Sgt. John M. Russell

John Coleman wrote:

These posts are an affront to civility and are an insult to the family members of those that died that day. Not one of you who have posted here have been on the receiving end of John Russell's actions. As the uncle of Jacob Barton, who was murdered by John Russell that day, I can speak for our family in that we do not care how good a man he was, nor are we concerned with whether or not he was suffering. All that we are concerned with is that John Russell stand trial for his actions in a court of his peers and accept personal responsibility for his conduct.
In response to your pleas that we do not pass judgment on him too harshly, or that we do are not to judge one another - there is a set of standards in America called laws that he will be judged under - no more severely, no less harshly - than any accused murderer. That he may be miserable for the remainder of his life is far preferential treatment to the judgment he gave our beloved Jake. That he deemed necessary to deliver a death sentence to soldiers he didn't even know, and to take this into his own hands are actions that he alone must answer for.
In the world of man, he will answer under the law. In the Kingdom of God, he will also be held accountable. You ask that good word or character statements or compassion be taken into account when the future of John is decided. Tell me - where was this compassion when as my nephew Jake was shielding another soldier, pleading for John to stop this rampage, John lowered the rifle and shot him in the head? I couldn't find it there, either.
Not ONE of you is qualified to make the statement he has PTSD, nor to make the statement that the military refused to help him. Read the report that was released by CID - John certainly had his share of failures in the days leading up to and contributing to the order to seek counseling. As a retired Serviceman, my opinion is that any failure by his military chain of command is that they are guilty of the "too big to fail" mentality - they did not separate a career mediocre performer before he became ensconced into a paygrade too high to drop. We see how that mentality led to a successful Wall Street.
As you can see, I am neither a moron nor dispassionate to the judgment of your friend and family member John M. Russell. I plan to be there at the trial and watch as the military system of justice decides the fate of the man that killed my nephew, which is an infinitely fairer offering than these five Servicemen got.
I would post my email address, but I am truly disinclined to engage a in battle of wits against the unarmed, nor with those who conveniently let facts get in the way of forming their opinions. I will return to this forum and discuss those posts that are neither of the above.
Sincerely,
John Coleman

Blaine Bernier wrote:

Hey John Coleman while I am sorry for the loss of your family member and understand that I am sure you are mad and bitter! I can attest to the Military not treating soldiers with PTSD and them just sweeping it under the rug as it happened to me and as far as YOU calling HIM a mediocre soldier YOU did NOT know him personally if it came to comms being down he could fix anything ANYTIME! And as a Scout who relied on comms to report on enemy positions and IEds his talents were at a premium and very hard to find! I am very sorry for all the families that have lost loved ones but do you NOT find it strange that a SOLDIER is relieved of his weapon in a COMBAT zone and yet they keep him in country around so many weapons I say that the chain of command is JUST as GUILTY as he is! Not to mention the experimental way the psychologists and other personnel who were being treated commented on HIS situation saying he was unfit to be an NCO and that he was a piece of shit basically! Say that to ANY soldier after taking his weapon in a combat zone and see what their reaction is! just something to think about and again I AM sorry for your families LOSS! Former SGT BERNIER Lighning Troop 3/2 ACR WOLFPACK!