Capt. Robert Semrau Charged With Murder in Afghanistan

[Journeyman]

With the burden of proof being on the prosecution, the defence doesn't even have to put forth a case.

:brickwall:

Picturing you as an Assisting Officer (maybe...someday) -- and your subordinate getting the death sentence for a Sec. 129

 

[ballz]

:brickwall:

Picturing you as an Assisting Officer (maybe...someday) -- and your subordinate getting the death sentence for a Sec. 129

Easy pal. I never said I'd take that route.

So are you going to answer slash clarify my question?

 

[Journeyman]

It's the job of the defence counsel to provide plausible refutation of any admissible prosecution claims (had you not dismissed the defence as unnecessary).

Yet you seriously believe that during the jury's deliberations, Juror A will suddenly shout, "Eureaka! Here's an option not considered," and render a verdict based on "facts" not presented during the court martial?


Sorry. I'm incapable of answering what you clearly, but falsely, believe to be an intelligent question.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I didn't mean in court, I meant behind closed doors, sitting at the table that seats 12, after hearing the prosecution's case, I would probably look at the other 11 people and say "does anybody else think this might be possible?" That is fair game no?

It's not your job as a juror to invent alternative arguments.

http://www.gregmonforton.com/columns/role-of-jury.asp

A juror’s job is to decide on the facts of the case as they are presented at trial.

 

[dapaterson]

:brickwall:

Picturing you as an Assisting Officer (maybe...someday) -- and your subordinate getting the death sentence for a Sec. 129

"But... but... but... I just didn't polish my boots!"

"Sorry.  First time as an assisting officer."


(Obviously, a summary trial within The RCR...)

 

[ballz]

based on "facts" not presented during the court martial?

No, it is entirely based on the facts (that will assumingly be) presented by prosecution. The facts that are being presented that we know of right now are:

1. Taliban was alive when
2. Capt Semrau was left alone with the Taliban
3. 2 shots were heard fired
4. Taliban was dead upon arrival

Assuming they prove all this, there is still no proof that the Taliban wasn't dead before he was shot. EDIT TO ADD: If a defence council didn't point this out to me, I don't see how/why it is invalid.

That is deciding on the facts as they were presented no? That's not "inventing" SFA. I like how you tried to completely change / take out of context what it was I was saying though.

Sorry. I'm incapable of answering what you clearly, but falsely, believe to be an intelligent question.

That's not surprising, you're also incapable of keeping your panties from bunching up. I'm sorry I asked too much of you. My mistake.

It's not your job as a juror to invent alternative arguments.

http://www.gregmonforton.com/columns/role-of-jury.asp

Thank you, and thank you for keeping a cool head.

 

[Journeyman]

Well Matlock, thank you for reiterating this point:

I have no idea what knowledge your have on the subject but it's probably more than me (I have none).

 

[vonGarvin]

For those suggesting that Assisting Officers provide legal counsel: they don't. 

For those suggesting that The RCR summarily executes those who fail to polish their boots: we don't.  We just give them a different cap badge and call them "Patricia".  >

 

[OldSolduer]

For those suggesting that Assisting Officers provide legal counsel: they don't. 

For those suggesting that The RCR summarily executes those who fail to polish their boots: we don't.  We just give them a different cap badge and call them "Patricia".  >

oooohhhh them's fightin words!! (done in Yosemite Sam voice, of course) ;D

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Don't forget that you also put back the frontal lobe...........


....and now that I've buried myself, lets try and keep this on topic.
Thanks,
Bruce

 

[FastEddy]

Many hypotheticals that could explain it.  For example, an Afghan national fearing reprisals against his family.

The military judge will review and decide; and that decision could be appealed to the Federal Court.

And hypothetically, who would that be from ?

Cheers.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

We aren't really going to thunder in this topic with hypothetical trial what ifs, are we?  Ballz, Wikipedia is your friend.  People are trying to be helpful but you are making it hard.  Just let this trial unfold as needed.

 

[PanaEng]

We aren't really going to thunder in this topic with hypothetical trial what ifs, are we?  Ballz, Wikipedia is your friend.  People are trying to be helpful but you are making it hard.  Just let this trial unfold as needed.

Wikipedia, google, bing, etc. ... don't put your trust on what you read on the internet - even here  ;D
Ballz had some fair, maybe not excellent questions. Some people were helpful but some others not so much.

As things stand now we have done enough speculation and, as you said, lets "let the trial unfold" and as more news comes out we can then jump on them and speculate some more.

cheers,
Frank

 

[PMedMoe]

From the Ottawa Citizen

Judge rejects constitutional challenge to court martial of Canadian soldier

A military judge has dismissed a constitutional challenge to the jury selection process in the court martial of Capt. Robert Semrau.

More on link

 

[Ammo]

Not much more:
GATINEAU, Que. — A military judge has dismissed a constitutional challenge to the jury selection process in the court martial of Capt. Robert Semrau.

Semrau is charged with second-degree murder for the alleged shooting of a disarmed Taliban insurgent on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

The next issue for a decision is whether the trial should be moved to Afghanistan or CFB Petawawa. northwest of Ottawa. Lawyers are trying to come to an agreement to present to the court next Monday.

 

[PMedMoe]

Hence the reason I didn't feel the need to post it in its entirety.

 

[PMedMoe]

Court martial of Canadian soldier over Afghan death to open March 15

A ground-breaking court martial involving an alleged battlefield execution in Afghanistan has been adjourned to next month.

The court set March 9 for hearing any final legal arguments before the first evidence is delivered March 15. Capt. Robert Semrau, 36, is charged with second-degree murder and other military offences in the death of a disarmed and badly wounded Taliban insurgent during an operation in August 2008.

Semrau's lawyer argued unsuccessfully today to hold the trial in Afghanistan.

The prosecution suggested it be moved to Canadian Forces Base Petawawa in eastern Ontario, home to Semrau and his regiment.

The trial judge ruled the proceedings should be held in the military court room of a federal complex just across the river from Ottawa.

Part of the trial may have to be held in Afghanistan, to take testimony from Afghan witnesses, but the judge says that will be decided later.

It's believed to be the first time a Canadian soldier has been charged in a battlefield death.

The body of the unidentified insurgent at the centre of the case was never recovered.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Part of the trial may have to be held in Afghanistan, to take testimony from Afghan witnesses, but the judge says that will be decided later.

This may be the key.  Surely they must have a statement then, from somebody who was there?  It then begs the question, if the witness can't/won't testify, will they try to push the statement through without them?  Typically, that doesn't happen unless the witness is dead. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

This, from the Ottawa Citizen/CanWest:

Capt. Robert Semrau of CFB Petawawa has pleaded not guilty to charges that he shot and killed a wounded Taliban fighter after a firefight in southern Afghanistan.

On the opening day of his general court martial, Semrau, 36, in a green military dress uniform, four times announced, “Not guilty your honour,” when presented with the charges against him.

The prosecution alleges that Semrau fired two shots into a severely wounded and disarmed Taliban insurgent on Oct. 19, 2008, in Afghanistan’s Helmand province.

Semrau was commanding a small team of Canadians that had been assigned that day to mentor a company of soldiers from the Afghan National Army. During a dismounted patrol, the group was attacked by Taliban insurgents. A U.S. Army Apache gunship responded and fired on the Taliban, killing one fighter and severely injuring another.

Semrau’s group photographed both of the insurgents.

Semrau, an officer with the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, is not in criminal court, but faces prosecution under Canadian military law.

He’s charged with second-degree murder, or alternately, attempted murder; behaving in a disgraceful manner; and the negligent performance of a military duty ....

 

[Greymatters]

I would also offer that Rules of Engagement are considered to be of a sensitive nature, and I would avoid commenting on them at all.

I think thats an ongoing topic of debate - if ROE's were more openly discussed, we would have fewer members and civilians misunderstanding them.  Although the specific ROEs being used in current operations are sensitive, those used in past operations are not.