Yes, he was driving. He was wounded when the car was fired on. The extent of his wounds are not mentioned in any of the articles I read. I don’t necessarily believe that she put her hands up and said any of that, though.
They weren’t really following the wire to the car. I think that is the lawyer mixing things up a little. They were going to clear the vehicle. While they were approaching the vehicle, they noticed the wire was leading to it. But this is all irrelevant, since the car only stopped there because they shot it up. It didn’t strategically stop on top of the wire. The lawyer also says this made them fear secondary explosions. But it simply doesn’t follow that this wire should make them fear anything from this vehicle.
My thought would be that I would call out to the vehicle to see if anyone was in there first before approaching it. I’d assume that walking up to a car that was just driven into a scene (and then shot up), that there might still be people living in it. Then again, I’ve never been in anything close to that type of a situation either so I’m just throwing that out there.
You get everything from good, career JAG lawyers who know a lot about military law and how to win at trial to career paper shufflers who are basically no talent losers who stayed in service because they wouldn’t have done well in private practice. You also get a lot of short timers from really good law schools who are just doing it to pay off loans.
I could cite 50 places saying JAG lawyers representing a defendant are only concerned with giving their defendant a vigorous defense. However if I was up on a serious charge like this and it was a publicity issue for the military, I’d probably be very hesitant to stay with the JAG lawyer. At the end of the day their bosses eventually answer to the same guys up top that the rest of the military does and sometimes publicity has a way of “affecting” things.
A police officer and an infantryman aren’t the same thing. I don’t think my 20+ years in the Army prepared me at all to be a police officer. I was never in an situation like Afghanistan or Iraq where you had long wars with mostly counter-insurgency action, but even in a more conventional war you have to make decisions that literally impact whether you are going to live or die and you have to make those decisions in seconds. If someone does something grossly negligent and against norms of military doctrine, you charge them. I don’t believe in punishing someone for making the wrong decision in combat. This guy had literally just moments before been engaged in an all out fight to the death. I don’t see how we as a society put people in that situation and then expect them to be punished if a decision they make in the heat of the moment turns out to be the wrong decision.
War kills civilians and that’s a big part of why war is abominable, but not all those civilian deaths are the result of malice or even criminal, and this one shouldn’t be from everything I’ve read.
With all due respect, Bear_Nenno, I disagree with many of your arguments, and that’s based on reading this thread and the articles out there, and on my years of service and experience with ROE and authorized use of deadly force.
Let the courts decide, not some (or, one) Dopers here shooting their mouths off and not having been in SFC Taylor’s identical situation. I hope you (or anyone else here) will never be unfairly accused of anything and have to pony up thousands of $$ simply to defend yourself - I’m not saying SFC Taylor is unfairly accused. That’s for the courts to decide but, unfortunately at the same time the courts decide based on the quality of the cases presented.
I just contributed to the cause. Good luck to SFC Taylor.
Please contribute. Every little bit helps.
Thanks for passing the word on this, Oliveritaly
Of course not. But when a Soldier (SFC Taylor is not an infantryman) is using the “self-defense” excuse, the burden is the same as it is for a police officer, or a private citizen for that matter.
Being a Soldier at war is what allows us to legally shoot combatants even if they are not currently a threat. Just merely being the enemy allows us to shoot them. Since we are currently fighting a war where it is very difficult to identify who is the enemy and who isn’t, there are strict Rules of Engagement to prevent the killing noncombatants.
Regardless of how strict the ROE is, Soldiers have the same inherent right to self defense that police officers do. However, for a Soldier to claim something was “self-defense”, the situation must meet the same “immediate threat” criteria as a police officer’s.
If SFC Taylor shot her because she displayed hostile intent, then he can shoot her as a positively identified combatant.
If SFC Taylor shot her in self-defense, then he and/or his men must have been in immediate threat of death or great bodily harm.
Regardless of what anyone’s opinion of this is I’m sure there may be some confusion as to what is happening now and where it goes. There was just an Article 32 hearing. An Art 32 basically does the job of a civilian grand jury. At this point the results are unknown. The court could recommend a court martial or not. Either way the family has incurred debt towards his defense. If there is a court martial there of course will be more.
Ten days after the incident SFC Taylor was hit by a RPG. His injuries included losing his nose and sight in one eye. He has been through multiple operations and has many more to go. If convicted he may lose his VA benefits and access to care for the wounds he received.
All 100% true. But to judge what he did was criminal instead of a split second mistake in the heat of the moment is the worst kind of Monday morning quarterbacking, regardless of anyone’s level of experience. I have been in situations where I believe I was justified legally to shoot but didn’t. It worked out for me. But can easily see something going the other way during battle. If the Greatest Generation was put under this kind of scrutiny and ROE half of them would have been put in jail. Sure you can use it as a teachable point while discussing ROE (until the next time they change it) but I don’t think he should be court martialed. And I don’t think we would even be discussing it if it wasn’t for the politics involved.
I’m not seeing any actual evidence of politics or a PR campaign or the “obama wants him prosecuted” angle. A google search for “sfc taylor” only turns up a lot of pro-military and free republic type sites defending him. Google news returns no articles about “sfc taylor”.
The first 3 pages of google searchs for “sfc taylor” are all pro-sfc taylor sites, if theres a PR campaign against him then its obviously doing a very bad job.
Only criminal in the sense that there may have been a dereliction of duty and there may have been a negligent homicide.
And I say “may”. The initial intent of my participation in these threads (this one and the Giraffe Boards one) was not to say that he is absolutely 100% guilty. It was supposed to be to show the justification the Army has in proceeding with the hearing and a possible court martial. The OP came off as one of the many supporters of SFC Taylor who are claiming the Army is wrong for even pursuing this; that this is some kind of grave injustive and this hero has been betrayed by the Army for political reasons. From there it turned in to having to defend my position by showing all the reasons why there is a strong case against him.
I think this was a big enough fuck up for the Army to be justified in pursuing it. I don’t think that strangers should be emotionally compelled into paying his lawyer, though I really don’t care what people do with their own money.
People are giving money because they are told that this man is wrongly accused and a political martyr. But he isn’t, and he’s not.
I generally dislike MMQBing as much as the next guy. But I hate even more when people fuck up and then complain that they are the victim of political backlash.
From the LA Times article: “Hikmat’s death put the Army on the defensive, with Afghan President Hamid Karzai calling for an investigation.” The article was linked at the beginning of the thread. Up to you to decide if the LA Times is a legitimate source.
The courts should, and will, decide this case, yes. But Dopers do get to decide what they do with their money. And in making that decision, they have a perfect right to talk and make the most informed decision they can. Oh wait, sorry, “shoot their mouths off.”
But no, you’re right. Since we haven’t been in this exact same situation before, we have no right to attempt to come to our own conclusions about whether this person deserves support or not. Seems like the safe thing to do when you can’t make an informed decision is to hold onto your money. Thanks, echo7tango, for making this easier for me.
in post #56 you say “president of a country pressuring for a conviction”, actually he called for an investigation. Unless you have another quote from Karzai then #56 is misleading and also you deliberately try and make it sound like some other president is involved.
Absolutely there should be an investigation and SFC Taylor should stand trial, its up to the court and jury to determine guilt or not.
I’m sorry if you are unaware of how the real world works. Or unaware of the politics involved in the current conflict in Afghanistan. It doesn’t even require reading between lines.