Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Friendly Fire vs. Homicide?Follow

#1 Mar 05 2006 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1167920&tw=wn_wire_story

Quote:
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon has directed the U.S. Army to launch a criminal investigation into whether the friendly fire death of Army Ranger and former professional football star Pat Tillman in Afghanistan in 2004 was a homicide, the Army said on Saturday.

An Army official said the Army Criminal Investigation Command would seek to determine whether one of the handful of fellow soldiers involved in the incident committed negligent homicide or some other crime in Tillman's death.

The official said he "wouldn't want to speculate" as to whether the investigation was focusing on the actions of a particular soldier.

The Army, despite knowing almost immediately Tillman was shot by fellow soldiers, initially stated publicly that his death in a remote canyon near the Pakistani border on April 22, 2004, was the result of enemy fire.

Weeks later, after Tillman's nationally televised funeral, the Army acknowledged he had been the victim of friendly fire in a wild spree of gunfire amid much confusion among U.S. soldiers at the scene, and later admitted that soldiers had destroyed evidence.

The Army official, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the investigation, said the Pentagon inspector general's office late on Friday gave initial notification to the Army Criminal Investigation Command to conduct "a criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Cpl. Pat Tillman."

Tillman is the best-known of any American service member killed in the wars in either Afghanistan or Iraq. He walked away from his National Football League career and a $3.6 million contract to join the military along with his brother, a fellow Ranger, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. He was widely hailed as a hero and role model.

The criminal investigation is the latest in a series of official Army probes into his death.

PARENTS CRITICAL

Tillman's parents have sharply criticized the Army's actions following the death of their 27-year-old son. They have accused Army officials of lying and sought a more rigorous investigation in the case.

The Army official said there was no timetable for completing the probe, and said that potential charges like negligent homicide "are the sorts of things that will be looked into." Asked if any specific person was under investigation on suspicion of wrongdoing, the official said, "No one person."

An Army investigative report last year stated that the day after his death, U.S. military personnel burned Tillman's bloody body armor and uniform, which the chief investigator called the destruction of evidence. Army officers also told soldiers knowledgeable about the incident to keep quiet for fear the news media would learn the true nature of his death, the report found.

His father, Pat Tillman Sr., last year assailed as "shams" and a cover-up the Army's investigations into his son's death. His mother, Mary Tillman, said it was "disgusting" the Army lied about it.

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said, "The U.S. Army has conducted repeated investigations into the death of Cpl. Patrick Tillman and we will continue to do so to thoroughly look into the circumstances."

An investigative report by Brig. Gen. Gary Jones of the Army Special Operations Command last year described confusion among U.S. soldiers during the incident, and said fellow Rangers failed to identify at whom they were firing when they shot toward Tillman. It said Tillman waved his arms and threw a smoke grenade to try in vain to show he was not the enemy.

The U.S. soldiers who shot at Tillman, the report found, described poor light as the sun set, and said they targeted the same place as their team leader, assuming he was shooting at the enemy.


How does this make sense to open this up into a homicide or negligent homicide case? Friendly fire is a hazard while at war. To put it so bluntly as homicide is only going to stir up a frenzy.

Who would want to murder another fellow soldier? Doubtless some little peon will get put forth as the scapegoat in an incident that I think 98% of the U.S. looks at as an unfortunate horrible accident.
#2 Mar 05 2006 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
539 posts
Quote:
An Army investigative report last year stated that the day after his death, U.S. military personnAn Army investigative report last year stated that the day after his death, U.S. military personnel burned Tillman's bloody body armor and uniform, which the chief investigator called the destruction of evidence. Army officers also told soldiers knowledgeable about the incident to keep quiet for fear the news media would learn the true nature of his death....


This little tidbit seems investigation-worthy. Destroying evidence should not be in the repertoire of our soldiers. Nor should cover-ups. Couple that with the demands of the parents and the veil of secrecy surrounding the release of what really happened to Tillman and it sounds suspicious enough to investigate. Haven’t you ever seen Courage Under Fire?

Quote:
How does this make sense to open this up into a homicide or negligent homicide case? Friendly fire is a hazard while at war. To put it so bluntly as homicide is only going to stir up a frenzy.


What frenzy are you speaking of? The troops? The public? What is so terrible about an investigation? Do you know for a fact that it was friendly fire or that it was reasonable friendly fire under the circumstances? Your thinking reminds me of a great Simpsons quote:
Principal Skinner: “Children, I couldn't help monitoring your conversation. There's no mystery about Willy. Why, he --simply disappeared. Now, let's have no more curiosity about this bizarre cover-up.”

Quote:
Who would want to murder another fellow soldier?


Who knows? That's why you have an investigation. Furthermore, criminal negligence in the realm of involuntary manslaughter does not involve intent. It involves gross recklessness. Therefore, there is no "want to murder" in this case under the current facts.

Check out this post for a discussion on involuntary manslaughter.


Edited, Sun Mar 5 17:02:40 2006 by Addikeys
____________________________
"Citing your sources isn't spoon feeding, it's basic 101 if you're making an argument."-Jophiel
#3 Mar 05 2006 at 10:17 PM Rating: Decent
They're only investigating his death because hes a football star and people like him. If it was someone else you could bet surely they wouldn't have given a damn.

#4 Mar 06 2006 at 12:54 AM Rating: Good
**
811 posts
Nabraben wrote:
They're only investigating his death because hes a football star and people like him. If it was someone else you could bet surely they wouldn't have given a damn.


I was of the impression that Tillman was originally heralded as a war hero due to some story that circulated about his having charged into the enemy valiantly and such and having been killed in some courageous fashion. Then after a bit it was found that it was instead just some friendly fire which may have annoyed some people who would view it as a disgraceful way to die.

Edited, Mon Mar 6 01:03:56 2006 by Vensuvio
#5 Mar 06 2006 at 1:13 AM Rating: Decent
It's a sad commentary on the Cardinals when a man would rather be shot in the back by his brother in arms than play another season for the team.
#6 Mar 06 2006 at 4:19 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:


How does this make sense to open this up into a homicide or negligent homicide case? Friendly fire is a hazard while at war. To put it so bluntly as homicide is only going to stir up a frenzy.

Who would want to murder another fellow soldier? Doubtless some little peon will get put forth as the scapegoat in an incident that I think 98% of the U.S. looks at as an unfortunate horrible accident.


Who would want to murder another fellow soldier? How about this guy.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/24/101.attack.ap/


While I do not believe this is a case of purposefully murdering Cpl. Tillman, I do believe that they will be looking into the actual training the members of this Ranger Batt. receieved. If for instance the panel finds that a soldier was firing a weapon that he had not been qualified on...then they can fry the leadership.

I'm going to guess that this is an attempt to find a fall guy for Tillman's death. The family is apparently raising a stink, and the Army doesn't want to look any worse than it already did. They will find that some joe didn't qualify properly on his M-249 and then they'll go right up the CoC, court martialing everyone they can.
#7 Mar 06 2006 at 4:03 PM Rating: Good
I agree that the entire destroying of evidence, burning his body armor etc, warrants an investigation of negligence. But I also agree with the thought that if it was an everyday soldier would we have even heard about it aside from page 12 of the local paper? Ty for the manslaughter link btw it was an interesting read.

When I say frenzy, I am referring to what the media will inevitably do with this story. It was sad to read that Tillman was waving his arms and threw a smoke grenade(supposedly) to show the attacking troops they were U.S. forces as well.

Yeah the Cardinals suck, go Kurt Warner! Smiley: laugh
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 274 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (274)