Korea, the US, and two innocent little girls.

[Evangelion]

See here and here.

Would anyone care to tell me how you can "accidentally" run down two little girls with a 50-ton armoured vehicle?

How does this not constitute neglicent homicide?!

 

[datan]

the driver of an armoured vehicle has very limited scope of sight, and for the most part has to rely on the vehicle commander on instructions regarding obstacles, speed, route etc. The vehicle commander, along with having to navigate (ie. checking map, compass), has to watch out for obstacles, has to maintain radio communications, plan tactical operations etc.

It's not like driving a car.
Accidents happen during training. I don't believe that the driver intentionally ran down the girls. No sane person would want to do that. When a 50-ton vehicle goes over any part of anyone's body, nothing is left.

 

[Evangelion]

datan -

the driver of an armoured vehicle has very limited scope of sight, and for the most part has to rely on the vehicle commander on instructions regarding obstacles, speed, route etc. The vehicle commander, along with having to navigate (ie. checking map, compass), has to watch out for obstacles, has to maintain radio communications, plan tactical operations etc. It's not like driving a car.

I agree with all of this. But the driver of an armoured vehicle is supposed to be competent, and his commander is supposed to know what he's doing.

The claim was made that certain equipment was defective, resulting in a breakdown of communication between the driver and his navigator. But how long does it take for someone to realise that there's something wrong with the communication between driver and navigator, when (as you have just emphasied) the driver is largely reliant upon the navigator? Surely this would become immediately apparent.

I believe that they were aware of the defect, but took no action about it - hence, negligent homicide.

Accidents happen during training.

Agreed.

I don't believe that the driver intentionally ran down the girls.

Neither do I. I have argued that this constitutes negligent homicide.

No sane person would want to do that.

Yes, well... I cannot vouch for the sanity of US security personnel.

When a 50-ton vehicle goes over any part of anyone's body, nothing is left.

Agreed.

All the more reason to have a competent crew and fully working equipment.

 

[seebs]

Not having driven many 50-ton vehicles, I don't know how easy it is to avoid running people over in them; I think I have to withhold judgement. Negligence implies that a minimal effort by a reasonable person would have prevented the problem; I don't know enough to assert that to be the case.

 

[datan]

let's just say there's lot of stuff we don't know.
There's more information here:
http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Nov2002/

Well, we don't know that the driver and the commander knew that their communications were faulty. The thing about convoy movements is that the driver basically follows the vehicle right in front of him, so he doesn't really need input from the commander, since he takes his cue on where to go, how fast to go etc. from the vehicle in front. As such, you wouldn't immediately realise when your comms fail. It could be really unfortunate their the comms happened to fail just before the accident happened.

Let me give you an example. I was in Australia (SWBTA) a few years back and the motion of the vehicle over the long roads cause the cable of my driver's CVC helmet to be disconnected from his junction box. Granted that it should never have happened if it had been connected properly, but it did. I used the vehicle's emergency horn to get him to stop, and fix his intercoms. I only realised it when I found that my driver wasn't responding to any of my commands. At that time, nothing happened, but it could very well have led to an accident. In older vehicles, its not uncommon for comms to fail after they have passed a basic comms test at base. Its just the nature of electronic equipment & the rugged use to which they are put.
My point is: accidents happen. Its entirely possible (and was found by the court-martial) that they did take reasonable care to prevent an accident, but it happened anyway.

I cannot vouch for the sanity of US security personnel

Well, then if they are insane, they can't be responsible for their actions, can they? catch-22. Only an insane person would kill someone like that, and an insane person can't be liable.

 

[fin]

Why the heck are we in S. Korea in the first place. It appears that they do not want us there.

Wouldn't it be manslaughter in any case? Even if it was an accident?

 

[datan]

Originally posted by seebs
Not having driven many 50-ton vehicles, I don't know how easy it is to avoid running people over in them; 

It's very easy to run over people unintentionally with armoured vehicle. Check out http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Nov2002/ . So far this month, it has happened twice to people from the US Army.

Let me give you two examples.

The first occured when I was in training. The instructor was at the back of the vehicle, and he was going to give the command for the driver to reverse. Unfortunately, there were a couple of trainees who were lying prone right behind the vehicle's tracks (giving local protection to the vehicle). He could not see them from where he was standing. Training calls for the VC to ensure that are no obstacles/personnel behind the vehicle before issuing the command to reverse. However, the only way he could have seen them was to have elevated himself. A tragedy was avoided only because someone else noticed the troopers and alerted the instructor.

The second one occured to me when I was on exercise. It was at night (ie. really dark), and I was going to guide my driver to park our vehicle behind some other vehicles. On a tactical exercise, you have night vision goggles to help you do that. I was tired, and was going to guide the vehicle without the night vision goggles (I could see the outlines of the vehicle in front). But somehow, something told me to use the goggles, and I saw a couple of troopers lying prone in the exact spot I was going to guide my vehicle over. They should never have been there in the first place, and I should have used my night vision googles regardless.

Therefore, accidents do happen in training, especially when people are tired, and when the exercise has ended (people are less careful since they are thinking of going back to base).

 

 

[fin]

A 50-ton armoured vehicle..... What was it doing in a populated, civilian area? Why do children in S. Korea have to live with the US army on their doorsteps? Even Americans don't have to do that.

 

[datan]

Originally posted by fin
A 50-ton armoured vehicle..... What was it doing in a populated, civilian area? Why do children in S. Korea have to live with the US army on their doorsteps? Even Americans don't have to do that.

it was in convoy movement. Meaning that it was travelling from one point to another. My guess would be from base to the training/exercise area.

 

 

[Evangelion]

Seebs -

Not having driven many 50-ton vehicles, I don't know how easy it is to avoid running people over in them; I think I have to withhold judgement. Negligence implies that a minimal effort by a reasonable person would have prevented the problem; I don't know enough to assert that to be the case.

Does a periodic check of your communication equipment constitute "minimal effort by a reasonable person"?

I believe that it does.

 

[Evangelion]

datan -

let's just say there's lot of stuff we don't know.
There's more information here:
http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Nov2002/

Thanks. I'll check it out.

Well, we don't know that the driver and the commander knew that their communications were faulty.

Am I somehow wrong in believing that this is a facile defence?

The thing about convoy movements is that the driver basically follows the vehicle right in front of him, so he doesn't really need input from the commander, since he takes his cue on where to go, how fast to go etc. from the vehicle in front. As such, you wouldn't immediately realise when your comms fail. It could be really unfortunate their the comms happened to fail just before the accident happened.

But you've already said that the driver is largely reliant on the navigator, because his field of vision is restricted. So at some point, he's going to realise that there's something wrong here.

Don't they have to check their communication equipment before they get the thing moving, anyway? And has anyone proved that the communication equipment was faulty?

Let me give you an example. I was in Australia (SWBTA) a few years back and the motion of the vehicle over the long roads cause the cable of my driver's CVC helmet to be disconnected from his junction box. Granted that it should never have happened if it had been connected properly, but it did. I used the vehicle's emergency horn to get him to stop, and fix his intercoms. I only realised it when I found that my driver wasn't responding to any of my commands. At that time, nothing happened, but it could very well have led to an accident. In older vehicles, its not uncommon for comms to fail after they have passed a basic comms test at base. Its just the nature of electronic equipment & the rugged use to which they are put.

Fair comment. So what stopped the driver from alerting his navigator to the fact that his communication equipment was faulty? How could he fail to to have noticed - and why didn't he use his horn?

My point is: accidents happen. Its entirely possible (and was found by the court-martial) that they did take reasonable care to prevent an accident, but it happened anyway.

I see no evidence that they "did take reasonable care to prevent an accident." That would have involved checking their communication equipment - which they obivously did not.

quote:
I cannot vouch for the sanity of US security personnel

Well, then if they are insane, they can't be responsible for their actions, can they? catch-22. Only an insane person would kill someone like that, and an insane person can't be liable.

Oh, very true.

Which is why I believe that these guys are guilty as charged.

 

[Evangelion]

datan -

It's very easy to run over people unintentionally with armoured vehicle.

Fair enough.

Check out http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Nov2002/ . So far this month, it has happened twice to people from the US Army.

Well, that makes me feel a lot better. Thanks.

Let me give you two examples.

The first occured when I was in training. The instructor was at the back of the vehicle, and he was going to give the command for the driver to reverse. Unfortunately, there were a couple of trainees who were lying prone right behind the vehicle's tracks (giving local protection to the vehicle). He could not see them from where he was standing. Training calls for the VC to ensure that are no obstacles/personnel behind the vehicle before issuing the command to reverse. However, the only way he could have seen them was to have elevated himself. A tragedy was avoided only because someone else noticed the troopers and alerted the instructor.

The second one occured to me when I was on exercise. It was at night (ie. really dark), and I was going to guide my driver to park our vehicle behind some other vehicles. On a tactical exercise, you have night vision goggles to help you do that. I was tired, and was going to guide the vehicle without the night vision goggles (I could see the outlines of the vehicle in front). But somehow, something told me to use the goggles, and I saw a couple of troopers lying prone in the exact spot I was going to guide my vehicle over. They should never have been there in the first place, and I should have used my night vision googles regardless.

Therefore, accidents do happen in training, especially when people are tired, and when the exercise has ended (people are less careful since they are thinking of going back to base).

Point taken.

Now, is anyone going to explain why the US is still in Korea and Okinawa, despite the fact that the locals wanted them out years ago?

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by Evangelion See here and here.

Would anyone care to tell me how you can "accidentally" run down two little girls with a 50-ton armoured vehicle?

How does this not constitute neglicent homicide?!

I'm glad you asked that question I have been dying to explain this to someone. And I am so glad that you have NOT formed any opinions without knowing a single thing about the incident as so many people have.

At this link are two pictures of the type vehicle involved in this incident.

Note, on the left picture, the head of the "track commander" protruding from his "TC" hatch, in the center just in front of the launching tubes. And note the hydraulic bridge launcher on the front of the vehicle. If you draw a line from the TC, across the closest point of the launcher, to the ground you will see that from the front of the vehicle to the closest point he can see, is about a 12-15 feet blind spot and in this picture you can't even see the driver he is on the left side of the launcher.

Next observe the other picture you see what the TC can see. The driver is located at the bottom the vertical line just behind the "V" on the bridge launcher.

This accident occurred on a narrow, winding, unpaved road, another convoy was approaching from the opposite direction, the vehicle was going around a curve, there was lots of dust, the girls were walking with their heads down and their hands over their ears, because there were several large armored vehicles in the convoy and they ARE very noisy!

Looking at these pictures what could the driver and the TC see to the right front of their vehicle? What can you see of the building, road, and other things there?

People should try to get the facts before they start condemning. ESPECIALLY those who call themselves Christian. Any questions

http://www.panzerbaer.de/helper/us_m60avlm.htm

 

[Future Man]

Originally posted by Evangelion See here and here.

Would anyone care to tell me how you can "accidentally" run down two little girls with a 50-ton armoured vehicle?

How does this not constitute neglicent homicide?!

I get the strong feeling that the above is..

<sweating> "Hey look, something bad happened with the US involved, some people jumped all over it, and now I can start yet another anti-American thread!!"</sweating>

Motives begin to surface rather quickly. Hence the quick accusation and complete lack of willingness to see the *other* side of the story.

People should try to get the facts before they start condemning. ESPECIALLY those who call themselves Christian.

GOD Bless

 

[datan]

Originally posted by Evangelion
datan -

Am I somehow wrong in believing that this is a facile defence?

well, you don't know the facts, and I don't know the facts. This could very well have been the situation, which could have led to the tragedy.

But you've already said that the driver is largely reliant on the navigator, because his field of vision is restricted. So at some point, he's going to realise that there's something wrong here.

Don't they have to check their communication equipment before they get the thing moving, anyway? And has anyone proved that the communication equipment was faulty?

If you read the link I posted, you'll see that it was brought up during the court martial that 1. the comms was checked before moving out, and 2. the comms was eventually replaced. We don't know when the two of them discovered their their comms was down. As I said, it could very well be the case that it happened just prior to the accident.

Fair comment. So what stopped the driver from alerting his navigator to the fact that his communication equipment was faulty? How could he fail to to have noticed - and why didn't he use his horn?

maybe the driver didn't realise it until the accident. Also, even if the driver realised his comms was down, its not exactly easy for him to notify the commander (since the only way the two of them communicate verbally is through the comms). In a convoy movement, you can't just pull over to the side of the road and stop your vehicle. Not when there are other vehicles travelling behind you. Not all armoured vehicles have emergency horns.&nbsp;As I tried to show with my example, its easy to not realise your comms are down. If I had been the driver, and I had realised that the comms had failed, what I would probably have done was to gradually decrease the speed of the vehicle, and come to a gradual stop. This would alert the rest of the convoy that something is wrong, and they would keep their distance. Also, the vehicle commander would then try to raise the driver on the comms, realise something was wrong, and try to guide the driver maybe using a guiding pole. Anyway, it is part of a unit's SOP how to deal with such contingencies.

One final point: I think that responsibility for the accident actually lies much higher up, perhaps at the brigade or division level. They should have properly planned the convoy movement, including liaising with civilian authorities, properly marking out the convoy route to non-military personnel. Traffic marshals (eg. military police MPs) should have been on hand to guide the military vehicles and&nbsp;ensure they were&nbsp;separate from civilian pedestrians. I read somewhere that part of the procedure for moving armoured vehicles through civilian areas was changed after the accident. This indicates an acknowledgement that perhaps their planning was inadequate.

I see no evidence that they "did take reasonable care to prevent an accident." That would have involved checking their communication equipment - which they obivously did not.

They checked their comms equipment at base, as was stated in the court martial.

 

[Future Man]

Good point.

 

[Evangelion]

OS -

I'm glad you asked that question I have been dying to explain this to someone.

*snip*

Somebody else already answered it, and you still haven't addressed my additional points.

But thanks for trying. You did your best, and that's all I can ask for.

 

[Evangelion]

AV -

I get the strong feeling that the above is..

*snip*

And as usual, you're wrong.

Now, instead of imputing motives, why don't you climb off your little soapbox and start addressing the real issues?

 

[Evangelion]

datan -

well, you don't know the facts, and I don't know the facts. This could very well have been the situation, which could have led to the tragedy.

If neither of us have enough information, why are you bothering to post a defence? Shouldn't you just say "We don't know", and leave it at that?

If you read the link I posted, you'll see that it was brought up during the court martial that 1. the comms was checked before moving out, and 2. the comms was eventually replaced. We don't know when the two of them discovered their their comms was down. As I said, it could very well be the case that it happened just prior to the accident. maybe the driver didn't realise it until the accident. Also, even if the driver realised his comms was down, its not exactly easy for him to notify the commander (since the only way the two of them communicate verbally is through the comms). In a convoy movement, you can't just pull over to the side of the road and stop your vehicle. Not when there are other vehicles travelling behind you. Not all armoured vehicles have emergency horns. As I tried to show with my example, its easy to not realise your comms are down. If I had been the driver, and I had realised that the comms had failed, what I would probably have done was to gradually decrease the speed of the vehicle, and come to a gradual stop. This would alert the rest of the convoy that something is wrong, and they would keep their distance. Also, the vehicle commander would then try to raise the driver on the comms, realise something was wrong, and try to guide the driver maybe using a guiding pole. Anyway, it is part of a unit's SOP how to deal with such contingencies.

One final point: I think that responsibility for the accident actually lies much higher up, perhaps at the brigade or division level. They should have properly planned the convoy movement, including liaising with civilian authorities, properly marking out the convoy route to non-military personnel. Traffic marshals (eg. military police MPs) should have been on hand to guide the military vehicles and ensure they were separate from civilian pedestrians. I read somewhere that part of the procedure for moving armoured vehicles through civilian areas was changed after the accident. This indicates an acknowledgement that perhaps their planning was inadequate.

[...]

They checked their comms equipment at base, as was stated in the court martial.

There's nothing here which rules out a verdict of negligent homicide.

Based on the current evidence, this should have been the default verdict. I argue that the onus is on the defendents to prove that the verdict is unwarranted.

 

[Evangelion]

BTW, if anyone cares to address the central issue, feel free.

It would make a refreshing change.