2002 Friendly Fire Pilot Suing USAF

[scoutfinch]

I can't even figure out to whom it was directed given that it appears outta nowhere and in relation to nothing! ???

 

[DG-41]

R031 Pte Joe, it was NOT murder. It was an incident of friendly fire in a combat zone.

From the reprimand - and note that this is an OFFICIAL document, equal in strength to a PER. It amounts to the USAF's final say on the matter:

Your actions indicate that you used your self-defence declaration as a pretext to strike a target, which you rashly decided was an enemy firing position, and about which you had exhausted your patience in waiting for clearance from the Combined Air Operations Center to engage. You used the inherent right of self-defence as an excuse to wage your own war.

"In your personal presentation before me on 1 July 2004, I was astounded that you portrayed yourself as a victim of the disciplinary process without expressing heartfelt remorse over the deaths and injuries you caused to the members of the Canadian Forces. In fact, you were obviously angry that the United States Air Force had dared to question your actions during the 17 April 2002 tragedy. Far from providing any defence for your actions, the written materials you presented to me at the hearing only served to illustrate the degree to which you lacked flight discipline as a wingman of COFFEE Flight on 17 April 2002.

If that's not murder, it's as close as you can get to it without crossing the line.

And it sure ain't accidental fratricide. When someone orders you not to shoot, and then you shoot, you have left the realm of the accidental.

DG

 

[JBP]

And it was for this reason you were told to remove your head from your posterior!

Have gone through this many times over the years and yes it doesn't get any easier, but to attempt to call a screw-up "murder" shows that you weren't thinking rationally, just emotionally!

Let's give an example... If I was manning a defensive position, let's say something equivalent to a "foxhole" with a C9 at night and I was overlooking a small field which would make a good approach to my platoon's "hide" and on this very night I noticed a small group of soldiers walking towards me from about 500 meters off and I couldn't make them out to see if they were friendly or foe. Instead of challenging them when they were closer, I just opened fire, after contacting my 2i/c or section Cmdr and asking if we had any friendly patrols out that night and he hadn't had time to come back and tell me yet but did tell me to hold fire at the moment.

So, turns out there WAS a friendly patrol out lastnight doing recon on E positions and I just lit those 4 soldiers up with my C9 and cut them in half.


OOOPPPSSS!!! It was just an accident!!! "I was acting in self defence as they had weapons and kept approaching my position directly".... Equivalent to what happened, he didn't wait for permission.

You can say it's "Apples to oranges" and that BS but really, it's about the same as what Maj. Schmidt did. He didn't wait like he was ORDERED to and didn't follow procedure (which for us in that circumstance would be challenge procedures etc.. Or whatever was set down by the Commander of the area as ROE).

If it's not an accident, and it's not following direct orders, and it's not following procedure and breaking standing orders.... It's on the line with murder.

Seeing as this is an incredibly touchy subject among us in the Armed Forces and it's been a healthy debate/conversation and I've made my point and stand, there's nothing else to be said by me. I don't want this to degenerate into an argument but I do believe it was equivalent to murder really due to the circumstances. I do appreciate what some of you other folks have said and it's given me time to think about the situation again but I still stand that it was ridiculous to call it anything but what the facts show. If you feel better, just keep calling it homicide fratricide.

 

[LIKELY]

Pte,

Maybe one day you will understand. I am not even going to qualify my previous statement here.  When you get more than 15 months service......wait, you are a reservist.........ah never mind.

While unfortunate that it happened, I disagree that it was murder.

Chimo!

Sorry ..my last post was a $hitty attempt to quote and rebuke this...I am aware of the rules.

 

[scoutfinch]

Homicide, fratricide and murder are legal terms of art.  They have particular meaning. While they also may have commonplace meaning, when you are discussing a legal issue the words must be viewed through a legal prism.

Homicide includes all occasions where one human being, by act or omission, takes away the life of another.  It includes murder, manslaughter, acts of war and executions. Murder is the intentional homicide (the taking of another person's life), without legal justification or provocation.  A very narrow definition of fratricide adopted by the US states:    Fratricide is the employment of friendly weapons and munitions with the intent to kill the enemy or destroy his equipment or facilities, which results in unforeseen and unintentional death or injury to friendly personnel. Fratricide is homicide but it is not murder. 

The question that appears to be the subject of debate here was whether Schmidt should have been charged. I can say with confidence that, in my opinion, all of the elements of manslaughter were made out on the evidence.  I can say that there was a pretty strong argument that murder could have been made out on the evidence as well.  But we are not talking about a civie street homicide.  We are talking about deaths that occured in theatre where -- whether we like it or not -- there are sometimes greater considerations than seeing justice served. Amongst a plethora of good reasons of why charging Schmidt would have been a bad idea is that in the circumstances, charging the pilots with murder may have resulted in reduced effectiveness of other combat air missions... which I think we all would agree would be a bad thing. 

So, I think we have to keep in mind that in certain ways we are discussing apples and oranges.  In the immediate aftermath of this tragedy, while we might in our hearts have wanted justice for the Canadian solders killed and injured, given the circumstances, only rough justice was possible.  And rough justice is what we got. 

Do I think Schmidt was guilty of a legally culpable homicide (ie either murder or manslaughter)?  Yep.
Do I think he should have been charged?  Nope.
Do I think justice was served?  Not a chance.
Do I think we should have expected justice to be served given the circumstances? Not realistically.

But I have a problem with the people who make *fog of war* excuses for this guy.  There was no fog of war.  He failed to follow orders.  He failed to follow proper flight discipline.  He is a waste of skin and air.

At the end of the day, the two pilots weren't charged criminally because it would have potentially hampered operations.  That's it.  Full stop.  The sooner we accept that harsh reality we can stop talking about shoulda/coulda/woulda -- all of which are irrelevant now.

And, I am going to add this -- knowing that it might get under the skin of some people but not with that intention -- there would not have been an eyebrow raised had Schmidt killed Americans. 

 

[Scott]

Sorry ..my last post was a $hitty attempt to quote and rebuke this...I am aware of the rules.

Seen and all well and good then. The member who made that post has been dealt with for it. It's sometimes hard to know who and what people are talking about in the absence of quotes. Also very hard to discern tone through type over this medium.

I apologize if I jumped on you for it.

 

[LIKELY]

Scott,

Thanks and Nema Problemo.

 

[DG-41]

OOOPPPSSS!!! It was just an accident!!! "I was acting in self defence as they had weapons and kept approaching my position directly".... Equivalent to what happened, he didn't wait for permission.

With one major difference - you, in your theoretical foxhole, are tied to your position. You cannot leave, both in terms of your duty (ie, it is your job to defend the piece of ground commanded by that foxhole) and in terms of capability (getting out of the foxhole and running away is physically difficult and tactically dubious)

If those guys were to approach close enough to your position that you felt threatened enough to open up, *before* they had been confirmed as friendly (you can see guns, they are moving tactically, they look threatening, but you cannot ID them) you *might* be justified in opening up on them. A lot depends on the theatre ROEs and the local tactical situation.

But the pilot of that plane *HAD* the option to retreat to a safe distance/altitude and then loiter until he got his permission to engage. He had options you, in a foxhole, would not.

And the USAF agreed with that assessment.

We are talking about deaths that occured in theatre where -- whether we like it or not -- there are sometimes greater considerations than seeing justice served.

And one of them is the maintainence of command, control, and fire discipline.

He ignored an order to hold fire. He wrongfully invoked "self defense" as a way to sidestep a legal order. This is not subject to argument; it states so in his reprimand.

I would argue that maintaining control over rogue soldiers is every bit as mission critical as any other consideration.

DG

 

[Strike]

I was going to try and point that out Strike, but I don't think I could have said it as subtely as you or as diplomatically...

Joe

That's DPAC for you... ;D

 

[Cloud Cover]

And, I am going to add this -- knowing that it might get under the skin of some people but not with that intention -- there would not have been an eyebrow raised had Schmidt killed Americans. 

I don't know about that. Given the callous facts of the case, questions would be asked. If not shortly after the material time, then certainly now as the "fog" lifts. 

Is it possible you meant an eyebrow raised by Canadians? That I would agree with.   

 

[Strike]

No, but we would have shaken our heads...again.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Now that the emotional tone has lowered I will interject.

Lets me correct a few inaccuracies:

(1)  Laser guided bombs do not need to be released below 10,000.
(2) AWAC crews do not have the authority to override pilots release of weapons on search and destroy missions when in target box.
(3) Tracer fire from ground fire can be seen easily at night from 10,000 or higher
(4) Tracer fire from ground fire easily shoots upwards much like AAA fire.
(5)  Pilots like infantry do not run from a threat they stand and fight that is their job, escape to safe altitude in a search and destroy mission is not an option.

These statements in no way change the out come, just the perspective. He was wrong and he now pays the price and unfortunately for our soldiers they payed the highest price for his error in judgement.

 

[2 Cdo]

By the way R031, in the CANADIAN army we do not dig foxholes! Better learn the proper terminology before you make further comments that reveal your ignorance! Try to stay awake in your classes, it might save your life someday. Also it would help if you knew anything regarding ROE's and the right to self defence!

 

[Strike]

(5)  Pilots like infantry do not run from a threat they stand and fight that is their job, escape to safe altitude in a search and destroy mission is not an option.

Gonna have to disagree with some of that last one there.  The guys were returning from a sortie, and were not on a "Search and Destroy" mission.  The fact that the pilot asked AWACS for permission to fire clearly shows that this was a regular practice (to ask permission) given their particular ROEs.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Disagree? would that be the part about taking the fight to the EN like Inf and not running to a safe altd or that they were on a search and destroy mission?

    I will assume that you agree with the fighting like Inf part and it is the search and destroy mission that you disagree with. They were on a sortie....a search and destroy sortie. I am aware that they were at the end of the patrol and returning to base. If they were on a recce or top cover or EW sortie you would be right but they were not on those sorties. As for the AWAC part it would appear that it was routine to talk with controllers in AWAC for inquires about contact not permission.

 

[Strike]

Let's see.  Given that they initially ASKED PERMISSION from the AWACS to fire, then the chances are pretty good that it was part of their ROE to have AWACS check a location before the bomber/fighters engaged the target.

Infantry and flying are two very different jobs and your comparing the two to each other does both jobs a disservice.

Horse, I would hope your experience would have taught you this.


(edited for sp)

 

[3rd Horseman]

Strike, I don't disagree with your thought process it has plausibility.

My example of Inf to fighter pilot was in response to the comment earlier in the thread about pilots when coming under fire escaping to safe altd as a drill. When attacked they don't flee as suggested....just like Inf don't flee to safe position. My experience has taught me that. It may have been a bad example but it is accurate.

 

[DG-41]

When attacked they don't flee as suggested.

The word isn't "flee" the word is "extend".

Fighters move fast, right? So they have the ability to scoot out of harm's way, assess the situation, and then just as quickly, scoot back.

If you read any book on fighter tactics, they are full of discussion on when in the fight to continue a turning duel, keep the scissors going, or when to break, extend, and re-engage.

Is has nothing to do with cowardice, any more than a tank backing out of his turret-down so he can jockey into a new position has to do with cowardice - it's just tactics.

Besides, re-read the reprimand. His peers and superiors in the USAF (who understand fighter tactics and ROE better than either of us) state explicitly that he disobeyed an order to hold fire and falsely misrepresented his situation as self defense in order to fight his own private war. There is no wiggle room in his actions; that they were wrong is not up for debate.

DG

 

[GK .Dundas]

The good Major had just better hope the judge isn't a former fighter pilot or he's probably screwed.I'll say one thing he got balls not much in the way of brains but by god he does have balls.........or is it just gall?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

gall