dean

I don't know how the law works these days. The family may be able to sue. Back in my military days, a soldier had no legal recourse outside of military channels. In fact, we were considered property of the U.S. government without any rights beyond those granted to us by the Pentagon and the UCMJ. (I was informed by my XO a number of times that technically I could be charged with defacing government property for getting a tattoo. I told him to stuff it of course ). I don't know if or how far that attitude applies to family members.

bborzell

I recall a guy in Advanced Infantry Training getting a sunburn bad enough to lay him up and then getting an Article 15 (if I remember the numbering sequence correctly).

They layed the "defacing government property" thing on him. From what I remember of the guys who were in training with me, some were pretty defaced when they got off the bus.

Elistan

[QUOTE=Smokee,Mar 5 2006, 11:16 PM] [COLOR=blue]"The Tillmans asked why officers in his unit ordered physical evidence, including his uniform and body armour, to be burnt the day after the shooting.

They also have alleged that the findings of earlier investigations into their son

dlq04

We all know anyone who puts on the uniform is risking their life. I understand your point; however, Joe Sixpack joining for his country or for three hots and cot is not a big news story but Pat's certainly was, as it should be IMHO. Tragically, anyone killed by friendly fire must be absolutely impossible for the family to deal with. Given the circumstances and the high profile person, I feel it is worthy news story.

turkish

Don't think so...the criminal investigation is for the possibility of neglegant homicide. An example for the "in combat" case would be like if a radio operator on side 1 was calling "friendly fire" but the radio operator on side 2 was relaying "call for fire" and thus resulted in friendly casualty to side 1. The radio operator for side 2 would be neglegant in his duty, and should be held responsible.

dean

My point was that it should be a newsworthy story regardless of who the victim may be, not that the story itself isn't newsworthy.

dlq04

And my point was I don't feel every friendly fire death needs to be or should be a news story. I think it must be reported accurately to the family and if they choose to make a news story out of it, then that's different; otherwise, it's a private matter like any cause of death reported to the paper.

dean

While the motives behind keeping it a private family matter are admirable, the actions of a government and the agents acting on its behalf should always be subject to public scrutiny. To do otherwise is begging for trouble.

raymo19

A story just ran on the local TV news which said that the reason for the criminal investigation is that there was no consideration of criminal culpability in the first investigation. In other words, the investigation was incomplete in the eyes of whomever reviewed it.

Perhaps that's all there is to it.

duboseq

Every fratricide is and should be investigated. If the OIC or whom ever
was in charge, as pointed out by eyewitnesses, is fund negligent then they are subject to punitive action under UCMJ and can be stripped
of command/rank or what ever.

They could even serve some time.

The reason for the investigation could be due to the aquisition of new information by someone actually there coming forward.

Initially, it was thought to be an open and shut issue. What it really was,
was a break down in communication and SOP due to the celebrity status of Pat Tillman IMO. They figured if they glorified the inccident and made him out as a hero [WHICH HE IS ] that no one would raise any questions.