In the news

I suppose a good crash investigator could probably make a case out of that, yes. Likewise for skid marks etc. or witness statements. However, when nobody gets injured, police involvement is usually quite limited and they'll leave the insurers to deal with it, e.g. the insurer's or insurers' own crash/claim investigator(s). (I don't know how any of that works, though.)

Good to see that Mail Rail is getting a second lease of life:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/trains-run-on-post-office-underground-line-for-first-time-in-a-decade-a3410436.html

This is what my father does for a living. Or did until he retired earlier this year.

He is usually employed by insurance companies, uses all sorts of data sources, including crash damage, pedestrian injuries, skid marks, weather conditions, etc. He then prepares a report and acts as an expert witness in court.

His PhD was on the assessment of crash mechanics by analysis of pedestrian injury patterns.

Video of it all seems rather clear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykrD3gG2A0w

I see your no evidence and I raise you 1 evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykrD3gG2A0w

Everyone involved in that should be arrested and shot.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/15/chris-grayling-sent-cyclist-flying-with-his-car-door-video-shows

I reckon there's a bit of cash to be made in 5dvd box sets consisting entirely of chris 'shitfinger' grayling being smashed repeatedly in the face with a hot fucking wok.

I'd torrent that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38338951

Marine A

He took a life outside the rules of war.

Is he:

a) A murderer who deserves to serve 10+ years for the crime.

or

b) Guilty of manslaughter by way of diminished responsibility through PTSD and should serve a sentence of 2 to 3 years.

In the interview his wife has a very sensible explanation:

"This was war, it was exceptional circumstances."

In a war the rules of war does not apply because it's a war.

The fact that he knew what he'd done in the immediate aftermath of the shooting strongly suggests a) in my opinion.

The British Army prides itself on the discipline of it's soldiers, and spends millions training them to keep that discipline in extreme circumstances.

Rules of War would suggest that everyone (both sides) plays by the same rule book. To expect people no matter how will trained to react in the right way in such extreme circumstances in my view is not realistic.

People who think war has rules have obviously never been in one.

/* never been in one.

I genuinely can't make my mind up about this.

I basically agree with both you and @andyp

I can't see how the military can take any position other than A but then I'm acutely aware that I'll never (hopefully) be in a similar high stress situation so I am not really able to judge whether it is B.

The bottom line is that a British soldier is required not to behave like he did, a life was lost, rules of engagement were broken...it was a murder.

I think

Well, a solider is required to obey his rules of engagement and honour the conventions that your military subscribes to.

my view

Is incorrect.

The British Army's rules of engagement in Afghanistan are unilateral, and bounded by the restrictions imposed by international law (often more restricted that is required).

To be a member of the serving forces is to be expected to follow those rules, in all circumstances.

The rules are written with these circumstances in mind. It's not as if the government and army leadership didn't have shooting and war in mind when they wrote the rules of engagement for the conflict in Afghanistan.

It's degrees of guilt. He is guilty of a crime but to serve 10-years for an act of lunacy in a war zone where you have spent months in a tension filled environment where your colleagues are having their heads removed seems a little harsh.

I know nothing of the actual rules and I am sure you are correct in the context of the letter of the law / rules.

All I can say is that it's a harsh sentence for the reasons I just mentioned above.

Train a man to be a psychopathic killing machine, throw him under the bus when he goes postal...

OK...

#jokes #srsbznz

So given the tension on the roads these days, I'd be justified in carrying a gun and killing the next driver who endangers my life. I'd expect to receive a conviction, but it should be suspended, right?

He executed someone. That's cold blooded murder, nothing less.

It's a bit of a leap to go from a 6-month tour in a war zone to hitting the Embankment at rush hour. I just do not see it as being as black and white and context plays a part.

I sort of agree. Context plays a part in charging and sentencing in civilian murder/manslaughter cases. Its tough to argue that it shouldn't happen in military deaths.

Glad its not my call.

It sends an interesting message out if he is acquitted.