The Case of Sergeant First Class Walter Taylor

[Farnan]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5494806.story

Based solely on this LA Times article this seems to be a clear case of a lawful shooting. The NCO reasonably believed that the vehicle represented a threat to him and his unit. Hopefully his court martial (just recently began) exhonerates him.

Don't get me wrong it is regretful when an innocent civilian dies, but this was a case where any reasonable man could believe it was the right decision in the moment. Hindsight is 20/20 but not the battlefield.

[YuriVII]

Such a tragic event of immense misunderstandings. I feel sympathy to the Afghan family and the Seargant.

However, the real war criminals on both sides of the conflict are as usual the same ones behind the bench.

[Dalarna3]

Charging soldiers in combat zones with serious offenses for taking defensive action is just going to make it easier to kill American troops.

[frozenprince]

The man was shellshocked and trying to protect himself and his fellow soldiers. What happened to her is tragic and shouldn't be taken lightly, but throwing the Sgt. in prison? For taking what at the time he thought was appropriate action to protect himself and the others around him? It would be a joke.

[The Gurkhan]

Ten days after the explosion and firefight, Taylor got what he is convinced was a dose of Afghan street justice: His vehicle was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade, which blew off his nose, shattered his cheeks, ripped open his lips, drove his teeth back toward his throat, blinded him in one eye — in short, left him without a face as he had known it.

"Eye for eye, tooth for tooth," - the universe is in balance. Almost.

[Captain Jin]

Sounds like someone in his chain of command is just trying to crucify him. Sad. You should have a chain of command that stands behind you in situations like this otherwise you're ed. I would say it was justifiable given the circumstances. You're never, ever supposed to be judged by hindsight but instead judged by the information you had at that moment and the circumstances surrounding the incident. So yeah, I'd say an unfortunate accident, but hardly a crime.

[Tiberios]

As has been said, it seems like a tragic accident.

[mrmouth]

That isn't an accident as much as it is an unfortunate outcome in Afghanistan where a senior NCO was forced to make a quick judgment.

I really cannot go more into this without losing my mind.

[Markas]

The problem seems to be the differences in recollections of events. The soldiers claim Aqilah Hikmat did not raise her arms and walked towards the rear of the car. Her husband and the translator dispute this so there are understandable questions. They also didn't help their case by not stating that the shooting happened nine minutes after the initial firefight.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Whats she going to the back of the car for thats weird?Why not reverce and get the hell out of there.
Was she a trained doc going for her bag of medical equipment to help the injured?
I think the guy is innocent and i feel sorry he got blown up afterwards.Horrible injuries.

[Heathen Hammer]

I feel bad for the guy, but then again, him being injured later does not justify killing that innocent woman earlier.

[Farnan]

The problem seems to be the differences in recollections of events. The soldiers claim Aqilah Hikmat did not raise her arms and walked towards the rear of the car. Her husband and the translator dispute this so there are understandable questions. They also didn't help their case by not stating that the shooting happened nine minutes after the initial firefight.

They could both be telling the truth how they see it. Other soldiers could not have seen her raising her arms, or it did not register in their head/wasn't remembered later. Studies of eye witness reports in criminal cases have stated that multiple witnesses witnessing the same crime have multiple accounts of how it happened. Now saying this I'm assuming EVERYONE involved is telling the truth as they see it. Assuming no one had a helmet cam and the was no UAV watching them that is all we can base our information on.

About the time after, that seemed to have been the case of no one asked so no one volunteered it initially. When questioned no one denied there was 9 minutes between which to me is not a major deal.

Whats she going to the back of the car for thats weird?Why not reverce and get the hell out of there.
Was she a trained doc going for her bag of medical equipment to help the injured?
I think the guy is innocent and i feel sorry he got blown up afterwards.Horrible injuries.

She could have been going for an aid bag, however the people there had no idea of that or who she was. The first thing anyone teaches for survival in a hostage situation is if the Hostage Rescue Team comes in you stay on the ground and don't move or attempt to help as it could be misinterpreted as a threat to the HRT. Same principle applies here, if there car is stopped best thing to do is to stay in the car and wait, if there is no active shooting.

I feel bad for the guy, but then again, him being injured later does not justify killing that innocent woman earlier.

No one is saying the injuries justify the shooting.

Again this seems the case of a horrible misunderstanding, not a deliberate killing of a civilian or someone shooting without caring the consequences.

[Heathen Hammer]

No one is saying the injuries justify the shooting.

Again this seems the case of a horrible misunderstanding, not a deliberate killing of a civilian or someone shooting without caring the consequences.

It looks like the latter. After all, it was an unarmed civilian.

[justicar5]

It looks like the latter. After all, it was an unarmed civilian.

In the middle of a fire fight, in a campaign with a history of suicide bombings approaching the boot of a car, context in this case is everything.

[Heathen Hammer]

In the middle of a fire fight, in a campaign with a history of suicide bombings approaching the boot of a car, context in this case is everything.

First of all, it is reasonable to assume he should have been trained for these kind of situations.
Second, is there any evidence aside from the claims of the soldier himself? The article in the OP does not specify that.

[Heinz Guderian]

American soldiers just cant cut a break in Afghanistan.

[justicar5]

This is a tragedy, not a crime.

[alhoon]

Don't get me wrong it is regretful when an innocent civilian dies, but this was a case where any reasonable man could believe it was the right decision in the moment. Hindsight is 20/20 but not the battlefield.

This is a tragedy, not a crime.

I agree it was an error of judgement but I partially disagree that he should be aquited. That person killed an innocent woman by an error of judgement. When a doctor makes a mistake in the bed or a bad call and the patient loses his/her life, the doctor faces justice.
The same should be done here.

There should be some reprecussions for this accident and error of judgement. At the very least, the sergeant should be dismissed from the military for this error, as a doctor would lose his license in a similar case.

[magpie]

Shoot first ask questions later. Twitchy soldiers in a war zone are not going to act like traffic police.

Not the first time this type of thing has happened and will not be the last.

The poor woman was very unlucky and also probably nervous given the circumstanses, so her actions did not go by the book.

She paid with her life, The poor sergeant was later blown to hell by a bomb. So both are victims of this murky war.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Cant be easy standing at a checkpoint wondering will the next car that drives by explode.
That has to play on the nerves.