Ben Roberts-Smith

[Jerry_Atrick]

Sorry Spacey.. that is not a point at all... Just because someone kills someone does not mean they are guilty of murder... But, if two people are invovled in the same killing, it is entirely feasible that one is guilty of murder and one of the lesser offence, or may be not guilty due to the cicrumstances..

 

The law is complex to make sure those that are only guilty of intentionally (or in the case of NSW, with reckless indifference to human life) are found guilty and we don't find people who fall short of the criminal liability for murder are not found guilty of it. Note, both intention and reckless have specific meanings in law that are narrower than normal parlance.

 

That doesn't mean they won't be found guilty of another offence related to killing a person.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2025 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

HE .!

Admitted,  he murdered a civilian. 

But as he was not B R S . HE IS INNOCENT .

Does not compute . in my life .

spacesailor

 

[octave]

51 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

But as he was not B R S . HE IS INNOCENT

There has not been a trial.  The court case was for defamation, and the recent court case was an unsuccessful attempt by BRS to overturn the previous case. My understanding is that as yet, no one has been charged with murder.

 

Ben Roberts-Smith loses appeal bid to overturn defamation case loss, signals High Court challenge

Edited May 28, 2025 by octave

[Jerry_Atrick]

This is true, but in finding for the defendants, the judge has said BR-S has been proven on the balance of probabilities to have committed a war crime and also illegally killed a person.. This would have been necessary for the defence to succeed. It is not proven to the criminal standard.

 

When Chump was sued for damages for rape, it was proven to the same standard. He has not been found criminally liable for rape, so can't technically be called a rapist

 

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

Does not compute . in my life .

That's why you should leave it to the professionals 

Edited May 28, 2025 by Jerry_Atrick

[red750]

On today's midday news, he has been arrested again. I had the sound muted, but one banner across the bottom of the screen said "for murder", and I think an earlier one said "for was crimes".

[willedoo]

Five counts of war crime murders the news reports are saying.

[onetrack]

The Office of Special Investigations has had BR-S charged with the murder of non-combatants, as he should always have faced. His idea of "rules of engagement" is a lot different to most other peoples.

 

He is charged with five counts of war crimes over the alleged murders of unarmed Afghan civilians and prisoners.

[willedoo]

Over time there seemed to be a lot of fairly solid evidence against him.

[Litespeed]

Many years too late, and he got the kid gloves treatment.

 

Was allowed to walk freely from the plane, no handcuffs, no heavily armed men in black.

 

When was the last time we saw a man arrested for 5 murders and he is not heavily cuffed and frogmarched?

 

 

[facthunter]

It's been hanging over him for years. Kerry Stokes tried to assist him and I don't blame Kerry for that. We Train soldiers to Be effective killing Machines and expect them to still Be NORMAL. I see that as a quandary. What HE did was awful but WAR is not a Normal situation, A lot  of returned Soldiers are Ruined by what they have seen and done. It used to be called Shellshock. The People who start the Wars are the REAL criminals. Nev

[facthunter]

Remind yourselves Trump Calls them Suckers and Losers  and McCain got captured so He was No Good either. Trump avoided it by Getting a Doctor to find things wrong with his FEET. What a HERO we Have here. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

15 minutes ago, facthunter said:

It's been hanging over him for years. Kerry Stokes tried to assist him and I don't blame Kerry for that. We Train soldiers to Be effective killing Machines and expect them to still Be NORMAL. I see that as a quandary. What HE did was awful but WAR is not a Normal situation, A lot  of returned Soldiers are Ruined by what they have seen and done. It used to be called Shellshock. The People who start the Wars are the REAL criminals. Nev

 

I agree, Nev. I haven't served, but have worked closely with active serving personnel, some of whom were in the elite force of their country. I would always defer to someone who has served for a more considered opinion, but my observation was that the special forces personnel were selected and traing based on their mental toughness and fortitude. A lot of the physical training is about building the mental toughness. 

 

This no doubt has an impact, but one thing it does mean is that they are more likely to see somethng through then your average soldier. And when they choose to operate outside SoP and commands, it is more likely because they intended it. Whether that intention is pure evil or the result of what they have experienced and some form of PTSD or other mental impairment should, rightly so, be determined by a court of law - Is this going through the civil or military courts? This is the same of anyone charged with murder; it is not the police job to pass judgement; it is the prosecutor to determine if on the evidence there may be a good case to answer; and then on the judge/jury or military panel (apols if that is no longer the case - I don't really know too much about military law).

 

If it is a civil trial, they will have to establish which state it comes under (most likely territory - and therefore federal criminal law). Regardless, they will have to prove two elements beyond reasonable doubt - actus reus - guitly act - and that it was he who caused the death with no intervening factors; and then b) mens rea - guilty mind (in Aus, they now call it the fault element). They will have to prove, subjectively, i.e. that in Robert's -Smith own mind rather than what a reasonable person would think, that he intended to kill (or commit grevous bodily harm) or was criminally reckless (not negligent) to whether or not the deaths would occur form his actions. Both have to be proved beyone reasonable doubt. Then there could be defences, of which mental impariment is one. Interestingly, the defences only have to be proven to a balance of probability - more likely than not  - that the conditions for the defence occured. 

 

I would imagine it would be  a similar apprach in military law. 

 

What is widely reported is that he had an unarmed civilians with arms tied behind his back, and if I recall correctly, blindfolded, stand at a ledge of a ricky outcrop, in which Roberts-Smith intentionally kicked the person over thee outcrop. Assuming it to be accurate in that case, the actus reus is definitely there, and the facts would storngly suggest the reuisite intention ir criminal recklessness. That would then open the defences. Extreme provocation is a partial defence these days; so the provocation of comrades being killed previously in an ambush (the previous day) may come into it, but probably not as the law was changed to virtually immediate provocation - so an immediate reaction to provcation. Anything else is a cold blooded intention. There are a couple of other defences but from memory none would really apply. He would have to show on the balance of probability that he had some form of mental impairment and PTSD is one that the court will accept. He only needs to show it was likely rather than definite. 

 

So, there is a lot to play out here. And he, like everyone else deserves a fair trial. It is high time it came.. 

 

If he is found to have suffered mental impairment, the court will order an assessment and potentially lodgings at a suitable HMAS instituton. The assessment may determine he is no longer suffering or if so, he does not need lodgings as long as he submts to and maintains prescribed treatment. 

 

 

[onetrack]

Quote

Remind yourselves Trump Calls them Suckers and Losers  and McCain got captured so He was No Good either. Trump avoided it by Getting a Doctor to find things wrong with his FEET. What a HERO we Have here. Nev

The Doc should have examined his HEAD, not his feet! Just to see how little was in there!

 

Edited 3 hours ago by onetrack

[Jerry_Atrick]

Either way, he would have been excused from service - too dangerous to his own men. .Can't shut up which is not good on a patrol, I imagine.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

Vietcong were murdered by some of our troops ... what happened about that? No cameras around apparently.

 

What find nauseating is the underlying viciousness of the media and a female police officer on TV calling out Roberts-Smith for alleged crimes. He hasn't even gone to court yet.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I haven't seen what you refer to, but if it is so, then you are right . The problem is today, there is a lot about virtue signalling without allowing the process to take place to make a determination. Until, that something makes their virtueness look a biut ugly,. then it is dennial followed by wiait for due process. 

[onetrack]

Jerry, there are Rules of Engagement to be obeyed when carrying out military action against a declared enemy. The problems arise when you're fighting a guerrilla army, and there is no defined "occupied territory".

 

WW1 and WW2 were easy, they were wars of territory occupation with (often changing) front lines. In guerilla wars, there is no "front line", and enemy combatants are often hard to distinguish from civilians. This makes for great frustration, especially when civilians act as "part-time" enemy, and assist guerillas.

 

This is what BR-S's cases will boil down to, whether the murdered "civilians" were actually operating clandestinely as guerillas, or assisting guerilla forces - or whether they just were innocent civilians suspected of aiding the guerillas.

 

https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1683135/Rowe.pdf

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by onetrack

[octave]

In the press conference, they detailed the charges. I don't believe that at any point they pronounced him guilty.    He was found civilly liable 2023. This was appealed against, and the ruling was upheld.

[onetrack]

Quote

Vietcong were murdered by some of our troops ... what happened about that? No cameras around apparently.

This is utter BS, propagated by VC sympathisers. No Australian soldier ever committed a war crime murder in Vietnam - all VC killed by Australian troops were actively engaging in warlike actions against Australian troops - either shooting at them, wearing recognised enemy uniform and running away when called upon to stop, or carrying out booby-trap setting or mine-laying work. Or being found in VC tunnels and bunkers.

 

But the U.S. troops were a different story, as witnessed by the My Lai Massacre.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by onetrack

[Jerry_Atrick]

The couldn't pronounce him guilty at a press conference - unless they want the trial and the charges to be dropped from subjudice.  

 

I was merely taking on the position of a civil law case, and on one of the alleged murders, at time was an unarmed and restrained person. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, onetrack said:

This is what BR-S's cases will boil down to, whether the murdered "civilians" were actually operating clandestinely as guerillas, or assisting guerilla forces - or whether they just were innocent civilians suspected of aiding the guerillas.

As I mentioned, I don't know muc about military law, and the conjecture was based on civilian law. 

 

However, surely, a PoW has a right not ro be murdered. For that one case I mentioned, it does not seem in dispute - at least in the court of public opinion - that the victim was partially bound (hands/wrists) and gagged, and unarmed. At that stage, is he a PoW - I would imagine it to be dependent on the circumstances - and that it does not need someone to be physically locked up. 

 

I'll read the pdf later and get back. 

 

[Litespeed]

Given, it was his fellow commandos that testified against him and other witnesses of his alleged crimes in the civil procedures.

I would expect it's a strong case.

 

You don't bring charges against a "war hero" unless the stink it so bad the blood can't be ignored.

 

There was no evidence presented in the long civil trials and appeals that indicated any of those murdered where soldiers or combatants. Even if there was such evidence they have a right to life when unarmed or surrendered.

 

It should be noted , witnesses ie fellow soldiers in court said weapons and radios were planted after killing to present a version of events.

 

Sounds like war crimes of murder to me.

 

 

No bullshit arguments of provocation or PTSD will carry any weight.