Pat Tillman's Death a Homicide?

[xepherys]

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...ml?ESRC=dod.nl

WASHINGTON - The Army said Saturday it will launch a criminal investigation into the April 2004 death of Pat Tillman, the former professional football player who was shot to death by fellow Soldiers in Afghanistan in what previous Army reviews had concluded was an accidental shooting.

Col. Joseph Curtin, an Army spokesman, said the Defense Department office of inspector general had reviewed the matter at the Army's request and concluded that a criminal probe was warranted.

Members of the Tillman family were notified on Friday, Curtin said. In the past, Tillman's father, Patrick Tillman, and other family members have criticized the Army and its investigations.

"We are obligated to answer the family's questions, as we are with all grieving families," Curtin said.

Curtin said the scope of the new investigation by the Army Criminal Investigation Command had not yet been determined in detail.

A Pentagon official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the new investigation has not been formally begun, said it would focus on possible charges of negligent homicide.

A second Pentagon official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said no specific Soldier is under investigation at this point. He said the CID will conduct an overall death investigation and "let the facts take them where they may."

The official said that the CID's probe - the fifth formal investigation into the incident - will focus on the cause of Tillman's death, not necessarily on whether the previous investigations were done correctly. It is the first criminal probe.

Tillman's mother, Mary, told the Washington Post Saturday that the criminal investigation should have been launched at the onset. "The military has had every opportunity to do the right thing and they haven't," she said. "They knew all along that something was seriously wrong and they just wanted to cover it up."

His father, Patrick Tillman Sr., told the Post that he questioned whether another investigation would provide anymore answers.

"I think it's another step," he said. "But if you send investigators to reinvestigate an investigation that was falsified in the first place, what do you think you're going to get?"

Two initial fact-finding investigations were conducted at the unit level right after Tillman's death. He was a member of the Army's 75th Ranger Regiment. A third investigation was conducted by U.S. Army Special Operations Command, and a concurrent investigation was done by the Army's Safety Center.

Tillman, 27, died on April 22, 2004, when he was struck by gunfire during a firefight along a canyon road near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The Army said at the time that the barrage of bullets came from enemy fire.

A report by the Army later found that troops with Tillman knew at the time that friendly fire had killed the football star. Officers destroyed critical evidence and concealed the truth from Tillman's brother, also an Army Ranger, who was nearby, the report found.

More than three weeks after a memorial service in San Jose, Calif., the Army announced on May 29, 2004, that friendly fire rather than an enemy encounter caused Tillman's death. However, even at the time of the memorial, top Army officials were aware that the investigation showed the death had been caused by an act of "gross negligence," the report said.

Despite the Army's findings, the officer who prepared the Special Operations Command report, Brig. Gen. Gary M. Jones, concluded there was no official reluctance to report the truth. Army officials have acknowledged that they should have better handled the information they released on Tillman's death.

The Defense Department's inspector general started a review of the matter last August, in the wake of complaints from the Tillman family about how the matter had been handled.

Tillman joined the Army after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks even though he had a multimillion-dollar contract to play football for the Arizona Cardinals. He and his brother completed a tour in Iraq before going to Afghanistan.

Wow...

[Himbo]

I thought everybody was starting to hear about that a while ago. Yup killed by his own troops who thought he was the enemy. Of course the US spewed out a bunch of propaganda about him being hero and dying with honor and all that stuff you would expect from the gov't. Shouldn't be surprised man.

Himbo

[xepherys]

Everyone knew that it was friendly fire... but not that it was being investigated.

[Toaster126]

Good thing this guy was a football player.

[yournamehere]

Originally Posted by Himbo

I thought everybody was starting to hear about that a while ago. Yup killed by his own troops who thought he was the enemy. Of course the US spewed out a bunch of propaganda about him being hero and dying with honor and all that stuff you would expect from the gov't. Shouldn't be surprised man.

Himbo

He was a millionaire who could have sat around spending his money, but instead followed his sense of duty to his country and joined the army after his country was attacked.

He WAS a hero, and he DID die with honor, no matter the circumstances.

[analog]

Gross negligence is a far cry from homicide. At best, it's manslaughter. That's a very sensational title considering the reality...

...and for the love of everything good and decent in this world- PLEASE, people, include your own thoughts in a small post to accompany a quoted article. This is, I think, the fourth one i've seen today with nothing in the opening post but a quoted article. All you have to do is get the conversation started. "Wow" doesn't quite cut it, unfortunately.

[The_Jazz]

Analog, manslaughter is homocide, which is usually defined as one person killing another. Killing someone during combat would qualify as homocide, albeit justified. The title is completely accurate, although it is at best vague.

Now that I've removed that particular gramitical stick from my own ass, I've read a lot about this incident and I have to say that I'm not surprised that this is finally happening. The version I have is that the team that was assisting Tillman's didn't follow basic protocol to avoid friendly fire. There was a long story in the NY Times 5 or 6 months ago, but it's been archived now so I can't link to it.

Regardless of your political leanings, Pat Tillman did a very courageous and admirable thing by walking away from a multimillion dollar contract to join up as a private right after 9/11. Up until the Korean War, he probably could have negotiated himself a commission as a captain at least, and I'll bet he probably could have pressured the Army for the opportunity for some sort of special circumstance commission if he had really wanted to. The fact that he did it the way that he did speaks volumes about the man's principles.

That said, the Army is doing their usual end run around the truth in a situation where they're going to be seen in a negative light. It's pretty much business as usual, and I'm sure that there's some brass collectively shitting their pants right now for fear of bad publicity driving down recruitment.

[xepherys]

a) The article lists "negligent homicide" as the charge they are investigating. So the title is EXACTLY in line with the story in question.

b) I understand a required opening post when asking people's opinions on something (rude to ask without laying your own foundation). However, this is a NEWS article. Primarily I felt it was interesting enough to bring to light. I don't have an opinion about it, per se, and therfore had nothing useful to add. Would it be better if I had written a few sentences of garbage?

[The_Jazz]

Now you've got me reaching back into my ass again to dislodge that damn grammatical stick. "Negligent homocide" and "homocide" are different things, although not mutually exclusive. All negligent homocides are homocides, but not all homocides (obviously) are negligent, so the title is innaccurate. Tillman's death was a homocide since his life was ended by another human, just like a murder victim or someone killed in a multi-car wreck. The word homocide does not necessarily have criminal implications, although it usually does.

I still think that it's an interesting article on an interesting development on an interesting topic, and I'm glad that you posted it. My only very minor quibble is that the title isn't accurate, but that doesn't distract from the post as a whole. Sorry if you feel offended, but if you had added the word "negligent" to the title, it wouldn't have drawn my attention. And I agree that I'm a grammar nazi, as would most of the people that work for me.

I only wish that there were more people interested in discussing it and the potential fallout.

[xepherys]

But again, it isn't innacurate. Technically, since he was killed by another person, his death was a homicide. Perhaps in that respect the title does not reflect something that was not already known. Regardless, the title is not grammatically (or otherwise) inaccurate. It is actually quite factual. Thank you, please drive through! :-p

[Seaver]

I thought everybody was starting to hear about that a while ago. Yup killed by his own troops who thought he was the enemy. Of course the US spewed out a bunch of propaganda about him being hero and dying with honor and all that stuff you would expect from the gov't. Shouldn't be surprised man.

I dont know how else to explain this. But if I were to die in Friendly Fire, I WANT the Army to tell my family I died heroically in battle.

Make up some story about me charging a machine gun nest solo, or covering my friends as they retreat. All he has left is the memory of his family. If he was murdered hang high the man who shot him, otherwise let the hero Tillman rest.

[SERPENT7]

Originally Posted by Seaver

I dont know how else to explain this. But if I were to die in Friendly Fire, I WANT the Army to tell my family I died heroically in battle.

Make up some story about me charging a machine gun nest solo, or covering my friends as they retreat. All he has left is the memory of his family. If he was murdered hang high the man who shot him, otherwise let the hero Tillman rest.

That is a BIG negative, ghostrider.
Allowing a pleasant memory to replace the reality of the situation opens the door for non-combat related incidents. For instance fragging your Lt. for no better reason than you do not like his leadership style. (During Vietnam guys would kill any leader that tried to do his duty, and attack the enemy. Most guys were not interested in anything more than surviving long enough to get back home. Or so i have been told.) So, IMHO embracing a pleasant lie in order to avoid an uncomfortable truth is NOT the way to run a military force.

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by SERPENT7

That is a BIG negative, ghostrider.
Allowing a pleasant memory to replace the reality of the situation opens the door for non-combat related incidents. For instance fragging your Lt. for no better reason than you do not like his leadership style. (During Vietnam guys would kill any leader that tried to do his duty, and attack the enemy. Most guys were not interested in anything more than surviving long enough to get back home. Or so i have been told.) So, IMHO embracing a pleasant lie in order to avoid an uncomfortable truth is NOT the way to run a military force.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but someone's been telling you stories. There are anecdotal instances of this happening, but it was certainly not a widespread practices. To imply that it was a common occurrence is a pretty insulting statement to the men who served in that conflict. If you've got proof to back up your statement, I'd love to see it, but until you do, you shouldn't act like an authority on things that you don't know anything about.

You had a perfectly good point and you ruined it with an outright lie. You should apologize and try again.

[Derwood]

At least his death is what won the war for us.

wait, it didn't? Oh....

[analog]

Originally Posted by xepherys

a) The article lists "negligent homicide" as the charge they are investigating. So the title is EXACTLY in line with the story in question.

b) I understand a required opening post when asking people's opinions on something (rude to ask without laying your own foundation). However, this is a NEWS article. Primarily I felt it was interesting enough to bring to light. I don't have an opinion about it, per se, and therfore had nothing useful to add. Would it be better if I had written a few sentences of garbage?

a.) There's a big difference between homicide and "negligent homicide". "Negligent homicide" pinpoints the cause of the killing (accidental vs. intentional). To the point made by another, i am more correct saying manslaughter, as manslaughter is the accidental, not intentional, killing of another human being. The term "homicide" refers to the broader range of any death caused by another person, manslaughter being a subset of that.

b.) An opening post is required always, for everything- it's in the site rules, and always has been. Articles, opinions, you name it- it needs one. This is a discussion board, and if you see an article you'd like to discuss, we encourage it to be posted. If you have nothing useful to add, and can only "add a few sentences of garbage", then it must not be that important. All we want are your thoughts on the subject to get the threads started. A couple of lines of opinion.

[maximusveritas]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I don't know where you're getting your information, but someone's been telling you stories. There are anecdotal instances of this happening, but it was certainly not a widespread practices. To imply that it was a common occurrence is a pretty insulting statement to the men who served in that conflict. If you've got proof to back up your statement, I'd love to see it, but until you do, you shouldn't act like an authority on things that you don't know anything about.

You had a perfectly good point and you ruined it with an outright lie. You should apologize and try again.

The army itself has admitted to the fact that fraggings occurred in Vietnam. Terry Anderson, a Texas A&M historian, puts the total number at around 600 incidents. There's no question about it.

This incident with Tillman is definitely not a fragging. It's more about the commanding officers screwing up and then trying to cover it up. They weren't trying to make Tillman into a hero (he already was one), they were trying to keep from being blamed for his death.

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

The army itself has admitted to the fact that fraggings occurred in Vietnam. Terry Anderson, a Texas A&M historian, puts the total number at around 600 incidents. There's no question about it.

This incident with Tillman is definitely not a fragging. It's more about the commanding officers screwing up and then trying to cover it up. They weren't trying to make Tillman into a hero (he already was one), they were trying to keep from being blamed for his death.

I never argued that it didn't happen; I argued that it wasn't a common occurrence. Accepting Anderson's figure (which seems high to me), let's assume that all incidents were fatalities. That means that out of roughly 54,000 deaths, rougly 1% were fraggings. My entire point is stating that fragging of officers or fellow soldiers was a common occurrence borders on libelous. I have to say that I find statements to the contrary offensive for a variety of reasons.

Sorry for the threadjack, but I get really pissed off when someone makes up facts that trample all over facts, especially facts about people I happen to care a great deal about.

[Coppertop]

Hey Jazz, where did serpent state it was common? I must have missed it.

[yournamehere]

Originally Posted by Coppertop

Hey Jazz, where did serpent state it was common? I must have missed it.

By saying that "guys would kill any leader that tried to do his duty."

That's assuming, of course, that it was common for officers to do their duty.
I call that a safe assumption.