Capt. Robert Semrau Charged With Murder in Afghanistan
- Thread starter darmil
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
pbi nailed it, really. We have to be able to credibly hold ourselves to a higher standard, and the law is there to ensure that those who do not are held accountable. It was noted in the sentencing that no precedence could be found amongst our allies for this sort of situation, and it certainly isn't one that has an easy, unambiguous, universally satisfying answer. It is clear the Semrau acted without malice, and I would hypothesize with a sense of great compassion, and that he realized that he had make a difficult decision. The trial transcript, as I recall, stated that he ordered the rest of his team out of the area saying something to the effect of "you shouldn't have to see this". He accepted responsibility to some degree, though he did not make any effort to explain himself. I don't begrudge him that, it is his right, and was probably a legally prudent decision.
I suspect that the discussions about this case will go on for a long time, and will definitely be a case study in military ethics and the application of the Laws of Armed Conflict. It strikes me that a reasonable balance was struck in that while the convicted's career in the military is over, his life goes on, he can return to his family, and he can carry on. I suspect that should he seek employment there will be many sympathetic to his circumstances who will seek to help him. I don't see why he might not apply again, the sentence has left that door open.
I suspect that the discussions about this case will go on for a long time, and will definitely be a case study in military ethics and the application of the Laws of Armed Conflict. It strikes me that a reasonable balance was struck in that while the convicted's career in the military is over, his life goes on, he can return to his family, and he can carry on. I suspect that should he seek employment there will be many sympathetic to his circumstances who will seek to help him. I don't see why he might not apply again, the sentence has left that door open.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
excellent post PBI +1
- Reaction score
- 3,050
- Points
- 1,260
PBI hit the nail on the head - like it or not, if we don't fight by the rules, how different are we from the bad guys?
- Reaction score
- 18,816
- Points
- 1,260
Simian Turner said:
BINGO!
SO who ordered the Capt not to admin first aid or try for a MedEvac?
I would like to see that route followed a little more closely, since effectively that order is just as guilty (if not more) than (then) Capt. Semrau's actions as they potentially led to his decision to fire the alledged shots into the dead/nodead taliban
- Reaction score
- 94
- Points
- 530
Grimaldus said:
You are comparing this to the Natasha Ryan case?? The case of the 14 year old Australian girl who shacked up with her much older boyfriend after running away (while a serial killer was on the loose at that)?? Whose boyfriend, with her agreement while stashed away with him, then provided input to the police that led them to believe that she was last seen in the serial killers company? Natasha Ryan & her boyfriend of the time set this up to seem as if Leonard Fraser had killed her. It was planned and premeditated this way --- so that she could remain with her BF forever without further family interferance. They got busted during his trial when his house was raided and she was found cowering in the BFs closet.
NOT comparable.
There was testimony during 2Lt Semarau's trial as to the shooting occuring. Witnesses if you will. There was also testimony as to the Officer himself having made statements after the act as to it's having been a "mercy killing". What you are insinuating is that there was no evidence that anyone even "existed" to be shot ... that was not the case as was shown by the sworn testimony.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Vern I would argue that with him being found not guilty of murder you can in fact infere that he DID NOT shoot anyone. I have and will always believe that by being found not guilty of murder and yet then continuing to punish him with a sentence for Disgraceful conduct was in fact scape goating him.
All the evidence presented was hersay third party "I hard evidence" hence why he could not be found guilty beyond doubt of actually shooting the insurgent hence why he was found not guilty. I know you wont like my interpretations but there it is. Had they had photos or a body or a plethora of other evidence that Capt Semrau had in fact done what he was accused of I would be right there with you on supporting his punishments.
As it is I personally view this as a "Look at us we might of done something wrong so we better look tough on it!" and sadly Capt Semrau is the whipping boy.
EDIT: I should also add that the issue of dead or not dead factored into the argument for not guilty of murder but I contest regardless of why he was found not guily he was so my original argument stands in my eyes.
All the evidence presented was hersay third party "I hard evidence" hence why he could not be found guilty beyond doubt of actually shooting the insurgent hence why he was found not guilty. I know you wont like my interpretations but there it is. Had they had photos or a body or a plethora of other evidence that Capt Semrau had in fact done what he was accused of I would be right there with you on supporting his punishments.
As it is I personally view this as a "Look at us we might of done something wrong so we better look tough on it!" and sadly Capt Semrau is the whipping boy.
EDIT: I should also add that the issue of dead or not dead factored into the argument for not guilty of murder but I contest regardless of why he was found not guily he was so my original argument stands in my eyes.
- Reaction score
- 94
- Points
- 530
BulletMagnet said:
I'd agree that he was found not guilty. Not because they didn't prove he didn't fire two shots at a "non-existant body" which is what is being inferred earlier ...
But that, they didn't prove he fired two shots, in malice, at a live body.
There was testimony that a Taliban fighter was indeed wounded and on the ground. He existed.
Any inferrance that a crime must not have occured because no body existed is way off base. There was testimony to the fact the guy existed. But, if you don't buy their testimony under oath --- that simply means they must all have lied when they testified he existed.
See the difference?
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,421
- Points
- 1,160
Vern, I'm not comparing the case. I'm pointing out that no body = "murdered victim" can show up alive.
Was Capt Semrau found guilty of murder? No.
Like Bulletmagnet said, scape goating.
Vern out of curiosity, what do you think the ANA's reaction would have been if the 2 (4?)Canadians said Hey, stop, this man you think is "98% dead" is no longer a combatant and we ARE going to provide first aid and call in a medivac for him whether you like it or not, company commander.
Was Capt Semrau found guilty of murder? No.
Like Bulletmagnet said, scape goating.
Vern out of curiosity, what do you think the ANA's reaction would have been if the 2 (4?)Canadians said Hey, stop, this man you think is "98% dead" is no longer a combatant and we ARE going to provide first aid and call in a medivac for him whether you like it or not, company commander.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Not arguing the existence of the person, simply that without proper evidence to suggest he inded fired the 2 shots IE: first hand witnesses of which there was none that came forward and said "Yes I saw him do it on this date at this time" and they could only provide "I heard to shots after he told us he would take care of it" means to me that who knows what happened perhaps and this is poor fanatsy mind you the dead/non dead body did not reach for a weapong thus making him a threat again.
My reasoning is that when not found guilty of a crime and then presuing a lesser charge for a crime he has been found not guitly of is making the Sir a whipping boy
My reasoning is that when not found guilty of a crime and then presuing a lesser charge for a crime he has been found not guitly of is making the Sir a whipping boy
- Reaction score
- 94
- Points
- 530
Grimaldus said:
I haven't made a single comment as to whether or not I feel he should have been found guilty, or about his punishment. So, I'm not going there for your curiosities sake either.
In the case you cited, the "victim (aged 14)" & her older boyfriend FRAMED a serial killer for her murder. She was even "last" seen with this serial killer - true, by various witness'. They then used 'that' to explain her disappearance and the SK (whose victim profile matched the GFs profile) ended up charged with her murder as well. Meanwhile, the BF went with that and supported that theory with the police all the while knowing she was shacked up in his house.
The police bought this story, but a slip-up occured during the trial testimony and the boyfriends house was searched and there she was found. The SK was not convicted of her murder as the crime did not happen. The GF & her boyfriend were charged.
But, to suggest that because there is no body automaticly = no crime occured ... is not correct and is not comparable.
2Lt Semrau's trial consisted of testimony as to shots being fired. As to the Taliban's existance. As to his statements of it being a "mercy killing". Testimony as to his statement itself may be hersay, but it was testified to under oath. Testimony as to "he fired two shots while I was there" is not heresay, nor is testimony that they, personally, saw a Taliban on the ground. If you want to infer that the Taliban did not exist, then when are you going to start screaming for all those who testified otherwise to be charged with conspiracy and lying under oath? There's no question the guy existed ... at least in my mind; I just can't see a whole bunch of professional Canadian soldiers lying about that.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,421
- Points
- 1,160
BulletMagnet said:
The ANA company commander would have took orders the Canadians and went into an all around defense and waited for a medivac to remove the Taliban?
Vern maybe it was a bad example. One of my biggest issues I guess is people saying the law is the law is the law. I see a difference between killing your neighbour who you hit with a car to put out of his misery and being embedded with the ANA in Taliban country and performing a mercy killing on someone who is pretty much beyond hope. At first I was saying he broke the law, tough crap. The more I thought about it the more it scared me because I realized what kind of decision I would make in that situation. Again I feel there is a huge difference between how the law effects someone at home in safe Canada and someone in his situation taking everything into consideration.
The law doesn't agree with me though so my opinion is moot.
- Reaction score
- 94
- Points
- 530
Grimaldus said:
I agree with this. I believe, and know, that the law is the law. I also believe that 2Lt Semrau is able to sleep soundly at night.
It is, as they say, a moral dilemma. Mercy killing is also widely debated within Canadian society amongst others. Opinions are vast and cover the full spectrum. Some believe it is just and acceptable ... and others vehemently disagree.
The debate on that will come in our society ... it will grow. On par with assisted suicide - some will agree & others not. Only when I, myself, am in the same position in the same circumstances will I finally be certain as to what I would do. Until then, it's speculation for me.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,594
- Points
- 1,160
Actually, you cannot make that inference simply from the not guilty finding on murder. There are many more elements to a murder charge than simply did person X cause bullets to pass through person Y. Further, as you would be well aware, there are many living members of the CF who demonstrate through every breath they take that one can be shot (or worse) and live to tell of it. However, one could also get more clear proof of the fault in your inference by taking the time to read this thread and many of the direct quotes from the trial judge during sentencing. Yes, he did in fact mention that the shootings happened (and, therefore, were proven beyond reasonable doubt).BulletMagnet said:
Actually, there was testimony from people that were directly present at the time of the incident and who described their own observations. That is not hearsay.BulletMagnet said:
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
I have read the thread thank you...
I have with my own eyes seen what someone can live through and the smallest thing that they cannot but as was brought up in the trial we are not medical professional so who am I to say anything about the insurgents condition neither were those who were there dead/alive I don;t know nor will I comment.
As for my inference if he shot the insurgent he would be guilty of murder cut and dry. They did not have the proper evidence to prove he in fact shot the insurgent at all. That is why he was found not guilty. The evidence provided was never eye witness to the actual event only supposition as to what truly occurred. None those who testified could say that Capt Semrau for certain fire the shots they heard not that if he did they were aimed into the insurgent.
I respect you disagree with me and that CF law disagrees with me in that it was used to persue the lesser charge. Regardless I have my opinion about how this turned out and I now have my opinion about what would happen to me should I find myself on the receiving end the CF looking for an out.
I have with my own eyes seen what someone can live through and the smallest thing that they cannot but as was brought up in the trial we are not medical professional so who am I to say anything about the insurgents condition neither were those who were there dead/alive I don;t know nor will I comment.
As for my inference if he shot the insurgent he would be guilty of murder cut and dry. They did not have the proper evidence to prove he in fact shot the insurgent at all. That is why he was found not guilty. The evidence provided was never eye witness to the actual event only supposition as to what truly occurred. None those who testified could say that Capt Semrau for certain fire the shots they heard not that if he did they were aimed into the insurgent.
I respect you disagree with me and that CF law disagrees with me in that it was used to persue the lesser charge. Regardless I have my opinion about how this turned out and I now have my opinion about what would happen to me should I find myself on the receiving end the CF looking for an out.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,594
- Points
- 1,160
Then you know the judge specifically stated “the shooting ... was fundamentally contrary to our values” and that the particulars of the third charge (the charge of which he was convicted) specifically allege that the Semrau did shoot an unarmed and wounded male person while acting as the commander C/S 72A OMLT. This act was proven beyond reasonable doubt - that is the only reason he could have been found guilty.BulletMagnet said:
You are either over-simplifying the meaning of "murder" to the point of misrepresentation, or demonstrating that you do not understand all that is implied. To steal a famous analogy - John Hinckley, Jr did shoot Ronald Reagan, but he did not murder Ronald Reagan.BulletMagnet said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
MCG said:
I dont get it....you just provided quotes that re-inforce the hypothesis that Cpt/2Lt Semreau did or did not commit Murder.....
(John hinkley?)
Last I heard, Fmr POTUS /Reagan was not Murdered....
confusing...yeah?
I was totally on your 6 MCG...but the last bit really confused me regarding your opinion....
(maybe I'm cRACKEd out, or not readibg right). 8)
Similar threads
