|
|
|
Now
here's a young soldier who went along with his unit to help
fix up a Kosovo school to get it ready for the new year.
And according to witnesses, and the team of military
investigators, he accidentally discharged the weapon he was
carrying and several rounds ricocheted off a Humvee and
killed a 6-year-old Kosovar boy.
Notice I stated "the weapon he was carrying" and I
did not use the words "his assigned weapon."
It's been a long time since I went through basic training,
but as a former Drill Instructor, and someone correct me if
I'm wrong, I think Pvt. Young was taught back in basic
training, along with other weapon systems, how to use an
M249 SAW.
And if so, for military investigators to state it was not
his assigned weapon and therefore he shouldn't have been
carrying it, is a "crock of
poop." If he was taught in basic training how to
use it and he successfully graduated from basic training
then he's qualified to carry it and use it too. But if
he wasn't, well then that's another story.
If he was carrying hand grenades along with his other combat
gear and somehow the pin came out of one of them, exploded
and killed somebody, would these same military investigators
declare "he wasn't qualified to carry hand grenades
either?"
If he removed his bayonet from the scabbard and seriously
injured someone with it, although not intentionally, would
they also declare "he wasn't qualified with the bayonet
too? Give me a break.
Here's something to think about; what if this happened to an
officer? Let's say it happened to a captain or a
major, would this same team of military investigators
declare "the officer wasn't qualified?" I don't
think so. And they're the least qualified personnel in
the Army who know how to operate such a weapon because the
only time they probably ever fired or qualified with one was
during their officer training program.
But because "they're officers," and all officers
have some sort of military
or civilian educational degree, they are not going to be
judged or declared "not qualified" or it would be
a slap in the face and an insult to the officer corp.
No doubt this was a terrible accident and it will create
more safety rules for the troops to follow, like they ain't
got enough rules already to
follow. But it was an accident, the witnesses at the
scene said it was
accident, the military investigators in their report wrote
"accidental
weapon discharge," and the parents of the boy who was
killed understood it was an accident too, that's why they
forgave him. (Duh!)
So let's face it, he's going to be found guilty of negligent
homicide, given a dishonorable discharge and then booted out
of the Army. (Editor's Note: Rick wrote this
article several months before the actual verdict)
Instead of prolonging the obvious outcome, wouldn't it have
been easier on the soldier, his unit, chain of command and
the United States Army to just discharge him? Don't
you think the guilt he has to live with for the rest of his
life is punishment enough?
Too bad his defense lawyer didn't submit his name to
(ex-president) Clinton for a presidential pardon, he would
have been one of the very few who actually deserved it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
