If, as has been reported, the two prisoners were fleeing at the time Lt. Pantano shot them in the back, how does that support his theory of self-defense?
Please note that the definion of self-defense which I am most familiar with is that given in People (of Michigan) vs. Riddle, not the UCMJ's or any other jurisdictions'.
Maybe a little levity to answer your question...
Shooting enemy combatants in the back would be from the John F. Kerry code of military justice.
Wait. That's not funny.
It doesn't.
Self-defense is the key issue in the case that the Art. 32 hearing and the general court, if it gets that far, will have to sort out.
His story, as I understand it, is that the terrorists made some sudden moves while searching the car and failed to respond to orders, making him think they were preparing to use some kind of weapon left in the car.
The prosecution will emphasize the fact that he uncuffed the terrorists to put them in the car, shot them from behind and fired a high number of rounds into them.
The reports I've read indicate there are two witnesses who saw the whole thing, Pantano and the NCO who is the accusing witness. An awful lot will come down to who presents as the more believable witness, something we don't know.
There is so much uncertainty and risk for both sides, my prediction is there will be a plea bargain at some point.