3 ms·

With regards to your first "crime": How was that a murder? The unit on the ground received RPG fire, and the person was holding a large object and pointing at g

With regards to your first "crime": How was that a murder? The unit on the ground received RPG fire, and the person was holding a large object and pointing at ground forces. What do you think is going to happen? For them to come down out of the helicopter and ask for the press pass? When you say murder you imply that the service men had the intent to kill some journalist. When in reality they thought they had weapons pointed at a previously attacked ground force, and had the helicopter crew asked permission to engage and protect the ground force. In the first "crime"... No crime was committed nor was anyone ever convicted. It was a tragic result, but not one that the reporters could have mitigated the risk.

grey-area 13y ago
It's a difficult case, and I understand why you see it as a tragic mistake, but I don't think the helicopter crew were sufficiently diligent in checking who they were going to kill, particularly in the aftermath of the first shots where people tried to help the wounded, and were then mown down. Just because someone was armed, doesn't make them an enemy (they could be for example a bodyguard for journalists), and just because someone tries to give medical assistance to others in a battle, doesn't mean they also need to be killed. Their callous reaction to the news that children were in the van having just killed their father demonstrates their lack of care. At the very least Reuters should have been provided with this footage (instead it was covered up), and an independent investigation held.