oil or ore, Syria anyone!

I wonder if Syria was sitting on few trillion barrels of oil if we would be so reluctant to be their knight in shining armour?


----------



## J•RED (Feb 10, 2013)

Afghanistan is a training ground for extremists and terrorists. Terrorists that infiltrate our country to perform atrocities through terrorism. Extremists who come into our country and convert people to sharia law, who in turn are performing atrocious acts on our public and other non believers. Not to mention taking over in some parts of the country. However that can be debated in another topic.

I do believe the war in Afghanistan had good intentions to eradicate these types of people.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

Don't sacrifice this man on the altar of political correctness: COLONEL TIM COLLINS believes the convicted Marine deserves some understanding

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2kqG7lGUO 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

J•RED said:


> Afghanistan is a training ground for extremists and terrorists. Terrorists that infiltrate our country to perform atrocities through terrorism. Extremists who come into our country and convert people to sharia law, who in turn are performing atrocious acts on our public and other non believers. Not to mention taking over in some parts of the country. However that can be debated in another topic.
> 
> I do believe the war in Afghanistan had good intentions to eradicate these types of people.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


Yea totally explains why most of these terrorists are from Pakistan, or are British nationals who attended training camps in Pakistan, even Osama bin Ladin was found in Pakistan! Come on are you really that gullible ?


----------



## J•RED (Feb 10, 2013)

brian1978 said:


> J•RED said:
> 
> 
> > Afghanistan is a training ground for extremists and terrorists. Terrorists that infiltrate our country to perform atrocities through terrorism. Extremists who come into our country and convert people to sharia law, who in turn are performing atrocious acts on our public and other non believers. Not to mention taking over in some parts of the country. However that can be debated in another topic.
> ...


:lol: Not disagreeing with you about Pakistan bud you're quite correct. Pakistan's government has a lot to answer for, but what do you expect when it funded the Taliban pre 2001? Then bin laden ends up there. :roll:

Gullible?

I'm sure most of the world has had the cloak pulled over their head in one scenario or another.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

brian1978 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Whether they should have been sent in the first place is another point. Perhaps we are all to blame for that?
> ...


As individuals most of us may have opinions which may not match the winning party's decisions in a first past the post election on an individual issue obviously but en masse we make up our country's electorate with a system of democratic government we accept and vote to support. It's up to us to vote in a government we want and vote out a government that does things we don't agree with and bring issues we find important to the attention of our MPs. We seem more concerned about our own personal safety, wealth, keeping the lights on and domestic affairs to make a foreign war an election losing strategy it seems.


----------



## neilc (Aug 8, 2011)

I was watching a program the other night about WW2 and general Eisenhower talking openly about how he and the US Army overlooked the murder of wounded or captured German Army snipers by their American captors.

His reasoning was that the effect on his troops morale of death by sniper far outweighed the legality of murder of the sniper once wounded or captured.

In the Falklands paratroopers cut the ears off Argentine dead soldiers and kept them as trophies. Sounds sickening doesn't it ?? But as I mentioned previously combat isn't for the squeamish , it's not a game , it's brutal and viscious and always has been and always will be.

Unless you have served in a warzone and experienced combat first hand , do not presume that the normal rule of law at home works in that environment , you simply cannot compare what a corrupt Police officer does and what an infantry soldier does in a warzone and expect them to be judged in the same way.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

neilc said:


> Unless you have served in a warzone and experienced combat first hand , do not presume that the normal rule of law at home works in that environment , you simply cannot compare what a corrupt Police officer does and what an infantry soldier does in a warzone and expect them to be judged in the same way.


No one expects the normal rule of law at home to work in that environment. That's why new rules were made. I'm not naive enough to think those rules are always followed, but you can't complain when you're punished for breaking them.

This guy broke the rules. There's no doubt or debate about that. There's a discussion to be had about his punishment, but lets not pretend there's some ambiguity about what he did.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

neilc said:


> I was watching a program the other night about WW2 and general Eisenhower talking openly about how he and the US Army overlooked the murder of wounded or captured German Army snipers by their American captors.
> 
> His reasoning was that the effect on his troops morale of death by sniper far outweighed the legality of murder of the sniper once wounded or captured.
> 
> ...


+1 well put!


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> neilc said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you have served in a warzone and experienced combat first hand , do not presume that the normal rule of law at home works in that environment , you simply cannot compare what a corrupt Police officer does and what an infantry soldier does in a warzone and expect them to be judged in the same way.
> ...


The rules that police and soldiers are supposed to follow are different of course but the corollary is they each have their own and are supposed to follow them. What's the point of rules if they are not enforced. The very fact we are enforcing them is something that allows us to say we are better then those who don't. What sort of message would it send to ignore them and accept such behaviour?


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

John-H said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > neilc said:
> ...


It's a shame they don't seem to enforce them with regards to the police, the IPCC is run by a lot of ex cops who are as corrupt as they come. 2 clear cases of police braking the rules and law were recently brushed under the carpet. the guy got no compensation for the damage to his phone. The incident was filmed. Watch the Glasgow video it's hilarious. The pc even asks the guy if he "can call it quits" after he realised he messed up lol.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ublic.html

Minor and trivial stuff. :lol:

But what about when it's serious? What about that thug Simon Harwood who assaulted and killed an innocent man, newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson at the G8 summit, he was simply going home and was not even part of the protest.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... inson.html

The police have apologised and admitted one of it's officers "unlawfully killed" this man yet he was not punished.

So why should marine A be serving a life term for murder, yet Simon Harwood is free, surely we should have seen an absolute minimum a charge of culpable homicide and subsequently sentencing. 
One thing is certain if Ian has pushed Simon over and Simon was dead he would be currently serving a long long time in prison.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

brian1978 said:


> But what about when it's serious? What about that thug Simon Harwood who assaulted and killed an innocent man, newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson at the G8 summit, he was simply going home and was not even part of the protest.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... inson.html
> 
> ...


Harwood was charged with manslaughter which IS a 'culpable homicide'

The law assumes that a reasonable person of sound mind should foresee the likely consequences of their actions. If you shoot someone in the chest at close quarters the very likely consequence is that the person will die. When you also have the person responsible on video tape discussing the killing of the man beforehand with two other marines then there's little doubt about the degree of intent which is the very basic necessary element for a charge of murder.

Harwood pushed Tomlinson and struck him with his baton.. No reasonable person would have foreseen Tomlinson dying as a result so a murder charge would have been laughed out of court.

Harwood was charged with manslaughter. All that it was necessary to prove was that Harwood's actions were unlawful and that Tomlinson died as a result. It was not necessary to prove any intent to kill so manslaughter was absolutely the right charge. In the event, Harwood was acquitted by a jury of his peers, so if you suspect a whitewash then it was Joe Public wielding the brush.

There really is no similarity between these two incidents anyway, but unfortunately for this marine he stands convicted of wilful premeditated murder for which the sentence is fixed by law. Sentencing is adjourned whilst the judge considers what recommendations he makes, but he'll have very little leeway apart from handing down a minimum life term. Like many others, I hope the guy gets whatever clemency the judge can give him.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

igotone said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > But what about when it's serious? What about that thug Simon Harwood who assaulted and killed an innocent man, newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson at the G8 summit, he was simply going home and was not even part of the protest.
> ...


no doubt the two cases are totally different. But Harwood was admonished of manslaughter where had the shoe been on the other foot and a man had struck a policeman and killed him you and I both know that he would not get much leniency let alone get off with it.

On a lesser scale take the fella that had his phone smashed for filming in public, if he had knocked the policemans radio out of his hand and broke it he would have undoubtedly been charged with criminal damage and most likely assaulting a policeman.

The point I'm making is that if we make rules then the people in authority must follow them. Unfortunately especially with the police the rules only seem to be enforced when it suits them.


----------

