posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 01:03 AM
Just my thoughts on this case, and they are going to make me unpopular or at least get me flamed.
1) Just because you are a soldier of x years service, with y injuries, does not mean you are incapable of knowingly comitting criminal acts nor should
it mean you get special consideration when you have been found to have comitted a criminal act.
2) If the story and comments here is correct, he recieved the package which then remained unopened, and he forgot it contained a firearm as a trophy..
The term 'forgot' stands out to me here, it suggests that when he originally accepted delivery of the package, he knew it contained a firearm, and
by the act of not turning it over to the relevant authorities immediately on reciept of it...
3) The BBC repored that he claimed he intended to have it decomissioned and mounted as a trophy. So why did he also have the ammunition for it as
well? Sad to say, thats exactly what I'd claim too, and since you can neither prove nor disprove someones stated intent. with our current level of
technology.. As I stated to someone in a RL argument recently. "I don't care what your itent was. Only you know what your itent was, I can only
judge your actions."
On a personal level, this is not a case I'd like to make a judgement on, not having access to all the relevant facts, and legal arguments. I just
wanted to make those 3 comments.