Capt. Robert Semrau Charged With Murder in Afghanistan

[Bruce Monkhouse]

But how can you be sure he wasn't still clinging onto life?
I agree entirely with the article. 

You can't, nor can you be sure he wasn't already dead........................therefore there is no 100% proof either way. This isn't civil court or some kangaroo human rights court where balance of probability can ruin someones life, this is the real thing, proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. [or to that effect]

Bad guys walk with a whole lot more "proof" than this case had.......................

 

[KevinB]

Maybe it's just me, but for starters, to find someone guilty of:

"Murder" <--- one must be proven to have caused the death of a live person; and

"Attempted Murder" <---- one must be proven to have attempted to cause the death of a live person.

So, with testimony given that the guy had 5 minutes earlier been "98% dead" casting reasonable doubt upon whether or not the enemy Taliban was actually alive (ie: there were no "facts" presented by the prosecution to prove "life" at the moment of the shots) when the admitted-to shots occured ...

One simply can not "murder" or "attempt to murder" an already-dead person. One must be proven "live" by facts for that to be the case. That makes legal sense.

However, shooting a dead body could indeed be seen as a disgraceful act. That makes legal sense too.

Ergo, the verdict seems to make sense to me.  Sigh.

Crap.

The same rational would be that they then had to prove he shot a dead body.
IIRC there are specific charges that deal with that too.

IMHO when whoever ordered the good Capt's patrol to bash on and leave a wounded combatant to die, left the Capt no choice.
 
 

 

[armyvern]

Crap.

The same rational would be that they then had to prove he shot a dead body.
IIRC there are specific charges that deal with that too.

IMHO when whoever ordered the good Capt's patrol to bash on and leave a wounded combatant to die, left the Capt no choice.
 

There was plenty of testimony as to his having shot him. Essentially, there was no question that the two shots were fired. There was, however, plenty of testimony that the guy was almost dead, that some thought he was already dead, and that he was 98% dead 5 minutes before the good Capt was seen standing over him with smoke eminating from the end of his weapon. 5 minutes later when the shots were fired, perhaps the guy was indeed 100% dead already.

In my mind, the "reasonable doubt" is as to whether or not the guy was dead when those shots occured.

It was already explained earlier in this thread as to why an "indignity to a human body" etc would fall into the disgraceful conduct category that it did during this Court Martial.

 

[KevinB]

How do you think 'CF members leave wounded to die' would play out in the media, any bets that the Capt would have been CM'd for that one...
 

 

[armyvern]

How do you think 'CF members leave wounded to die' would play out in the media, any bets that the Capt would have been CM'd for that one...

I'm with you, believe me.

I've got a DNR order on my files. I know were it me lying there slowly bleeding out, in pain and tortuously dying while staring up to look at my enemy in the face ... what I'd be wanting them to do. It wouldn't be for them to let me suffer even one minute longer when they could do nothing to save me anyway. I think that one minute would be torture in itself.

 

[vonGarvin]

The state of the TB lying there is much like Schrödinger's Cat.  It cannot be proven that he was alive, and neither can it be proven that he was dead.  He was, legally, in a "superposition" between living and dead, as far as the law was concerned. 

The law also knew that Capt Semrau didn't know the state of the TB.  They failed to bring into evidence anything that would suggest that he believed the TB to be alive. 

So, back to Schrödinger's TB.  They could not convict murder or attempted murder, because the TB wasn't alive, as far as they know.  They could not convict (nor did they raise a charge of) doing an indignity to a human body, because the TB wasn't dead, as far as they know.  Again, Schrödinger's TB was in a superposition.  All they know is that he shot a dead or undead TB.  A charge of murder could not be proven, nor a charge of causing an indignity to a body.  Ergo, disgraceful conduct.

That's my take on it.

 

[Haggis]

All they know is that he shot a dead or undead TB.

Shooting an undead Taliban is not the same as shooting a living Taliban.

(You can't tell me that you didn't see this coming...)

 

[medicineman]

The state of the TB lying there is much like Schrödinger's Cat.

Have you been watching too much "Big Bang Theory" again?

MM

 

[vonGarvin]

Have you been watching too much "Big Bang Theory" again?

MM

LOL, no.  Just finally found a way to use that Schrödinger Cat thought experiment in a real-life situation.  I think that in this case, it applies.

 

[medicineman]

True enough...another thought about this whole sordid affair - does anyone think that other allied military legal commands are looking at this case as some sort of precedent?  I wonder if US, British, French Armies have tried soldiers for similar actions or is our military/government still out of touch with the realities of warfare even after almost 10 years of this.  Something to put out there - and if I missed this in one of the previous gazillion posts here, apologies in advance.

MM

 

[McG]

...

One simply can not "murder" or "attempt to murder" an already-dead person. One must be proven "live" by facts for that to be the case. That makes legal sense.

However, shooting a dead body could indeed be seen as a disgraceful act. That makes legal sense too.

Ergo, the verdict seems to make sense to me.  Sigh.

Crap.

The same rational would be that they then had to prove he shot a dead body.
IIRC there are specific charges that deal with that too.

...

They could not convict murder or attempted murder, because the TB wasn't alive, as far as they know.  They could not convict (nor did they raise a charge of) doing an indignity to a human body, because the TB wasn't dead, as far as they know.  Again, Schrödinger's TB was in a superposition.  All they know is that he shot a dead or undead TB.  A charge of murder could not be proven, nor a charge of causing an indignity to a body.  Ergo, disgraceful conduct.

No.

As stated previously, Charge #3, of Behaving in a disgraceful manner contrary to Section 93 of the National Defence Act, was not laid in the alternate to either charge #1 (murder) or charge #2 (attempted murder).  As nobody has yet been able to post the particulars of the charge, this whole analysis of the verdict is based on assumptions which (I suspect) are most likely unrelated.

If charge #3 really did come back to the Schrödinger's cat argument, then it should have been laid in the alternate to both the first two charges.  In fact, there would have been four charges in alternate to each other:[list type=decimal]
[*]Second-degree murder, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 235(1) of the Criminal Code;
[*]Attempting to commit murder with a firearm - contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 239(1)(a.1) of the Criminal Code;
[*]Offered any indignity to a dead human body - contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 182(b) of the Criminal Code;
[*]Charge of Behaving in a disgraceful manner – contrary to Section 93 of the National Defence Act; [/list]

This did not happen.  So (Again, I suspect), if someone were to dig-up the particulares of the charge we would most likely find that charge #3 is about some other element of what Capt Semrau did that day (or in the days following but relating back to the incident).

 

[vonGarvin]

Good points.  I hadn't followed this trial closely, and that was deliberate.  I know Capt Semrau, and consider him a friend.  So, I stayed close to him, but distanced myself from the trial.  So, I applied after-thought to the whole thing.  Anyway, from the transcripts:

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.

So, disgraceful conduct in that he failed to collect that wounded male person, etc.

 

[armyvern]

No.

As stated previously, Charge #3, of Behaving in a disgraceful manner contrary to Section 93 of the National Defence Act, was not laid in the alternate to either charge #1 (murder) or charge #2 (attempted murder).  As nobody has yet been able to post the particulars of the charge, this whole analysis of the verdict is based on assumptions which (I suspect) are most likely unrelated.

If charge #3 really did come back to the Schrödinger's cat argument, then it should have been laid in the alternate to both the first two charges.  In fact, there would have been four charges in alternate to each other:[list type=decimal]
[*]Second-degree murder, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 235(1) of the Criminal Code;
[*]Attempting to commit murder with a firearm - contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 239(1)(a.1) of the Criminal Code;
[*]Offered any indignity to a dead human body - contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 182(b) of the Criminal Code;
[*]Charge of Behaving in a disgraceful manner – contrary to Section 93 of the National Defence Act; [/list]

This did not happen.  So (Again, I suspect), if someone were to dig-up the particulares of the charge we would most likely find that charge #3 is about some other element of what Capt Semrau did that day (or in the days following but relating back to the incident).

Charge 1 (Murder) and Charge 2 (Attempted Murder) were alternate charges to each other.  Can one have more than one alternate laid to each number (ie: charge 3)? I do suspect that charge 4 was in relation to not providing first aid/medical.

His charge sheet is here.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

True enough...another thought about this whole sordid affair - does anyone think that other allied military legal commands are looking at this case as some sort of precedent?  I wonder if US, British, French Armies have tried soldiers for similar actions or is our military/government still out of touch with the realities of warfare even after almost 10 years of this.  Something to put out there - and if I missed this in one of the previous gazillion posts here, apologies in advance.

MM

If I remember correctly during the Falklands War there was a case where a British (Argentine??) soldier was wounded and in extreme agony and there was no way to evacuate him, so one of the Brits shot him to put him out of his misery.

I also know of case in Texas where an older couple driving down the road were involved in a serious car accident. The wife was able to get out, but not her husband. The car caught on fire and rather then allow her husband to burn to death she shot him. As far as I know she wasn't charged.

 

[medicineman]

I remember the one about the Brit medic - an Argentine airman from Goose Green was torched by napalm, the medical Sgt shot him with his 9mm.  Incidentally, he was a PoW.  I guess what I'm looking for is if anyone was ever charged for that - even though there doesn't seem to be much case law here as precedent, you'd think that similar cases, albeit from other militaries, could be used as examples pro or con. 

MM

 

[owa]

I've been really interested in this case, and the "lessons learned" aspect of it.

From everything I have read, and maybe it isn't all factual, Semrau was an excellent member of the CF and had a very good career.  He was well respected and wasn't the type of guy to do something if he didn't believe it to be morally right.  It is really too bad he can't go back and correct his supposed mistake.  It's just sad that something like this is ruining his career.  Maybe you think what he did was wrong, maybe you think it was right, but at the end of the day his intentions were in the right place.

It just sucks to see someone lose so much because he believed so deeply in his own actions -- believing that they were pure and just.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Also remember the Anna Pou Case from Hurcane Katrina.

Dr. Anna Pou, and 2 nurses were investigated after high levels of Morphine were found in bodies recovered from the Morgue.  There were rumours that the health staff had discussed Euthanasia for the patience who would not be able to survive the isolation.  After several months, the grand jury concluded its work by declining to indict any of the suspects on any of the charges.

dileas

tess

 

[medicineman]

Also remember the Anna Pou Case from Hurcane Katrina.

Dr. Anna Pou, and 2 nurses were investigated after high levels of Morphine were found in bodies recovered from the Morgue.  There were rumours that the health staff had discussed Euthanasia for the patience who would not be able to survive the isolation.  After several months, the grand jury concluded its work by declining to indict any of the suspects on any of the charges.

...and it would seem that none were charged by the State OR disciplined by their respective Colleges for disgraceful conduct.  I could actually see this case overlapping into the medical branch soon - are we going to be Monday Morning QB'd by the judidciary for medical decisions in battle under mass cal conditions now too? 

Better stop now before I get a visit from someone pay grades above us all...

MM 

 

[McG]

Charge 1 (Murder) and Charge 2 (Attempted Murder) were alternate charges to each other. 

Yes but, to be relevant, the Schrödinger's cat argument also requires that Charge 3 was laid in the alternate to the first two.  Becuase it was not laid in the alternate it was possible that Semrau could have been convicted of charge 3 and either of 1 or 2.

Can one have more than one alternate laid to each number (ie: charge 3)?

Yes.  See OS Hornell's charge sheet for example.  You will note that charges 4, 5, and 6 were all in the alternate to eachother:  http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/fca-cs/doc/hornell.pdf

 

[KevinB]

I posted earlier on a US Army decision to shoot a wounded Iraqi - found guilty.

  So now we see that the Capt is alledged to have been charged with Disgraceful Conduct for carrying out his patrol and not stopping to give aid.

This verdict worries me as any combat commander is now going to be in a potential CM stop for continuing their mission if a wounded enemy exists somewhere on the Battlefield. 


Furthermore I had understood he was ordered to carry on with his patrol and not evac the wounded?
 
Its a lose-lose situation for all told IMHO