Barrack Room Lawers

Curtailing suffering - if I was in that position I would be grateful to one of my pals for putting me out of my pain!

and that's the point isn't it.

Should there be a case for a "Mercy Killing" outside of the Law for Murder. Walking up to some dude on a street and shooting him point blank is surely far different than putting a severely wounded soldier out of his misery.
 

cessna123

Clanker
and that's the point isn't it.

Should there be a case for a "Mercy Killing" outside of the Law for Murder. Walking up to some dude on a street and shooting him point blank is surely far different than putting a severely wounded soldier out of his misery.

Returning to my original point, were I the judge or the prosecutor I would be ashamed of my part in that trial for the rest of my life.

I hope Capt Semrau can put this all behind him and have successful civilian career.
 
The true ethics behind this case is the clear message that if you find a wonded enemy soldier who may... have had his arms and legs blown off, have half his guts hanging out, still be conscious, thrashing around and screaming in absolute agony whilst on fire and covered in naplam (as with the Argy guy in Goose Green...not this taliban chappy).. then you must give them first aid! At no point should you be allowed to end his pain immediately, even though it is clear that he isnt going to survive for more than a few minutes.

Also at no point should you consider just leaving him as undoubtedly the do-gooders will get you for failing to give first aid.

In the case quoted above though, the WO said that the taliban fella had an 'impassive look on his face' doesnt sound like je was in agony, sounded like the Capt should have just let him expire in his own good time!
 

bianchi

War Hero
T a wonded enemy soldier who may... have had his arms and legs blown off, have half his guts hanging out, still be conscious, thrashing around and screaming in absolute agony whilst on fire and covered in naplam

Don't let truth get in the way of a good story. Why not embelish this one further... ...if you can.

I stand by the comments I made throughout, you cannot allow soldiers to be judge and jury on when they can kill a fallen soldier. The officer may well be found innocent, but killing someone, who is not a legitimate target is not acceptable, indeed it is illegal. If we have soldiers serving who cannot make the distinction between a lawful killing and an unlawful killing, we need some law of armed conflict training.
 
Don't let truth get in the way of a good story. Why not embelish this one further... ...if you can.

I stand by the comments I made throughout, you cannot allow soldiers to be judge and jury on when they can kill a fallen soldier. The officer may well be found innocent, but killing someone, who is not a legitimate target is not acceptable, indeed it is illegal. If we have soldiers serving who cannot make the distinction between a lawful killing and an unlawful killing, we need some law of armed conflict training.

The Law tells us that there is no absolute. If he can persuade the Court that he felt unable to humanely take any other action then they can find him not guilty. There have been many case where people have killed other people but been found not guilty of murder. In fact many never even come to Court.

I know I'm quoting fiction but cast your mind to the end of the film Full Metal Jacket. The fatally injured sniper begs to be killed and Joker eventually offs her because he can't bear to see her suffer. Guilty of murder?
 
The Law tells us that there is no absolute. If he can persuade the Court that he felt unable to humanely take any other action then they can find him not guilty. There have been many case where people have killed other people but been found not guilty of murder. In fact many never even come to Court.

I don't think there have been many in recent times, involving killing the enemy, he probably had a better chance in court if it was one of his own soldiers.
I know I'm quoting fiction but cast your mind to the end of the film Full Metal Jacket. The fatally injured sniper begs to be killed and Joker eventually offs her because he can't bear to see her suffer. Guilty of murder?

Legally? Yes. As was said before there is no exemption in law in place for killing the defenceless enemy because you thought it would end their suffering.
 
Comes down to what's more important -- doing what's legal or doing what's right?

If there was a threat of doing 25 years, I'd chose doing whats legal.
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
Might be morally correct, but still does not make it legal.

Thanks for your input. Morals is one thing. The law is another.

The body of the alleged “victim” has never been recovered,

@ bianchi - Do a Google on 'habeas corpus' then go file your nails while the prosecution file out quietly and we can finally break for lunch.

you cannot allow soldiers to be judge and jury

Indeed so. That is why Capt Semrau is standing in front of a Judge. Getting stitched like a kipper. Dunno about you son, but I hope the man can put the horror behind him and move on without PC Muppets snapping at his heels screaching "I would have done it different".

And while I'm on bianchi, given the detail above, what would you have done different in the circumstances? Thrill me with your acumen, Clarice.
 

K9-Soldier

Swinger
Killing for mercy sake or Murder ?. Definition of murder= The unlawfull killing of a human being by a human being with malice afore thought, either expressed or implide. From the information given Capt Semrau didn't express any malice towards the Taliban but felt mercy for the individual to end his suffering and pain and therefore no malice implied. I think the prosection would find it very difficult to prove the state of mind of Capt. S when he carried out the act.

Therefore for what its worth: Not Guilty me Lord
 
Killing for mercy sake or Murder ?. Definition of murder= The unlawfull killing of a human being by a human being with malice afore thought, either expressed or implide. From the information given Capt Semrau didn't express any malice towards the Taliban but felt mercy for the individual to end his suffering and pain and therefore no malice implied. I think the prosection would find it very difficult to prove the state of mind of Capt. S when he carried out the act.

Call me mister picky but a individual saying he did it without malice isnt always going to be believed.

No you wouldn't. You, more than most would stick by what you believe is right. So would I.

No I wouldn't, Granted I might do anything if I thought I'd get away with it, but I'm fucked if I going to do something I think is likily to get me banged up and neither would a great deal of other people, Lee Clegg did the what he thought was the right thing and it cost him 5 years of his life.
 
Call me mister picky but a individual saying he did it without malice isnt always going to be believed.



No I wouldn't, Granted I might do anything if I thought I'd get away with it, but I'm fucked if I going to do something I think is likily to get me banged up and neither would a great deal of other people, Lee Clegg did the what he thought was the right thing and it cost him 5 years of his life.

The point is that if you think you're doing the right thing then you aren't afraid of the consequences because you believe you're right to do what you did. If you're right to do what you did then you don't think/appreciate/realise that you're actually committing a crime.
You come across a man raping a woman and you drag him off her and smack him one to subdue him. You've assaulted him occasioning actual bodily harm. You had good reasons to believe you were doing the right thing, you still assaulted him though, would you expect to end up in Court for it, could you ever envisage that happening when you acted instinctively?
 
The point is that if you think you're doing the right thing then you aren't afraid of the consequences because you believe you're right to do what you did. If you're right to do what you did then you don't think/appreciate/realise that you're actually committing a crime.
You come across a man raping a woman and you drag him off her and smack him one to subdue him. You've assaulted him occasioning actual bodily harm. You had good reasons to believe you were doing the right thing, you still assaulted him though, would you expect to end up in Court for it, could you ever envisage that happening when you acted instinctively?

Nope, I'm well aware that smacking people can end up in court, I'd probably come up with a story involving him having a knife and was trying to kill me. However restraining a rapist with my boot (several times) is a bit different to shooting a defenceless enemy on the grounds it was for reasons of mercy.
If you see a wounded man you know you should not shoot him, nothing instinctive about it. We are not allow to shoot the defenceless enemy. The law forbids it. It doesnt matter whether we agree or not, like the ECHR we can't chose what laws apply to us.
 
The point is that if you think you're doing the right thing then you aren't afraid of the consequences because you believe you're right to do what you did. If you're right to do what you did then you don't think/appreciate/realise that you're actually committing a crime.
You come across a man raping a woman and you drag him off her and smack him one to subdue him. You've assaulted him occasioning actual bodily harm. You had good reasons to believe you were doing the right thing, you still assaulted him though, would you expect to end up in Court for it, could you ever envisage that happening when you acted instinctively?

This bloke I've just 'smacked' was in the process of committing what used to be called an arrestable offence, and if I knew that what I was witnessing was a rape, and not a consensual act between two adults, I would be perfectly within my rights to carry out a citizen's arrest, using the minimum amount of force compatible with achieving my aim. It is not, therefore, assault.
 
Don't let truth get in the way of a good story. Why not embelish this one further... ...if you can.

I stand by the comments I made throughout, you cannot allow soldiers to be judge and jury on when they can kill a fallen soldier. The officer may well be found innocent, but killing someone, who is not a legitimate target is not acceptable, indeed it is illegal. If we have soldiers serving who cannot make the distinction between a lawful killing and an unlawful killing, we need some law of armed conflict training.

I am not embelishing anything matey, I did, if you bothered to read my whole post, say that this is what happened to the one of the Argentinian soldiers in the Falklands war. They were 'asked' to clear away munitions from near to the POW sheds at Goose green as it was in their best interest. The pile of munitions was booby trapped and went bang, The Chaplain of two Para helped to drag one guy out of the fire, mortally wounded the other who was further in the flames and couldnt be pulled out was still alive and in the condition that I have described, an Army medic grabbed a rifle off one of the nearby Paras and shot the fella as they couldnt get to him.

This isnt a Hollywood war story this is witnessed fact, and I didnt write it for gratuitous violence or tittilation. The Medic was faced with a moral dilema and he chose to put the poor fella out of his misery, he may have only lasted a few seconds more before dying anyway but who knows?

So that was the situation, you in your high moral ground of law and rights would have no doubt let him burn and scream.. I like to think that I would have had the moral courage to do what the medic did and end the guys agony.

But I will qualify what I ahve said once again, The Warrant Officer testified that he thought the wonded taliban was dead, hence he wasnt on fire or flapping about in agony, so would I have shot a guy who is slowly and quietly dying? No I doubt it.
 
This bloke I've just 'smacked' was in the process of committing what used to be called an arrestable offence, and if I knew that what I was witnessing was a rape, and not a consensual act between two adults, I would be perfectly within my rights to carry out a citizen's arrest, using the minimum amount of force compatible with achieving my aim. It is not, therefore, assault.

Well, that's what you thought. Trouble is the 'victim' is his girlfriend and she may have two black eyes and a vaginal tear or two but she said they were just having a bit of rough sex and you just came along and started on her poor innocent boyfriend.
You knew you were witnessing a rape, trouble is victim and rapist say different.
 

Latest Threads

Top