Originally Posted by SMG (Post 35643847)

About as ridiculous as the guy who killed a Pedophile, who had raped & murdered his daughter.

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35643849)

lol I seriously doubt he was not convicted of murder

Calm down I am worried you might shoot me or maybe run me over ;)

Originally Posted by SMG (Post 35643851)

No, your OK, you can relax.

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35643840)

you want a convicted murderer to get a suspended sentence do you realise how ridiculous that is??

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35643855)

Not ridiculous at all.

This man is not a danger to the public.

Originally Posted by SMG (Post 35643831)

I don't think anyone here has said he wasn't guilty, but some of you must accept that as most of you know nothing about service life, the few of us who have been in that situation, know a little more than you do. So, stop sitting back & telling us he is guilty, we know that, what we are asking for is a little understanding. We train men to kill, we send them out primed & ready to shoot, Kill, kill, kill, sometimes guys get complacent & a terrorists life means nothing to him. So he blats him.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35643855)

Not ridiculous at all.

This man is not a danger to the public.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35643857)

If only those with experience of a profession where allowed to voice an opinion then this forum would have very few posts. As it is people who aren't in the police service criticise the police, people who aren't teacher criticise teachers, people who aren't nurses criticise nurses and so on. Have you never expressed a negative opinion of the conduct of a member of a profession of which you haven't actually done?

No one here is applying a blanket criticism of the Armed Forces. This is one case which is so rare that it's actually the first of it's kind in this particular war. So it's hardly as if members of the forces are frequently brought up on murder charges for fighting a war. Presumably the court process found particular reason to convict this specific case. There was been no injustice here. The description of the video sounds like a pretty clear case and the court agreed.

---------- Post added at 21:47 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------



Plenty of murderers are not a danger to the public. We still send them to prison.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35643838)

Not "special treatment" but mitigation to be taken into consideration.

If a beaten wife kills her husband does she get a full life term? No.

Yes, she is guilty of the crime but the mitigation of years of abuse is taken into consideration and more lenient sentence is given.

This all that is asked for this soldier.

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35643856)

how do you know? we have arguments for his side about his state of mind do we not?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35643861)

And do these arguments indicate he would kill a member of the public indiscriminately?

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35643860)

He isn't looking at a full life term. He is looking at spending the rest of his life on parole which is standard for all murder convictions. If the beaten wife was convicted of murder, and not manslaughter, she too would be on life term parole.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35643863)

Only 30 years, I believe a life tariff is 30 years ( I could be wrong )

I would be happy for him to be given life, with a recommendation he only serve at least 12 months.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35643862)

Again. Many murderers would not kill a member of the public indiscriminately. There is often a motive or a situation that would not apply the rest of the time. These people are still sent to prison and convicted of murder.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35643865)

And sentences vary. I would recommend a suspended sentence, or a very short mandatory stint.