Alexander Blackman BBC Interview

Sorry? Paid for it? By being released early because the murderer's conviction was downgraded isn't exactly 'paying for it'.
Well again just my opinion, but for me he paid in accordance with the circumstances of the crime. As I said murder / manslaughter has degrees, I won’t spare any emotions over this one
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Well again just my opinion, but for me he paid in accordance with the circumstances of the crime. As I said murder / manslaughter has degrees, I won’t spare any emotions over this one
Fair enough. We all have opinions and us disagreeing about it on here won't change anything. Hope you didn't think I was having a pop at you as a site member.
 
Interesting point.

I wonder how many think that the Team that slotted the IRA scum on Gibraltar should be brought to trial; ECHR censured us - a small fine actually, less than a slap across the wrists - but, from what I have read, they were slotted and good riddance too.

Blackman got caught, the indignation at his 'crime' on this site is beyond comprehension.
I was one of those who was pretty indignant at the time, mainly over the fact that many seemed to think that no crime had been committed. The crime itself seemed fairly understandable, but that didn’t mean he should get off.

I’m glad he got off leniently, but he needed to face justice.
 
As I've said elsewhere, what was going though his mind or his experience carries no weight unless you offer the same latitude to the SS when they shot the unarmed and/or prisoners.

SS, yanks, us. Where I’d draw some distinction is that the SS had a history (culture?) of shooting pows etc. whereas other armies might have examples of prisoners being shot (at the point of capture or when returning them to the rear) it was not systematic or officially condoned. Similar to Blackman.
 
Revenge,Retribution ?---- people who give no quarter deserve none.
 
I think that part is largely nonsense. Sociopathy or antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is mostly to do with low level social issues - people with an actual fixation on killing are a vanishingly tiny subset of this group. Cases such as Blackman and other battlefield incidents appear to be more to do with the temporary mental disorientation of ordinary people under intense stress.
Having worked with highly dangerous psychopaths as it happens it’s not nonsense, it depends what they think they can get away with for the most part. Most DSPD people started in a fairly low level way and moved up. Put them in a lower consequence environment (or one that appears to be) and what can happen is obvious. History and conflict is full of examples of this.

However it also doesn’t follow necessarily or at all that Blackman fell into that category.
 
Interesting point.

I wonder how many think that the Team that slotted the IRA scum on Gibraltar should be brought to trial; ECHR censured us - a small fine actually, less than a slap across the wrists - but, from what I have read, they were slotted and good riddance too.

Blackman got caught, the indignation at his 'crime' on this site is beyond comprehension.
That’s a ludicrous comparison. The two incidents aren’t remotely comparable.
 
Having worked with highly dangerous psychopaths as it happens it’s not nonsense, it depends what they think they can get away with for the most part. Most DSPD people started in a fairly low level way and moved up. Put them in a lower consequence environment (or one that appears to be) and what can happen is obvious. History and conflict is full of examples of this.

However it also doesn’t follow necessarily or at all that Blackman fell into that category.
You’re point about the consequence environment is interesting. We’re brought up to think that killing/murder is the most terrible thing which occurs within our society and that the consequences will be swift and severe.

Then you land in an environment where people are being killed so regularly that it becomes mundane. Once the act of killing is no longer significant I think it’s more likely that incidents such as this will occur.
 
Last edited:
I was one of those who was pretty indignant at the time, mainly over the fact that many seemed to think that no crime had been committed. The crime itself seemed fairly understandable, but that didn’t mean he should get off.

I’m glad he got off leniently, but he needed to face justice.
Fair point.
 
It’s an extremely good programme and makes the point that pure psychopaths excepted, humans really don’t like killing other humans close up, hence the steadily more stand off nature of weaponry as technology progresses.
Most of human warfare history has been killing people up close. Before firearms were invented some battles had tens of thousands of people hacking at each other.
The Colosseum, public hanging/guillotine, witch burning, extermination camps, etc are also examples of humans liking a bit of pain and death inflicted on other humans.
 
Most of human warfare history has been killing people up close. Before firearms were invented some battles had tens of thousands of people hacking at each other.
The Colosseum, public hanging/guillotine, witch burning, extermination camps, etc are also examples of humans liking a bit of pain and death inflicted on other humans.
See comments about low consequence environments and acceptance of low value of life. As soon as technology was developed that in enabled it fighting in wars became steadily more ‘stand-off’ in nature. Doing it from a distance is both safer and less troubling for humans. The current result of this is people in a shipping container in Nevada killing insurgents in Afghanistan a la PlayStation.

Although it’s fair to add that they suffer from higher PTSD rates than some other trades, thought to be as a result if replays, seeing collateral damage etc
 
Then you land in an environment where people are being killed so regularly that it becomes mundane. Once the act of killing is no longer significant I think it’s more likely that incidents such as this will occur.
I think that's why there needs to be a clear and clearly understood set if rules governing where killing is no longer significant and a determined enforcement of same by anyone with a rank.
 
See comments about low consequence environments and acceptance of low value of life. As soon as technology was developed that in enabled it fighting in wars became steadily more ‘stand-off’ in nature. Doing it from a distance is both safer and less troubling for humans. The current result of this is people in a shipping container in Nevada killing insurgents in Afghanistan a la PlayStation.

Although it’s fair to add that they suffer from higher PTSD rates than some other trades, thought to be as a result if replays, seeing collateral damage etc
I would suggest that weapon technology was developed because it made winning the battles much easier. Not because anyone cared about the mental welfare of those doing the killing.
I would suggest that society and not humans feelings are what cause people to shy away from killing. Today we are taught from a young age that killing in wrong, so people grow up without witnessing death. Once humans have killed a few people and realised they arent going to jail/hell then they continue, not just psychopaths but normal people.
 
I would suggest that weapon technology was developed because it made winning the battles much easier. Not because anyone cared about the mental welfare of those doing the killing.
I would suggest that society and not humans feelings are what cause people to shy away from killing. Today we are taught from a young age that killing in wrong, so people grow up without witnessing death. Once humans have killed a few people and realised they arent going to jail/hell then they continue, not just psychopaths but normal people.
And that’s also a possibility, however there are other possibilities too and ones that can happily co-exist. The programme referred to suggested it as another possibility and it’s a strong one that’s supported by a lot of research. It’s not a zero sum issue.

There’s been a lot of research into this with people from WW2. It turns out that only 20% of soldiers interviewed even fired their weapons on D Day going across the beaches and several went the entire way through Europe without firing a shot. None of this is conclusive but the general findings were that most people don’t want to kill other people and wouldn’t even in a permissive environment. It’s a complex area of study and it’s never really got further than the above.
 
I would suggest that weapon technology was developed because it made winning the battles much easier. Not because anyone cared about the mental welfare of those doing the killing.
I would suggest that society and not humans feelings are what cause people to shy away from killing. Today we are taught from a young age that killing in wrong, so people grow up without witnessing death. Once humans have killed a few people and realised they arent going to jail/hell then they continue, not just psychopaths but normal people.
The only reason we’re not murdering each other left right and centre is because there’s a law against it.
 
The only reason we’re not murdering each other left right and centre is because there’s a law against it.
Thats probably quite true, look what happens in civil wars, people who have been peaceful neighbours for years turn into killers overnight.
 
And that’s also a possibility, however there are other possibilities too and ones that can happily co-exist. The programme referred to suggested it as another possibility and it’s a strong one that’s supported by a lot of research. It’s not a zero sum issue.

There’s been a lot of research into this with people from WW2. It turns out that only 20% of soldiers interviewed even fired their weapons on D Day going across the beaches and several went the entire way through Europe without firing a shot. None of this is conclusive but the general findings were that most people don’t want to kill other people and wouldn’t even in a permissive environment. It’s a complex area of study and it’s never really got further than the above.
Was there any data collected from the Waffen SS?
 
I think that's why there needs to be a clear and clearly understood set if rules governing where killing is no longer significant and a determined enforcement of same by anyone with a rank.
i'd agree with that, especially the part about enforcement/example set by the chain of command. what i liked about the earlier post which talked about trying to convince the individual that the rules were there to protect them (effectively from moral injury), rather than there to protect the enemy, is that it's not just based on a threat.

this is important because laws are black and white* and once you're in combat a while everything will get a bit grey. to give a reasonably common example from WW2; you can shell a village before an attack, kill civvy's and that's legal, but you cant kill the nazi you came here to kill because now he's surrendered, but only after he and his pals killed your pal and scared the crap out of you. oh and by the way, you need to escort him back to the rear through sporadic mortar fire......

that's pretty grey.

but if you can make a decent argument for why killing the nazi in cold blood is likely to mess you up them more of them might make it to the rear



*if someone can come up with something better than the rule of law then grand but i'm pulling up a blank
 
this is important because laws are black and white* and once you're in combat a while everything will get a bit grey. to give a reasonably common example from WW2; you can shell a village before an attack, kill civvy's and that's legal, but you cant kill the nazi you came here to kill because now he's surrendered, but only after he and his pals killed your pal and scared the crap out of you. oh and by the way, you need to escort him back to the rear through sporadic mortar fire......
My bold; in simple terms, parity of treatment.

Yes, on occasion the Krauts (SS in particular) did indeed murder surrendered PWs at Dunkirk, in Normandy, the Ardennes offensive and other when the Allies were occasions going through Europe. No-one is denying that. But, by & large, a young GI or Tommy going through the bocage, if captured, had a better than even chance of being treated humanely and safely being removed from the area to a holding facility then onward to a PW camp.

Compare & contrast with the Eastern Front, where PWs of either side were extremely lucky (dependent upon your perspective) to survive the capture process, which if indeed you did, would lead to the remainder of your rather pathetic existence in captivity being spent as a malnourished, beaten & abused slave labourer with a life expectancy measured in months. More likely though, you'd get a 9mm round to the neck or a rifle butt to the skull.

If you want the best chances for decent treatment for your blokes when they fall captive, then you have to lead the enemy to believe that their blokes will get the same. The fact that some of their blokes will not keep their side of the bargain is irrelevant; nor do all of ours.

Besides which, it's f***ing inhumane to do anything else, especially out of revenge. Last time I looked we'd moved out of caves several centuries ago.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top