Capt. Robert Semrau Charged With Murder in Afghanistan

[medicineman]

Thanks Kevin...missed that one.  Sarcastic statement self-edited.

MM

 

[McG]

  Anyway, from the transcripts:

Following your link, I find:

The particu-lars of the third charge allege that the accused did shoot an unarmed and wounded male person while acting as the commander C/S 72A Operational Mentoring Liaison Team, OMLT,

Given this information, I would have imagined that thrid charge should have been in the alternate to meet the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s. 11(h) - all three are for the exact same act but the third charge simply removes the factor of specific intent.  It would appear, based on the described particulars of the third charge, that court would have had to believe the Taliban was still alive at the time he was shot.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Following your link, I find:Given this information, I would have imagined that thrid charge should have been in the alternate to meet the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s. 11(h) - all three are for the exact same act but the third charge simply removes the factor of specific intent.  It would appear, based on the described particulars of the third charge, that court would have had to believe the Taliban was still alive at the time he was shot.

Sound like both sides should appeal.  Maybe no-one should appeal.  To reach its conclusion the panel had to agree that the Taliban was alive and the shooting, while disgraceful, was not murder.  Does the government want that to stand as precedent?  Alternatively, in this case, shooting a dead Taliban does not satisfy the criteria the prosecution set up as disgraceful conduct.  Unless there is a deal, see you in round 2 next year.

 

[McG]

To reach its conclusion the panel had to agree that the Taliban was alive and the shooting, while disgraceful, was not murder.

No.  On charge 3, the panel only had to agree the Taliban was alive and the shooting was disgraceful.  The verdict of not guilty on the charge 1 does not mean the panel agreed the incident was not murder, it means they did not agree beyond reasonable doubt that it was.

Alternatively, in this case, shooting a dead Taliban does not satisfy the criteria the prosecution set up as disgraceful conduct. 

You seem to be doing an odd play on words.  If the Taliban were dead, that would appear not to have met the particulars of Charge 3 (as described in the previous link).  That does not mean the prosecution is suggesting that it would not be disgraceful to shoot an already dead enemy.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

No.  On charge 3, the panel only had to agree the Taliban was alive and the shooting was disgraceful.  The verdict of not guilty on the charge 1 does not mean the panel agreed the incident was not murder, it means they did not agree beyond reasonable doubt that it was.
You seem to be doing an odd play on words.  If the Taliban were dead, that would appear not to have met the particulars of Charge 3 (as described in the previous link).  That does not mean the prosecution is suggesting that it would not be disgraceful to shoot an already dead enemy.

The test of reasonable doubt should not decrease for a lesser charge based on identical facts although it usually does.

The specific charge of disgraceful conduct put before the court by the prosecution was essentially for murder.  He may very well have scratched himself on the parade square but that is not the specific charge nor is shooting a dead enemy.  There is ample case law to suggest that a person who has died is not a person under the law.

 

[vonGarvin]

I revert back to the cat.  Charge 4 (disgraceful conduct) asserts that Capt Semrau acted disgracefully in that he failed to render first aid, when it was his duty to do so.  That's it, that's all.  The state of the TB is irrelevant, because the charge asserts that it was up to him to find out.  That's all.

 

[armyvern]

I revert back to the cat.  Charge 4 (disgraceful conduct) asserts that Capt Semrau acted disgracefully in that he failed to render first aid, when it was his duty to do so.  That's it, that's all.  The state of the TB is irrelevant, because the charge asserts that it was up to him to find out.  That's all.

Wrong number. He was convicted on Charge 3. It was charge 4 that had the particulars relating to failing to provide first aid and for which he was found not guilty.

The particulars of Charge 3 (guilty) are:

The particulars of the third charge allege that the accused did shoot an unarmed and wounded male person while acting as the commander C/S 72A Operational Mentoring Liaison Team, OMLT

Charge 1 (alternate to charge 2): S. 130 NDA, second degree murder (s. 235(1) CCC).
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1): S. 130 NDA, attempt to commit murder using a firearm (s. 239(1)(a.1) CCC).
Charge 3: S. 93 NDA, behaved in a disgraceful manner.
Charge 4: S. 124 NDA, negligently performed a military duty imposed on him.

 

[vonGarvin]

Wrong number. He was convicted on Charge 3. It was charge 4 that had the particulars relating to failing to provide first aid and for which he was found not guilty.

D'oh. 


Missed that.  Thanks.

 

[armyvern]

D'oh. 

Step back from the donuts ... & do not strangle the cat just yet.  ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

:rofl:
Actually, I got my info from the one thing I posted earlier:

The particu-lars of the third charge allege that the accused did shoot an unarmed and wounded male person while acting as the commander C/S 72A Operational Mentoring Liaison Team, OMLT, whereas the fourth charge alleges that the accused failed to comply with the code of conduct for Canadian Forces personnel in that he failed to collect a wounded male person and provide him with the treatment required by his condition as it was his duty to do so.

And I mistakenly thought that the disgraceful conduct was the fourth, not the third charge. 

 

[captloadie]

If we go with Vern's assertion that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he fired two shots into the TB, the question we should ask is why did he fire into the TB? If the TB were already deceased, then what is the purpose. Going away from the legal requirements, or our moral thoughts on the subject of mercy killing, I think common sense dictates we admit that the TB was either alive, or believed to be alive by Capt Semrau when he pulled the trigger.

 

[McG]

The test of reasonable doubt should not decrease for a lesser charge based on identical facts although it usually does.

The requirement to be certain beyond reasonable doubt is the same for all charges in the military justice system.

The specific charge of disgraceful conduct put before the court by the prosecution was essentially for murder. 

No.  Murder includes a specific intent element, and it must be shown the person died. 

 

[SeanNewman]

There were some very unfortunate posts on here last week about BGen Thompson.  Lots of talk about the CoC letting everyone down and WOG leaders hanging soldiers out to dry, etc.

While I won't comment on this case, I will certainly come to the defence of BGen Thompson:

1.  One of the most liked and respected COs that 3 RCR has ever had;
2.  One of the most liked and respected 2 CMBG Comds Petawawa has ever had;
3.  Hand picked during the heavy fighting days of 06-07 to lead the mission in Afghanistan (to take over in 08);
4.  Led from the front while in command in Kandahar.  Regularly led the way for logistic patrols to follow him (meaning he would get hit with a mine/IED/ambush first);
5.  Incredibly loved by the families of the fallen because he personally took the time to hand write a letter to every next of kin.  Not a singed Microsoft Word form letter generated with a couple names and dates changed like their other 10 letters; he hand-wrote every single one.

I have been an NCM myself and I know how sometimes officers get lumped into "them", but regardless of what your position is on this trial or what BGen Thompson said, that man is a soldier's soldier and a leader's leader.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Wow.  Spit or swallow? 
That was just sad.  :-\

As for leading from the front, how is a general out doing a spider drill ever a good idea?  Yeah, the troopies go "ooooo, ahhhh".  And when he gets killed, how much milage do the Taliban get from such a massive victory?  How many lives are that much more endangered at an emboldened enemy with incredibly high morale? 

 

[SeanNewman]

Wow.  Spit or swallow?  That was just sad.  :-\

The old me would have responded to that harshly.  The new and improved me who has taken the advice of others will shake it off.

I guess we'll just have to assume that someone who has been a CO, Bde Comd, and Comd TFK knows more about leadership than we do.

 

[Scott]

I guess we'll just have to assume that someone who has been a CO, Bde Comd, and Comd TFK knows more about leadership than we do.

Like Menard, eh?

Just sayin'...

 

[George Wallace]

I guess we'll just have to assume that someone who has been a CO, Bde Comd, and Comd TFK knows more about leadership than we do.

A review of our Military History has many examples of men who have risen higher in command, and would prove your statement wrong.

 

[SeanNewman]

A review of our Military History has many examples of men who have risen higher in command, and would prove your statement wrong.

It could be argued that nobody is infallible at any rank, that's for sure.

I didn't say they knew more about ethics or moral conduct, but that they had more leadership experience.

 

[OldSolduer]

I guess we'll just have to assume that someone who has been a CO, Bde Comd, and Comd TFK knows more about leadership than we do.

Being a CO, Bde Comd etc does not give anyone a greater insight into leadership than anyone else. As for leadership experience, yes maybe they do. Maybe not good experience, but experience none the less.

 

[SeanNewman]

I agree with all of your points.  Granted: Being a high rank doesn't make you a perfect leader.

Now that that's out of the way and [/tangent], the core of my statement isn't about the flank arguments of rank or leadership, but that BGen Thompson is one of the best leaders you could ever hope for, and it was very unfortunate that some people pulled the Keyboard Frontal on him.

I've said my piece on this, and now I'll back away from the discussion.