U.S. Forces Killed UK Reporter

[quote]Hannibal King wrote:
That’s what happens when you get a camera with the hopes of uncovering crooked or unlawfull troops. Soldiers don’t take kindly to snitches, or potential snitches.[/quote]

If that’s your defence, you just hung your client.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
trailrash wrote:
makkun wrote:

The US soldiers did not fire in self-defence, he ruled. Had the killing taken place under English law “it would have constituted an unlawful homicide”."

Makkun

The coroner got statements from the American soldiers but yet he still came to the conclusion that he was purposefully shot. Sorry but I call Bullshit…

You weren’t there and you didn’t see the body or the evidence. None of us were. That means no one should be calling ‘bullshit’ on anything until all facts are in…if they ever get in.

Past that, why would you think a coroner would go out of his way to this degree if it was a simple accident?

All we know right now is that a man is dead when all signs are pointing to him not needing to be, at least not from a head shot.

After the lies that surrounded the death of Pat Tillman, I am not going to simply judge things as if we are always right and everyone else is wrong. I don’t see how anyone could before the evidence is in.[/quote]

Regarding your first question. You are correct we have not seen all of the evidence nor were we there. However if a coroner and a family is going to come out calling a soldier a murderer then lets see some more of the facts. Thats quite a bold statement without telling all of the facts.

As for the coroner who knows what his agenda may be.

Regarding the Pat Tillman incident no one can argue with you there. That could definitely lead someone to think that they would cover up other similar instances.

[quote]swivel wrote:
“may or may not” is a “legal target” ?[/quote]

The report didn’t specify who else was in the vehicle or if they were armed. I am not saying ambiguous targets are legal targets.

[quote]makkun wrote:
"[…]It was while he was being taken to hospital in a civilian vehicle that he received a fatal bullet in the head from American guns. The coroner said he had “no doubt” this was “an unlawful act”.[/quote]Based on his extensive legal experience as a…err…coroner.

[quote]“The US soldiers did not fire in self-defence, he ruled. Had the killing taken place under English law “it would have constituted an unlawful homicide”.” [/quote]Soldiers are not limited to firing in self-defense. To expect that is naive or ignorant.

[quote]I don’t suppose US troops are under order to shoot the wounded. [/quote]You suppose right. Actually we work quite hard at keeping them alive.

And I don’t suppose UK coroners have much experience in ballistic wounding analysis since there are so few firearms in Britain. Especially when it comes to determining whether a particular bullet came from an American weapon or an Iraqi weapon.

This was a war in Iraq, and there is always collateral damage. Always. It is unfortunate, but it is the risk of being there.

[/quote]

Here is the same story on MSNBC, much less conclusive and dramatic than the CNN version.

[quote]Patrick Williams wrote:
Based on his extensive legal experience as a…err…coroner.[/quote]

…who are often called into court to represent their findings. That’s like saying a forensic medical pracitioner has no legal experience. Of course they do.

[quote]
And I don’t suppose UK coroners have much experience in ballistic wounding analysis since there are so few firearms in Britain. Especially when it comes to determining whether a particular bullet came from an American weapon or an Iraqi weapon.[/quote]

So now you want to believe that there are no ballistic weapons specialists that could be called in all of Europe?

This doesn’t mean we ignore wrong doings or pretend as if they aren’t important. Again, what you just wrote is like excusing the cover up that surrounded Tillman’s death. Why are so many of you this willing to accept wrong doing? Your morals are simply based on who is in office or who we are at war with?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Patrick Williams wrote:
Based on his extensive legal experience as a…err…coroner.

…who are often called into court to represent their findings. That’s like saying a forensic medical pracitioner has no legal experience. Of course they do.[/quote]

My comment was regarding the coroner’s determination that a warcrime had been committed by US Marines. The coroner has bypassed any assumption of innocence until proven guilty and has already convinced himself (and you, apparently) that the marines are guilty without any need for a trial.

This conclusion of guilt clearly indicates his lack of knowledge (or respect for) a legal system which presupposes innocence until a trial is complete.

[quote]And I don’t suppose UK coroners have much experience in ballistic wounding analysis since there are so few firearms in Britain. Especially when it comes to determining whether a particular bullet came from an American weapon or an Iraqi weapon.

So now you want to believe that there are no ballistic weapons specialists that could be called in all of Europe? [/quote]

I said “much experience”. Read it again. The number of gunshot crimes he has investigated in Britain likely could be counted on one hand.

[quote]This was a war in Iraq, and there is always collateral damage. Always. It is unfortunate, but it is the risk of being there.

This doesn’t mean we ignore wrong doings or pretend as if they aren’t important. Again, what you just wrote is like excusing the cover up that surrounded Tillman’s death. Why are so many of you this willing to accept wrong doing? Your morals are simply based on who is in office or who we are at war with?[/quote]

What do you know about ignoring wrong doings in combat? You claim to be a military officer, correct? Ever been to combat? Or have you just been chilling the last 3 years behind a desk in that dental clinic surfing the internet?

Every time a non-combatant gets injured as a consequence of US military action, a formal investigation is convened. I have been the investigating officer for one of them. They are no joke.

Red Herring bringing up Tillman. I didn’t say anything about him or his accidental death or the false reporting that took place afterwards.

It’s more showing of your own morals when you are so quick to hang other servicemen out to dry in another country’s legal system, especially when you have no experience or understanding of the nature of combat, accidents in combat, or investigations of those incidents.

Essentially, you’re responses were 2 misquote/spin/redirect attempts, a red herring and an attack on my morals.

Try again.

[quote]Patrick Williams wrote:
My comment was regarding the coroner’s determination that a warcrime had been committed by US Marines. The coroner has bypassed any assumption of innocence until proven guilty and has already convinced himself (and you, apparently) that the marines are guilty without any need for a trial.

This conclusion of guilt clearly indicates his lack of knowledge (or respect for) a legal system which presupposes innocence until a trial is complete.[/quote]

I have been convinced by life of only one thing…that no man is to be trusted 100% of the time. That means I have no clue if his assumption is right or wrong. I do know it would be morally wrong to IGNORE this situation simply because it might make our military look bad in this situation. I would hope our men are innocent. That doesn’t mean I simply brush off any idea that they might not be.

[quote]

I said “much experience”. Read it again. The number of gunshot crimes he has investigated in Britain likely could be counted on one hand.[/quote]

Your point? It is that hard to figure out where a shot came from? It is that hard to look at bullet fragments and tell which gun they came from? It isn’t, you know.

[quote]

What do you know about ignoring wrong doings in combat? You claim to be a military officer, correct? Ever been to combat? Or have you just been chilling the last 3 years behind a desk in that dental clinic surfing the internet? [/quote]

I have been to hostile territory in south America. You don’t need to know more than that. I have not been in Iraq as of yet but that doesn’t mean I won’t be sent there as soon as this year. Was this your point? That no man can comment on this situation unless they have actually been to Iraq? My job is often to perform humanitiarian missions (all be it short ones) into random environments. Please don’t pretend as if my job is not important or as if my life could never be at risk. I will have to tell that to my supervisor who just got back from Iraq.

[quote]
Every time a non-combatant gets injured as a consequence of US military action, a formal investigation is convened. I have been the investigating officer for one of them. They are no joke.

Red Herring bringing up Tillman. I didn’t say anything about him or his accidental death or the false reporting that took place afterwards. [/quote]

Who cares if you didn’t bring him up? I did because it shows that our own military is NOT just about “only the truth and nothing but the truth”. It is a prime example of how this circumstance could be similar. A red herring? That is what you call blatant examples of an institution lying to the public?

You must be insane. If I am tasked, every instance you just mentioned is exactly what I will be dealing with. The only red herring is that you are trying to act as if since I haven’t been to Iraq YET that my experience level is zero and that any speculation of fault by our own military means I am hanging my men out to dry. That, my friend, is not only a red herring, but utter bullshit.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I do know it would be morally wrong to IGNORE this situation simply because it might make our military look bad in this situation. I would hope our men are innocent. That doesn’t mean I simply brush off any idea that they might not be.[/quote] The article states the Marines conducted their own investigation. It wasn’t simply brushed off. Would you like it investigated until you get the outcome you want? Try again.

[quote]Your point? It is that hard to figure out where a shot came from? It is that hard to look at bullet fragments and tell which gun they came from? It isn’t, you know.[/quote] My point is a bullet wound from an accidental shooting looks exactly like one from an intentional murder, all other things being equal. I know because I have treated both. Have you? He may be able to determine what type of weapon it was fired from, but that does not determine intent, and thus criminal action in a combat zone. Following along?

[quote]
I have been to hostile territory in south America. You don’t need to know more than that. [/quote] This is a joke, right? You make a vague, internet claim and then clam up about it? That is supposed to give you credibility? Were shots fired? Did you fire at anyone? Did you kill anyone? Did you do any combat dentistry while being shot at? Were you awarded a combat action badge/ribbon? Don’t claim what you can’t back up.

[quote]I have not been in Iraq as of yet but that doesn’t mean I won’t be sent there as soon as this year. Was this your point? That no man can comment on this situation unless they have actually been to Iraq? [/quote] The point is unless you have been in firefights, you have no idea the level of confusion and short reaction time desicions that have to be made. Face it, you don’t know that. But you can still make all the anonymous internet BS comments and claims you want. Internet, free speech and all.

[quote]My job is often to perform humanitiarian missions (all be it short ones) into random environments. [/quote] We’re not discussing random environments, we’re discussing combat environments. Stay on topic.

[quote] Please don’t pretend as if my job is not important or as if my life could never be at risk. [/quote] Nobody said dentists are not important. Don’t be so sensitive.

[quote]I will have to tell that to my supervisor who just got back from Iraq.[/quote] Tell your supervisor whatever you like. But if you intend to speak for me, tell him I said thanks for his combat service.

[quote]Who cares if you didn’t bring him up? I did because it shows that our own military is NOT just about “only the truth and nothing but the truth”. It is a prime example of how this circumstance could be similar. A red herring? That is what you call blatant examples of an institution lying to the public?[/quote] No, it’s what I call an attempt to divert attention from the incident at hand.

[quote]
You must be insane. [/quote] Personal attack, just shows you know you lost this one. [quote]

If I am tasked, every instance you just mentioned is exactly what I will be dealing with. [/quote] But you haven’t and that makes you completely ignorant and/or naive regarding the nature of combat or military investigations.

[quote]The only red herring is that you are trying to act as if since I haven’t been to Iraq YET that my experience level is zero and that any speculation of fault by our own military means I am hanging my men out to dry. [/quote] No, it’s your pathological hatred for your commander in chief which drives you to jump on this so aggressively (in the hopes of having something to further discredit the administration) even if it means costing good Marines their careers and freedom just so you can have another thread to talk shit on that makes you hanging servicemen out to dry. BTW, you shouldn’t call them “my men” unless they are “your men”.

Also, before you even try it, I am far from a Bush/Rumsfeld cheerleader. But I refuse to sacrifice good men and women just to have more fuel for that fire.

Wasn’t a red herring because it wasn’t what I said. Work on that reading comprehension.

You lost again. Try harder. Or even stop before you dig yourself in further.

[quote]pwilliams wrote:
The article states the Marines conducted their own investigation. It wasn’t simply brushed off. Would you like it investigated until you get the outcome you want? Try again.[/quote]

What is the deal with you and your personal attacks? Why do you for one second think I ‘want’ them to be found guilty? I have stated what my exact opinion but, no less, here you are pretending as if I haven’t and that by questioning this case, this somehow means I want our men to be guilty. That is the sign of a weak argument.

I have treated the effects of a bullet wound after fragments have been removed. Are we back at questioning my experience again? Anything else you would like to know?

[quote]
I have been to hostile territory in south America. You don’t need to know more than that. This is a joke, right? You make a vague, internet claim and then clam up about it? That is supposed to give you credibility? Were shots fired? Did you fire at anyone? Did you kill anyone? Did you do any combat dentistry while being shot at? Were you awarded a combat action badge/ribbon? Don’t claim what you can’t back up.[/quote]

You need no information about this. I’m sorry, but what PROOF have you shown that ANY of what you have stated here is true? Yet you question me? Are you being serious? WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? I have posted pictures on this site before from my mission and the types of people we helped. I posted a pic of everyone involved standing beneath their flag with the US flag flying beneath it. I have since learned just how many people actually do read my posts so that will not be shown publically again.

Has anyone said that there is no confusion? What exactly was stated? Do you even know anymore or are you making up arguments as you go?

[quote]
We’re not discussing random environments, we’re discussing combat environments. Stay on topic.[/quote]

I was on topic. I gave you all of the public info I plan to give on where I have been. You have given NOTHING about where you have been, your rank, who you are or when you were in combat yet you want specific details from me. Are you insane?

[quote]
No, it’s what I call an attempt to divert attention from the incident at hand.[/quote]

Divert attention? The topic is not about Tillman, but his case shows that lies DO happen. How is that not related?

Was this a joke? You turned the discussion on me first and now cry when it gets tossed right back at you. Pathetic.

Using that logic, you shouldn’t be attempting to speak on my experience as you have never been in my position.

Pathalogical hatred? I don’t hate President Bush and have never written that I hate the man. I didn’t vote for him, but to say I hate him is a stretch you should be much more leary of taking.

[quote]

Also, before you even try it, I am far from a Bush/Rumsfeld cheerleader. But I refuse to sacrifice good men and women just to have more fuel for that fire.[/quote]

Who is trying to sacrifice these men?

You clearly are a lost cause. What was lost here was your own integrity.

I don’t get all the huffing and puffing regarding the professionality of the coroner: He did his job, assessed the evidence, came to a conclusion and now refers this on to the legal system for further pursuit.

It’s within his rights to comment and make statements. Where’s the problem with that? As I said in my first post, I trust in the British legal system to find a fair and correct resolution.

Makkun

PS: As for the lack of qualification regarding firearms evidence - that’s really unlikely (and kinda funny).

[quote]makkun wrote:
I don’t get all the huffing and puffing regarding the professionality of the coroner: He did his job, assessed the evidence, came to a conclusion and now refers this on to the legal system for further pursuit.

It’s within his rights to comment and make statements. Where’s the problem with that? As I said in my first post, I trust in the British legal system to find a fair and correct resolution.

Makkun

PS: As for the lack of qualification regarding firearms evidence - that’s really unlikely (and kinda funny).[/quote]

What I don’t get are the sheer numbers of people constantly trying to call someone out on where they work, their career and their personal background…when they NEVER show proof of this info themselves.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

More garbage.
[/quote]
I’m done answering your assinine posts. Take your ZMA and REZ-V and get some sleep.

I’ve made it clear in several threads exactly what I do and where and when I’ve done it. If you want more, fine, then Google patrick williams army physician assistant and see what you get.

My integrity is just fine, thank-you.

The bottom line is, no US servicemember will stand in any non-US jurisdiction for this, unless some more concrete evidence appears indicating a crime was committed.

Prof X,

[quote]Professor X wrote:

What I don’t get are the sheer numbers of people constantly trying to call someone out on where they work, their career and their personal background…when they NEVER show proof of this info themselves.[/quote]

Don’t get worked up over it - there are loads of people on the Internet who can’t keep a discussion unpersonal and fair and without insults, and this board is no exception.

What was that Strong Word a few weeks back again: “Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength. – Eric Hoffer”

Makkun

[quote]pwilliams wrote:
Professor X wrote:

More garbage.

I’m done answering your assinine posts. Take your ZMA and REZ-V and get some sleep.

I’ve made it clear in several threads exactly what I do and where and when I’ve done it. If you want more, fine, then Google patrick williams army physician assistant and see what you get.

My integrity is just fine, thank-you.

The bottom line is, no US servicemember will stand in any non-US jurisdiction for this, unless some more concrete evidence appears indicating a crime was committed.

[/quote]

Your actions in this thread tell me all I need to know about you. In your head, you can call into question what others do for a living and request proof…but when the same is asked of you, nothing is given in return. Any soldier who would act as if my job is “less” important than his own is not worth my time.

[quote]makkun wrote:
I don’t get all the huffing and puffing regarding the professionality of the coroner: He did his job, assessed the evidence, came to a conclusion and now refers this on to the legal system for further pursuit.[/quote]

Here you are incorrect. It has been said that the coroner decided that a crime was committed. It is not a coroners job to determinte whether a crime was committed or not. I don’t know about England, but here it is the job of the police and the district attorney to determine whether or not they will prosecute a crime, and the coroner will be a witness. The coroners job was to determine cause of death, which he did. Death was caused by an American bullet to the back of the head, which is consistent with the hole in the back of the minibus that the wounded were evacuating in. This does not indicate crime.

[quote] It’s within his rights to comment and make statements. Where’s the problem with that? As I said in my first post, I trust in the British legal system to find a fair and correct resolution.

Makkun[/quote]

I’m very glad you do. Because I trust the US military to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. It dismays me that without enough information, the English people are already hanging the Americans out to dry for this death.

I don’t find this funny at all. In a nation that does not have many firearms, the medical examiner would not be as experienced in dealing with firearms as say the medical examiner from New York City, Los Angeles, Miami, Detroit, Baltimore or even here in Washington, DC. The medical examiners here would be used to dealing with firearm wounds on a regular basis. Unless said coroner deals with military bodies on a daily basis, it is feasible to believe that he would not be the most qualified make those decisions. Please don’t take this as me saying he is wrong, I believe he is right. However, the point of there being many more qualified professionals for this job, I believe to be right as well.

TrainerinDC,

[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
[…] Here you are incorrect. It has been said that the coroner decided that a crime was committed. It is not a coroners job to determinte whether a crime was committed or not. I don’t know about England, but here it is the job of the police and the district attorney to determine whether or not they will prosecute a crime, and the coroner will be a witness. The coroners job was to determine cause of death, which he did. Death was caused by an American bullet to the back of the head, which is consistent with the hole in the back of the minibus that the wounded were evacuating in. This does not indicate crime.[/quote]

OK, this is lifted from Wikipedia, but it explains the difference in British and US law and following this a British coroner does exactly that [italics are mine]:

"Jurisdiction

Any person aware of a dead body lying in the district of a coroner has a duty to report it to the coroner; failure to do so is an offence. This can include bodies brought into England or Wales (for example, when Diana, Princess of Wales died in France when her body was returned it was dealt with by a coroner in England). The coroner has an assistant (usually an ex-policeman) who will carry out the investigation on his or her behalf and on the basis of that the coroner will decide whether an inquest is appropriate. When a person dies in the custody of the legal authorities (in police cells, or in prison), an inquest must be held. In England, inquests are usually heard without a jury (unless the coroner wants one). However, a case in which a person has died under the control of central authority must have a jury, as a check on the possible abuse of governmental power.

The coroner’s court is a court of law, and accordingly the coroner may summon witnesses, and people found to be lying are guilty of perjury. […]

United States

Coroners in the United States are often elected officials, usually of a county. As finders of fact, they retain quasi-judicial powers such as the power of subpoena, and in some states they also have the power to impanel juries of inquest, but unlike their British equivalents, they are not judicial officers."

[…]

Who does? The British coroner (an officer of the law) has seen enough evidence to make a recommendation to bring this further towards prosecution. That’s a fair and legal procedure - I don’t see where there is any “hanging out” being done.

[quote]PS: As for the lack of qualification regarding firearms evidence - that’s really unlikely (and kinda funny).

I don’t find this funny at all. In a nation that does not have many firearms, the medical examiner would not be as experienced in dealing with firearms as say the medical examiner from New York City, Los Angeles, Miami, Detroit, Baltimore or even here in Washington, DC. The medical examiners here would be used to dealing with firearm wounds on a regular basis. Unless said coroner deals with military bodies on a daily basis, it is feasible to believe that he would not be the most qualified make those decisions. Please don’t take this as me saying he is wrong, I believe he is right. However, the point of there being many more qualified professionals for this job, I believe to be right as well. [/quote]

You see, it’s not like inner city UK is a gun free zone. As much as the UK’s more restrictive gun laws seem to keep gun crime rates down, it’s still enough for trained professionals to be trained and experienced enough to analyse cases like this.

I think it’s quite far fetched to question the competence of the coroner based on the assumption that he is less experienced because there are in general less gunshot wounds in the UK civilian population. For all we know, he could be an expert…

…oh, he is: Andrew Walker has been dealing with military cases since 1998, and lots of them related to Iraq:

http://www.dca.gov.uk/pubs/statements/2006/st060605.htm

What also strikes me as funny with the above argument is that he’s responsible for South London - and believe me, there are enough shootings for people to practice with.

Look, I understand that this is upsetting - but it’s a normal British legal procedure and it has been conducted by qualified professionals in the appropriate way. Let’s not judge too early which way it will go.

Makkun

[quote]makkun wrote:
OK, this is lifted from Wikipedia, but it explains the difference in British and US law and following this a British coroner does exactly that [italics are mine]:

"Jurisdiction

Any person aware of a dead body lying in the district of a coroner has a duty to report it to the coroner; failure to do so is an offence. This can include bodies brought into England or Wales (for example, when Diana, Princess of Wales died in France when her body was returned it was dealt with by a coroner in England). The coroner has an assistant (usually an ex-policeman) who will carry out the investigation on his or her behalf and on the basis of that the coroner will decide whether an inquest is appropriate. When a person dies in the custody of the legal authorities (in police cells, or in prison), an inquest must be held. In England, inquests are usually heard without a jury (unless the coroner wants one). However, a case in which a person has died under the control of central authority must have a jury, as a check on the possible abuse of governmental power.

The coroner’s court is a court of law, and accordingly the coroner may summon witnesses, and people found to be lying are guilty of perjury. […]

United States

Coroners in the United States are often elected officials, usually of a county. As finders of fact, they retain quasi-judicial powers such as the power of subpoena, and in some states they also have the power to impanel juries of inquest, but unlike their British equivalents, they are not judicial officers. [/quote]

Okay so the coroner in England has the authority to say a crime was committed. However, what are the legal recourses available to him when dealing with international and perhaps unidentified suspects?

In the article I read, since the coroner said there was a crime, the family of the deceased is crying out for the heads of the GI’s responsible for his death. This is the hanging out to dry of the Americans. There are a few apparent problems with this,

A. He was in a war zone.
B. There were bullets flying around.
C. He entered a high risk area by his own choice.
D. There is not enough evidence yet.
E. The USMC was conducting their own investigation into the shooting.
F. How can the coroner determine there was a crime commited if he was not there to see the shot for himself.

With people calling for their heads, with all these unresolved issues, when we are allied nations is a problem.

[quote]PS: As for the lack of qualification regarding firearms evidence - that’s really unlikely (and kinda funny).

You see, it’s not like inner city UK is a gun free zone. As much as the UK’s more restrictive gun laws seem to keep gun crime rates down, it’s still enough for trained professionals to be trained and experienced enough to analyse cases like this.

I think it’s quite far fetched to question the competence of the coroner based on the assumption that he is less experienced because there are in general less gunshot wounds in the UK civilian population. For all we know, he could be an expert…

…oh, he is: Andrew Walker has been dealing with military cases since 1998, and lots of them related to Iraq:

http://www.dca.gov.uk/pubs/statements/2006/st060605.htm

What also strikes me as funny with the above argument is that he’s responsible for South London - and believe me, there are enough shootings for people to practice with. [/quote]

If you re-read my statement, I said that I believe he is right. However, to those of us over here in the states, we are not familiar with your system, and being that there are so few firearms in the UK, this is a concern that needed to be addressed.

[quote]Look, I understand that this is upsetting - but it’s a normal British legal procedure and it has been conducted by qualified professionals in the appropriate way. Let’s not judge too early which way it will go.

Makkun[/quote]

I’m completely fine with it being conducted by qualified professionals. As long as before there are punishemnts given to American troops that our own team of qualified professionals gets to analyze the data and the situation and that our troops get a fair shake. I will happily prosecute a criminal, however they are American troops and innocent until proven guilty.

In case those in US did not realise, but British tropps do fight wars too and get shot and killed. In fact in sizeable numbers. So coroners do get to see people with holes in their heads and stuff like that.

The reason for this case being revved up is because of the abundant US incidents of friendly fire (causing multiple deaths) on British troops. Even if its unrelated, the media and people who don’t know better always latch onto this sort of negativity.

Before some expert tells me friendly fire does occur, I do understand this I came pretty damn near to using a GPMG on friendlies in the Balkans.
By accident of course.

Another issues is that unless someone states and can prove it was ‘person x’ who shot this guy, it could be anyone who hapened to have a gun firing a nato round.

There are Western weapons in the Middle East, I believe Iran and Syria are full of them. I don’t believe some insurgents from Iraq did not ever buy an M16 off the Iranian Ebay or equiv.