BF2S Forums Friendly Fire: Unlawful and Criminal

It wasn't an accident... they should have flown lower and checked it out.

Sorry i will rephrase that.


It was an accident which could have been avoided, all they needed to do was fly lower to get a better look.

How often do you think planes make two runs past enemies in battle?  "Let's just fly over the first time to make sure it's the right target, then we'll waste a shitload of fuel and time by flying around and attacking, when they won't be in the same spot anymore and we'll have to find them again."  There's no sense in sending planes for more than one overflight.  What we need is better communication.  Don't get me wrong, I think it's awful that a British soldier was killed, but I think it's insane to say they should've done a low flight over a target to identify it.  There should've been solid communication between the Brits and Americans so that there was no question as to whether or not those tanks were friendly.

kilgoretrout wrote:

How often do you think planes make two runs past enemies in battle?  "Let's just fly over the first time to make sure it's the right target, then we'll waste a shitload of fuel and time by flying around and attacking, when they won't be in the same spot anymore and we'll have to find them again."  There's no sense in sending planes for more than one overflight.  What we need is better communication.  Don't get me wrong, I think it's awful that a British soldier was killed, but I think it's insane to say they should've done a low flight over a target to identify it.  There should've been solid communication between the Brits and Americans so that there was no question as to whether or not those tanks were friendly.

On the point about fuel, they're in Iraq for it so I'm sure that's not a problem and on the enemy moving for the return you might want to see the average speed of a plane vs a tank.  Exactly how far do you think a tank could go?

Besides, the crtitism was that they should have flown lower and NOT that they should have done two passes.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

=EXP= TMMTAKEN wrote:

It wasn't an accident... they should have flown lower and checked it out.

So, you're saying the US forces deliberately attacked a British convoy?

If I drunk 8 pints of beer, got in my car and ran someone over, would you as a judge let me off because I didn't "mean" to run anyone over?  Not comparing just making a point that just because something's not deliberate, doesn't make it a lawful accident.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manslaughter

Are you familiar with intent in a court of law? If he acted recklessly then the military has courts that deal with it. But intent is very important. Tillman was shot three times in the head. His unit burned his armor and uniform to hide the fact it was friendly fire. Those soldiers were dealt with.

server rule: tk'ers will be kicked/banned

unfortunate, I could only imagine what that pilot feels like.

Wow the BBC sure throws in a lot of biased comments into their news coverage.

An unfortunate situation all around.

GATOR591957 wrote:

Funny how none of the British failures have been brought to light.

QFT

I would say the BBC is just as bad as some people make Fox out to be.

This is clearly an accident, and im disgusted that the assistant deputy coronor (how does that position give you the authority to make these comments?) has condemned the act as criminal. Friendly fire happens in every war. it is an accident. How can we prosecute someone when there are well over 100,000 troops all in one area with lots of weapons and everyone is on edge all the time, and there is a miscommunication breakdown that tragically results in the loss of a friendly.

Im glad that everyone thinks it is so easy to spot a 3 foot square orange patch on a top of a vehicle while flying over at several miles above, several hundred miles an hour. Yes, they thought it may be friendlies. However, they were told there were NO FRIENDLIES IN THE AREA! This was not a pilot error, this was a breakdown on multiple levels, including the british who somehow failed to make aware or notify anyone of their whereabouts or convoy for that day.

Also, on a further note on the orange patches, wouldn't it be genious for the insurgents to paint their rocket launchers orange? That is exaclty that the one pilot thought. That, combined with the fact that there were no notifications of any friendlies in the area makes it pretty easy to come to the conclusion that what they thought up to and including when they pulled the trigger, was correct.

In no way am i trying to come up with excuses, or belittle the british soldiers death, but accidents happen in war and this is clearly far from intentional or criminal. They took their time to identify the target, communicate with the base, weigh their options, all before they fired a shot. Better communication could have saved a life, but that is at the fault of both sides (american and british). Another pass or two at a lower altitude could have saved a life, but then at the potential cost of the american pilot, would it have turned out to be an insurgent convoy and those did turn out to be rockets or .50 cals.

The end result of the situation was tragic, but to prosecute the american pilots (who clearly expressed remorse at the mistake), is about as dumb as firing an assembly line worker for a faulty product design. The focus is on the wrong people and the right questions aren't being asked, and the right steps aren't being taken to ensure this never happens again.

usmarine2007 wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

Funny how none of the British failures have been brought to light.

QFT

I would say the BBC is just as bad as some people make Fox out to be.

ive been saying that ever since people started with the "FOX news haxxxxorrssss"!!!1!!111"