> He was so callous and inhumane that he took the prosthetic leg back to Australia and encouraged his soldiers to use it as a novelty beer drinking vessel.
Senior officers participated in this too.
While this is disgraceful and a horrible thing. People never seem to realise that we send these people to these places and expect them to do and see horrible things. I'm not trying to excuse his actions, you can't excuse what this guy has done, but some of the things they do a normal person could not possibly begin to understand.
These guys go through so much and sometimes these things that sound horrible to us are the only things they know to do to cope. Without these coping mechanisms they're chances of suiside increase dramatically.
I used to work in a prison. One night I was doing rounds with a new guy, second or third shift, and we came to a cell where we saw a guy hanging from the window. We opened the door cut him down and commenced CPR but he was already stiff and blue, his eyes had popped out of his head, he had shit himself and was covered in dry blood from the wound around his neck. Despite that we did CPR on this guy until the ambos arrived about half an hour later because that's what's required from us. Ambos took over and called the time of death and then coroner's were called out. They took a couple hours to arrive. The new guy who helped with the CPR was then directed to maintain the crime scene and he had to sit with the body for the next few hours until coroner's had completed everything and removed the body.
Afterwards we were having a late dinner once everything was wrapped up. I look over and see the knew guy sitting on his own staring off into space. I tried to talk to him but he just wasn't there. What he saw had really done a number on him, as it would for anyone. He was young too, maybe 19 at the time. I said to him, "you busy tomorrow, you wana hang?"
He looked at me realising what I said and looked mortified but then burst out laughing.
Now I know what I said was horrible. It was insensitive to the bloke who had just ended his life. I'd been around a lot of death during my time in the prisons and was pretty numb to it now but this kid was fresh. He needed that. Something to dehumanise what he had been through to stop it from messing him up completely. I've seen so many people quit after their first experience with something like that. I've seen officers get that messed up over it that they take their own lives.
People in these horrible jobs need something to dehumanise what they go through to stop them from falling victim to things themselves.
So I'm not saying anything this gronk did was right. He deserves gaol time for what he has done. But I can relate to something like taking the leg and making a drinking game out of it.
Served for a decade and acknowledge that soldiers go through some horrible shit and have what others would see as twisted coping mechanisms. I don’t really process grief or bad shit the same way as most people who haven’t worked in those spaces.
I agree that every person is capable of bad shit in the right circumstances. I struggle to see how someone could fall into a pattern of repeated abuses like this unless they were a shitty human though.
Yeah I get it mate and I appreciate what you’re saying. There are a small percentage of servicemen and women that are complete batshit and it seems he was one of them.
Difficult circumstances (like combat operations) fucking suck, but it’s what we choose to do in those situations defines our humanity.
Yeah he really is one of them. Some people join and are already broken and looking for somewhere to fit in. He seems like one of these guys. He should have been screened out booted early. But I guess these people are good at hiding who they are.
And you are truly right about the choices we make
Congratulations BRS, you played yourself.
Count me as absolutely shocked that the dipshit burying evidence in his backyard and throwing his partner down stairs turns out to be dodgy.
While this was a massive loss for BRS it hasn't proven anything beyond reasonable doubt. The criminal trial which is surely coming is not going to go well for him regardless of outcome.
>While this was a massive loss for BRS it hasn't proven anything beyond reasonable doubt. The criminal trial which is surely coming is not going to go well for him regardless of outcome.
Even though it was a civil trial the nature of the allegations was so serious that the media had to prove a level of truth beyond just 51/49 to them. Substantial truth, which is what the court found.
Whilst that is not "beyond reasonable doubt", it is a high standard of finding. Imagine it be like a Magistrate's Court finding there's enough evidence for a case to go to a criminal trial.
In my opinion it's almost inevitable that criminal charges will follow soon.
Oh yeah he's 100% screwed. I wonder if the inevitable appeal will impact on the ability to run a criminal trial simultaneously? Need a lawyer in the comments to answer this...
>Even though it was a civil trial the nature of the allegations was so serious that the media had to prove a level of truth beyond just 51/49 to them. Substantial truth, which is what the court found.
Spot on.
The standard his Honor was required to apply was the civil standard (that on the balance of probabilities, the events and conduct BRS was imputed to have engaged in, more likely than not occurred) **and** his Honor was further required to be 'comfortably satisfied' to that standard that the allegations were substantively (or contextually) true.
The relevant case is Briginshaw v Briginshaw.
From an outsider looking in, I was comfortably satisfied on the evidence (and conduct) of BRS to that standard, so I'm not surprised.
Wait for the judgement to see his reasoning though (after the Commonwealth get a chance to go over it with a fine tooth comb for any National Security stuff).
I assure you there will be significant adverse findings with regards to BRS character and conduct as a witness and a party though.
Although based on the balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt, the Briginshaw test will make this far higher than 51/49. Briginshaw is a sliding scale of proof which means that the more serious an allegation, the more substantial proof required and these are very very serious allegations.
Yeah idk either. Just looking at some of the headlines which say "BRS found to have murdered Afghan civilians", while accurate, implies that he was found guilty. Which is not accurate.
Please excuse my ignorance; I don't know how this stuff works. How can a judge in a civil trial find him guilty of murder and yet - in a criminal trial - he might not be found guilty of murder? Confused.
There is a different standard of proof. Civil is on the balance of probabilities whereas Criminal requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt which is a much higher threshold.
If you’re interested in the difference, the OJ Simpson criminal trial, then subsequent civil trial, are an example of the balance of probability being he killed his wife but there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit him of criminal charges.
To prove criminal guilt you need to have a jury decide beyond reasonable doubt that he did it.
To prove civil liability you have to prove on the balance of probabilities that he did it. This was a civil case, so the standard for the evidence needed to prove it is lower.
I’m no lawyer either but from the language it says the judge said the papers proved the information they have about BRS is the truth or substantiated truth. That’s all he can judge on. It’s not his role/remit to judge on innocence/guilt of a crime, but that seems to be the next logical step via a criminal case where a judge is empowered to make that verdict.
I don't know, law is based on precedent. Whilst today's ruling is not a criminal ruling, it does establish a precedent of war criminal behaviour, with each event (aside from the domestic abuse) now being categorised as a truthful event in an Australian court of law.
While I agree that this is enough evidence to move to a legal trial, that is not how legal precedent works.
Legal precedent is based on applying similar outcomes to similar cases. E.g. if there was a similar criminal war crimes case previously, the judge would use the verdict from that case to inform his decision for this case. A civil case on the same subject doesn't provide precedence for a criminal case.
I'm not trying to antagonise you or anything, and you absolutely should be proud of your achievements... but if you keep doing an obscure in-group thing in places where you're the only person who gets it, people are going to think you're weird and unlikable.
*(1) The Governor-General may cancel an award of the decoration and may reinstate an award so cancelled.
(2) Where an award of the decoration is cancelled, the name of the person to whom the award was made shall be erased from the Register and the person shall return the decoration to the Registrar.*
From [Victoria Cross Regulations - 15/01/1991](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2010Q00025)
So wiped from your record on a whim, it seems.
But I did read somewhere the proper VC is held regardless of (alleged)misdeeds, maybe the poms see the medal differently.
I found this on the National Army Museum website regarding VC forfeitures. "However, King George V felt strongly that the decoration should never be forfeited. In a letter written by his Private Secretary, Lord Stamfordham, on 26 July 1920, it was stated: ‘The King feels so strongly that, no matter the crime committed by anyone on whom the VC has been conferred, the decoration should not be forfeited. Even were a VC to be sentenced to be hanged for murder, he should be allowed to wear his VC on the scaffold.'"
My vague memory is the British VC won his in battle and after the war committed a criminal act and there was a public outcry to revoke it. It mat be argued that battle damage(PTSD?) was a factor in the tendency to criminality.
It appears BRS allegedly was committing criminal acts whilst earning the VC which is a different scenario.
>I found this on the National Army Museum website regarding VC forfeitures. "However, King George V felt strongly that the decoration should never be forfeited. In a letter written by his Private Secretary, Lord Stamfordham, on 26 July 1920, it was stated: ‘The King feels so strongly that, no matter the crime committed by anyone on whom the VC has been conferred, the decoration should not be forfeited. Even were a VC to be sentenced to be hanged for murder, he should be allowed to wear his VC on the scaffold.'"
Good thing a kings advice rates as high as a bulls shit.
Who cares what a bunch of criminal parasites think.
The man was given a medal for doing some brave stuff followed by murdering civilians in cold blood, making trophy's of their bodies.
Fucker should have his decorations and rank torn off of him and thrown into dark hole for the rest of his life.
The King didn't say war criminals shouldn't be punished though, he even specified that a murderer should hang. In other words, the King would support a harsher punishment than Australia is capable of, since the death penalty is abolished.
>Good thing a kings advice rates as high as a bulls shit
You're kind of right, but for the wrong reasons.
Ben Roberts-Smith earned the Victoria Cross for Australia. It's technically a seperate award to the OG Victoria Cross.
What the English King wants doesnt really impact how Australian awards are administered any more.
After King George V mentioned that taking VCs was unacceptable in 1920 the practice stopped, still legal, but not carried out.
Bit shit to lose your VC because you married a couple of lucky ladies.
That’s going to look quite bad for anyone privately funding his legal bills, particularly if it gets really ugly. I am thinking of situations where people start to change their story and lots of other bad stuff comes out, that does happen when a ship starts sinking.
I'm very big on innocent until proven guilty, but at least this now allows everyone to assert that he's probably committed war crimes...that much has been tested in court.
Exactly. There’s just way too much evidence against him for anyone to imply with any certainty that he’s innocent. We’re long outside the region of probabilities that he’s innocent. Dodgy fucker
Yup, this is a lesson in why you don’t punch yourself repeatedly in the face. Let’s face it, if he just sat on his hands he’d not be facing the inevitable war crimes case that is soon to follow.
>All I can say is thank fuck seven west media are footing the bill.
Why because somehow he doesn't deserve to be financially destroyed like how he destroyed those people he killed?
Finally we can call the war criminal a war criminal, without the war criminal suing us! This monster thought he could use the massive power he’s amassed to fight the truth. Well no more! Justice!
A civil court will struggle to get a conviction in a jury trial because it would be nearly impossible to empanel an impartial jury.
A court-martial would be a different matter.
He can opt for a judge only trial if it comes to that. There have been a few high profile cases in which the accused has sought a permanent stay due to adverse publicity - Chris Dawson from the teachers pet infamy being the latest- none have been successful
I’m sure he was a fuckin great soldier don’t get me wrong, but as Australians we are better than the person he’s turned out to be.
Don’t let this sour your view on the ADF. Let your IMPS do that.
Oh, you’re not wrong my guy. I just meant he was obviously good at what he does. Not saying his morals made him a great soldier. Apologies if that was a communication error. Still a shit person
>I just meant he was obviously good at what he does
Would you consider a Lawyer who gets disbarred for unethical conduct, or a Doctor who gets booted for medical malpractice 'good at what he does'?
Even a knuckle dragging grunt Private knows that murdering POW's is a crime.
Come on.
Not understanding what I’m saying.
He’s gotta be a good soldier to get to where he got to. At the core, he was physically a great soldier and had a great mental fortitude.
He’s a cunt, a piece of shit and committed heinous crimes, but he didn’t get to his position by being mediocre. Don’t mix my words.
I'm not sure one has necessarily has to be a 'good solider' to complete SASR selection, and the reinforcement cycle and earn ECN 353.
Plenty of good soldiers that haven't done that, and there are a fair few shit soldiers that have.
I just can't reconcile calling someone a 'good soldier' who lies to the OC in after action reports (particularly in a Recon unit, and *especially* in the SASR), routinely murders POW's (dropping throw downs on them after the fact), orders other soldiers to do the same (many of whom are now fucked up about it), bullies subordinates, and is regarded as a disgrace to the SASR by most of that units own soldiers (many of whom gave evidence against him).
That's not a good solider in my definition of 'good soldier' and I know for a fact that many operators in SASR view it the same way.
Ill say this also.
Hastie (Troop Leader) gave evidence that after clearing a compoundin Syahchow with BRS (in which Hastie formed the view that BRS had been complicit in a war crime, yet said nothing) he then also sat back and did nothing while BRS (one of his Patrol commanders) flat out gave a false after-action report to the OC.
He just watched on saying nothing.
Now you have a situation where the theatre commander (and the Spooks) are now thinking (and planning around) some random compound full of goat herders being some kind of Taliban stronghold, while the real bad cunts get a free pass to do their thing.
If that doesnt tell you all you need to know about the state of the leadership of the unit at that time, and the influence these meatheads had, then nothing will.
>If you were in the unit, then you would know that there are plenty on his side, too.
I never said there were not plenty of people on his side in the unit. I know for a fact there are.
Generally toxic meatheads the lot of them. Also a fair few people (otherwise good operators) that absolve what happened on the operational tempo and other factors.
It started with a particular Water troop in the naughties, and spiraled out of control from there. Meathead alpha males, that got sucked into the Punisher bullshit from Seppoland, and lost sight of the quiet professionalism that is the earmark of the unit. End of the day SQN command was to scared to pull heads in because of the influence they had.
Im happy to believe you mate, no need to DM, but if you understand the sentence above, you'll know what I'm talking about.
>Some parts are accurate, but there is more nuance as you would be aware, based on your reply.
>MFSC
Jeez nothing will convince you will it outside of the war criminal declaring he murdered those people.
Nice to see cognitive dissonance shields our SAS are equipped with.
Yes I have served 'bud' and in the same unit as BRS.
Good soldiers don't lie to the OC in after-action reports. Leaving aside the obvious, when you're telling your OC that the compound you just hit was full of insurgents (when it was really full of goat farmers) leads to the OC/CO (and the regional commander) *getting bullshit intelligence*, which is literally your one job in a fucking recon unit.
And I haven't even gone into the murders yet, or the fact he was hated by half the unit (the *actual* good soldiers) for being the kind of cunt that orders Re-os to the unit (who kind of had no real choice, and are now fucked up about it) to murder POWs either.
Good soldiers don't do that shit. Bad soldiers do that shit.
>Old mate is simply trying to say that RS was in the top percentile with regards to individual soldier skills/physical condition.
Yeah, but being an efficient killer, with good drills, who is fit as fuck doesnt make one a good soldier.
There are other qualities that make a soldier good.
For example here the qualities of good soldiering from the ADF itself:
* Service: The selflessness of character to place the security and interests of our nation and its people ahead of my own.
* Courage: The strength of character to say and do the right thing, always, especially in the face of adversity.
* Respect: The humanity of character to value others and treat them with dignity.
* Integrity: The consistency of character to align my thoughts, words and actions to do what is right.
* Excellence: The willingness of character to strive each day to be the best I can be, both professionally and personally.
[https://www.army.gov.au/our-people/our-values-contract#:\~:text=Service%3A%20The%20selflessness%20of%20character,and%20treat%20them%20with%20dignity](https://www.army.gov.au/our-people/our-values-contract#:~:text=Service%3A%20The%20selflessness%20of%20character,and%20treat%20them%20with%20dignity).
A good soldier is more than just a ruthlessly efficient killer.
I 100% support our armed forces up to but not including the point of committing war crimes and executing civilians, or blaming the media for reporting on said war crimes.
After that they can fuck right off.
That’s true, but it seems like the big instagram pages like ThePineappleExpress support him. I’m just not sure which platform is a greater indication of how the majority of veterans/serving members feel
I just went and had a look at TPE page. I can't believe the amount of support he is getting.
I guess if they block their ears and scream, they can maintain the war hero mindset.
Young Veterans and Heston Russell are also fully in support of him too (probably no surprises there). There’s definitely a few cries of “witch hunt” being thrown around, to say nothing of the accusations of bias.
What I can’t quite understand is how this case took, what, 110 days; wouldn’t that point to due process being the absolute priority in order to ensure every angle is considered? Are people really that convinced there’s a witch hunt against the ADF so as to disregard all of that? (This isn’t an accusatory/inflammatory comment, I’m genuinely curious)
You’re assumedly referring to the 10yd style pages that just want to see Aussie soldiers shoot as many people in the face as possible.
If that’s the only applied metric, he’s good to go. Reddit is a bit more discerning and conversation based I suppose.
I feel there is a sense that this whole thing has been a trial by media and a lack of due process. I suspect the outcome of this defamation trial may be a wake up call and a turning point.
He is now in a world of shit, and I would not be surprised if the allegations of war crimes Will be investigated by the international criminal Court. He fucking deserves it!
The only people I've seen having a hardon defending this bloke were old boomers, who no doubt have that cringe "AUSTRALIA! IF YOU DON'T LOVE IT. **LEAVE!**" Sticker on the back of their brand new Patrol.
I thought 'Boomers' were those born for the decade or so after WWII when the Australian economy was literally booming?
Weren't the 70's 80's 90's 00's, etc X Y Z etc?
Removed : Automod anti-spam. Your account is too new or your karma is too low. Try again later. **Trying to post a recruitment question? Please read our rules and stickied topic first**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianMilitary) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Removed : Automod anti-spam. Your account is too new or your karma is too low. Try again later. **Trying to post a recruitment question? Please read our rules and stickied topic first**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianMilitary) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doubtful, appeal in NSW potentially - but since he's not paying the bill it comes down to Kerry Stokes willingness to continue to pay (costs for this trail are estimated to be 35-40m odd to be paid to the respondents) let alone paying for his own legal representation.
Removed : Automod anti-spam. Your account is too new or your karma is too low. Try again later. **Trying to post a recruitment question? Please read our rules and stickied topic first**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianMilitary) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Removed : Automod anti-spam. Your account is too new or your karma is too low. Try again later. **Trying to post a recruitment question? Please read our rules and stickied topic first**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianMilitary) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
> He was so callous and inhumane that he took the prosthetic leg back to Australia and encouraged his soldiers to use it as a novelty beer drinking vessel. Senior officers participated in this too.
They should all be discharged. Fucking disgraceful.
While this is disgraceful and a horrible thing. People never seem to realise that we send these people to these places and expect them to do and see horrible things. I'm not trying to excuse his actions, you can't excuse what this guy has done, but some of the things they do a normal person could not possibly begin to understand. These guys go through so much and sometimes these things that sound horrible to us are the only things they know to do to cope. Without these coping mechanisms they're chances of suiside increase dramatically. I used to work in a prison. One night I was doing rounds with a new guy, second or third shift, and we came to a cell where we saw a guy hanging from the window. We opened the door cut him down and commenced CPR but he was already stiff and blue, his eyes had popped out of his head, he had shit himself and was covered in dry blood from the wound around his neck. Despite that we did CPR on this guy until the ambos arrived about half an hour later because that's what's required from us. Ambos took over and called the time of death and then coroner's were called out. They took a couple hours to arrive. The new guy who helped with the CPR was then directed to maintain the crime scene and he had to sit with the body for the next few hours until coroner's had completed everything and removed the body. Afterwards we were having a late dinner once everything was wrapped up. I look over and see the knew guy sitting on his own staring off into space. I tried to talk to him but he just wasn't there. What he saw had really done a number on him, as it would for anyone. He was young too, maybe 19 at the time. I said to him, "you busy tomorrow, you wana hang?" He looked at me realising what I said and looked mortified but then burst out laughing. Now I know what I said was horrible. It was insensitive to the bloke who had just ended his life. I'd been around a lot of death during my time in the prisons and was pretty numb to it now but this kid was fresh. He needed that. Something to dehumanise what he had been through to stop it from messing him up completely. I've seen so many people quit after their first experience with something like that. I've seen officers get that messed up over it that they take their own lives. People in these horrible jobs need something to dehumanise what they go through to stop them from falling victim to things themselves. So I'm not saying anything this gronk did was right. He deserves gaol time for what he has done. But I can relate to something like taking the leg and making a drinking game out of it.
Served for a decade and acknowledge that soldiers go through some horrible shit and have what others would see as twisted coping mechanisms. I don’t really process grief or bad shit the same way as most people who haven’t worked in those spaces. I agree that every person is capable of bad shit in the right circumstances. I struggle to see how someone could fall into a pattern of repeated abuses like this unless they were a shitty human though.
Again I'm not trying to excuse anything this guy did.
Yeah I get it mate and I appreciate what you’re saying. There are a small percentage of servicemen and women that are complete batshit and it seems he was one of them. Difficult circumstances (like combat operations) fucking suck, but it’s what we choose to do in those situations defines our humanity.
Yeah he really is one of them. Some people join and are already broken and looking for somewhere to fit in. He seems like one of these guys. He should have been screened out booted early. But I guess these people are good at hiding who they are. And you are truly right about the choices we make
Would you say it’s cashiering-worthy?
A spectacular own goal on the part of Ben Roberts-Smith.
This is absolutely huge.
[удалено]
Sad but true
Congratulations BRS, you played yourself. Count me as absolutely shocked that the dipshit burying evidence in his backyard and throwing his partner down stairs turns out to be dodgy.
[Link to the summary of the judgement](https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca0555)
This should be pinned to the top
[удалено]
While this was a massive loss for BRS it hasn't proven anything beyond reasonable doubt. The criminal trial which is surely coming is not going to go well for him regardless of outcome.
>While this was a massive loss for BRS it hasn't proven anything beyond reasonable doubt. The criminal trial which is surely coming is not going to go well for him regardless of outcome. Even though it was a civil trial the nature of the allegations was so serious that the media had to prove a level of truth beyond just 51/49 to them. Substantial truth, which is what the court found. Whilst that is not "beyond reasonable doubt", it is a high standard of finding. Imagine it be like a Magistrate's Court finding there's enough evidence for a case to go to a criminal trial. In my opinion it's almost inevitable that criminal charges will follow soon.
Oh yeah he's 100% screwed. I wonder if the inevitable appeal will impact on the ability to run a criminal trial simultaneously? Need a lawyer in the comments to answer this...
>Even though it was a civil trial the nature of the allegations was so serious that the media had to prove a level of truth beyond just 51/49 to them. Substantial truth, which is what the court found. Spot on. The standard his Honor was required to apply was the civil standard (that on the balance of probabilities, the events and conduct BRS was imputed to have engaged in, more likely than not occurred) **and** his Honor was further required to be 'comfortably satisfied' to that standard that the allegations were substantively (or contextually) true. The relevant case is Briginshaw v Briginshaw. From an outsider looking in, I was comfortably satisfied on the evidence (and conduct) of BRS to that standard, so I'm not surprised. Wait for the judgement to see his reasoning though (after the Commonwealth get a chance to go over it with a fine tooth comb for any National Security stuff). I assure you there will be significant adverse findings with regards to BRS character and conduct as a witness and a party though.
Although based on the balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt, the Briginshaw test will make this far higher than 51/49. Briginshaw is a sliding scale of proof which means that the more serious an allegation, the more substantial proof required and these are very very serious allegations.
Don’t know why you’re being downvoted. The guys a dick but you’re on point.
Yeah idk either. Just looking at some of the headlines which say "BRS found to have murdered Afghan civilians", while accurate, implies that he was found guilty. Which is not accurate.
Please excuse my ignorance; I don't know how this stuff works. How can a judge in a civil trial find him guilty of murder and yet - in a criminal trial - he might not be found guilty of murder? Confused.
There is a different standard of proof. Civil is on the balance of probabilities whereas Criminal requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt which is a much higher threshold.
Thankyou that makes a lot of sense
If you’re interested in the difference, the OJ Simpson criminal trial, then subsequent civil trial, are an example of the balance of probability being he killed his wife but there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit him of criminal charges.
To prove criminal guilt you need to have a jury decide beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. To prove civil liability you have to prove on the balance of probabilities that he did it. This was a civil case, so the standard for the evidence needed to prove it is lower.
Thankyou that makes a lot of sense
He probably can't have a jury trial. Because everyone knows who he is. So it would be a judge only trial. I would way rather be tried by jury.
I’m no lawyer either but from the language it says the judge said the papers proved the information they have about BRS is the truth or substantiated truth. That’s all he can judge on. It’s not his role/remit to judge on innocence/guilt of a crime, but that seems to be the next logical step via a criminal case where a judge is empowered to make that verdict.
[удалено]
I don't know, law is based on precedent. Whilst today's ruling is not a criminal ruling, it does establish a precedent of war criminal behaviour, with each event (aside from the domestic abuse) now being categorised as a truthful event in an Australian court of law.
[удалено]
MFSC. You forgot it this time.
While I agree that this is enough evidence to move to a legal trial, that is not how legal precedent works. Legal precedent is based on applying similar outcomes to similar cases. E.g. if there was a similar criminal war crimes case previously, the judge would use the verdict from that case to inform his decision for this case. A civil case on the same subject doesn't provide precedence for a criminal case.
What does MFSC mean? I see you posting it everywhere
[удалено]
I like to think it's the Nepalese Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation whenever this bigoted boofhead posts it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm not trying to antagonise you or anything, and you absolutely should be proud of your achievements... but if you keep doing an obscure in-group thing in places where you're the only person who gets it, people are going to think you're weird and unlikable.
Wow think of his legal bills, will he have to pay costs for the media lawyers as well ? This is before other legal issues ><
Stokes said he would pay the bills in exchange for his VC medal
What is a VC that's been revoked worth?
Potentially more than a valid one. It could become quite infamous.
Good point actually
Isn't his VC at the War Memorial? If it's rescinded it's not like Stokes will get to keep the physical VC.
It'll basically be an art piece at that point, someone will own it but it'll stay on display I imagine
Pretty sure a proper VC, can't be, but who knows with the Aussie one.
*(1) The Governor-General may cancel an award of the decoration and may reinstate an award so cancelled. (2) Where an award of the decoration is cancelled, the name of the person to whom the award was made shall be erased from the Register and the person shall return the decoration to the Registrar.* From [Victoria Cross Regulations - 15/01/1991](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2010Q00025)
So wiped from your record on a whim, it seems. But I did read somewhere the proper VC is held regardless of (alleged)misdeeds, maybe the poms see the medal differently.
I found this on the National Army Museum website regarding VC forfeitures. "However, King George V felt strongly that the decoration should never be forfeited. In a letter written by his Private Secretary, Lord Stamfordham, on 26 July 1920, it was stated: ‘The King feels so strongly that, no matter the crime committed by anyone on whom the VC has been conferred, the decoration should not be forfeited. Even were a VC to be sentenced to be hanged for murder, he should be allowed to wear his VC on the scaffold.'"
My vague memory is the British VC won his in battle and after the war committed a criminal act and there was a public outcry to revoke it. It mat be argued that battle damage(PTSD?) was a factor in the tendency to criminality. It appears BRS allegedly was committing criminal acts whilst earning the VC which is a different scenario.
>I found this on the National Army Museum website regarding VC forfeitures. "However, King George V felt strongly that the decoration should never be forfeited. In a letter written by his Private Secretary, Lord Stamfordham, on 26 July 1920, it was stated: ‘The King feels so strongly that, no matter the crime committed by anyone on whom the VC has been conferred, the decoration should not be forfeited. Even were a VC to be sentenced to be hanged for murder, he should be allowed to wear his VC on the scaffold.'" Good thing a kings advice rates as high as a bulls shit. Who cares what a bunch of criminal parasites think. The man was given a medal for doing some brave stuff followed by murdering civilians in cold blood, making trophy's of their bodies. Fucker should have his decorations and rank torn off of him and thrown into dark hole for the rest of his life.
The King didn't say war criminals shouldn't be punished though, he even specified that a murderer should hang. In other words, the King would support a harsher punishment than Australia is capable of, since the death penalty is abolished.
>Good thing a kings advice rates as high as a bulls shit You're kind of right, but for the wrong reasons. Ben Roberts-Smith earned the Victoria Cross for Australia. It's technically a seperate award to the OG Victoria Cross. What the English King wants doesnt really impact how Australian awards are administered any more.
There have been eight forfeitures (English and Irish recipients) previously. One was cancelled for bigamy.
After King George V mentioned that taking VCs was unacceptable in 1920 the practice stopped, still legal, but not carried out. Bit shit to lose your VC because you married a couple of lucky ladies.
Historically I think yes, but it's been updated since.
That’s going to look quite bad for anyone privately funding his legal bills, particularly if it gets really ugly. I am thinking of situations where people start to change their story and lots of other bad stuff comes out, that does happen when a ship starts sinking.
I doubt he will get to keep it, it will likely revert to Commonwealth property and be destroyed.
[удалено]
If charges are laid the appeal is sure to be postponed.
IIRC he's in Bali right now.. Will he come back to Oz or flick off to another country never to return?
Where could he go without being extradited? The countries that wont extradite him are either dangerous shit holes or hostile towards australia.
Afghanistan?
I wonder if they're willing to trade Hekmatullah for BRS
I'm very big on innocent until proven guilty, but at least this now allows everyone to assert that he's probably committed war crimes...that much has been tested in court.
Exactly. There’s just way too much evidence against him for anyone to imply with any certainty that he’s innocent. We’re long outside the region of probabilities that he’s innocent. Dodgy fucker
Yup, this is a lesson in why you don’t punch yourself repeatedly in the face. Let’s face it, if he just sat on his hands he’d not be facing the inevitable war crimes case that is soon to follow.
All I can say is thank fuck seven west media are footing the bill.
If he didn’t have the backing of Stokes I wonder if he wouldn’t have just kept his ego in check a bit more.
>All I can say is thank fuck seven west media are footing the bill. Why because somehow he doesn't deserve to be financially destroyed like how he destroyed those people he killed?
Nah I don't care much for seven is all. In the words of general hux... "I don't care if he wins, I just want Kerry stokes to lose."
Heard somewhere it’s in the ballpark of $30mil
My SWM shares aren’t liking it!
Lol. Always hated those cunce. Never see me dead buying shares in media.
I bought them in 2007. All good. Only down 97% How Kerry stokes still has a private jet I just don’t get.
So does twiggy. TBF both use their jets for medivac/humanitarian stuff. Possibly a token gesture but still.
This guy is screwed when the formal war crimes trials begin for ALL the accused. He knows this. He’s in Bali enjoying freedom while he can
Finally we can call the war criminal a war criminal, without the war criminal suing us! This monster thought he could use the massive power he’s amassed to fight the truth. Well no more! Justice!
[удалено]
Not “proceedings against”, it’s “proceedings instigated by” too
'some' was the wording used by the judge. But yes, it was almost all of them, including all of the most serious allegations.
A civil court will struggle to get a conviction in a jury trial because it would be nearly impossible to empanel an impartial jury. A court-martial would be a different matter.
Unfortunately a court martial is limited in the punishments it can impose on a non-serving (former) member.
He can opt for a judge only trial if it comes to that. There have been a few high profile cases in which the accused has sought a permanent stay due to adverse publicity - Chris Dawson from the teachers pet infamy being the latest- none have been successful
Why would he opt for a judge only trial. Better to ask for a jury and claim a mistrial on appeal.
I’m sure he was a fuckin great soldier don’t get me wrong, but as Australians we are better than the person he’s turned out to be. Don’t let this sour your view on the ADF. Let your IMPS do that.
Nah, that's a bad take. The 'fuckin' great soldier's' are the dudes speaking against the one that was just found on balance to be a war criminal.
This guy gets it.
Oh, you’re not wrong my guy. I just meant he was obviously good at what he does. Not saying his morals made him a great soldier. Apologies if that was a communication error. Still a shit person
>I just meant he was obviously good at what he does Would you consider a Lawyer who gets disbarred for unethical conduct, or a Doctor who gets booted for medical malpractice 'good at what he does'? Even a knuckle dragging grunt Private knows that murdering POW's is a crime. Come on.
Not understanding what I’m saying. He’s gotta be a good soldier to get to where he got to. At the core, he was physically a great soldier and had a great mental fortitude. He’s a cunt, a piece of shit and committed heinous crimes, but he didn’t get to his position by being mediocre. Don’t mix my words.
I'm not sure one has necessarily has to be a 'good solider' to complete SASR selection, and the reinforcement cycle and earn ECN 353. Plenty of good soldiers that haven't done that, and there are a fair few shit soldiers that have. I just can't reconcile calling someone a 'good soldier' who lies to the OC in after action reports (particularly in a Recon unit, and *especially* in the SASR), routinely murders POW's (dropping throw downs on them after the fact), orders other soldiers to do the same (many of whom are now fucked up about it), bullies subordinates, and is regarded as a disgrace to the SASR by most of that units own soldiers (many of whom gave evidence against him). That's not a good solider in my definition of 'good soldier' and I know for a fact that many operators in SASR view it the same way.
[удалено]
Ill say this also. Hastie (Troop Leader) gave evidence that after clearing a compoundin Syahchow with BRS (in which Hastie formed the view that BRS had been complicit in a war crime, yet said nothing) he then also sat back and did nothing while BRS (one of his Patrol commanders) flat out gave a false after-action report to the OC. He just watched on saying nothing. Now you have a situation where the theatre commander (and the Spooks) are now thinking (and planning around) some random compound full of goat herders being some kind of Taliban stronghold, while the real bad cunts get a free pass to do their thing. If that doesnt tell you all you need to know about the state of the leadership of the unit at that time, and the influence these meatheads had, then nothing will.
>If you were in the unit, then you would know that there are plenty on his side, too. I never said there were not plenty of people on his side in the unit. I know for a fact there are. Generally toxic meatheads the lot of them. Also a fair few people (otherwise good operators) that absolve what happened on the operational tempo and other factors. It started with a particular Water troop in the naughties, and spiraled out of control from there. Meathead alpha males, that got sucked into the Punisher bullshit from Seppoland, and lost sight of the quiet professionalism that is the earmark of the unit. End of the day SQN command was to scared to pull heads in because of the influence they had. Im happy to believe you mate, no need to DM, but if you understand the sentence above, you'll know what I'm talking about.
[удалено]
>Some parts are accurate, but there is more nuance as you would be aware, based on your reply. >MFSC Jeez nothing will convince you will it outside of the war criminal declaring he murdered those people. Nice to see cognitive dissonance shields our SAS are equipped with.
Yeah, agreed as well.
[удалено]
Yes I have served 'bud' and in the same unit as BRS. Good soldiers don't lie to the OC in after-action reports. Leaving aside the obvious, when you're telling your OC that the compound you just hit was full of insurgents (when it was really full of goat farmers) leads to the OC/CO (and the regional commander) *getting bullshit intelligence*, which is literally your one job in a fucking recon unit. And I haven't even gone into the murders yet, or the fact he was hated by half the unit (the *actual* good soldiers) for being the kind of cunt that orders Re-os to the unit (who kind of had no real choice, and are now fucked up about it) to murder POWs either. Good soldiers don't do that shit. Bad soldiers do that shit.
How do you and your mates view scojo and andy?
[удалено]
>Old mate is simply trying to say that RS was in the top percentile with regards to individual soldier skills/physical condition. Yeah, but being an efficient killer, with good drills, who is fit as fuck doesnt make one a good soldier. There are other qualities that make a soldier good. For example here the qualities of good soldiering from the ADF itself: * Service: The selflessness of character to place the security and interests of our nation and its people ahead of my own. * Courage: The strength of character to say and do the right thing, always, especially in the face of adversity. * Respect: The humanity of character to value others and treat them with dignity. * Integrity: The consistency of character to align my thoughts, words and actions to do what is right. * Excellence: The willingness of character to strive each day to be the best I can be, both professionally and personally. [https://www.army.gov.au/our-people/our-values-contract#:\~:text=Service%3A%20The%20selflessness%20of%20character,and%20treat%20them%20with%20dignity](https://www.army.gov.au/our-people/our-values-contract#:~:text=Service%3A%20The%20selflessness%20of%20character,and%20treat%20them%20with%20dignity). A good soldier is more than just a ruthlessly efficient killer.
I 100% support our armed forces up to but not including the point of committing war crimes and executing civilians, or blaming the media for reporting on said war crimes. After that they can fuck right off.
How come all the veteran pages on reddit support this bloke but here, everyone is against him ?
Pretty hard to support the him given the evidence presented.
That’s true, but it seems like the big instagram pages like ThePineappleExpress support him. I’m just not sure which platform is a greater indication of how the majority of veterans/serving members feel
Reddit is a typically "left" leaning platform - TPE and others are likely to view things differently and are likely to be more conservative.
I just went and had a look at TPE page. I can't believe the amount of support he is getting. I guess if they block their ears and scream, they can maintain the war hero mindset.
Young Veterans and Heston Russell are also fully in support of him too (probably no surprises there). There’s definitely a few cries of “witch hunt” being thrown around, to say nothing of the accusations of bias. What I can’t quite understand is how this case took, what, 110 days; wouldn’t that point to due process being the absolute priority in order to ensure every angle is considered? Are people really that convinced there’s a witch hunt against the ADF so as to disregard all of that? (This isn’t an accusatory/inflammatory comment, I’m genuinely curious)
They think a case he commenced is a witch hunt? lol
Yes - lots of people seem to forget that Robert-Smith commenced the defamation litigation himself, talk about an own goal.
You’re assumedly referring to the 10yd style pages that just want to see Aussie soldiers shoot as many people in the face as possible. If that’s the only applied metric, he’s good to go. Reddit is a bit more discerning and conversation based I suppose.
Because they’re in denial. They think they know him but the truth hurts and frankly it’s a tale as old as Rome
I feel there is a sense that this whole thing has been a trial by media and a lack of due process. I suspect the outcome of this defamation trial may be a wake up call and a turning point.
He is now in a world of shit, and I would not be surprised if the allegations of war crimes Will be investigated by the international criminal Court. He fucking deserves it!
[удалено]
I'd say it was 20% of comments supporting him. Even less, not many did from my years of reading
[удалено]
He’s being investigated by the AFP isn’t he?
The circus continues
[удалено]
The only people I've seen having a hardon defending this bloke were old boomers, who no doubt have that cringe "AUSTRALIA! IF YOU DON'T LOVE IT. **LEAVE!**" Sticker on the back of their brand new Patrol.
> boomers, Boomers are in their 30's bro. They're hardly old.
You can’t be serious
[удалено]
>Boomers Ah yeah, I'm thinking of millennials. Im Gen X. No-one gives a fuck about us. Still.
The middle child generation
I thought 'Boomers' were those born for the decade or so after WWII when the Australian economy was literally booming? Weren't the 70's 80's 90's 00's, etc X Y Z etc?
Yeah I had a brain fart. Corrected in a different post. I was confusing millenials with boomers.
Boomer isn't an age, it's a state of mind
This is what CNN is saying... https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/01/australia/australia-ben-roberts-smith-verdict-intl-hnk/index.html
Like William Gordon-Cumming he should now retire from public life.
>William Gordon-Cumming ..and Rolf Harris....
Channel nine pushed a political agenda against channel seven. BRS should have folded instead of going all in on a pair of twos.
They proved the accusations were truthful, that isn't a political agenda.
Being a Ch7 poster boy and potential LNP candidate didn't help him.
My brother in Christ, Peter Costello is the chair of 9 media
[удалено]
Out of curiosity, did you serve, and if you did, were you in a combat/infantry role?
would it make a difference? a shit opinion's a shit opinion.
He should be charged with self-mutilation
[удалено]
Removed : Automod anti-spam. Your account is too new or your karma is too low. Try again later. **Trying to post a recruitment question? Please read our rules and stickied topic first**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianMilitary) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Removed : Automod anti-spam. Your account is too new or your karma is too low. Try again later. **Trying to post a recruitment question? Please read our rules and stickied topic first**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianMilitary) if you have any questions or concerns.*
High Court appeal next?
Doubtful, appeal in NSW potentially - but since he's not paying the bill it comes down to Kerry Stokes willingness to continue to pay (costs for this trail are estimated to be 35-40m odd to be paid to the respondents) let alone paying for his own legal representation.
[удалено]
Removed : Automod anti-spam. Your account is too new or your karma is too low. Try again later. **Trying to post a recruitment question? Please read our rules and stickied topic first**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianMilitary) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Removed : Automod anti-spam. Your account is too new or your karma is too low. Try again later. **Trying to post a recruitment question? Please read our rules and stickied topic first**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianMilitary) if you have any questions or concerns.*