Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
Since CPT Semlau did not testify last I heard (the sentencing had been set for 21 Sep), his motive for doing whatever he did (the testimony was contradictory) was not clear at the trial.

If "mercy killing" is the real motive, saying that might be the honest thing to do; but it probably will not result in a not guilty - unless the jury is given something (no matter how bizarre) upon which to hang that "not guilty hat".

[snip]
Semrau can't have it both ways.

If he says that the person was 98% dead then he obviously presented no threat to him or the Afghan soldiers he was with. Therefore there was no justifiable reason to shoot him.

I have a personal example of such a scenario where we came across an insurgent with a massive chest wound. Both lungs exposed with a big bleed. The odd twitch and the odd attempt to breathe. There was no chance, already 99% dead and unconscious. If it had been one of ours the same, no chance of survival.

I got the offer to do the "mercy" thing. Said no. He died in under 5 minutes. Put him in a body bag and that was it.

Just what would have been the point of shooting him? Seems more like it was something the shooter wanted rather than what the wounded guy needed.