Nope. I gave those reasons elsewhere.
Sorry all I’ve been away from a computer for a few days so apologies for the late reply. Much as Loach said, trusting your future to what is basically a very inexperienced Lawyer is one hell of a crap shoot. Were I in his shoes I do exactly the same thing (hiring a civilian attorney I mean).
I don’t have much else to add other than to address Bear’s assertion that the car (appearing to) stop on the wire made no difference because:
- The wire and the car were unrelated and 2. These bombs don’t work that way and 3. The car stopped there because of the previous gunfire not because of some nefarious plot.
Bear you are completely correct on all three of those points. But to address points 1 and 2 the enemy switches tactics all the time. Without going into details this looked exactly like ‘something’ new as they walked up. As for three even his less than effective platoon leader told Taylor that he had seen gunfire coming from the car, so even though it was shot with heavy weapons, in Taylor’s mind the driver chose that spot to stop.
Anyway thanks to everyone for replying, even though that think this cause isn’t worthy, I appreciate the feedback .
Still doesn’t make sense. For two reasons:
-
They claimed to have been tracing the wire back from the point of detonation. That means they already know the other end of the wire is just a bare wire. It already blew the bomb up. For it to be used again, another bomb would have to be connected to that end of the wire. So where is the threat?
-
If this was some kind of magic wire that was somehow connected to multiple bombs, and somehow it could be used to set off one bomb, and then a subsequent bomb*, then in that case, she would have to go over to the wire and connect some detonation device or battery or something to the wire. This takes more than a “split second” to do. She didn’t even make a furtive motion toward the wire, let alone pull a battery out of her pocket.
*I suppose they could have used two different blasting caps requiring two different levels of voltage, so that applying a higher voltage will set off another bomb, but she would still have had to connect a detonator, or at least get over to where the detonator was staged or something.
Still, SFC Taylor says he feared she was getting a weapon, not going toward a detonator.
Was it the PL who said he saw gun fire from the vehicle? I thought he was the one who called a cease fire because he wasn’t sure that it was a threat. I thought I read that some unknown person made that statement over the radio about the muzzel flashes. Will have to go read again.
Bear you have enough questions to keep asking, cool I have enough faith to keep answering.
One and two: The enemy kept switching up their tactics.
They never had a vehicle drive into a firefight before, I don’t know if you ever did but that’s kind of rare I understand. They, already afraid of the enemy doing new stuff, watch a vehicle do new stuff. The wire is, as you correctly say not a threat but how did he know that? The vehicle just did something absolutely crazy, driving over the wire and stopping on it. The enemy knows that coalition forces follow the wire back to its point of origin …
… and here we are.
It wasn’t a magic wire, connected to multiple bombs obviously, but it was odd none the less.
Finally you’re right again she had no detonation device in her hand, no weapon, no threatening anything other than sheer terror in her hands, she was killed and she was not a threat.
That’s correct.
At 10 to 25 meters he had to decide.
You’ve been in similar situations in your own words and you made a better decision. Good for you, I’m proud of you, America is proud of you, rightfully so.
He faulted on the other side and here he is.
The PL did report seeing gunfire from the car but dude that RCP’s account of what happened after the IED and firefight is very disjointed.
It’s not about changing tactics (they’re always changing shit). It’s about common sense. I am not saying that the wire would not normally be used in a situation like that. I am saying that the wire could not be used in that manner. If she was going to use that wire to do something, she was not an immediate threat by any stretch of the imagination.
It isn’t rare at all, IME, which is part of my issue with the whole thing. Hell, I watched a lady come out and hang her laundry on the line in the middle of mortars, rockets, grenades and machine guns going off all around her. Just another day in the Stan for them. Every car speeding away, or just driving through is presumed to be innocent until hostile acts are observed. That’s just part of the game.
We once took rocket fire while sitting on the side of a large hill. A few cars sped off from the nearest road. Obviously, one of them likely fired the rockets and was speeding to get away. Or, maybe the rocket came from another concealed location, and the cars were just getting the hell out of there when they saw the explosions. Radio traffic was not consistent or convincing enough for me to consider it a PID to start lighting up the cars. So in that situation, we didn’t destroy the cars. We let them drive away. Maybe we let one or two enemies get away. Maybe. Or maybe we let 4-5 civilians make it home to their families that night. So maybe we prevented the creation of a dozen more enemies, which killing innocent civilians always does.
If he were some private, or something other than an RCP PSG, then maybe he wouldn’t know that. But a senior NCO in charge of route clearance should know 100% that the wire in that situation was no longer part of the equation. He should know that.
If he believed that he was being set up to follow the wire back to the car–that there was some trap planned for him–the wire would still not be used as part of that trap (other than the bait). The trap would have to be another bomb (not set off by that wire) or small arms fire. If small arms fire, where is the weapon. If a bomb, then either it is in the locked trunk (no immediate threat), or the car itself is the bomb (in which case it is activated inside and the driver should be shot, not the exiting passenger) or the figure in black is wearing a suicide vest.
As I have already said before, the suicide vest is his only plausible defense, and the one that he and his lawyer should stress. Instead of “I feared she was going for a weapon.” He should have said something like “I observed a bulky object under her clothing consistent with a suicide vest. I feared that my team and I was in imminent danger of an SVBIED attack.” But if that were true, he would have said it. Instead, he plays the weapon angle, which doesn’t hold up IMO.
Finally you’re right again she had no detonation device in her hand, no weapon, no threatening anything other than sheer terror in her hands, she was killed and she was not a threat.
I’ve even withheld firing on a man pointing a weapon at me from about 10m away, racking the action repeatedly* and screaming to let his friend go. Could have killed him as soon as he came running up with the AK-47. Certainly could have killed him the second he pointed it at me, and would have been justified in killing him at any point after that while he still held it up pointed right at me. But he happened to be an Afghan Army soldier. It was better to show a little restraint than to kill an “Ally”, justified or not. Had he pulled the trigger, I was confident he would have missed even from 10m. If not, well that’s what armor is for. Sometimes the bigger picture is more important than individual safety.
*Yes, a round was ejecting each time. They’re not the brightest, especially when they’re pissed. Figured if he did it 29 more times, I’d be good!
The articles I read stated that an unknown person on the radio claimed to have seen muzzel flashes from the car, and nobody knows who that was. If the PL actually told him on the way to the car that he definitely saw that car shooting on the patrol, it does change things. Drastically.
Approaching a vehicle that has been positively identified as hostile is different than just going up to clear a vehicle that may or may not have been collateral damage. If you can show me where the PL told him this, then I will be on his side.
And I don’t mean where he said to be careful of a VBIED. That was more of a general “be careful” statement, and I already explained that a VBIED threat means you shoot the driver, not the passenger.
But if the PL told him, “That is the car that was shooting at us. I saw the muzzel flashes. Go clear it of enemy personnel.” Then SFC Taylor’s actions are more understandable. But wasn’t the “cease fire” called on that vehicle because nobody was sure if it was actually hostile or not?
For those following the story, the Article 32 investigating officer asked for and was granted an extension. Results of the Article 32 won’t be out now until probably the 1st week in August.
Bear a question for you and for other serving or ex military on here. What should have been the procedure to ‘clear’ the vehicle to determine if it is hostile or not after being fired upon?
The angle “Sfc taylor only had 4 seconds to decide” has been repeatedly mentioned, but actually they had nine minutes after the vehicle was fired upon to determine if it was hostile or not.
Is it unusual for them NOT to have been able to one way or the other determine if anyone in the vehicle was a threat nine minutes after they have disabled the vehicle?
…just out of interest are you going to donate any money to the family of Dr. Aqilah Hikmat?
It wasn’t the PL who said they saw fire coming from the car. One person on the radio said they thought they saw it, another said there was none. The PL called cease fire because he wasn’t sure. Certainly not enough to PID the car as hostile.
Had they PID the car as hostile, everyone in it is fair game. If the two military aged males were in that car shooting, and just happened to have two innocent females in there with them, they would have been collateral damage, and an unfortunate casualty of war. And SFC Taylor would not be in trouble. While approaching the car, he could have shot anything moving inside, or anything exiting. But they did not have positive identification.
First, the article only says that it was 9 minutes after all the shooting stopped; not necessarily 9 minutes after they shot the car. So we don’t know how long the car sat there. Could have been longer. They could have shot the car, then continued to engage other enemy. Then, after all the fighting stopped and the wounded were evacuated, they approached the car in order to clear the area to investigate the IED, take their pictures and collect data for their report and storyboard.
The amount of time that past isn’t really the important element here. But this is:
They approached the car after they evacuated the wounded Soldiers. Generally, if there is a threat on the battlefield, you get rid of it before you evacuate your casualties. If they truly felt the car was dangerous, it would have been cleared before the medevac, not after.
Very generally speaking:
Approach with caution; weapon at the ready. Assess the vehicle as you approach. Look for movement inside, signs of life, hostile/VBIED indicators, etc. And I mean legit indicators such as a low riding rear end or evidence of a heavy load, exposed wires from the car (not running on the ground under it, but on or in the car itself), possibly even abnormal modifications or port holes cut into the trunk or quarter panels, etc.
If there is movement in the car, order them out. A terp was present, that’s what he’s for! If a figure gets out and exits before you say anything, tell them to Stop, Turn Around, Get on the Ground, Hands out to the side, palms up. Approach cautiously, zip tie and search her as you check the rest of the vehicle.
See the dead 16 year old girl and others in the car, switch gears and render medical aide. If you still feel threatened by the wounded driver, zip tie him and treat his wounds. If at anytime someone fights, or resists or makes a threatening, furtive movement, take appropriate action. That means the amount of force necessary to control the situation. Up to and including deadly force, sure, but (going off the news articles) there was no hostile intent observed, and there was no immediate threat which would have justified deadly force in self-defense.
Completely different than, “See figure. Shoot figure”.
Strangely enough, I just received word that an acquaintance of mine died Sunday in Wardak Province of all places. He, and 5 others were killed by an IED. NOK has been notified, but it doesn’t appear that his name is released, yet. Story here: Taliban claims bombing that killed 6 US troops | Fox News
RIP: A.J.P.
When was it determined the JAG officer was inexperienced? Seems like I would wait to see if I was actually charged before getting a civ lawyer and asking for donations.
Everyone’s comments are interesting, in my war no one ever drove up to a firefight in a civilian vehicle. I got out in '87. I think the SFC should not be charged based on just reading, but just reading is never enough to get at all the facts.
No, not at all, not even close. The internet is simply an audience of people sharing their opinions.
I do not necessarily think Taylor is innocent, and I did not donate because I think Taylor is innocent. I donated to help make it more of a fair fight since he’s up against the Army and its deeper pockets and greater resources, and he seemed like a decent enough man based on the information available.
That’s all, and that’s what I meant when I said to let the courts decide. But at the same time it costs $$ to present a good case for one’s self, so that’s why I decided to help him out.
Hey Lanzy, thanks for chiming in.
Simple answer is I’m not sure at all. I would think that once SFC Taylor became aware that the AR32 (which I believe would have been after the formal investigation was concluded) would be conducted he would have … crap I dunno, no use guessing either. At some point Taylor decided to hire a civilian lawyer, and here we are.
I do honestly appreciate everyone’s, for or against, posting here. Those of you against, mainly Bear and a few key others, have really made me do some soul searching, self questioning, all that stuff.
However, at the end of it, laying in bed thinking about it, I still feel he’s guilty only of making a bad decision in a bad set of circumstances where the opposite decision could have killed him and the men on the team.
What I’m trying to say is, you all have really, which I think is what the dope is kind of about, made me reevaluate my position but I always come back my original conclusion and I’m okay with that.
Bear and a others here have their opinions, experiences and whatnot to fall back on, I have (completely different) my own.
I’ll likely be working a few different sets of CM next month and I PROMISE you all you won’t hear a peep out of me asking for money in those cases :).
That sucks, I’m sorry.
I’m sorry for your loss, Bear_Nenno.
Fair question, not one I ever thought about though.
Simple answer, I hadn’t planned on it and don’t know of any way to do such. I suppose I might, given an avenue. Taylor’s facing a criminal charge, her family’s situation isn’t one I can contemplate rationally (meaning the devastating loss). As much anguish as SFC Taylor is facing pales in comparison to the loss her family must swallow.