calm down dear.
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.
As I said before, if that description encompasses the entire circumstances of the case, I agree with you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Honest belief in self defence? There is no way that this case can be looked upon in this way.
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.