Posted on 07/26/2007 7:15:06 PM PDT by gpapa
SAN FRANCISCO - Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman’s forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player’s death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
“The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.
The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
The real agenda for this article
I thought he was shot with a Ma-deuce. Regardless, it was a horrible thing, and ashame that this good man died in an accident. And those involved should have been upfront and honest about it.
Friendly fire is a tragic fact of war... sometimes elite units fall prey to friendly fire more often than standard infantry, due to overconfidence in their training. In standard infantry, you assume everything will go wrong, and tend to be more careful. In the SEALS etc., unnecessary deaths seem to occur with frequency, especially in training.
Those involved were upfront about it.
Higher ups were the one who screwed the pooch on this one.
"Friendly fire"? Hell, that sounds like first degree murder to me!
bullsh#t!....er, I mean, I believe that you are incorrect.
It does to me, also. This is a strange case, and I wonder if there is not more to it.
Anybody shot in the head by an M-16 at ten yard 3 times would not have 3 little holes in their forehead. Shrapnel, fragments of a .50, or even rocks split by another bullet might leave 3 well spaced holes...maybe.
This sounds like BS.
first of all the first round would make your head fly back and getting the other two in would mean aiming at a person on the deck looking up and then getting 30 feet up in the air... it sounds made up.
As far as the Army brass, they were a-holes and should have just manned up and said , "he died a soldiers death on the battle field." "friendly fire usually isn't".
Not true. The M-16 has a setting where it fires exactly 3 rounds in a fraction of a second. They would all impact before his head reacted to the initial impact. Also, entry wounds from a .223 are tiny; exit wounds are much larger.
Doesn't sound like an "accident".
Those weapons fire 1200 rounds a min or more on full auto. then there is burst mode,which is slightly faster, and single fire.
Seems he caught a burst.
Sure genius, those guns fire in slow motion.... NOT! the second round is already fired before the first leaves the muzzleand the third is behind that one as it leaves the muzzle at about 3500 ft per sec. Millitary rounds are ful metal UN jacketed bullets. They do not expand like a deer hunting round. All three rounds would have hit him before his head moved. As far as Pat Tillman is concerned, he's still standing there looking for terrorists. He never felt or heard a thing.
You will NEVER hear the gunshot of the round that hits you. If you are lucky, the enemy missed THEN you will hear it- IF the second and third round he fired didn't kill you, which is possible if the first one missed
Sounds exactly like "an accident". wars zones are dangerous places. You have a lot of nervous guys around you with load automatic weapons. Chit happens. Someones gun went off.
Friendly fire, ie- accident.
Bur go ahead, throw the guy who did it in jail if you think the guilt he's feeling of not having control of his weapon, something he was yelled at for 6 months of training, isn't already making him feel like off-ing himself... And the reprimand and/or dishonorable discharge isn't quite enough...
Typical liberal
I, for one, agree ... more on general principles than any kind of personal technical knowledge.
The History Channel actually had a reenactment of the, I suppose, official version of his death. He heard gunfire from an ambush of a vehicle column, and moved to his rear to provide support, but was mistaken by the column for enemy and came under fire. This version depicted him trying to signal to the convoy when he got hit, and it had an Afghani with him who also got killed. I don't believe it had any other U.S. soldier with him who survived.
I always supposed that the whole controversy arose from the reluctance of the Army to admit to friendly fire incidents, which I took to be rooted in tradition, as depicted e.g. in Stone's BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, wherein Tom Cruise's C.O. overrules his report that he accidentally shot a member of his own patrol.
There is also a strong dose of myth protection for, supposedly, elite units, in that they aren’t supposed to do such things as stumble upon each other and fire like some hick militia company during the Civil War. So there was some brand protection going on at some level.
Also, I think if it wasn’t someone as famous and touted by the politicians in and out of the military, that it would of been handled normally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.