• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
Sgt Alexander Blackman
<<
<
6 of 12
>>
>
eggchen
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by barbeler:
“The camera evidence showed someone who was acting in a calm and calculating manner. You can't simply put every war crime down to combat stress.”

Are you suggesting that Dr Michael Orr and Professor Neil Greenwood's psychiatric reports on Blackman's mental state should be just dismissed then?
blueblade
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Er, yeah, suffering from a psychiatric disorder or illness at the time is often one reason why murderers are "let off" if by let off you mean that their murder convictions are reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility (a la Tony Martin! Remember him?)

Not all people are the same, and thus the way they deal mentally with time spent in a battlezone will be different.”

You cannot compare Blackman's crime with Tony Martin. The two cases are completely different.
blueblade
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Are you suggesting that Dr Michael Orr and Professor Neil Greenwood's psychiatric reports on Blackman's mental state should be just dismissed then?”

Where are these reports and what do they say? Do you have a link?
Evo102
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“A far less serious crime because of the removal of mens rea, and one that would reflect his mental state at the time, derived from the pressures of the situation he had been placed in.”

But still a very serious crime, you make it sound like a parking ticket.
eggchen
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“Absolutely, and as far as his combat stress is concerned, he's already had 2 years chopped off his sentence for this:-”

You forget (see: ignore) the fact that a lesser verdict was unavailable to the panel at the time. The CCRC referral is based on the premise that had such a verdict been available, it could well have been the verdict reached, and not even murder at all. The court's hands are going to be tied from a legal and political view when handing down minimum sentences for murder.
blueblade
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“You forget (see: ignore) the fact that a lesser verdict was unavailable to the panel at the time. The CCRC referral is based on the premise that had such a verdict been available, it could well have been the verdict reached, and not even murder at all. The court's hands are going to be tied from a legal and political view when handing down minimum sentences for murder.”

But why should they give a lesser verdict anyway, even if available? Again, you are looking for excuses and downplaying what he did.
eggchen
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“But still a very serious crime, you make it sound like a parking ticket.”

In the context of a marine suffering combat stress in a war zone, such an offence is not likely to be viewed quite as seriously. He has a great deal of support as a convicted murderer, and not just from "right wing" types either.
eggchen
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“But why should they give a lesser verdict anyway, even if available? Again, you are looking for excuses and downplaying what he did.”

For the same reason that they reduced Tony Martin's conviction from murder to manslaughter. Because the mental state of the person at the time is deemed to remove the mens rea, the "guilty mind" element of their actions, a requisite for the offence of murder.
blueblade
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“For the same reason that they reduced Tony Martin's conviction from murder to manslaughter. Because the mental state of the person at the time is deemed to remove the mens rea, the "guilty mind" element of their actions, a requisite for the offence of murder.”

Like I said. Tony Martin's case was totally and utterly different. You are not comparing like with like.
eggchen
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“Like I said. Tony Martin's case was totally and utterly different. You are not comparing like with like.”

What I am comparing, again ignored, is the reduction of murder convictions to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility where psychiatric reports show evidence of mental illness or disorder at the time of the offence.
GusGus
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“In the context of a marine suffering combat stress in a war zone, such an offence is not likely to be viewed quite as seriously. He has a great deal of support as a convicted murderer, and not just from "right wing" types either.”


He has my support as does any soldier fighting in a war zone. Kill or be killed, they do it to protect us and they deserve our full support
Sport1
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by GusGus:
“He has my support as does any soldier fighting in a war zone. Kill or be killed, they do it to protect us and they deserve our full support”

Being in the armed forces doesn't make someone untouchable.
johnF1971
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by GusGus:
“He has my support as does any soldier fighting in a war zone. Kill or be killed, they do it to protect us and they deserve our full support”

Would you feel the same way about a police officer who shot dead an unarmed, injured criminal in a similar fashion?
eggchen
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“Where are these reports and what do they say? Do you have a link?”

No I don't have them, but they form the principal part of the referral to appeal. What are you suggesting, that they are made up? Don't exist?
blueblade
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“No I don't have them, but they form the principal part of the referral to appeal. What are you suggesting, that they are made up? Don't exist? ”

No, but I've seen no reference to them, the names concerned, or any hint of what they contain, other than from you.
eggchen
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“No, but I've seen no reference to them, the names concerned, or any hint of what they contain, other than from you.”

Well, here's one link that I found within a few seconds

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/mari...ail/story.html

Quote:
“A FORMER Royal Marine was suffering from a mental illness when he shot dead an injured Taliban fighter in Afghanistan, according to psychiatric experts.
Sgt Alexander Blackman is serving an eight-year jail sentence for murder – but his family and legal team are tomorrow preparing to submit new evidence which they hope may lead to a review of the case.

Professor Neil Greenberg, occupational psychiatrist with the department of psychological medicine at King’s College London, found that Sgt Blackman was struggling with combat stress and had an adjustment disorder at the time of the incident in 2011.

Sgt Blackman’s legal team say if this had been known at the original court martial, the panel would have been given the option of trying him for manslaughter – rather than murder – which carries a lesser sentence.”

Quote:
“Professor Greenberg’s diagnosis has been seconded by Dr Michael Orr, consultant psychiatrist at St Matthew’s Hospital in Northampton, who first examined Sgt Blackman in 2013.

Dr Orr said: “Having carefully considered the new materials comprehensively assembled by Professor Greenberg, which were not available to me, I have reconsidered this case.

“I am in agreement with Professor Greenberg’s diagnosis of an adjustment disorder, which is an abnormality of mental functioning and is a recognised medical condition.””

Quote:
“A leaked Ministry of Defence report has revealed that Sgt Blackman’s unit had been encouraged to be aggressive and the psychological strain placed on the Marines was not identified.

An investigation by the Daily Mail also found that evidence was withheld from the court martial after Colonel Oliver Lee was blocked from giving evidence in support of Sgt Blackman.”

Granny McSmith
22-12-2016
Not only is Blackman guilty of a war crime, which he acknowledged himself on camera - a confession of guilt, surely? - letting him off would create a serious precedent in law.

I do sympathise with his predicament, actually, but for the sake of the reputation and future of British justice, I hope his conviction and sentence is upheld.
johnF1971
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“For the same reason that they reduced Tony Martin's conviction from murder to manslaughter. Because the mental state of the person at the time is deemed to remove the mens rea, the "guilty mind" element of their actions, a requisite for the offence of murder.”

"Mens Rea - As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.

A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element."


Blackman calmly stated ON CAMERA that he had just broken the Geneva Convention. How much more evidence does anyone need that he was fully aware that he was committing a criminal act!!?
eggchen
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by johnF1971:
“"Mens Rea - As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.

A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element."


Blackman calmly stated ON CAMERA that he had just broken the Geneva Convention. How much more evidence does anyone need that he was fully aware that he was committing a criminal act!!? ”

Because any kind of mental disorder or illness which is deemed to have had an effect on his state of mind during his actions will be considered. That he unlawfully killed the enemy combatant is not in question, but the level of his culpability may be.
eggchen
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by Granny McSmith:
“Not only is Blackman guilty of a war crime, which he acknowledged himself on camera - a confession of guilt, surely? - letting him off would create a serious precedent in law.

I do sympathise with his predicament, actually, but for the sake of the reputation and future of British justice, I hope his conviction and sentence is upheld.”

He won't be "let off", he may have his conviction for murder reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, in light of the psychiatric reports of his mental state at the time.
johnF1971
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Because any kind of mental disorder or illness which is deemed to have had an effect on his state of mind during his actions will be considered.”

But surely by definition ANYONE who commits cold-blooded murder must be suffering from some sort of mental disorder? Fred West, Ian Brady, Harold Shipman etc were all clearly not right in the head otherwise they wouldn't have done what they did would they?

The only usual legal defence on the lines of the killer's mental state is that they were not fully aware at the time of the crime that their actions were wrong. Blackman clearly was fully aware as proven by his Geneva Convention statement so I don't see how there can be any argument for appeal?
Evo102
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Because any kind of mental disorder or illness which is deemed to have had an effect on his state of mind during his actions will be considered. That he unlawfully killed the enemy combatant is not in question, but the level of his culpability may be.”

But his defence at the original trial was that the enemy combatant was already dead, so Blackman did dispute that he unlawfully killed him.
seacam
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by GusGus:
“He has my support as does any soldier fighting in a war zone. Kill or be killed, they do it to protect us and they deserve our full support”

In the context you mention, how does the killing of a seriously wounded, unarmed fighter protect the " us"?
eggchen
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by johnF1971:
“But surely by definition ANYONE who commits cold-blooded murder must be suffering from some sort of mental disorder? Fred West, Ian Brady, Harold Shipman etc were all clearly not right in the head otherwise they wouldn't have done what they did would they?

The only usual legal defence on the lines of the killer's mental state is that they were not fully aware at the time of the crime that their actions were wrong. Blackman clearly was fully aware as proven by his Geneva Convention statement so I don't see how there can be any argument for appeal?”

If you look up the English Law definition of diminished responsibility for cases of murder, it might go some way to explaining why it is considered in certain cases.
Glawster2002
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by johnF1971:
“But surely by definition ANYONE who commits cold-blooded murder must be suffering from some sort of mental disorder? Fred West, Ian Brady, Harold Shipman etc were all clearly not right in the head otherwise they wouldn't have done what they did would they?

The only usual legal defence on the lines of the killer's mental state is that they were not fully aware at the time of the crime that their actions were wrong. Blackman clearly was fully aware as proven by his Geneva Convention statement so I don't see how there can be any argument for appeal?”

I look at it in the opposite way, if Blackman had been killed by the Taliban fighter in the same circumstances there is no question whatsoever the media would have reported it as the cold-blooded murder of one of "our boys". There would have been no discussion of the Taliban fighter's state of mind it would be a done deal, murder.

Blackman knew his actions at the time were wrong, the reference to the Geneva Convention clearly demonstrate this, therefore to me his actions were murder, nothing less.
<<
<
6 of 12
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map