Given the topicality of the case I’m surprised you seem to be forgetting about Mark Wright and James Fisher. They did serve a few years for the murder of Peter McBride (although they’re now back in the army and Fisher has since been promoted :mad: ).
They were unarmed at the time, and one of them was a woman.
And while I was writing that and taking a couple of calls you talk about Clegg.
Sorry, should have previewed.
Thanks Yojimbo, I was sure he didn’t serve time in a real jail, but was 'confined to barrack’s or suchlike.
Don’t go and get Ruadh in here, she’ll have a field day with me citing the fecking Republican News. 
(Damn, too late.) 
But we are moving sharply of topic:
Should US soldiers be held to the same standard of behaviour as is expected from British troops? Can this case as outlined in teh OP succeed?
It depends on the facts of the case. I think there might be some negligence. OTOH, I have – 0 – material knowledge of the case.
I heard a story that one officer tried to stop the soldiers from shooting. Who knows? There had just been a suicide bombing at another checkpoint, that’s a crucial fact for the defense in any case. There was a reasonable fear of imminent explosive death, any defense will argue.
What the car actually did in response to what the soldiers did might present enough questions of fact that a trial would be appropriate. OTOH, it’s possible that a judge might throw the case out if all the witnesses agree that the car tried to “speed into” the checkpoint, or something like that.
Is there a more detailed story somewhere? I’m going to Lowe’s, the long weekend ritual. Not so fast…
Not that I am aware of. OTOH, there is a compensatory versus punative distinction that would tend to limit the damages to what one might normally receive in a typical wrongful death suit. I don’t see an intentional tort here, again, based on the facts as I’ve heard them secondhand.
Also, legal precedent based on rewarding the families of car bombers actually in possession of a car bomb sounds a bit dubious here in the United States. To me that’s exactly like shooting someone waving a gun at you – without knowing all those key facts that turn cases all around.
?? I’m of Irish heritage and grew up in a neighborhood where anti-English songs, especially about soldiers, were part of the heritage, and I don’t see the crime either. If you try to ram a car through a military blockade, you should be stopped. The girl in the car should have known better than to ride with a thief, or he should have kicked everyone else out of the car and/or realize he got caught and taken the penalties like a man.
The armed forces (or police) shooting someone in the UK - even in NI - is unusual, and subject to a great deal of scrutiny. There are very very strict rules about when/how it is permitted to shoot someone.
Therein might lie the difference in treatment of the cases: the majority of USians might see this action as perfectly reasonable, since cops shoot people there every day; the majority of us Yurpians might see this action as negligent at best.
The crime was shooting at them after they’d gone by the checkpoint, when they clearly posed no threat to the soldiers.
I mean, isn’t that the only time deadly force is permissible - in case of a threat?
Okay, forget the story from NI, I was using it only as an example of the level of accountability expected from the British troops and their actions in NI. American mileage may vary.
In the proposed case in the OP, what do you see as the main points of defence for the actions taken by the US troops? Are their actions justifiable? Should there be an independent enquiry? Should the lives of the Iraqi citizens in the OP, trying to flee a war zone, who cannot understand the shouts of ‘halt’ in English, be dismissed as lesser than the potential threat to the nervous US soldiers?
Or is the whole idea of US soldiers being denied the ability to defend themselves in any situation abhorrent to the general US psyche?
I think it may be useful to link to one of the stories link in the thread from the OP.
‘You didn’t fire a warning shot soon enough!’
If true I can see why there’d be a possible opening for a civil case.
Beagle: You first stated that the families are due a substantial payment. I asked you why. You now state you have no material knowledge of the case; therefore, your earlier decision that the families are actually due some recompensence is what’s known as a rush to judgment. You automatically assumed the US Soldiers were in the wrong. At least you now recognize that was a mistake. I hope you can remember this for the future.
There is also a great deal of scrutiny in the United States for both the police and the military after a shooting. That’s because there are also very strict rules (we like to call them laws and regulations) about when/how it is permitted to shoot someoe.
Well, since both the US and Europe have strict rules, therein lies no difference. Cops don’t “shoot people everyday” like they’re walking through a penny arcade shooting gallery. Both criminals and cops get shot. You might’ve noticed that Soldiers in Iraq are getting killed still.
What’s with this “USians” and “Yurpians” stuff? Care to share the rest of your dictionary with us?
And exactly how were the Soldiers supposed to magically know that a vehicle which had skirted a checkpoint in a combat zone is not a threat to the area the checkpoint was established to guard from threats? Perhaps the rules of engagement had already established that such an action is to be considered a threat and they are to take whatever action needed to eliminate that threat.
Despite my location, I’m British, and as the event was described by Aro, I don’t see a crime. However, I missed the part in the linked story where it mentioned that one shot was fired after the car had gone through the road block. In that event, I retract my unequivocal “no crime” and accept that there are at least disturbing aspects to be investigated.
Monty it’s worth noting that he was found guilty, later pulled back on appeal but that had a lot to do with political pressure and the way a British soldier was tried under the no jury system they run in NI (and the Rep. of Ireland for such cases). So there was at least a question hanging over the incident and British judges did find the guy guilty of a crime.
Aro sorry for continuing with a hijack that you have requested we move on from.
Who’s “he,” yojimbo. What political pressure (cite?)? Doesn’t the British Magistrate’s Court system permit a defendant to request, and automatically receive upon such request, transfer of the case to a jury trial?
Well OK, we no doubt have similar rules and regs. It’s just incredibly rare over here - a couple of times a year - and it’s always huge national news. The incidence of cops shooting suspects/perpetrators in the US appears to be much more common. I am not debating the rights or wrongs of it.
Certainly the troops must have been incredibly jumpy, given the suicide bombings at checkpoints that were taking place at the time. But as yojimbo cited, even the troops’ CO chewed them out at the time.
If you really don’t know, it means residents of the US and Europe, respectively. A little slang.
BTW I think yojimbo is talking about Lee Clegg.
Monty: A rush to trial is not a rush to judgment. yojimbo linked to the story I’d heard. To me, a statement like that presents a big fat legal question. I don’t think the soldiers are criminally liable. They were ordered into a difficult situation facing a vehicle that was doing exactly what they didn’t want it to do.
OTOH, if they “didn’t fire a warning shot soon enough” or they “shot after the car passed through the checkpoint” there might be some negligence that the US government should pay for. Perhaps the award should be reduced 50% due to the comparative negligence of the driver of the vehicle.
The ‘mere’ fact that the troops riddled a civilian vehicle full of holes makes me think that the families are due some kind of damages, maybe something paid out over time. Make it clear that we think it’s wrong to shoot civilians without punishing the poor guys who were forced into doing it. I think we can agree that the soldiers had no intention of killing a bunch of civilians.
OTOH, “hearts and minds.”
I didn’t say jack about a rush to trial being a rush to judgment, Beagle. I said YOU had made a rush to judgment.
How you could have sifted through all those qualifiers about the facts and concluded that I’ve rushed to judgment is truly incompehensible to me. I think the families should get some money. That’s as far as I’ve rushed anywhere.