We’ve been round this one before. If the video is genuine, it depicts murder.
The circumstances; his state of mind, how many tours he had done, his apparent unsureness etc etc are irrelevant to the primary issue; he shot an unarmed man cowering in the foetal position.
The circumstances may include a defence of diminished responsibility, but that would be a matter for the defence to prove.
I have to disagree there Bob. All we are seeing is a video of an incident that happened in three minutes. We see it through tunnel vison via the camera. We see soldier C highly agitated after a chase catch up with a man running off after a chase who has been brought down by the patrols dog. He appears agitated and is asking should he terminate the man on the ground, he doesn't receive a definate answer and so shoots the man and walks away. End of video. We subsequently learn that the dead person is an innocent man who is just a young man with learning difficulties.
What we don't know from the short video is the background before the incident and Soldier C's intent. There are a number of things that the defence would look at if Soldier C ends up in court and pleads 'Not Guilty'.
Mark Donaldson in his autobiography states that they had to deal with loots of IED's and that there were intelligence reports of a bombmaker in Pakistan sending young teenagers and mentally impaired young people into the area with suicide vests who were told to set them off near coalition forces. He also states that footpads of hard pack earth along the river bank and cutting in between each field were high traffic areas and vunerable for IED's as the enemy knew that they would be walking along the footpads.
What was the background of Soldier C? Was he a new guy on his first tour just off reinforcement cycle, or was he an experienced soldier who had carried a number of tours? If so, was he showing any signs of strain? Mark Donaldson says that this was an extremely busy tour. What incidents had Soldier C dealt with before this event? Had he or his patrol dealt with IED's and suicide bombers before?
What was the mission that day and had there been any int in the briefing about IED's and suicide bombers? Was the target close to where the incident took place? The deceased was spotted by the aircrew digging near a footpad by the riverbank which may suggest that the helicopter was approaching its target area. The heliocopter pilot radio's the patrol that they have seen a suspicious male digging a whole who may be planting an IED.
The heliocopter lands near the young man, who being simple minded is frightened that this big bird lands near him disgorging angry armed westerners and runs off. The patrol think he is running because he is planting an IED and gives chase. The land shark is released and brings down the young man. The patrol catches up, the dog handler recalls his job. The lead scout - Soldier C covers the man and the others stand a bit back. The young man, being simple minded and having just been mauled by a land shark is terrified and naturely curls up in a ball and clutches his red prayer beads, which is the worst thing he could do in the circumstances.
Soldier C is in tunnel vision mode thinking 'suicide bomber' as the events leading up to this moment with the young man digging, running off, and then curling up in a ball clutching what could be a detonater fits the profile of a suicide bomber. He asks his patrol several times if he should shoot the person on the ground. The answer he receives from his patrol members is inconclusive. They don't know. The decision goes back to Soldier C. Several seconds have passed where a genuine suicide bomber could have detonated his bomb vest, but this is not in Soldier C's thought train. A young man who has learning difficulties may have been confused and hesitant to iniate a bomb vest if he had been a genuine suicide bomber.
Soldier C then shoots the young man killing him. Are ATO then called to check the body to see if he has a suicide vest or this this done by the patrol? The video does not show this.
Taking into account the events leading up to the fatal shooting and the unfortunate actions of the young Afghan, if Soldier C had a genuine belief he was dealing with a suicide bomber and that his life and that of his patrol was imminent danger then his actions would be justified under the laws of self defence even though subsequent events proved that there was no such danger.
Therefore the would be no intent of murder and no manslaughter as his actions would not be reckless to the consequences.
Off course they could have just been passing, seen an Afghan digging and run off when they landed, set the land shark on him and then Soldier C murdered the young man for 'shit and giggles' as it was obvious they were only prayer beads and you could see he had nothing under his clothing when he was curled up in a ball.
We will soon find out if it goes to court. In the meantime we will have to make do with the verdicts from the armchair Perry Mason's.
