[Closed] Sergeant Blackman?

I personally despise the idea that someone can have an excuse for their actions (mental illness). Murder is still murder. However in his case I heartily approve. It shouldn't have come to court in the first place. Medal would have been better.
The Geneva convention things was, according to him, about a corpse not a living enemy. Well, the corpse of an enemy is irrelevant and a living enemy is an enemy.

Got lucky or deserved more time in prison.

He is a soldier and a soldier shoots bullets at enemy - dead or alive.

The order is simple annihilate the enemy or be annihilated.

Nobody came out well from this whole episode.
He remains convicted of the unlawful killing of a man for all of the bluster on show outside the court today from his supporters.

How many actually read the judgement?

The judges said: “There can be little doubt that on 15 September 2011 the appellant was angry and vengeful and had a considerable degree of hatred for the wounded insurgent. On prior deployments, similar emotions had been controlled by him.

“The appellant’s decision to kill was probably impulsive and the adjustment disorder had led to an abnormality of mental functioning that substantially impaired his ability to exercise self-control.”

And that judgement was wrong.

He killed a seriously injured enemy.

The other options appear to have been:

a) Call in a medivac and expose his platoon to risk
b) Leave the guy to die slowly and painfully

I know what I would of done.

It should of never of got to court.

And that judgement was wrong.

In your opinion and that of others. However it was the judgement of a court of law.

I expect that only a few on here are even remotely qualified to comment on this matter.

But it's the internet so do carry on

[quote=jonnyboi ]I expect that only a few on here are even remotely qualified to comment on this matter.

I agree.

I don't think we have any qualified judges on STW.

qualified to comment

Oh? Do explain

Ah, but the genie had been let out of the bottle. Much of the chat section here is opinion. In mine, of course, its all wrong!
I suspect the point is that many people disapprove of our courts in some way or another. Naturally we all have our own little views.
I agree that in many ways many of us are not qualified in that we do not know the letter of the law. However our collective opinion is what makes society.
Who was it who said that the law is an ass?

The other options appear to have been:
a) Call in a medivac and expose his platoon to risk
b) Leave the guy to die slowly and painfully

Having spoken to some who were in theatre at the time...

Nearly all agree it was wrong..

Most say they'd have done something similar..

You're risking a heli & its crew for someone who'd happily slot you. Include his fractured state of mind & it's not too hard to see how it came about.

There are higher-ups who should be called to task but I bet they probably won't be.

Damn mess.

The only thing that was done wrong was filming the bloody thing and then not deleting it.
I know a few people who would have been in nick if mobile phones and body cams were more popular when I was in the army

Can honestly say I would have done the exact same thing.
With or without mental illness as an excuse/diagnosis.

In theatre you do not risk your team, others, etc for the sake of an enemy that seconds before had been trying to make you the casualty.

Its not an execution - its an expedient measure to release resources where they are needed most.
That most certainly isn't trying to save the unsaveable.

I'd have done the same. In fact, I'd have shot him whether he was moving/screaming or not. I'd also have ensured that none of my patrol were permitted to wear head cams.
I have heard rumours (from very reliable sources) about how this came to light. The whole thing has been a shit show.

The only thing that was done wrong was filming the bloody thing and then not deleting it.
I know a few people who would have been in nick if mobile phones and body cams were more popular when I was in the army

This.

Could he not just have left him to die? "Oh sorry thought he was dead". I've not or never will be in that situation so I dont know but the whole thing seems all kinds of wrong to me. Like that Israeli guy who shot the injured bloke.

If he'd shot the insurgent from a distance or at least done it without the audience and the purposeful words he used, he would have gotten away with it. Unfortunately he was made a point of the execution and on camera (the video had been running long before, so I expect he was aware of it - although he may say he wasnt).
There are rules of engagement and he has broken them, on film and pretty blatantly. For this, he has to pay for his mistakes else what is the point? It provides more material for the enemy, breaks the law and is embarrassing to the British armed forces.
I'm not saying I dont agree with the killing, I'm saying he was a fool to have gone about it the way he did. This whole court case should have been behind closed doors away from the public.

The only thing that was done wrong was filming the bloody thing and then not deleting it.
I know a few people who would have been in nick if mobile phones and body cams were more popular when I was in the army

in effect you are saying his only crime was getting caught?

no wonder some people distrust the army as this would reinforce their prejudices.

"There are rules of engagement and he has broken them, on film and pretty blatantly. For this, he has to pay for his mistakes else what is the point? It provides more material for the enemy, breaks the law and is embarrassing to the British armed forces."

this

Could he not just have left him to die?

He would remain a risk to your unit. If matey feels better all of a sudden and tramples up from behind and starts shooting your mates, you're going to feel a bit of a berk

True I suppose. I've not looked at it all much but someone up there said he was seriously injured so I presumed he wasnt moving. Surely you just keep shooting from a distance so he could still ve a threat.. or not have cameras? The whole thing seems very odd are cameras usual?

I don't think matey was in a fit state to do anything.

If we start to behave like the Taliban, randomly executing people, we lose our moral compass, and the whole point of being there.

‘Shuffle off this mortal coil.’

He should have been locked up purely for coming out with this. What a waste.

A situation like this calls for one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's action movie one liners, not Shakespeare.

I've been very disappointed with the headlines on this case today "Marine to be freed". Followed by pictures of the supporters cheering.

I think his wife has handled it with some dignity today, and the judges comment that if we act like this we are no better than the terrorists.

The news is "Marine convicted of unlawful killing nears end of custodial part of revised sentence"

Not quite so catchy.

He executed a prisoner and made a joke of it. There's no defending that.

Would 7 years have been enough for a Taliban doing the same to a soldier?

Jujuuk68 - Member
If we start to behave like the Taliban, randomly executing people, we lose our moral compass, and the whole point of being there.

True I suppose. I've not looked at it all much but someone up there said he was seriously injured so I presumed he wasnt moving. Surely you just keep shooting from a distance so he could still ve a threat.. or not have cameras? The whole thing seems very odd are cameras usual?

There is only one way to ensure beyond any doubt that someone ceases to be a threat.

That chap wasn't a prisoner. He was a belligerent, still armed and in the field.

He killed someone who was going to to die anyway - don't think I've seen anyone claim he was other than fatally wounded.

Should not have done it. Should not have made light of it. Should have been jailed for it, and has been. But not the same as the summary execution of an able bodied prisoner.

Very difficult to decide if the sentence is sufficient. I feel it probably is, in the specific circumstances of the case.

Is he subject to a dishonourable discharge as well, if these still exist?

If we start to behave like the Taliban, randomly executing people, we lose our moral compass, and the whole point of being there

He wasn't randomly executed. If you mean someone felt justified in shooting dead/executing what they consider a threat then we've been doing that for a long time.

What do you think happens with drone strikes, a cheeky tickle and a buttock fondle?

CHEWKW hit the nail on the head ^^

Yes I am jimw. having been in the army I totally understand why it needed to be done. I Just can't understand how they were so stupid as to get caught

Well Firestarter, I am afraid 'being in the army' is not sufficient grounds for breaking the law in my book. if this offends you, well so be it. it is only my opinion after all

"Could he not just have left him to die? "Oh sorry thought he was dead". I've not or never will be in that situation so I dont know but the whole thing seems all kinds of wrong to me."

This.

7 years for this, the most understandable and forgivable of murders seems about right to me and not very different to the original sentence. Given that justice seems to have been done AFAIC.

I bet Islamists are using this event in their propaganda. 🙁

EDIT, actually, not going to get involved.

Jimw It doesn't offend me in the slightest I'm not sure where I gave the impression that it might have.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and those opinions will be different from person to person. Some speak from experience some from their beliefs. It's what makes the world go round

Although it does seem quite interesting the difference in opinions of people who have been in combat and those that haven't

Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article,

So the gunship pilot who keeps firing when the enemy are down and wounded, does he get charged with murder?

Personally I'm glad he's going to be released.

If he wore another countries uniform or say belonged to ISIS and did this how sympathetic would folk be in this scenario?
IMHO the "illness" is just a convenient way because we all feel sorry for one of our brave boys [ even me to some degree] and we do know that some do indeed get mental illness and have difficulties after the fog of war. However in this case I think its a reason/excuse so we can have a "populist" decision that we support only because of the uniform he wears and an emotive reaction rather than the facts.

Actually, if he wore the uniform of another nations country it would be a very different thing indeed for me at least.

populist" decision

What makes you say that?

illness

Have you had much contact with anyone suffering from PTSD?

I'm with firestarter,shouldn't have idiots like that leading men. DOING IT ON CAMERA, oddly was more bothered about his words of distain than the actual shooting.

shouldn't have idiots like that leading men.

What, like politicians who lead a whole country?

I'd have shot the bastard, that's for sure.

Sgt Blackman has a very good reputation throughout the Marines, and 3 commando brigade.
I would not call him an idiot.

Both irrelevant.
He is a soldier and a soldier shoots bullets at enemy - dead or alive.

The order is simple annihilate the enemy or be annihilated.

In total war scenarios, yes. But that isn't the modern war, you have to keep political and public support for war these days - and that usually means not getting yourself photographed putting a revolver to the head of a spy and shooting him in the street - or rounding up in ditches and then killing 504 unarmed civilian 'sympathisers'. Not only can people argue that you just murdered a bunch of people, but you now have a scenario where you can't control your own troops and military discipline breaks downs. So no, it's not a great idea for soldiers to be murderous psychopaths.

However, in the case of Blackman and others - I think that limited events like this should be considered in the context of PTSD and the fact that in his reality - potentially still considered the man a threat - so I agree with his release. The government asks our men and women to do a tough job, with not enough funding, for wars of morally questionable purpose and not enough support when they get back home - what do people think is going to happen - some of them are going to snap at some point or make with hindsight, dubious decisions.

White Europeans breaks international law killing foreign nationals - often in their own countries. Many calling for leniency or exception from law.

Brown Middle Eastern men break international law often in own country. Many say it's justice and defend the ending of their lives...

What makes you say that?

Have you had much contact with anyone suffering from PTSD?

he was suffering from a mental condition called adjustment disorder that substantially impaired his ability to make rational judgments.

You either agree or disagree. Your opinion on the facts as you see them, unless you've actually served on the ground somewhere like that, is factually irrelevant.

Not a dig at anyone in particular, and this isn't a 'you weren't there man' situation. But honestly, how can you say what you'd do if you've never ever had exposure to that kind of life?

[quote=moose ]Your opinion on the facts as you see them, unless you're actually [s]served on the ground somewhere like that, is factually[/s] [b]a qualified judge[/b] is irrelevant.
FTFY

Very droll. My point still stands, a judge has addressed the issue, there is no doubt he killed an enemy combatant outside of the rules. The mitigation put forward a judge has felt is sufficient to correct the earlier verdict. I don't disagree with the legal decision, however some of you with your holier than though opinions are rather, well, ****ing stupid.

so essentially anyone who does not agree with the decision is a **** idiot

I am well persuaded now as judges, and military ones in particular, are indeed infallible as , probably, are you 😉

unless you've actually served on the ground somewhere like that, is factually irrelevant.

Not at all. I agree with the judge, he broke the rules, bang to rights. PTSD doesn't excuse you from your actions.

I also completely understand why he did it, it's very easy for someone sat at home, never having been in that situation, to go OTT with the condemnation, I prefer a more sedate level.

I guess some people on here like to run up their colours and take the moral high, high, high ground. Such is the internet. But they as well as some of Sgt B's more ardent supporters I find just as distasteful.

Horrible things happen in war, the line between right and wrong is constantly moving depending on the situation. Although what he did was a deliberate act, it's not hard to see where he is coming from.

My view- lifelong pacifist that I am - seems on balance about right. Not let off, not made an example of.

From what I have read the entire outfit he was in was at best very "gung ho" and he would have been affected by that to the point his moral standards would not be those of a civilian nor even perhaps a soldier in a less "gung ho" outfit

Having seen a little of how killing people under orders affects men I can accept his judgement was clouded and that an unlawful killing is right but murder? Not sure enough to want to see him spend a long time in prison.

What good would imprisoning him for a long time do? Deterrence? Retribution? Rehabilitation? These are the three main aims of prison and its hard to see how any of these are enhanced by a long stretch in this case

[i]edited after Junkyards correction[/i]

PTSD doesn't excuse you from your actions.

One can sympathise with what he did and understand why he felt like that but it was still a murder IMHO rather than a manslaughter though the judges, this time round, disagreed.

You missed out rehabilitation and its not that hard to see how punishment [ or deterrence for that matter] was better served with a longer sentence.

Junkyard, really? Murder? How do you murder someone you've been sent to kill?

And that's the part that confuses me. He shot a man, who a mere few moments earlier had been legally sanctioned to kill. Hence why an appeal judge has decided to overturn the original conviction.

If his judgement is clouded because of the stress he was under and the attitudes of those around him normalised such behaviour then is he "of sound mind"?

Correct Junkyard - I meant rehabilitation. retribution and punishment are really the same thing.

Ninja edit time

tjagain - Member
If his judgement is clouded because of the stress he was under and the attitudes of those around him normalised such behaviour then is he "of sound mind"?

Very much no. And I would argue that none of us really are when we're there.

How do you murder someone you've been sent to kill?

And that's the part that confuses me. He shot a man, who a mere few moments earlier had been legally sanctioned to kill. Hence why an appeal judge has decided to overturn the original conviction.

Again what he did was wrong though many of us can sympathise with the scenario that led to this decision It was still a poor one done in "the fog of war".

Please set me right if it's inappropriate to speculate, but how [i]did[/i] the vid ever see the light of day?

If its been paraded round as a trophy video, then the lad who took it and shared it bears an equal responsibility for what happened in the courtroom, in my opinion. (I take the viewpoint of "isn't the first, won't be the last....war is always f'd up)

If on the other hand the poor lad who witnessed the event came home traumatised and burdened by what he had seen his colleague do, then i can empathise more with the fact that the film saw the light of day.

If any of the posters have a military background and experience of hostile environments and/or front line action, your views and experiences have some relevance.
As for the rest - including me - our views are just words; no context, no understanding, no experience.
FWIW today's judgement is right but overdue - in my view.
I usually ignore posts from Chewkw but this time he's 100% accurate in saying war is, effectively, kill or be killed.
War is always a f***ing mess.

Please set me right if it's inappropriate to speculate, but how did the vid ever see the light of day?

Had there been no cameras, I'm sure I would have switched off an enemy combatant with a humane headshot. That's what soldiers do?
To talk on camera about mortal coils and contravening THE rule of war is plain stupid.

He's served some time and will never be in the military again. Time to move on I think.

I do feel though that there are undertones of "hmmm was he a terrorist or mentally ill."

In the context, there is a valid argument that the enemy here would not qualify as a lawful combatant (he certainly wasn't a soldier) and perhaps could be classified as a mercenary or even a spy. The GC rules here aren't cut and dried, and, whilst Sgt Blackman certainly didn't follow the ROE (if you agree with the ROE in the first place is another topic entirely), him not adhering with the Geneva convention is a very different thing. Hard thing to make rules about, is war.

"during an unrelated investigation"

For those who have not experienced operations; it is the most stressful thing you can imagine. In the case of Sgt Blackman, he was leading men into daily patrols where people were doing their damnedest to kill them.

To be fair, I'd ****ing genuinely love to know how the shrink came to the conclusion of adjustment disorder when in comparison with PTSD "the stressor does not have to be severe or outside the “normal” human experience." - war is outside of the normal human experience for most people.

Moose sounds about right.

How do you murder someone you've been sent to kill?

Although this seems wrong on a few levels, it's not all about search and destroy is it? It's about the long term game and garnering support for your actions, I mean even on a simpler level.... in shootier more straightforward wars the idea isn't always to kill - it can be to injure/maim so that people are locked up dealing with their injured. In protracted wars, a take no quarters approach also means that your own soldiers can suffer more by having to face an enemy that is discouraged from surrendering and will fight until the bitter end - see the American island hopping campaign to see what fighting people like that is like.

If some of you were in charge post 9/11 - Afghanistan would have just been carpet nuked and we'd have won right?

Frankconway - frankly thats nonsense.

I have a little insight from treating ex soldiers for example and am widely read on the subject - as well as being a lifelong pacifist.

If only those who served on the front line can judge a soldiers actions then he cannot be tried for anything ever.

He made a choice, a bad choice.

A complete and utter mess and moral minefield. There is no right answer in this, but purely in my opinion: did the fighter continue to pose a threat? I doubt it. So did he break the law? Undoubtedly. Irrespective of the law, was it morally excusable to kill the fighter? Absolutely not. Should he have tried to help him? Yes within the bounds of what was reasonable. So what should the punishment be? Absolutely no idea.

Just to give a bit of food for thought to those who put forward the 'kill or be killed' total annihilation vision of war: look up the definitions of total vs limited war. Also, consider the somewhat cliched definition that war is an extension of politics by other means and that it exists on a massive sliding scale from humanitarian aid to a fight to the death, sometimes at the same time (see the 3 block war).

Sometimes maintaining the moral high ground and doing the "right" thing is as much about protecting your own mental welfare and those around you as it is anything else. I've seen more soldiers traumatised by what they could have done but didn't, than by seeing worse sights over which they had no control. Sgt Blackman had the choice to kill someone who no longer posed a direct threat at that moment or help him, but he chose to kill. I stress, I'm not an infanteer and have, fortunately, never had to make that choice but I would like to think my gut would choose to help.

The problem with the Geneva conventions is they were never created with asymmetric, unconventional warfare in mind. It was gentlemanly warfare where both parties bought into them. Still doesn't justify it, but it puts you on some shaky ground.

You're right of course and I agree with a lot of what you're saying moose.

This rather nicely highlights how hard it is to conduct these kind of counter insurgency wars though. Sure, the rules weren't invented for counter-insurgency war - but even in the 60's - what was the effect of ignoring these rules on public support for Vietnam by getting the Mai Lai Massacre published in Time magazine? Was this conducive to achieving the goals of the Vietnam war?

Noooooooooo.

Had there been no cameras, I'm sure I would have switched off an enemy combatant with a humane headshot. That's what soldiers do?

Please, please, please tell me you don't actually believe that...?

Look, there's no doubt he stepped, nay, leapt way outside of the rules. He's been judged for it, I'm not going to condemn the man. He is a good man, who made a bad choice and will now have to live with it.

By all accounts he took one for the team as the senior officer

Some SAS lad wrote a book describing the same thing, couldn't call in a team to evaculate so its kill him or leave him to die.

I don't think his 'shuffle off mortal coil' line did him any favours, and why the hell did they video it...

But it was a classic example of us looking to be whiter than white, when in reality I doubt the british army is anything such (and i'm not judging them by saying that, i think they do a great job).

Things happen in a war zone, i'm glad he'll soon be free.

@tj: i acknowledge our difference of opinion. You have your view - I have mine.You may have some limited experience of treating/dealing with military casualties but that does not give your view any more weight than mine

In times of conflict I will back Andy Blackman - his attitude and behaviour - every time.

I'm off to bed - knowing I have never had my finger on the trigger.

As for Andy Blackman - I hope he sleeps well tonight and is allowed to live his life in peace; fat f*cking chance of that.

Off to the politics thread now for a few minutes; el trumpo continues to fuel the fire.

Frank - My point being that if your doctrine is accepted then not even a civilian court could judge them

But yes - I have never been in that position and whether you think we were right to be in that war or not he put his life on the line and that must be respected

@tj:I all I can say - reiterate - is that war is a f***ing mess.
No right and only degrees of being wrong.

I got close to joining the Royal Ordnance Corps- but didn't. If any of my 3 adult children talked about joining the forces I would do everything possible to dissuade them - I coudn't stop them.
If that means another parents' child dying in service - yes, i would accept that because my family would be intact.

Selfish? Yes.

I hope the Blackman case causes most of us to examine our motivations and possible responses.
None of us knows why he signed up or what he expected.
We can all play 'what if'; if he didn't pull the trigger what could have happened - or what may have been avoided?

We can all play 'what if'; if he didn't pull the trigger what could have happened - or what may have been avoided?

You could use that argument to justify all sorts of massacres, incidents and towering monuments to human empathy.

I think the point is that he fairly clearly broke the rules, but the punishment should take the context into account and the judiciary should act with some sympathy in this case - as a few others have pointed out. Clearly, letting these things happen and/or be leaked is also a discipline issue that needs to be addressed, if he'd been totally let off - what message would that send?

I coudn't stop them.
If that means another parents' child dying in service - yes, i would accept that because my family would be intact.

This ****s me off, it's always (or often) working class kids sent to die - because middle class kids have options. Then the same parents wax lyrical with a bunch of platitudes and donate to HFH. This is where conscription is great, we all get an equal opportunity to die from internal bleeding caused by overpressure - we're all in this big society together aren't we guys?

because middle class kids have options.

Go to the chapel of any public school and see the extensive lists of the fallen, plenty of middle class kids die as well even today.

An independent judge has made a decision and that in my view should be where the matter should be left.

Of course Mefty, something just irks me about the attitude that it's okay to accept other peoples kids dying. If the conservatives were true to their "big society" principles.... and the middle and upper classes actually, we'd think harder and longer about sending people to die - because people from all strata of society would have a vested interest (their children) in the debate.

It's perfectly natural to want to keep your children from harm. If my son wanted to join the forces, I certainly wouldn't encourage it; but at the same time I wouldn't discourage it, I'd help him to come to a decision of his own like my dad with me.

Tom, your 'working class are always (often) sent to die' comment is bollocks. No one gets sent to die; we get sent to do a job which is inherently risky with the real possibility of getting hurt or worse, and that applies to officers as much as soldiers.

Secondly, I can assure you that on the whole Army selection is class blind: I've trained over 200 recruits at phase 1 and had recruits with everything ranging from the minimum education standards required all the way up to a PHD Astrophysicist. Similarly, on my commissioning course, I trained with ex-soldiers, university graduates, guy's straight from school having just scraped their a levels, and guys who fancied a change of job from stacking shelves.

As for the joining because of not having options, if that were true then recruitment would be pretty steady. In fact, since Afghanistan has ceased, recruitment has gone off a cliff. Why? Because people have options and at the moment, the Army isn't an attractive offer so they've gone elsewhere. Those who do join because they can't be arsed or don't have the imagination to find another job rarely make it through training and if they do, leave as soon as they can.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for those who serve regardless of their individual motives. I'm grateful they do a necessary job that I'd rather my loved ones didn't. The additional drama was a bad idea but I expect the underlying action was totally appropriate in the circumstances.
On a lighter but relevant note, Colonel Nathan Jessop encapsulated some aspects of how I feel about a conversation like this, selective quoting:[i]
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom....You have the luxury of not knowing what I know...that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.
We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think![/i]