Report clears U.S. in friendly fire incident

[Ghoulish Delight]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7491280/

This is the whole Italian journalist fiasco. A report from a joint U.S.-Italian investigation has been released. It was decided that the soldiers followed proper procedures (flashed their lights, then fired a warning shot, then shot to kill). Whether those will still be the proper procedures remains to be seen.

Here's what I find weird.


The investigation found the car was about 130 yards from the checkpoint when the soldiers flashed their lights as a warning to stop. But the car kept coming and, at 90 yards, warning shots were fired. At 65 yards, when the car failed to stop, the soldiers used lethal force — a machine gun burst that killed Calipari and wounded Sgrena and the driver.

Senior U.S. military officials say it took only about four seconds from the first warning to the fatal shots, but insist the soldiers acted properly under the current rules of engagement.

The investigation failed, however, to resolve one critical dispute: The Americans claim the car was racing toward the checkpoint at about 50 miles per hour, the Italians say it was traveling at a much slower speed.

Well, um, gee. Warning shot fired at 90 yards, lethal force used at 65 yards. 4 seconds in between. 3 seconds of math...18 mph. Even being generous and assuming "about 4 seconds" means 3.5 seconds, that's 20mph. So much for the US claim that it was speeding at 50mph. Am I missing something?

[scaeagles]

Perhaps response time of the soldiers comes into play? The fire the warning shot at 90 yards, and when the car gets to 65 yards the soldier gets the order from his superior to fire? Just a thought - I really have no idea.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Perhaps response time of the soldiers comes into play? The fire the warning shot at 90 yards, and when the car gets to 65 yards the soldier gets the order from his superior to fire? Just a thought - I really have no idea.Not the way the article words it. "used lethal force at 65 yards when the car failed to stop." Even accounting for some fudge factor and estimating, we're talking factor of 2.5 difference between what the numbers show and what the US is claiming. We're talking the difference between 65 yards away from the soldiers and under 20 yards away from the soldiers. That's a huge gulf between what the facts in the report show and what the US is claiming.

[Alex]

Is this a released report (I did a quick search but didn't find anything).

But if not, it may be that this is second hand information conveyed to NBC. A summary of a summary. It is too pat that the first warning was at 130 yards and the fatal shooting exactly halfway at 65 yards.

That said, my math is that 65 yards in 4 seconds equals 195 yards in 4 seconds or 48.75 feet/second. 1 foot/second equals 0.682 miles/hour so 48.75 feet/second equals 33.2475mph. It says from the first warning not from the first warning shots.

So my math is giving me something between the two claims. Take into account the extreme rounding that appears to be going on (both in time and distance), that since they were on an exit ramp the road may not have been straight (meaning that distance travelled would not necessarily equal distance closed) and that perhaps the cars speed changed (maybe the driver braked somewhat at the first warning but still made no appearance of stopping) and I'm still at "I have no idea who's right."

[Jazzman]

I read it as stating that when the car reached 65 yards from the checkpoint and hadn't stopped the soldiers then made the decision to use lethal force. Judgment and reaction times have to be taken into account. The car is closing - it hits the 65 yard threshold - the soldiers decide to use lethal force - weapons are aimed to kill - shots are fired - bullets strike. This all doesn’t happen instantly while the car is suspended at 65 yards. I’m sure that it closed significantly with the checkpoint before it was hit, regardless of how the article words it.



It seems like there is a lot of desire to somehow pin this on the US soldiers. There was all the discussion and argument before, and now, after the official report is released stating that the soldiers are clear and followed procedure, the arguments are with the minutiae of timing and physics, seemingly in order to discredit the report. I don’t get it. Why can’t it just be that this woman endangered herself and others and got someone killed? Why the need to pin the blame on US soldiers?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oops, thank you Alex. I actually did my first calculation at 130 yards (giving about 30mph), but on a re-read thought that it said "four seconds from the first warning shot to the fatal shots." So yes, that does change things, and smack in between either claim where imprecise figures like "about 4 seconds" can sway it either way. So definitely more inderminate than I was thinking.

I'm still reticent to accept the "reaction" time thing, because it does say, "used letal force at 65 yards" not "decided to use lethal force at 65 yards."

And no, Jazzman, I have no desire to pin this on anyone. I just found it an odd statement to say, "We have the distance, and we have the time it took to cover that distance, but we can't figure out the speed."

[wendybeth]

Why didn't they stop at the light flashing, and especially the first volley? Arguably, it can be said that they didn't know who was there and they were afraid to stop. So, they were going really slow on the worlds most dangerous highway and were too frightened to stop, but not so frightened that they didn't speed up instead? When I am traveling on our roads, at an average speed of 40 mph, I have no problem immediately braking when situations arise.

Again, the fact that they were on the most dangerous road in the world belies their claim that they were driving slowly, especially since they had just 'escaped' from the clutches of the terrorists. No doubt there was a huge ****up, but I am not convinced it was ours.

[Jazzman]

Alright then, GD, I’ll cede that I misinterpreted what you were saying as a statement of suspicion of the US soldiers. I still read the report as saying that the decision was made at 65 yards, and not that the car was shot at 65 yards, but that's really just opinion and semantics both ways.



I really just do not understand why this incident is even warranting so much attention, and I don't mean exclusively here at the LoT. Yes, it was tragic, but in relation to everything going on over there, it's hardly the biggest news. It just seems to me that it's being scrutinized so closely mainly as a means of implying guilt on the part of those "evil US soldiers."