“In conclusion he has made things even worse for other snipers because he tried to hide what he did because he had seen what happened to others.”
Hugh...that’s a conclusion?
He was found not guilty of murder so it was found reasonable he killed a bad guy. Because of the desk chair generals at JAG, he felt compelled to protect himself. Is that a war you want your children fighting in?
I would have no problem fighting in this war, He didn’t have to shoot, just like he didn’t have to plant evidence on the person he shot to cover his rear.
There are literally thousands of missions involving Soldiers and Marines in Iraq where they didn’t need to plant evidence on the bad guys because they knew they killed the bad guys.
There in lies the difference, he wasn’t sure, so he attempted to set up a situation where at least he was covered for a mistake.
Do you believe cops should shoot first a suspect first and throw down a gun later to cover their mistakes?
The difference is of course that a sniper is allowed to shoot first, but with that option comes a very great responsibility, he must be absolutely right in all cases, or he is not supposed to take the shot.
The way many here that wring their hands in anger would have it is that our snipers would be free to kill any one they see because they must not be placed under any sort of legal limitations. Sorry but only the other side plays by those rules. I don’t want my children to become like those animals.