Marine jailed for life, right or wrong?

  bumpkin 14:05 07 Dec 2013

I am sure you have all read about it, I have an opinion but would like other members views on any aspect of the case.

  fourm member 14:07 07 Dec 2013

Right without a doubt.

  [DELETED] 14:22 07 Dec 2013

I don't agree with their Lordships decision to make him known to the rabid zealots out there though. His family may now be at risk. Still the Army wants it's pound of flesh,you can't besmirch the good name of the British Army and expect to get any mercy.

  Woolwell 14:34 07 Dec 2013

Right with mitigation reducing the sentence. What is wrong is naming him. This will put his family (including children?) and possibly those who live around them in danger. I was surprised that they decided that he could be named given that there is a trial in progress over the murder of a soldier.

Grey Goo - Besmirched the name of the Royal Navy as the Royal Marines are part of the senior service not the Army.

  Quickbeam 15:36 07 Dec 2013

It had to be done I suppose. But I do sympathise with him as when the state trains someone to kill people, and something goes wrong in a stressful environment, it's not purely the soldier thats guilty.

  finerty 16:06 07 Dec 2013

oh i dont know maybe if i shoot you dead maybe i get life, hence the only problem is im not a proffesional killer ot trained to kill so i kill you with love

  TopCat® 16:21 07 Dec 2013

This sergeant was the leader his patrol and for reasons known only to him decided to end that wounded victim's life. He knew exactly what he was doing and even mentioned to his men, on the film recorded, that he had "breached the rules of the Geneva Convention so keep quiet about it"

This act in my estimation was just plain murder and he has received an appropriate sentence that reflects that. He now has plenty of time to think about his cowardly actions and the effect it could have on the other members of his squad. TC.

  bumpkin 16:23 07 Dec 2013

How or why did this incident come to light in the first place as it does not portray a good image. I am surprised that it was not "hushed up" way back down the line or was it to set an example of some kind for whatever reason. Pure conjecture on my part I hasten to add.

  Mr Mistoffelees 16:27 07 Dec 2013

The man is guilty of murder and a serious breach of the Geneva Convention. The sentence of the court is, in my view, correct. I do agree that they should have given more thought to the welfare of his family before naming him though.

  Forum Editor 16:41 07 Dec 2013

Of course the sentence was correct - murder is murder, regardless of the circumstances.

My sympathy lies with the man who was murdered, not with the murderer.

  bumpkin 16:43 07 Dec 2013

I am not defending the mans actions but I do wonder how those that have not themselves been in a similar situation are qualified to judge.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

HTC U12 Plus review: Hands-on

Best Android emulators for Mac

TV & Streaming : comment regarder Roland Garros ?