Not trying to be funny, but they were busy before. If they’d seen the setup, they would not have set it off in the first place. They were trying to sort out the ambush and follow up the leads to find other opponents, infrastructure, supplies, clues, whatever.
All I can say is I hope we get out of there as quickly as possible and no longer have to subject our own - or others - to such an appalling experience.
You don’t know any such thing when the enemy has a history of sneak attack in civilian dress (e.g. suicide bombing).
Is there another side to this story? I’m not seeing it presented?
What is the prosecutorial justification for this charge if it’s really as black and white as the OP maintains?
Bear Nenno had me going, until he said PSG? What the devil does that mean? I was with you up till there, care to explain so us non militant types can know what you’re trying to say?
The OP completely failed to include that this fellow actually shot a young woman fleeing from the vehicle her family had just been slaughtered in, having foolishly been unaware of the scheduled bombing gun fight at this location, pretty much.
More than an oversight, I’m thinking. Op so very one sided. The two together, well, a little red flaggy to me!
You are entitled to your opinion of course but I am surprised. You are the first soldier I have heard who has this opinion.
PSG= platoon sergeant
Upon further review I would have to disagree with you. The OP may have formed his own opinion and is himself one-sided. But there was no oversight. He provided cites from independant sources. They are linked right there. If you don’t like the LA Times you can find plenty of your own. You were given plenty of information to form your own opinion. In fact he could have tried to tug at your heartstrings and get you to donate by mentioning that 10 days after this incident SFC Taylor lost most of his face in a RPG attack.
Given the usual tone of this board I am surprised that the OP put it here. I have a feeling this will not go well. The issue is already all over military themed sites.
Hey Elbows, yeah I do come off one sided, I believe the kid. Bear’s skeptical and that’s okay, I’d rather he, and everyone else, err on the side of caution than give a cent to a person that is guilty of what Taylor is accused of doing. But again I don’t believe he is not guilty. He shot her sure enough, but he didn’t have time for a different reaction.
Having sat through the arguments of both sides it’s my understanding that it was both a proximity thing, they were VERY close to the vehicle, had been warned of suicide bombers and that because of their angle of approach she was coming towards him for a few seconds before she, he know knows, would rounded the vehicle in order to flee. She exited the rear passenger side door and fled toward the rear of the vehicle but never made it past the rear passenger side corner. It was literally a split second, is this person going to detonate a suicide vest or not decision.
The prosecution’s side is that he didn’t follow proper PI, which stands for positive identification. Meaning he should have used an escalation of force to determine if she was a threat or not. He should have first yelled, then aimed his weapon and then, because a warning shot was forbidden, poop your pants and hop for the best … I kid but they had an escalation plan that he jumped to the top level because, as his defense claimed, it had to be a split-second decision.
And Guk, yeah exactly what Attack of the 3rd Dimension said. It was their job, after the attack, to gather as much information as they could about the road-side bomb. Following the wire back to its point of origin would have been standard operating procedure. Part of that ‘SOP’ was a fear of secondary bombs obviously. Kinda like Gunnergoz said, shitty situation.
Bear and another have talked to me off-board and have made me aware of one thing, I am reacting, to a degree, with my gut. But so are they. And after a 20-year active duty career, two tours (Iraq and Afghanistan) I trust my gut. Partly because in my job now and when I was on active duty I sat through a lot of trials and hearings and never, not once, walked away thinking the accused was innocent, until Taylor.
Loach, I was told to put it here by the MODs. I did think it was the wrong forum but didn’t want to press the issue.
Rather I believe he is not guilty … sorry.
Right forum. I just don’t think you’ll get a lot of positive responses. I for one understand that in battle the difference between a tragic accident and a better outcome is sometimes a half second reaction and one pound of trigger pull.
Thank you Martin Hyde. I know very little about the laws/rules of military combat. Actually nothing…
Oliveritaly, one source stated that 9 minutes elapsed between the car being shot up and the woman exiting. Is that generally believed to be the truth?
Was she heading towards or away from the soldier when shot? Was she shot in the front or back?
Why are warning shots forbidden?
Because the bullets go somewhere. If you fire away from someone on purpose as a warning shot you might not hit them but you may hit an unintended target. The rules of engagement used to call for warning shots. I always found that idiotic for those reasons. The same logic is why police officers are never allowed warning shots.
What is the reason you think JAG would misrepresent the soldier?
I have always felt that you have a better chance of fair and impartial treatment in a military court than a civilian court. Until there is publicity and politics. Then all bets are off. Also if you go with who SJA gives you then you don’t know what you are going to get. Sort of like a civilian and a public defender. They could be really good or really bad.
Suba, yes generally they all recalled it as about that amount of time. Honestly not a single witness to the event has the same recount of the event as the other but they all generally put it at about that time. Some said five minutes, some said 15, it was generally in that range though.
They aren’t Lanzy, they correctly charged him with not following the proper procedures, he didn’t, clearly. He admits this. He however, through his defense, states, that he had no choice.
It boils down to the rules of engagement.
As I understand it, she fled toward the trunk of the vehicle, the direction the team was approaching, in an effort to flee. This led, Taylor to believe she was going to the trunk, she wasn’t of course.
He shot, and again I am biased here, she was coming toward them, he thought.
I’m not sure if she was shot in the front or the back, shit I wish I did. But even if it had been in the back, if the ‘target’ was detonating the bomb and got hit in the back, does it matter?
These are seconds here, not message boards think and reply discussion here minutes, hours or days. It was do it now and don’t die and deal with the issues later or send home more bodies.
“Going for the trunk”? She hadn’t even touched the trunk yet. He isn’t even claiming that she could have been wearing a suicide vest. He is claiming that she might have been going to get something in the trunk. This is absolutely NOT an immediate threat! She would have to open the trunk before there was any threat, then. And she hadn’t even touched it. Hell, she wasn’t even fumbling with her keys.
Imagine a police officer shooting someone who was “going toward the trunk”. How could that be justified? Going toward the open passenger comparment of the vehicle, sure. That makes sense. A weapon in there would be readily accessible. Leaning in to an opened trunk? Sure, I might even accept that one as well. But she was walking… walking near a closed trunk!! And because there might be a weapon in that closed, and locked trunk, he shot her. That is not reasonable justification.
And because I do not wish to repeat myself, anyone debating whether to send money, consider my posts here:
More likely it was "my adrenaline is on over drive, Soldiers are blown up, my best friend died recently and I am going to fucking shoot something damnit!
If the individual in question concealed information from investigators or failed to give a full report when it was his duty to do so, it’s an independent act worthy of court martial, regardless of the rest of the case.