Bear I appreciate you have your own opinion but do not tell me what to do with my money.
Do whatever the hell you want with your money. I didn’t realize that I was the one telling people what to do with their money.
Make your own decision. What makes you think I am talking to you, anyway? I am not going to allow the members of the board to be persuaded simply by an emotional plea showing one side of the story. Someone with no military experience may be easily convinced by one person’s agenda. Sorry. I feel that my silence on this matter is agreement. And I do not agree.
If, after hearing both sides, a person (any person) wants to give money, then fine. I could care less.
From Taylor’s own statement, he was not in fear of a suicide bombing. All of that came up later and is brought up by his lawyer. SFC Taylor says he feared she was going to the trunk to get a weapon.
**Do Not Waste Your Money. **
That was from you. That sounds like telling people what to do with their money. The cites given were from independant sources. People can make up their own mind from that. You are not the only combat veteran on the board. You are not the authority on such matters. I respect your experience and your opinion but I did my time in Iraq and may be going to Afghanistan soon. And I gave my $50. So those reading this can take that for what its worth too.
Of course. Again, I do not understand why you think this had anything to do with you. And, no, I do not agree that a person can just read those links and get an informed opinion without certain things being laid out. This is a message board, people are going to post their opinions.
And I didn’t say, “Loach, Do Not Waste Your Money!”. If you really think that statement was anything but a general opinion of the matter, than you need to settle down a little.
I also never claimed to be the authority on the matter. But neither is this guy. I do believe, however, that I have had my fair share of “shoot don’t shoot” situations. All of my deployments were as an Infantry Squad Leader. I have lead hundreds patrols consisting of over a dozen and a half US Soldiers, and another dozen Afghanis. I have had to show restraint when I could have easily destroyed lives. I showed restraint, not out of fear of prosecution, but out of Integrity and Duty.
I have spent plenty of time teaching Soldiers in my company about the Laws of Land Warfare, the current ROEs, and Tactical Directives. Not to mention the fact that as a current Drill Sergeant, I teach this to civilians who I am turning into Soldiers.
So I am going to comment on this.
And you have.
And… so, what then? I am allowed only one comment, is that it?
I guess you can’t understand why the Zimmerman threads are so long, huh? Since all that they should consist of are links for others to read and use to establish their informed decisions, right? Nobody should comment, just read the links. Oh, and certainly nobody should comment more than once. And far be it from any Doper to try to convince anyone else of their opinion, oh no.
Nope you can make as many comments as you like. Its up to you to decide when you are getting redunant or repetitive.
She is a non-combatant until hostile intent is observed. You cannot assume hostile intent.
Wow, Loach. Just wow.
I actually think you did a very good job of stating your opinion. I understand it. I just don’t agree.
Honestly, I can see both sides here.
On the one hand, we really need to stop our soldiers from killing any and all non-combatants that are in or near the area. The fact that any person at any time COULD have a bomb in their vest is a poor argument.
However, the person was doing something unexpected and in a quick manner and probably did not heed/understand any warnings shouted. With seconds to make that decision after my squad had just been ambushed… I could certainly see what he did and why he did it.
I lean towards the first scenario only because I feel like for every person we kill, there are at least two loved ones who either rightfully or wrongly hate us and resolve to kill other Americans for revenge.
You say, ‘he didn’t have time!’, but unless I’m wrong, he is both intensely trained to, and expected to, make the time. Not mow down innocent non combatants fleeing a slaughter of their family, 'cause he’s so in the moment or short of time. Isn’t he trained to not have a hair trigger? I understand he’s a human not a machine and that humans err, and perhaps it was just human error. If he took out a human life because of his hair trigger he should be held accountable.
I appreciate the gravitas of your experience, and you, knowing this person and meeting him, would certainly be in a better position to judge, than any of us, and I mean you no disrespect, but I don’t think, ‘he didn’t have time’, is enough for me.
I certainly wish you better luck before a jury!
…yeah, sorry, but no sympathy and no money from me.
This is the question that I think Oliveritaly needs to answer. Why does this guy need a civilian attorney?
I gave my opinion of that in post #35. In all such procedures you have the right to retain your own council at your own expense. SJA provides representation. But just like on the civilian side with a public defender, you get what they give you good or bad. And as I said before, I would trust a military court to be impartial and just over a civilian court in most cases. I trust a military jury more for one thing. Except when there is politics involved. In this case you have the president of a country pressuring for a conviction. I would try for all the help I could get against those odds.
I won’t try to sway anyone. I see it as someone who chose wrong in a split second decision. Due to my background I count myself lucky I have never had to live with such a decision. I can put myself in his shoes. I also don’t think he would be prosecuted if it wasn’t for politics. So I gave a little. Bear makes an argument against. I disagree but can see his point.
I may have suggested otherwise, but I certainly do not fault him for getting a civilian attorney. Nor do I think that says anything toward his guilt. I think it is probably a good idea considering both the case’s high profile and the political oversight.
However, just based on the news articles, I think this lawyer might hurt him more than help him. I don’t know why he chose this particular lawyer, but why in the hell would the lawyer say something like “that was the adrenaline talking”. Things like that can easily be used by the prosecution to suggest SFC Taylor was out of control or acting on emotions instead of thinking clearly. I also think using the “there could have been a weapon in that locked trunk” excuse is only going to hurt him. If the lawyer just stuck to the SVBIED threat, SFC Taylor would have a better chance IMO. I am curious what kind of military experience and/or military law experience this guy has.
I’m getting that he shot all of the people in the car, first. Then, when the girl tried to escape, shot her too.
Now I might be able to buy, “There was no time”, even though he’s supposed to ‘make’ time, or pay the consequences. But that would only excuse the first round of killing, even if it was an exceptable excuse, which it’s not.
To have another lapse, just a few moments later, and shoot someone trying to flee, looks a lot like shooting the only witness to your bad judgment. If he thought she was going for the trunk, he clearly did have a moment, before she got there, to demonstrate better judgment, but didn’t.
I’m still not buying it, sorry.
For clarity’s sake:
He didn’t personally shoot the vehicle or kill the other occupants. During the initial fire fight, this car was skirting by trying to get through. They were on their way to a wedding party. At first, they were sitting and were going to wait out the fight. But as it started to get late, they decided to drive through.
When they were driving through, someone on the radio reported that the black car was a threat. Someone may have even claimed to have seen muzzel flashes coming from the car. At that time, the gunner on top of one of the vehicles shot up the car with a large caliber machine gun, killing the daughter and son and wounding the driver. The car came to a hault. And the PL called “Cease Fire”.
9 minutes later, SFC Taylor and another Soldier went to clear the vehicle. The PL came on the radio and warned them to be careful of the VBIED threat*. As they were somewhere between 10 and 25m, the Dr exited the car from the rear passenger seat. She was shot before even reaching the rear quarter panel.
The other Soldier initially did not shoot and did not think she was a threat. That Soldier fired only after SFC Taylor opened up.
*I believe this is significant because the lawyer brings it up and tries to use it as part of the defense. He talks about how there was a threat of vehicle borne IEDs and how the blast radius could be up to 800m, and how all SFC Taylor’s men were within that distance. However, a vehicle borne improvised explosive device is not going to be initiated from outside the car. So shooting the Dr. as she exited the vehicle was not going to prevent a VBIED explosion. Another hit against this lawyer, I think. He may have done better with TDS.
A couple questions that I’m trying to get resolved as I’ve read the LA Times article and the posts here (and maybe I just missed it).
Aqilah Hikmat got out of the black Suzuki and was shot. Her husband recalled "“She raised her arms and said, 'We are civilians, we are unarmed, why are you shooting? One of the soldiers opened fire and shot my wife in the forehead and killed her.” Was her husband in the Suzuki the whole time too?
Also, is it protocol to follow a wire up to a car where people, possibly suicide bombers, could be in without checking first? I know only of what’s in the articles linked in the OP and also I’m a civilian and know NOTHING about what should be done, but it seems weird to me that they wouldn’t check first before getting so close to the vehicle that their only option would be to immediately shoot. What am I missing here?