Stryker soldier faces murder charge in shooting of leader (in Iraq)

[Newsjock]

Source: Tacoma News Tribune

A Fort Lewis soldier has been charged with murder in the September shooting death of his platoon sergeant in Iraq, officials said today.

Cpl. Timothy Ayers, 21, is accused with killing Sgt. 1st Class David A. Cooper, Jr., a 36-year-old tanker and longtime Fort Lewis soldier who died Sept. 5 in Baghdad.

A Fort Lewis spokesman said Cooper’s death was the result of “a suspected negligent discharge.” At the time it was announced, the Department of Defense said Cooper died of a non-combat injury that was under investigation.

Post spokesman Joseph Piek said Ayers is charged under Article 118, subsection 3 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which defines a killing as murder when an accused person “is engaged in an act that is inherently dangerous to another and evinces a wanton disregard for human life.”

Piek said Army prosecutors do not believe the killing was premeditated or that Ayers intended to kill Cooper.

Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/breaking/story/220883.html

[saigon68]

1. Ho hum

Another "casualty of war"

And a very bad day for Sgt. 1st Class David A. Cooper, Jr

[bemildred]

2. Well, thank goodness it was not intentional. nt

[TheLastMohican]

3. So they start to frag officers again?

The guy tried not to follow an illegal order?

[rocktivity]

4. Either that, or the victim proved to be such an incompetent leader

the shooter decided that his platoon's survival depended on the officer's instant demotion.


rocknation

[happyslug]

5. That tis part of the Right Wing lie from Vietnam, "incompetent officers were fraged"

"Aggressive but Competent officers NOT fragged". All the same LIE, Fragging has been studied and it was overly aggressive officers who were fragged. The Officers NOT fragged lead they men into the jungle on patrol, formed a defensive perimeter and then sat they till the patrol time was over. This seems to have started in 1968 but was common by 1970 (Earlier in the war, when the Majority of Americans still supported the war, the troops did patrols). It was so bad that North Vietnam told its troops NOT to engage US Troops unless fired upon first, so many US Troops were just watching the Vietnamese troops just walk by (again this is 1970 NOT pre-1968).

Now the Right wing have re-written Fragging of Officers in Vietnam, and, according to the Right wing, it was incompetent officers, who did not aggressively go after the Viet Cong that were fragged. Other right wing talking points is Fragging was to protect the unit from an incompetent officer, when a lower ranking person could lead the unit and perform the mission. The idea that the Mission may have to be scarped do to the harm the mission does to the men was dismissed.

My point is "Unit Survival" is often cited by Right wingers to justify Fragging, but only against officers who were NOT during their duty and obeying orders from above. Just a word of warning when you bring up this rationale for Fragging, the right wing has embraced it, but for reasons that had NOTHING to do with Fragging in Vietnam (in fact were the OPPOSITE of the reasons officers were fragged).

[rocktivity]

6. All I know is what the Viet Nam vets I went to college with told me.

Most of their victims tended to be the inexperienced officers--freshly rolled off the service academy production line without enough actual time in the trenches. Besides, you can be be aggressive (I would certainly define overagressiveness as incompetence), do your duty, obey orders from above and still cause your followers to conclude that if they continue to follow you, they won't get out alive.

:patriot:
rocknation

[Mountainman]

7. That's right. If you remember the term "I have your back or you have my back",

it kind of describes the idea that you don't have to worry about your own ass because everyone else is taking care of it while you are helping to take care of everyone else's.
Now an individual who did not have the other's backs or in other words cared only about saving his own ass first might get fragged.

Some officers were in Nam to get medals and promotions and needed to make sure they got back to take advantage of it.

[happyslug]

8. Yes, the reports said the best officers were promoted NCOs.

Officers from the Academy or ROTC were viewed by the men (and their superior Officers) as good as promoted NCOs. In fact there was a movement to end both ROTC and the Military Academy and promote all junior Officers from NCO ranks. This was still born for many of our elite avoided the draft by becoming Officers (In Vietnam Officers only served six months in the Field, six months in the rear, while enlisted served their full year in the field).

From what I read, the proposal was to promote Lieutenants from NCO ranks and then send them to College to make Captain. Grad School was for Captain, Majors and Colonels on their way to being Generals. Notice this would phase out the Academies, ROTC would be preserved. Still a good plan, for the Officers be in and out of School for their 20 years in the Military. By the time the Officers be in a place to be "Up or Out" he would have his 20 years in (including Enlisted time period) and thus leaving at half-pay instead of no pay.

As I said before, it was killed by people who "believed" in the Academy, who did not want enlisted ranks promoted to be officers on the grounds they were on different promotion "tracks" by those who wanted to preserve the the Army ranks to be held by officers of the same age as Navy and Air Force personnel of the same rank (i.e. services which would retain Academies), by Pilots who wanted to continue to be officers (NCOs had been Pilots in ALL branches of the Service till 1947, and did as good as Officers as Pilots, so this fear was still known in the early 1970s when this was being proposed). Other reasons came up, more rational then real reasons, for example the fact that My Lai was done by a unit commanded by a Promoted NCO was used (but ignored the fact that the person is real command of the operation had a regular commission) was often brought up as showing the need for officers made via ROTC and the Academy then promoted from NCOs.

This plan never went beyond the talking stage, to much opposition within the Pentagon, the Academy, Congress and the Officers Corp, but it was discussed, but to my knowledge no papers were ever drawn up do to the nature and extent of the opposition.

My Lai Massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

Fragging:
http://home.mweb.co.za/re/redcap/vietcrim.htm

The Collapse of the Armed Forces (in Vietnam) A right wing attack at various attempts to solve the problems of the army in the early 1970s:
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/heinl.html

Other "Fragging" stories:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jan-feb/gabriel.htm
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/freeearth/harass_brass.html

On Moshe Dayan's visit to Vietnam:
http://www.defense-and-society.org/creveld/why_iraq_will_end_as_vietnam_did.htm

[Pavulon]

9. It reads to me a ND killed a person

and the person who died something to cause a ND is charged with murder.

For example loading a magazine into an M4 inside a vehicle in the back seat with the muzzle pointed towards the driver. If you do this and release the carrier and the firing pin fires the round (dimples are common) and that round kills a person this charge would happen.

Fragging an NCO would be pretty odd.

[some guy]

10. weird

"...Article 118, subsection 3 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which defines a killing as murder when an accused person “is engaged in an act that is inherently dangerous to another and evinces a wanton disregard for human life.” "

Doesn't that definition make every enemy encounter effectively engaging in murder?

[Pavulon]

11. No..

The UCMJ does not apply to the enemy in combat. Until he is in custody.

[some guy]

12. Ah...

the old, "We didn't know he was human unil we captured him" dodge.

:)


(Thanks for the clarification though. I was sure they had to have some sort of dodge, else war would have to end, and we can't have that.)

:hi:

[Pavulon]

13. Pretty silly question

they are there to KILL the enemy. The UCMJ is designed to govern and regulate their actions between each other. It applies to the enemy in a limited sense.

The military is not the boy scouts.

[some guy]

14. That's one perspective.

My perspective is that it's inherently silly to try to make war seem like something sane, by applying rules.

It senseless killing!
But we have rules.
Ah, well, it's alright then.

:eyes: