PDA

View Full Version : Charges dismissed against friendly-fire pilot that killed 4



memphiz
06-24-2004, 08:13 PM
CTV.ca News Staff

The U.S. air force has dropped all charges against the American pilot who accidentally killed four Canadian soldiers in a bombing in Afghanistan in 2002.

Maj. Harry Schmidt, 37, was to face four counts of dereliction of duty, but has instead accepted a deal to face administrative punishment.

He had previously declined the same offer.

On April 18, 2002, Schmidt dropped a 225-kilogram bomb on a group of Canadian soldiers engaged in a night-time live-fire training exercise. The bomb killed four soldiers and injured another eight.

Killed were Sgt. Marc Leger, Pte. Richard Green, Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer and Pte. Nathan Smith. The dead and wounded were all members of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.

They were the first Canadian troops to be killed in combat since the Korean War.

Schmidt said he dropped the bomb because he thought Taliban soldiers were firing on him from the ground.

Canadian and American inquiries found that Schmidt acted too hastily in his decision to drop the bomb. The U.S. investigation said he should have left the area.

Schmidt and his wingman, Maj. William Umbach, were originally charged with manslaughter and aggravated assault and faced up to 64 years in prison.

Those charges were later dropped against Schmidt, who was offered administrative punishment rather than a court martial. He refused, saying he wanted to clear his name. Military officials suggested he be tried for dereliction of duty.

All charges were dismissed against Umbach, 44, a United Airlines pilot. He was given a letter of reprimand and allowed to retire, as he had requested.

Schmidt's lawyer, Charles Gittins, said his client took the offer to speed up the process. However, he said Schmidt does not think he is guilty.

"He's always said he was responsible," Gittens told CTV's Newsnet. "What he's adamantly maintained...is that what he did was not a criminal offence.

"It was nothing more or less than a mistake caused by imprecise and inaccurate information provided by the people who were responsible for briefing pilots on their mission that night."

Schmidt would have faced a maximum six months in military prison if he had been convicted in a court martial.

Instead of a court martial, he'll now face a hearing by a general at Barksdale Air Force Base, La., starting July 1. It's unclear if Schmidt will testify.

His punishment will now be less severe. It could range from a letter of reprimand to 30 days of house arrest or loss of pay.

Lt.-Col. Pat Stogran, who was in command of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, said Schmidt should have taken the offer a year ago.

"Had Schmidt done the honourable thing like his wingman, Umbach, this would have all been settled a year ago," Stogran told CTV Newsnet.

He said he is satisfied with investigation by the American military. "The American military was very active in getting to the bottom of the problem."

Fintin
06-24-2004, 08:19 PM
RIP to those who died...im glad the charges were dropped though...it seems a bit odd to charge someone with manslaughter in a war zone beyond fraging...he was taking fire...he reacted...maybe he did react to quickly, but who are we to judge...

Secret Squirrel
06-24-2004, 08:19 PM
"Schmidt would have faced a maximum six months in military prison if he had been convicted in a court martial."

Only 6 months for causing the death of 4 soldiers? I could go out and buy a minor some beer, and if he/she died I'd be charged with manslaughter and it wouldnt only be a 6 month sentence.

memphiz
06-24-2004, 08:26 PM
RIP to those who died...im glad the charges were dropped though...it seems a bit odd to charge someone with manslaughter in a war zone beyond fraging...he was taking fire...he reacted...maybe he did react to quickly, but who are we to judge...
He did react to quickly and did not follow orders, the shots were comming from small arms, and the planes were to high up to be hit. I still think he should be discharged and he should make an appology to the family members of the victims. He showed no remourse for for what he did.

Fintin
06-24-2004, 08:29 PM
RIP to those who died...im glad the charges were dropped though...it seems a bit odd to charge someone with manslaughter in a war zone beyond fraging...he was taking fire...he reacted...maybe he did react to quickly, but who are we to judge...
He did react to quickly and did not follow orders, the shots were comming from small arms, and the planes were to high up to be hit. I still think he should be discharged and he should make an appology to the family members of the victims. He showed no remourse for for what he did.

i definetly feel he should no longer be allowed to serve...and an appology is in order...i just dont feel jail time is the solution

memphiz
06-24-2004, 08:35 PM
RIP to those who died...im glad the charges were dropped though...it seems a bit odd to charge someone with manslaughter in a war zone beyond fraging...he was taking fire...he reacted...maybe he did react to quickly, but who are we to judge...
He did react to quickly and did not follow orders, the shots were comming from small arms, and the planes were to high up to be hit. I still think he should be discharged and he should make an appology to the family members of the victims. He showed no remourse for for what he did.

i definetly feel he should no longer be allowed to serve...and an appology is in order...i just dont feel jail time is the solution
I dont believe jail time is in order either ...here is what could happen to him
-military discharge
- 30 days house arrest
- minus 1 months pay
-60 day flying restriction
-jail time
-no punishment


http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/photos/leger_marc020419.jpg
Sgt. Marc Leger

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/photos/dyer_ainsworth020419.jpg
Cpl. Ainswoth Dyer

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/photos/green_richard020419.jpg
Pte. Richard Green

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/photos/smith_nathan020419.jpg
Pte. Nathan Smith

RIP

usa320
06-24-2004, 08:45 PM
I think the punishment of having to live with accidentally killing 4 guys is enough. They should just give the guy a desk job.

ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð
06-24-2004, 09:13 PM
I think the punishment of having to live with accidentally killing 4 guys is enough. They should just give the guy a desk job.

I wonder what the familys think about the charges being dropped? Nobodys ever considered that....

usa320
06-24-2004, 09:16 PM
THis man is not a criminal. He didnt intentionally kill the Canadian soldiers... he had to make a decision, granted it was the wrong decision and based on sloppy command and control, but he had to make that decision. This incident was a tragic accident, not a crime. He should not be charged with a crime.

Secret Squirrel
06-24-2004, 09:21 PM
THis man is not a criminal. He didnt intentionally kill the Canadian soldiers... he had to make a decision, granted it was the wrong decision and based on sloppy command and control, but he had to make that decision. This incident was a tragic accident, not a crime. He should not be charged with a crime.

It was a crime. He plea bargained out of dereliction of duty charges because he knew he would lose his case (incase you dont know, thats the one of the main purposes of plea bargaining).

ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð
06-24-2004, 10:09 PM
A crime is a crime wether you intend to do it or not.

For example.

If I fixed the brakes on your car, and I was a registered mechanic and had all my tickets / apprentices finished, and f*cked up your brake job and you crashed and died because of my faulty job I'd be charged with "criminal negilagence causing death" (worst case scenario..)

True I wouldnt have ment to f*ck your car up, nor would I have ment for you to be injured. But it would've still happened and I would still get charged.

I'm not saying that he should be given the maximum penalty, and I'm not saying he should walk away scott-free. He made the decision, he has to live by it and the consquences of his actions. Hopefully they just dont try to "sweep it under the rug" and forget about accidents like these.

Vance
06-24-2004, 10:15 PM
**** happens in war.

usa320
06-24-2004, 10:22 PM
It may legally be listed as a crime of negligence, but it wasnt directly his fault...

DO i feel he was partly responsible and should face some form of reprimand? Absolutely. But do i think Jail time is appropriate? No.

b.scheller
06-24-2004, 10:27 PM
this whole case has been a hot issue. i personally think that the pilot should be sentenced to more then 6 months in prison. he was not taking fire. he was flying on a rather comfortable height, high from the drugs he had been taking (that supposedly allowed him to work long hours), when he saw something flashing. the guy fired, without authorization, without a radio dispatch to make sure.

its disguisting that things like this happen and people always get away with it...

Secret Squirrel
06-24-2004, 10:30 PM
It may legally be listed as a crime of negligence, but it wasnt directly his fault...

DO i feel he was partly responsible and should face some form of reprimand? Absolutely. But do i think Jail time is appropriate? No.

Why do you think we have manslaughter charges? Because its a charge that implies a death occurred that wasnt someone's direct fault. If you buy beer for a kid, he/she gets drunk and goes swimming and drowns, then you can be charged with manslaughter.

@Vance...yea **** happens in war. But some **** is acceptable, whereas **** occuring because someone ignored proper procedures isnt acceptable. Unless you dont agree?

b.scheller
06-24-2004, 10:33 PM
i think the bare minimum would have been a dishonourable discharge from the USAF. what he got, is a f*cking joke