What an odd statement to make considering the FACT our Marines were called cold blooded murderers looooong before any investigation could produce any sort of evidence.
That should not have been taken at face value nor was it a "fact."
the question is whether the Marines reasonably perceived them to be a threat.
Of course the Marines reasonably perceived them to be a threat! They were in a battle for their lives, in which one of their brothers had already lost his, and in the middle of a war zone.
Legally speaking, that's irrelevant except for a possible Command Influence argument (which would be a long shot).
Of course the Marines reasonably perceived them to be a threat! They were in a battle for their lives, in which one of their brothers had already lost his, and in the middle of a war zone.
It's not immediately apparent that the way they cleared the houses - killing women and children - was reasonable nor proportionate. Even granting that the Marines had reason to believe the guys in the car and some of the houses contained insurgents, the issue still remains whether they reasonably perceived the other houses - namely the ones with non-combatant women and children - contained a threat to them.
This is what the Marines will have the hardest time proving - that their actions were reasonable with respect to clearing **all** the houses. It can be done (and it would be easier to prove this than to get dragged into the politically polarizing insurgent argument this thread proposes).
Another dose of Murtha/Durbin anyone?