“In the meantime, the officer accomplished what he was expected to do.”
Didn’t that get discussed at the War Crimes trials? And no, no one “expected” him to open fire on a blabbering drunk guy crawling on his knees, crying with fear.
We expected better than that from our military in Afghanistan. At least, we did when I was there.
I was there also, and we were expected to accomplish goals. In each sortie, we had expected pieces of the mission to complete and ways to do it. I can remember clearing rooms in buildings using ways that would never be acceptable in the civilian world.
A perfect example is the extermination of Bin Laden. He was shot in the head, unarmed, holding one of his wives, in his house. The scenario is almost carbon copy. So why is one considered murder and the other justifiable? And if there’s nothing more than that, then how was the action of the cop, or the military team, determined sound?
I am not defending anyone, I wasn’t in Mesa. But using the info I can find, he was sent to investigate a gun being pointed out a window, in a hotel, he cornered the guy, and the guy reached into his waist after being told to keep his hands clear. That’s all we have besides the film. If that’s the case, then can you explain how a jury found him not guilty if it is so obvious? We don’t know everything.
rwood