TA soldier who shot suspected Taliban bomber in murder investigation

[walrusboy]

you cannot shoot someone for digging a hole

As I said before, if that description encompasses the entire circumstances of the case, I agree with you.

 

[Dollsteeth]

calm down dear.

God your a tit.

 

[RP578]

calm down dear.

r_s,

Mate you were the one determined to make a STAB/Reg issue out of this, complete with uninformed indignation and multiple exclamation marks. Telling someone who has taken the time to rebut your off the cuff accusations in detail to, "Calm down" is a bit ****ing rich.

 

[stabtoreg]

Without knowing the full facts of the case it is impossible to assess culpability. RoE and his CSMs opinion form part of the picture but they do not override honest belief in the common law rule of self-defence. If the boy has any sense he will already have taken some decent legal advice, maybe even financed by interested third parties. Some people might say that this should have been done by his unit after they had completed a comprehensive investigation. There are numerous precedents of unarmed and innocent people being killed by Security Forces where honest belief has formed an integral part of the decision to use force. Some of these have been mentioned on the thread already. We must not forget that it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty, not for him to prove his innocence.

My prediction? No further action. At a different time, with a different leadership outlook and a different unit, who knows, we might have seen his name on an operational honours list. It's all in the writing up, you know.

Honest belief in self defence? There is no way that this case can be looked upon in this way.

 

[kyle6327]

God your a tit.

Do u expect anything less from that trolling mong?

 

[Zarathustra]

As I said before, if that description encompasses the entire circumstances of the case, I agree with you.

Well it's the circumstances described by the bloke who might be getting investigated, his CoC and the the RMP must have cause to believe he is fibbing. The fact half his unit don't/didn't believe him just goes to say something about his character.

 

[Taffnp]

So the facts are : he saw someone digging 400m away and then placed a cloth bag into the hole and shot him.

A later search was unable to find the cloth bag. That's probably because it was a cloth bag buried in a hole and contained nothing metallic, maybe it was an unwanted present like a Val Doonican jumper.

Easy to say with hindsight and ample time to think about it, but what he should have did was mark the area and notify ops as soon he was able to get through. The individual had not placed his life in danger. Surely there would have been someone within shouting range.

As for his interview with the media, I was pretty sure that he would have been forbidden to speak to them and as a result this may predjudice his case.

 

[stabtoreg]

I note that the accused says that his CSM said that he had just shot an innocent guy, hmm! so how did CSM arrive at that conclusion unless of course he witnessed the event and failed to stop the situation going TU and if otherwise then the CSM is a twat and should be backing his man, not handing him his head on a platter, but I,ll await incoming from the legalistic ****ing brains here and until then as far as I,m concerned, our lad did his job as he saw it, end of.

You are not very clever are you. I pray to god you are not currently serving.

I was on the same tour as this occurred. It was at the height of the McCrystal Courageous restraint lunacy and the amount of judgemental and ROE training that went on was unbelievable. There is no way that someone deployed forward would consider this self defence at that time.

 

[AIRBORNEJOCK]

Only if there is an imminent threat to human life. A potential IED, in full view of a sangar with no one on the ground is not an imminent threat.

I agree theres something off about the whole story, but if youve got 2 braincells and stick to the golden statement coupled with the fact he said there was a patrol going out you could argue your case.

 

[Mr_Snakey]

you cannot shoot someone for digging a hole.

All the information we have has been released by the bloke who might be getting investigated for murder. He thought it would show him in a good light, it turns out most posters here 'with a brain' agree it seems fishy.

I agree 100% with you mate. I just needed to tweak it slightly.

 

[waitout]

So the facts are : he saw someone digging 400m away and then placed a cloth bag into the hole and shot him.

A later search was unable to find the cloth bag. That's probably because it was a cloth bag buried in a hole and contained nothing metallic, maybe it was an unwanted present like a Val Doonican jumper.

Easy to say with hindsight and ample time to think about it, but what he should have did was mark the area and notify ops as soon he was able to get through. The individual had not placed his life in danger. Surely there would have been someone within shouting range.

As for his interview with the media, I was pretty sure that he would have been forbidden to speak to them and as a result this may predjudice his case.

Read the article he never buried the bag.

The tgt continued to try and grab the bag so he continued firing

 

[Zarathustra]

I agree theres something off about the whole story, but if youve got 2 braincells and stick to the golden statement coupled with the fact he said there was a patrol going out you could argue your case.

I reckon that's he thought and when it didn't wash he started flapping, hence the story to the papers. If he'd spoken to the Ops Room they could have postponed the patrol or re tasked them to go into a cordon until other assets could be tasked.

 

[walrusboy]

Honest belief in self defence? There is no way that this case can be looked upon in this way.

You might not believe so and I might not believe so. However, we have an adversarial legal system in the UK and the person who achieves success is the one who can persuade the court that their version of events is the one to be believed. The defendent doesn't even have to give evidence or submit to questioning in court (although an inference can be drawn). The prosecution has to prove the facts beyond reasonable doubt. The defence only has to persuade the court that there are sufficient difficulties with the prosecution case to get their client acquitted. The technique of persuasion is the main purpose of the advocate. The truth is a sideshow. You might not like it but that's the way it is.

 

[Mr_Snakey]

I reckon that's he thought and when it didn't wash he started flapping, hence the story to the papers. If he'd spoken to the Ops Room they could have postponed the patrol or re tasked them to go into a cordon until other assets could be tasked.

I reckon he had comms with the Great Emperor Mong, peace be upon him, and I bet my left testicle he has EM as his legal council too!!!

 

[Taffnp]

I shot him twice in his back. He was sat down. He didn’t move. So I shot him a further twice. He rolled over and kept on going for the bag so I shot him a further twice and that was it. Six in all. Two and then another two and another two.”

I stand corrected

Maybe he was desperate that no one would see his Val Doonican jumper

 

[waitout]

Quite possibly, he may have simply been going for his lunch, worried that the other sand pikies might steal it, both us and the soldier in question will never know.

Obviously hiding dodgy Christmas jumpers in a field is hazardous to your health

 

[Sixty]

Unless anyone has anything else to add, I think this one will be locked soon; the thread's nothing more than speculation now.

 

[Mr_Snakey]

Trial by Arrse.

The facts provided in the article were considered and a verdict of 'fishy' was delivered.

 

[Tinman74]

Trial by Arrse.

The facts provided in the article were considered and a verdict of 'fishy' was delivered.

Did you expect anything else?