Russian soldier convicted of war crime

@no1marauder said
Cute but kinda stupid.

Old man, riding a bicycle,
happens to have a phone to his ear,
and you contend that is sufficient evidence,
to assume he was spying?.
Quite a leap, and that's cute too.

@jimm619 said
Old man, riding a bicycle,
happens to have a phone to his ear,
and you contend that is sufficient evidence,
to assume he was spying?.
Quite a leap, and that's cute too.

It's the prosecutor's burden, not the defense's. And he must show:

A) the perpetrator was aware of the civilian status of the persons attacked or

B) that in the given circumstances a reasonable person could not have believed that the individual he or she attacked was a combatant.

Is there any indication this burden was met?

I'm aware that Shishimarin pled guilty (probably in hope of leniency and believing he had little chance of acquittal) but he is now claiming he should be exonerated. https://kyivindependent.com/national/defense-asks-court-to-acquit-russian-soldier-accused-of-war-crimes/

Granted his appointed lawyer is making the wrong arguments, but still his plea should be withdrawn and he should face trial in a fair tribunal with competent counsel.

@no1marauder said
I'm aware that Shishimarin pled guilty (probably in hope of leniency and believing he had little chance of acquittal) but he is now claiming he should be exonerated. https://kyivindependent.com/national/defense-asks-court-to-acquit-russian-soldier-accused-of-war-crimes/

Granted his appointed lawyer is making the wrong arguments, but still his plea should be withdrawn and he should face trial in a fair tribunal with competent counsel.

''.....probably in the hope of leniency.....''
Sounds as if you were on the defense team,
or you just assuming again?
Yep, bottom line, he is convicted of war crime,
he should have refused the order...
......You recall The Blackwater mercenaries pardoned by TRUMP?
..........Same thing X 17.

@jimm619 said
Yep, bottom line, he is convicted of war crime.

Actually he hasn't yet:

"The judges who heard the case started their deliberations Friday. A verdict is expected Monday,"

https://www.kiro7.com/news/world/deliberations-start/XCAO7WUSGMYNX5B32V6TEDAMQA/

@no1marauder said
Actually he hasn't yet:

"The judges who heard the case started their deliberations Friday. A verdict is expected Monday,"

https://www.kiro7.com/news/world/deliberations-start/XCAO7WUSGMYNX5B32V6TEDAMQA/

Oh, O.K.,
I thought that he had already entered a plea...
So, as it turns out, I was assuming.......
Anyway, in a hostile court, his plea will (likely)
be accepted.....Sentencing? The whole world is watching.
And, actually, there were many local prosecutions,
following WWII,as well as the International court trials..

@jimm619 said
Oh, O.K.,
I thought that he had already entered a plea...
So, as it turns out, I was assuming.......
Anyway, in a hostile court, his plea will (likely)
be accepted.....Sentencing? The whole world is watching.
And, actually, there were many local prosecutions,
following WWII,as well as the International court trials..

It is absurd to expect that a foreign soldier can receive a fair trial in the middle of a war in the court system of his country's enemy. He should be transferred to an existing international tribunal or one should be established.

You will surely feel differently if Russia starts trying the prisoners it has just captured in Mariupol for "war crimes".

@no1marauder said
It is absurd to expect that a foreign soldier can receive a fair trial in the middle of a war in the court system of his country's enemy. He should be transferred to an existing international tribunal or one should be established.

You will surely feel differently if Russia starts trying the prisoners it has just captured in Mariupol for "war crimes".

Don't put words in my mouth....
I didn't say they could expect fair trials,
I just mentioned that it was common practice after WWII.
I also mentioned, a few posts back, that the defendant was,
indeed, in a hostile court, and could expect to be convicted.

@no1marauder said
If his account is true, he shouldn't have been convicted at all. Shooting even an unarmed civilian IF there is a reasonable belief that he/she is going to give away military information is justified:

"The Russian soldiers drove into the village of Chupakhivka where they saw an unarmed resident riding a bicycle and talking on his phone, they said.

They said Mr ...[text shortened]... orld/europe/russian-soldier-pleads-guilty-in-first-war-crimes-trial-since-ukraine-invasion-1.4881873

No that was the subjective opinion his superior officer used to justify the order, it had no basis in fact, you cannot kill someone based on someone’s opinion of what they might do.
Your logic says it’s ok to slaughter a whole town lest they inform the enemy of your whereabouts.

@no1marauder said
It is absurd to expect that a foreign soldier can receive a fair trial in the middle of a war in the court system of his country's enemy. He should be transferred to an existing international tribunal or one should be established.

You will surely feel differently if Russia starts trying the prisoners it has just captured in Mariupol for "war crimes".

lol yeah trying captured soldiers caught defending their sovereign territory from a brutal invasion force.
You should apply for the prosecutors job IvanNo1

@no1marauder said
It is absurd to expect that a foreign soldier can receive a fair trial in the middle of a war in the court system of his country's enemy. He should be transferred to an existing international tribunal or one should be established.

You will surely feel differently if Russia starts trying the prisoners it has just captured in Mariupol for "war crimes".

Finally you make sense, no this soldier should be tried at The Hague if Ukraine thinks he’s a war criminal.
He shot an unarmed civilian dead whilst invading a country the only defence he has is his conscription and how much choice did he actually have regarding his actions. He may have had a reasonable belief that he might be shot if he failed to carry out the order.

@kevcvs57 said
No that was the subjective opinion his superior officer used to justify the order, it had no basis in fact, you cannot kill someone based on someone’s opinion of what they might do.
Your logic says it’s ok to slaughter a whole town lest they inform the enemy of your whereabouts.

I gave the relevant legal standards which you, typically, ignore.

The test is both subjective i.e. what did the accused believe and objective i.e. what would a reasonable person in the accused's position believe.

@no1marauder said
I gave the relevant legal standards which you, typically, ignore.

The test is both subjective i.e. what did the accused believe and objective i.e. what would a reasonable person in the accused's position believe.

So you believe he’s a war criminal then because no reasonable person would shoot an old man on a bike. No reasonable soldier would shoot a civilian non combatant for fear he might alert someone to the presence of an invasion force.
What you are advocating is the summary execution of any civilian in possession of a mobile phone. I’m guessing you do not specialise in criminal law.

@kevcvs57 said
So you believe he’s a war criminal then because no reasonable person would shoot an old man on a bike. No reasonable soldier would shoot a civilian non combatant for fear he might alert someone to the presence of an invasion force.
What you are advocating is the summary execution of any civilian in possession of a mobile phone. I’m guessing you do not specialise in criminal law.

The guesses of an uninformed, unreasonable adolescent like yourself aren't worth much.

You should actually be aware of the facts of the case rather than your fantasy. The case against this soldier must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and from what I have seen of the evidence compared to the legal principles I have cited it appears to fall far short of that standard.

@no1marauder said
The guesses of an uninformed, unreasonable adolescent like yourself aren't worth much.

You should actually be aware of the facts of the case rather than your fantasy. The case against this soldier must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and from what I have seen of the evidence compared to the legal principles I have cited it appears to fall far short of that standard.

Hahaha nincompoop