Ben Roberts-Smith, Judge says he is a murderer

[Cav]

A court of law has found BRS to be a murderer

Journalists can print this statement because a judge said it is the substantial truth or contextual truth

The law is indeed an ***

What hope is there now of a fair criminal trial? It would be virtually impossible for the jurors to find BRS “not guilty.”

This case should have been held over once guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bastards!

[MITCHAY]

He started the civil case in the first place. We don't even know if there will be a criminal case but apparently intends to appeal this decision.

[Franco Cozzo]

Standard of proof is lower in civil cases right?

I wonder if this would effect a criminal trial if one was to happen, when I was in court, a father was trying to get an intervention order against his ex wife's new partner who was diddling his children,

The magistrate threw it out because they were going through family court for another issue, for two reasons

A) Unusual to hear evidence from children in magistrates court
B) If magistrate makes a finding on the intervention order, it could effect the outcome of the family court decision.

Makes me wonder if BRS and his civil case findings is going to do him in on a criminal trial?

[lra]

During the last week, the 'powers that be' have expressed alarm and concern regarding the churn / turn-over / retention / recruiting rates for the ADF.

I wonder why that would be so ?
Join up, be sent to do a job, and when it is over ....... thanks for coming, see ya, just don't call us, we don't want to know.

[MITCHAY]

The standard in civil cases is 'balance of probabilities' where as criminal is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. As I understand it in this case the standard was in the middle called Briginshaw.

What I don't understand is how can you accuse a person of a crime but that not be the standard?

As I have said before this whole handling of the Brereton report has been a cluster**** and CDF and the whole chain of command should be first in line to be stripped if not outright fired.

Let's also not forget the politicians and their hand either.

[Cav]

Check out The 7:30 Report for today.

The journalist said a couple of times that BRS was a murderer, a war criminal and a liar.

This is substantially true - the judge said so.

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by Cav

Check out The 7:30 Report for today.

The journalist said a couple of times that BRS was a murderer, a war criminal and a liar.

This is substantially true - the judge said so.

Evidence was adduced from Australian Special Forces members of BRS kicking a civilian man off a cliff, and then being involved in shooting poor civilian lying wounded from the fall.

The Australian Special Forces members evidence on this was corroborated by Afgan civilians.

This evidence was given, tested under cross examination, and found credible by the court.

Nothing in this-no black magic.

Problem is for a criminal case, it will apply the noted beyond reasonable doubt and not the civil on balance of probabilities standard as applied in this defamation action. Briginshaw not applicable to this case as it was a civil defamation matter- was not some "offence" or regulation breach that was not criminal.

Also in a criminal case, likely to be a Jury Trial, and that may make it harder to secure a conviction against a "war hero".

Any criminal case- all evidence needs to be adduced again fresh, the evidence given in the defamation case could be used during cross examination on credibility issues.

The end result in this defamation case was expected my end.

What does surprise me is when I heard of the nature of the SAS Australian members evidence against BRS before the defamation hearing, I said to my wife what the hell is BRS doing suing the publications for defamation, he is exposing himself to later criminal war crime prosecutions. He is insane.

I suppose BRS has the Prince Andrew syndrome, arrogant, entitled and self deluded and (even though he is intelligent according to my daughter who observed his evidence in person in court) he most certainly is unwise.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by Cav

Check out The 7:30 Report for today.

The journalist said a couple of times that BRS was a murderer, a war criminal and a liar.

This is substantially true - the judge said so.

You watch that woke channel?
ABC has gone to the dogs.

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by jaydee

You watch that woke channel?
ABC has gone to the dogs.

I agree. ABC is un-watchable.

Dr Terry

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by jaydee

You watch that woke channel?
ABC has gone to the dogs.

Or cats, what ever they want to identify as.

[mondeomatureguy]

Hi Guys,
ive never been in the Army or for that matter been to War. Guys like BRS who was in the Special Forces was trained to kill thats the name of the game when you go to war.

I said to my wife and i am not sticking up for the bloke " it was War and who are we to say what went on because we werent there".

Join the Australian Army get trained go overseas and fight for your country return home but if something goes wrong we dont want to know about it your on your own.

[Interceptor]

The media, unfortunately, will be forever allowed to act the way they are, selectively publishing their idea of justice. Bias needs to be policed and punished.

Personally I think every journalist even under suspicion of bias needs to be rounded up and exported to the warzones and voluntold to take part in minesweeping missions.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by asagaai

What does surprise me is when I heard of the nature of the SAS Australian members evidence against BRS before the defamation hearing, I said to my wife what the hell is BRS doing suing the publications for defamation, he is exposing himself to later criminal war crime prosecutions. He is insane.

I suppose BRS has the Prince Andrew syndrome, arrogant, entitled and self deluded and (even though he is intelligent according to my daughter who observed his evidence in person in court) he most certainly is unwise.

Quite a few commentators a couple of years ago said he should have just left it alone and not taken the court action, they could see the writing on the wall. If he left it alone, it would be very much 'yesterdays news', but he has dragged it out for years and made himself look really really bad.

The theatre of war is a **** place and **** things happen

[TasRanger]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

The theatre of war is a **** place and **** things happen

So if a foreign fighter commits war crimes against our troops, that's ok?

If any of our troops are suspected of committing war crimes, they should be appropriately investigated and tried in a court of law. War crimes are not just things that happen.

We are better than that.

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by TasRanger

So if a foreign fighter commits war crimes against our troops, that's ok?

If any of our troops are suspected of committing war crimes, they should be appropriately investigated and tried in a court of law. War crimes are not just things that happen.

We are better than that.

That's not the way i interpreted what Trevor said.

War is cruel.

No one knows what they are capable of under the same circumstances. I couldn't imagine fighting in a war zone. The split second decision you'd have to take to either defend yourself or colleagues is in no way a sign they went in there with intent to kill innocent people.

If they did well justice needs to be served.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by roKWiz

That's not the way i interpreted what Trevor said.

War is cruel.

No one knows what they are capable of under the same circumstances. I couldn't imagine fighting in a war zone. The split second decision you'd have to take to either defend yourself or colleagues is in no way a sign they went in there with intent to kill innocent people.

If they did well justice needs to be served.

Agree with you generally with split second decisions, but in the case of enemies being captured and executed is another completely different story.

[asagaai]

This poses a moral and legal dilemma.

Yesterday evening, Friday red wine after working week, watching sunset with wife, I threw out a scenario, after both agreeing that if we were in military killing civilians would be a no go zone- whatsoever - which BRS appears to have crossed.

However- what about enemy combatants- despite Geneva convention etc.

Said to her- imagine you were a soldier, your country was invaded, your children butchered, and your partner raped and killed by the invaders.

Imagine you were in the army and captured 2 enemy combatants in the heat of battle- what would you do.

She responded she would not kill them on the basis that they were not the proven perpetrators who killed the children/partner.

From my end- heat of battle- say 2 combatants in a dugout making some sign of surrender- in the heat and anger- what would I do- expose myself to the dangers of their surrender or just toss a frag in there to dull the pain of my loss.

Who knows until we are in that position.

But in all this -it is healthy that Australian Special Forces have stood up and given the truth about that cliff civilian and BRS. Rather that than cover up.

[Interceptor]

Originally Posted by TasRanger

So if a foreign fighter commits war crimes against our troops, that's ok?

According to the bleating hearts, its perfectly OK because thats how little Abdul was raised.

Originally Posted by TasRanger

If any of our troops are suspected of committing war crimes, they should be appropriately investigated and tried in a court of law. War crimes are not just things that happen.

Yet how often do you see Taliban members up in court defending themselves?

Originally Posted by TasRanger

We are better than that.

Going to go see an army recruiter on monday so you can do your bit to lead by example then?

Originally Posted by zilo

It takes a special kind of person to volunteer to go offshore to start a war for no apparent threat to Australia

Since when did soldiers volunteer to go overseas and start wars?

Its the politicians people vote in that start the wars the troops get sent off to fight in, something too often forgotten down the track when the troops return home to a public who would rather blame the troops than the men in suits that started it all.

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

And IF Australia gets involved in another overseas conflict I expect some of you nay-sayers to be at the front of the line queuing up to join the ADF and put your toes into the theatre of war

When, not if Australia next gets dragged into an overseas conflict, dont get your hopes up of seeing the bleating hearts queuing up to enlist, they do their best fighting behind their keyboards.

Originally Posted by FairmontGS

Thanks for posting that Blue. Quite the read. A lot of shenanigans in the background…

You seem shocked?

My take on this, is that a whole lot of people who dont have the hide to step up to the front line where bad things happen are freely allowed to attack those who ARE willing to put their lives on the line, and do so with the protection of highly paid legal teams.
It disappoints me to see soldiers turning their back on their brothers, the same men every soldier needs to be able to trust and depend on when the world is at its worst
The media and bleating hearts talk a big game saying that our soldiers need to be held to a higher standard, but they never say a word about the barbarism and atrocities our troops so often have leveled against them.

War is hell, and expecting our troops to step up to the enemy singing kumbaya with their hands tied behind their backs will only mean a steady flow of coffins being flown home.

Anyone who supports that needs to be held accountable for the death of each and every soldier who doesnt come home alive.

If you're going to go to war against an enemy that holds no respect for others, no value in human life, and is willing to commit atrocities against their own people just to ensure support for their own ways, the ONLY way to beat them is to be the bigger bastard at their own game.

The difference? Having the humanity to bring peace to the land once the fighting is done.

Thats the difference between being civilised people, and barbarians.

Peace is not brought by those who live by peaceful ways, its brought by those who are willing to use violence when it is required.

[FairmontGS]

Originally Posted by Interceptor

You seem shocked?

Somewhat surprised really. I hadn't comprehended that Stokes' teams involvement went that deep.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Interceptor

Since when did soldiers volunteer to go overseas and start wars?

Its the politicians people vote in that start the wars the troops get sent off to fight in, something too often forgotten down the track when the troops return home to a public who would rather blame the troops than the men in suits that started it all.
.

Err......all Australian service personnel that have toured in Iraq Afghanistan...etc have all volunteered....not compelled by the likes of conscription.

You volunteer..you are complicit.

It's all about the taxfree money and benefits.

Hope that clears it up for you.

[Kingsley]

Originally Posted by zilo

Err......all Australian service personnel that have toured in Iraq Afghanistan...etc have all volunteered....not compelled by the likes of conscription.

You volunteer..you are complicit.

It's all about the tax free money and benefits.

Hope that clears it up for you.

I'm curious to know when you get back from your umpteenth ban whats the 'tax free money' and all the 'benefits' that personnel get for serving in the Defence Force? If your place of employment had a similar system in place would you complain? If your place of employment then put in the same discipline standards as the army for those benefits, would you still go?
Would you be willing to uproot your family/girlfriend/boyfriend up every 2-4 years to move from state to state? Would you be willing to spend weeks at a time away from your family? Many that claim they could rarely last the first term of enlistment before its all too hard for them. A lot dont even get that far bailing at 'rookies'.

Would you serve your country if needed or would you and others of your ilk would be on the first planes and ships out if here of war broke out? Fighting the good fight from a keyboard overseas ensuring that those behind play by your rules regardless of what the other sides doing?
Part of Defence is fighting overseas in wars we dont understand or believe we should partake in. Those wars, as callous as it sounds, also provide 'real time' training.
I cant defend or support the allegations bought about by the media, I wasnt there and the media has a horrible habit of unbalanced, selective, sensationist and half truth to flat out lies in reporting and but I understand why it happens and the culture of Defence and why its necessary to have soldiers like Roberts-Smith should we ever need them.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by zilo

Err......all Australian service personnel that have toured in Iraq Afghanistan...etc have all volunteered....not compelled by the likes of conscription.

You volunteer..you are complicit.

It's all about the taxfree money and benefits.

Hope that clears it up for you.

what a ****ing crock of ****

The only 'tax free' benefits happen when they serve in war like conditions, best to check you facts ol' son

https://pay-conditions.defence.gov.a.../part-5b/div-3

https://wealthvisory.com.au/defence-...ltimate-guide/

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by Interceptor

It disappoints me to see soldiers turning their back on their brothers, the same men every soldier needs to be able to trust and depend on when the world is at its worst

Interesting comment you make here, and the question is why is it?
Do you think some ADF personal are trying to clear their consciousness as to what they are witnessing? this would be one of many reasons for PTSD

[FTE217]

basket case of a so called channel and funded by us ffs are we surprised today.

[lra]

I don't understand the 'could be guilty' result of a defamation case, as opposed to a 'definitely guilty' result in a criminal case. Like being a half full / half empty glass.
BRS is done and dusted in the public view, regardless of any 'real' war crimes trial finding.

It seems that there is more to this whole ****fight than is being told. US forces are not allowed to operate with allied forces which 'condone' war crimes, therefore putting the ADF in a difficult position.
How do they determine that without a conviction at The Hague ?
Is there some sort of defence / political blackmail being used, with selected persons being scapegoats ?
And the USA, in general, in not exactly squeaky clean on this subject. Seems OK to kill civilians in a missile raid, but not up close and personal.

What a ****ing mess.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by Cav

A court of law has found BRS to be a murderer

Journalists can print this statement because a judge said it is the substantial truth or contextual truth

The law is indeed an ***

What hope is there now of a fair criminal trial? It would be virtually impossible for the jurors to find BRS “not guilty.”

This case should have been held over once guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bastards!

Yes the law can be an a** at times, but maybe BRS should have kept his mouth shut, he took the gamble and lost.

[Ford17]

On the surface it looks like a Seven network vs Nine/Fairfax legal battle.

Biased reporting of the case is evident from both sides.

[LG17]

I'm a bit confused about the whole thing.
If, according to this judge going on the word of mainly un-named people given special privileges, Ben is guilty of murdering a combatant, how did he ever receive a VC?
It's my understanding that anyone put forward as a possible recipient is gone through with a fine tooth comb.

[hackney]

I am now seeing that there are calls for him to be stripped of his medals.

[Walt Kowalski]

Originally Posted by Cav

A court of law has found BRS to be a murderer

Journalists can print this statement because a judge said it is the substantial truth or contextual truth

The law is indeed an ***

What hope is there now of a fair criminal trial? It would be virtually impossible for the jurors to find BRS “not guilty.”

This case should have been held over once guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bastards!

Put me on the jury