Jump to content

Canadian soldier found not guilty in 'mercy-killing' of wounde


wyly

Recommended Posts

The high and mighty, rich and powerful love a surrogate spat. They also hold the marshall class in contempt much like they do blue collar unionists...The people that wage these illegal wars, profit from them..also..it is a perverse power surge that the high and mighty get around violence and death...It does not matter to these high and mighty types if the enemy is killed- or if our troops are killed...as long as someone is killed they get a sick thrill...I can't stand assholes who dupe our young men and woman and then after the dirty work is done - get a kick out of spitting on them. We should only attack if being attacked or to prevent an attack - Yes you can say the Bushite line.."fight them their so we don't have to fight the terrorist here" -

BUT ------------If there was a terrorist attack on Canadian soil...the body count would be less than that of our dead and maimed troops...ALSO - some bearded Afghani dope smoking chump is not going to come to Canada and blow you up...

This adventure was a total waste of blood and money. And spare me the High way of heros song..with the big rousing drum fills...This is bullshit.................for God sake you have Canadian Colonels that are rapists and murdering bastards..not to mention a status quo that facilitate arms deals...Mulroney? There are a thousand scoundrels drinking young Canadian blood.

had this very discussion this morning with my bro over breakfast...there used to be a time if our leaders decided to take the people to war they would be there with their sons in the thick of the battle leading the way putting their lives on the line for the cause...now they sit in an office sending other peoples kids to die, it's far too clean and easy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

had this very discussion this morning with my bro over breakfast...there used to be a time if our leaders decided to take the people to war they would be there with their sons in the thick of the battle leading the way putting their lives on the line for the cause...now they sit in an office sending other peoples kids to die, it's far too clean and easy...

Had a conversation with an old banker a long while ago regarding Muslims and so-called terrorists..He called them all "toxic waste" - well..I am sure if the enemy is waste material then OUR soldiers are not much higher on the scale in the mind of this man. FIRST thing as far as maturity and being a real adult are concerned is one has to realize that we are NOT free - and the powers that be NEVER tell us the truth..ever! Power historically has always been conducted in secrecy...as far as what I see..our military and citzenry are being abused by guys who are bored with doing billion dollar mergers and want some action - a taste of blood...to kill indirectly from afar...JERKS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just went over some of the testimony, two people saw him shoot the man, and Semrau admitted to the mercy killing...you do not need DNA or even a body for a conviction only a witness, in this case two and a confession...

If their is no doubt then there would have been a conviction of murder, and yet even the witnesses said from the angle they observed from they could not tell if the Capt shot the body or not, nobody checked the body, in fact no rounds where recovered by the ivestagating team that dug up the area in which was blood soaked...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If their is no doubt then there would have been a conviction of murder, and yet even the witnesses said from the angle they observed from they could not tell if the Capt shot the body or not, nobody checked the body, in fact no rounds where recovered by the ivestagating team that dug up the area in which was blood soaked...

Not necessarily so.

The Armed Forces would be reluctant to charge a soldier with murder during a war. It would create hesitation and humiliation - two things that don't belong in a war zone. The police did the same thing when one of their own shot Dudley George without any reasonable belief he or the public was in danger and was consequently charged with criminal negligence causing death. To charge him with murder might have led to the police refusing to draw their weapons.

Dishonorable conduct is probably the worst offense a soldier would receive in this situation, unless he shot one of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily so.

The Armed Forces would be reluctant to charge a soldier with murder during a war.

Demonstratably false.

1) He was charged with murder

2) Canada has found no reluctance to charge others and have in the past executed soldiers convicted of murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If their is no doubt then there would have been a conviction of murder, and yet even the witnesses said from the angle they observed from they could not tell if the Capt shot the body or not, nobody checked the body, in fact no rounds where recovered by the ivestagating team that dug up the area in which was blood soaked...

there are canadians doing hard time on less evidence...this was a pretend trial, there was never a chance he would be convicted...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are canadians doing hard time on less evidence...this was a pretend trial, there was never a chance he would be convicted...

Or perhaps it's not a pretend trial but you rather not fully understanding how a military court works. Which needs to follow the same rule of law as it's civilian counterpart, the only difference is it's make up and proceedures on how it is run.

Military Lawyers and judges still hold a valid Canadian law degree....

But thats not what is bothering you, in fact according to your thinking any military court is a farce, regardless of result, perhaps you shopuld lobby to have it all changed....or perhaps you should do some research, military courts have in most cases handed out sentences much tougher than there civilian courts, as they follow not only Canadian civilian law , but also military law...all that being said the military does have the option to charge any member with military offenses, on top of what ever a civilain court may hand out.... It must also be noted that any Capital offense commited in Canada is tried in Canadian civilian court, only those capital offenses commited on operations are handled by the military courts...

As for doing hard time in Canada, i can give you atleast 50 examples of Canadians charged with murder who served a total of 5 years of less....now that is hard time...In military prison there are no TV's no sat or cable, no play stations, no anything, your day starts at 0500 , preparing for a full kit inspection, breakfast at 0600, PT at 0700, drill after that followed up with some classes, followed up by lunch, then more PT or drill, more classes, supper, more classes, cleaning stations, and by 2100 hr your given 15 mins to write a letter then it's lights out....

the first 4 weeks your their your limited to 3 smokes a day, and those must be earned, via the piont system don't get enough pionts , ie failed a kit inspection, failed to perform on PT or drill...then NO privilages for you...pionts are also accumulated for early release no pionts no early release....regardless of how good you are, or you proved to be a model prisoner...

Thats because every military prisoner is a model prisoner, those that are not are placed in confinement, until their attitude improves.

Military prison also has closed confinement, which means your rations are restricted and controled, oatmeal, peas, carrots, all mixed in the same bowl, your entitled to one blanket, no sheets, a small bunk, and the cell is unlight, with no windows...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting subject. A month ago I had to make a decision to put my dog down. Life was getting very difficult for him and although I believe I did the right thing, a part of me can't help but wonder if I played the ultimate dirty trick on him. It sucks to play God.

Point being, we believe it is humane to take the life of an animal which we believe is suffering but which has no way of expressing its own wishes to us, yet when it comes to someone like Sue Rodriguez who is nearing the last stages of ALS and wants the right to determine her own future while she is still capable, the law says tough, you have to suffer and anyone that helps you die is a criminal.

The only person who knows whether what Semrau did was humane, is that Taliban. The only person who knows whether what Lattimer did was humane, is Tracy Lattimer. Semrau, Lattimer and all those who would judge them are just playing God.

I can't help but think they are both being judged not on the humanity of their specific actions but out of a fear the rest of society has about what might lie within itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help but think they are both being judged not on the humanity of their specific actions but out of a fear the rest of society has about what might lie within itself.

That's an interesting point. The dilemma, however, can be very real.

For example, I'm inclined top defend the actions of Latimer. But such situations don't exist in a vaccuum; they involve matters of precedence. So while I broadly support a "right-to-die" notion, I think it's pretty easy to foresee possible abuses: murder under the guise of humanitarian killing. It's a sticky issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting point. The dilemma, however, can be very real.

For example, I'm inclined top defend the actions of Latimer. But such situations don't exist in a vaccuum; they involve matters of precedence. So while I broadly support a "right-to-die" notion, I think it's pretty easy to foresee possible abuses: murder under the guise of humanitarian killing. It's a sticky issue.

I don't deny it is a dilemma but it is a dilemma for all concerned. We make decisions based on the situation we find ourselves in. There will always be times when we can't be sure we are doing the right thing but still have to act, sometimes at personal cost to ourselves. If Semrau and Latimer decided to do nothing and let the suffering continue, that is also a conscious act they would have to live with.

The OP raised the difference in sentences received in these two cases. If we agree that both incidents constitute a crime, I think Semrau's sentence could be the more appropriate. It would be one thing if he enjoyed it but if he did it because he believed it was the appropriate thing to do given the requirements of the mission as well as the condition and suffering of the wounded man, surely that must be taken into consideration. There is also a small point that not long before Semrau supposedly killed this wounded man, that same man was trying to kill him. Not relevant in a legal sense perhaps but very real never the less.

Latimer on the other hand is still in jail because he won't tell a lie in order to get out. He clearly believes he did the right thing for his daughter and to say otherwise would not only be a betrayal of his own conscience but an admission that he had betrayed his daughter as well. I can completely understand him sticking to his guns and respect him for it. As I said before, only Tracy Latimer knows whether he did the right thing.

I don't know what was going through the mind of either of these men at the time, I just pray that I never find myself in the same kind of predicament as them.

Actually legalizing euthanasia is a sticky issue and opens a whole new can of worms. It would have to be subject to strict conditions if it were ever to be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't deny it is a dilemma but it is a dilemma for all concerned. We make decisions based on the situation we find ourselves in. There will always be times when we can't be sure we are doing the right thing but still have to act, sometimes at personal cost to ourselves. If Semrau and Latimer decided to do nothing and let the suffering continue, that is also a conscious act they would have to live with.

The OP raised the difference in sentences received in these two cases. If we agree that both incidents constitute a crime, I think Semrau's sentence could be the more appropriate. It would be one thing if he enjoyed it but if he did it because he believed it was the appropriate thing to do given the requirements of the mission as well as the condition and suffering of the wounded man, surely that must be taken into consideration. There is also a small point that not long before Semrau supposedly killed this wounded man, that same man was trying to kill him. Not relevant in a legal sense perhaps but very real never the less.

Latimer on the other hand is still in jail because he won't tell a lie in order to get out. He clearly believes he did the right thing for his daughter and to say otherwise would not only be a betrayal of his own conscience but an admission that he had betrayed his daughter as well. I can completely understand him sticking to his guns and respect him for it. As I said before, only Tracy Latimer knows whether he did the right thing.

I don't know what was going through the mind of either of these men at the time, I just pray that I never find myself in the same kind of predicament as them.

Actually legalizing euthanasia is a sticky issue and opens a whole new can of worms. It would have to be subject to strict conditions if it were ever to be considered.

I agree with every bit of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with every bit of this.

as do I...the problem is because the issue is not discussed on a national level we have inconsistencies in sentencing...someone like latimer gets life but many others receive minor punishment depending on which jurisdiction they are charged...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latimer on the other hand is still in jail because he won't tell a lie in order to get out. He clearly believes he did the right thing for his daughter and to say otherwise would not only be a betrayal of his own conscience but an admission that he had betrayed his daughter as well. I can completely understand him sticking to his guns and respect him for it. As I said before, only Tracy Latimer knows whether he did the right thing.

I've always had a problem with this quirk of our legal system. Someone has to agree that the State was right and he was wrong before he can be eligible for any early parole or benefit.

It's easy over a cut and dried case, like a robbery or an arson. Something like the Latimer situation is very different. It is a moral issue that cannot help but be intensely personal. I fail to see how some judicial bureaucrat could ever fully understand what Latimer and his daughter went through.

What's more, when the justice system demands that Latimer agree with THEM as an expression of remorse it is implying that the justice system represents the mainstream morality of Canadian society.

How do we know this to be true? We appoint our judges, for life. The bureaucrats are essentially picked for life. Anybody who belongs to a government union in practice falls into this category. Where does the moral view come from? Where is the input from mainstream Canadians? We never have a referendum or a plebiscite on such a legal position.

In effect, the only moral values involved are those of the judges. The legal bureaucrats just follow along. We don't even allow politicians to impose their own personal morality upon us all and we get to choose them by election! Yet these few judges can insist that a Latimer or some other like them must conform to THEIR moral compass!

I can understand how Latimer cannot do it. I don't think that I could do it either, at least not without feeling like a hypocrite for the rest of my life.

I would never have imprisoned Latimer and it would seem that I am far from the only Canadian who feels so. Am I in the majority or the minority? How can we even tell?

Does our "system" even give a damn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always had a problem with this quirk of our legal system. Someone has to agree that the State was right and he was wrong before he can be eligible for any early parole or benefit.

It's easy over a cut and dried case, like a robbery or an arson. Something like the Latimer situation is very different. It is a moral issue that cannot help but be intensely personal. I fail to see how some judicial bureaucrat could ever fully understand what Latimer and his daughter went through.

What's more, when the justice system demands that Latimer agree with THEM as an expression of remorse it is implying that the justice system represents the mainstream morality of Canadian society.

How do we know this to be true? We appoint our judges, for life. The bureaucrats are essentially picked for life. Anybody who belongs to a government union in practice falls into this category. Where does the moral view come from? Where is the input from mainstream Canadians? We never have a referendum or a plebiscite on such a legal position.

In effect, the only moral values involved are those of the judges. The legal bureaucrats just follow along. We don't even allow politicians to impose their own personal morality upon us all and we get to choose them by election! Yet these few judges can insist that a Latimer or some other like them must conform to THEIR moral compass!

I can understand how Latimer cannot do it. I don't think that I could do it either, at least not without feeling like a hypocrite for the rest of my life.

I would never have imprisoned Latimer and it would seem that I am far from the only Canadian who feels so. Am I in the majority or the minority? How can we even tell?

Does our "system" even give a damn?

you're to quick to blame bureaucrats, they do their job as instructed there is no leeway, do it or be let go ...and the law acts the same way, it has it's rules that can't be bent there is little flexibility, which is why when conservatives call for minimum sentences we should be afraid, there will be people caught up in that who are not the intended targets and there will be nothing we can do to help them...

in Latimer's case the public was on his side and still is, the jury was mislead into thinking he would receive a lenient sentence(some said they never would've convicted him if they knew), it was the insistence of the crown prosecutor to pursue the case to the maximum and the inflexibility of our courts/laws to allow for a different sentence...

yet I recall a case in Quebec where a mother killed her handicapped child and she was charged with administering a noxious substance, a minor offense...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only two questions, what would he have done if it had been a NATO soldier and what would the military had done then??

there's the conundrum, do it to their fighters and then your own could suffer the same fate...since their medical ability is less than ours they may decide someone that we could save is beyond help and end his suffering...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

as do I...the problem is because the issue is not discussed on a national level we have inconsistencies in sentencing...someone like latimer gets life but many others receive minor punishment depending on which jurisdiction they are charged...

In these cases, perhaps the fault of that lies with the civil courts, not the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In these cases, perhaps the fault of that lies with the civil courts, not the military.

both are wrong IMO but for different reasons...

if the letter of the law is followed Latimer is guilty and so is Capt Semrau...Latimer got life Semrau a slap on the wrist, Semrau should have received a life sentence...but I believe the law is wrong not making an allowance for compassionate killing and Latimer should have received a much lighter punishment...

Semrau's action is more complicated because it is runs afoul of International law which is beyond our control...and has further repercussions with other organizations (Taliban)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO one has the right to dispatch another human being from the face of the earth. Mercy killing is a strange thing- It is like people who cry at funerals- They are usually crying for themselves...Mercy killing is like hunting small game--If the kill is not percise and the dispatch swift..it means that one must take another shot or bludgen the poor creature...when this takes place it is not for the sake of the animal but for the person that is witnessing the suffering...This Canadian soldier did not kill the wounded man out of love or mercy - HE SIMPLY COULD NOT STAND WATCHING THE SUFFERNIG ...He had the choice of walking away..or perhaps killing himself to escape reality...There is no such thing as mercy killing- to kill shows no mercy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

both are wrong IMO but for different reasons...

if the letter of the law is followed Latimer is guilty and so is Capt Semrau...Latimer got life Semrau a slap on the wrist, Semrau should have received a life sentence...but I believe the law is wrong not making an allowance for compassionate killing and Latimer should have received a much lighter punishment...

Semrau's action is more complicated because it is runs afoul of International law which is beyond our control...and has further repercussions with other organizations (Taliban)...

Only your intense dislike of everything military can explain such a statement.

According to AG, Semrau did advise headquarters of the situation and was told to get on with the mission. Perhaps it would have been more diabolical and fun to let the man spend his last minutes in agony. Only one person knows that answer and he is dead. If his crime made in the heat of battle, knowing the man could not be saved and that no attempt would be made to evacuate him constitutes second degree murder, then Latimer's crime which he carefully planned and executed is surely first degree.

Neither of these men are a threat to society and if you want to make an argument for wasting money keeping people in jail, you couldn't dream up a better example than Bob Latimer.

Justice is often an elusive thing in our legal system. What's so special about these cases when you have stuff like THIS going on.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only your intense dislike of everything military can explain such a statement.

According to AG, Semrau did advise headquarters of the situation and was told to get on with the mission. Perhaps it would have been more diabolical and fun to let the man spend his last minutes in agony. Only one person knows that answer and he is dead. If his crime made in the heat of battle, knowing the man could not be saved and that no attempt would be made to evacuate him constitutes second degree murder, then Latimer's crime which he carefully planned and executed is surely first degree.

Neither of these men are a threat to society and if you want to make an argument for wasting money keeping people in jail, you couldn't dream up a better example than Bob Latimer.

Justice is often an elusive thing in our legal system. What's so special about these cases when you have stuff like THIS going on.

Only your inability to comprehend and blind callous disregard for law can explain such a statement.

Semrau actions were not spontaneous, it was not in the heat of battle , he informed others of his intentions and carried out the killing (and admitted it afterwards) that's premeditated and first degree murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only your inability to comprehend and blind callous disregard for law can explain such a statement.

Semrau actions were not spontaneous, it was not in the heat of battle , he informed others of his intentions and carried out the killing (and admitted it afterwards) that's premeditated and first degree murder.

You certainly can't say Latimer's actions were not premeditated so what is your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...