Tuesday, December 14, 2004

More Blog Meat

The Coalition to Prevent Assault Weapon Violence

If Guns cause Violence, here's your chance to prove it. Be a volunteer!
Check out the FAQ page. You'll love it.

(Hat-tip to Dave the WIZ of The Unofficial IPSC List)


===================================================

Robber Gets A Surprise From Potential Victim

(Hampton, VA, December 14th, 2004, 6:54 a.m.) On the Peninsula, it's the bad guy lying in a hospital bed, while his intended victim is unscathed.

Hampton Police say it's a case of an armed robber going after the wrong guy. Instead of a Hampton man becoming the victim of an armed robbery, Hampton Police say he turned the tables on his attacker. In the parking lot behind the "Treasure Chest" nightclub on East Pembroke Avenue, police drew circles around empty shell casings, drawing the conclusion that 22-year old Tony Kensler, Jr. Newport News pulled-out a gun to rob a man, just to be surprised that his intended victim fought back.

Woo-Hoo!
In case it's not obvious, this is what "Concealed Carry" is all about, folks.

(The Second Amendment is the same thing, except on a bigger scale. That's for when governments try to rob you, kill you, or otherwise attempt to deprive you of your civil liberties.)

On the day when "... it's a case of an armed robber going after the wrong guy ..." applies to ALL armed robbery attempts, armed robbery will cease to be a viable career path.

That man had a permit for a concealed weapon, and he's the one who got off the shots, hitting Kensler in the arm, leg and chest. Police say it was self defense, and those who we spoke with agree. Sarah Daniel lives nearby, "I think he had every right to do what he did. If someone came up to me, I'd use any means of self defense that I had." Charli is an employee of the club, but wasn't working the night of the shooting. Still, she has an opinion, "I think the bad guys need to have something happen to them for a change, instead of always have some innocent person die."

Dammit, Dude, you gotta get to the range more often. How many times do I have to tell you? It's two in the chest, one in the head.
Oh, okay. I guess "D-hits" are better than misses.

But you're not getting credit for a Geek Goblin count.

Kensler, listed in fair condition at Riverside Regional Medical Center, is charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of crack cocaine.
Guess who's going to find it difficult to smoke another next crack pipe for a while. Probably won't get a smoke until he gets to prison. Awwwwww ... poor Kensler. It's Rehab for you, Pal!

"Convicted Felon" Some people never learn. Maybe if his last victim had shot him up as thoroughly, he would have already realized it was time for him to find another line of work.

===================================================

"The Curse of American Automobiles"

For some years now, I've been propounding a theory that some vehicles are just naturally more dangerous on the road than others. No, I'm not married to Ralph Nader nor am I going to drop my Republican registration in favor of The Green Party. It's just that, based on an entirely unscientific observation of "dumb stuff I've seen people do on the road", some classifications of vehicles seem to be more frequently involved than others.

Maybe I've seen CHRISTINE too many times.

Anyway, here's the way I rate cars.

  1. The most dangerous car on the road is a FORD!
  2. It's even more dangerous if it's a FORD PICKUP, or a WHITE FORD
  3. Getting into the realm of really scary is a WHITE FORD PICKUP
  4. What can be worse? How about if it's a BIG OL' TRUCK, as Dave Skinner likes to say.
  5. The fifth and most dangerous modifier is ... DIESEL POWERED!

Why am I surprised that this article involves a BIG OL' WHITE FORD PICKUP?
(Answer: I am not at all surprised, and I would be willing to guess that it drinks diesel ... when it's not drinking blood.)

Man Critical After Girlfriend Allegedly Runs Him Over In Truck

TITUSVILLE, Fla. -- A Central Florida man is in critical condition Tuesday after his girlfriend allegedly ran him over in a truck, according to Local 6 News.Police said Marshall Haynes and his girlfriend Kim Glover were involved in an argument Monday night at 1565 Thorton Avenue in Titusville.Detectives said Glover apparently got into a white 1997 Ford F150 truck and ran Haynes down in a home's driveway. Haynes suffered severe injuries to his head and upper torso.

He was transported to Holmes Regional Medical Center in critical condition.Glover was taken into custody but had not been formally charged early Tuesday, according to a police statement.
So you think I'm making this stuff up. But ... why do you think the reporter found it necessary to mention that it was a Ford, and it was white?

Could have been worse. Could have been an F-350 with tandem wheels.
Around here, we call tandem wheels "bone crunchers".

Okay, we didn't call them "bone crunchers" before. But we will now.
It has a nice ring to it, don't you think?
In the words of Dan Ackroyd: "Want to see something REALLY scarey?"

Why are these types of vehicles so dangerous? Is it something to do with the manufacturer ... can you say SATAN?

Or is it that the people who are dangerous buy Fords? If that's the case, note that the operator in this little drama wasn't the person who bought the truck.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.







Posted by at No comments:

WORD from the Author of IPSC rule 1.2.1

I've ... uh ... been talking off-line with "some folks" about the genesis of changes to the IPSC/USPSA Rule Book, which controls the way competition is defined in both the International and American Practical Pistol 'communities'.

I had mentioned that there were recent discussions on the Brian Enos forums, and they seemed typical of the confusion caused by the current verbiage of the 1.2.1 set of rules. However, I was unable to find those threads, although I did describe them in general terms.

One of these correspondants did his own search, and found them.

I offer them here for your own personal evaluation.

I went back to the BE Forum and did find a post ... outlining the 1.2.1.2 and 1.2.1.3 "official" rules interpretation (actually more of a rule change) the Rules Committee made in Bali.

First match under the Geen Book, rules 1.2.1.2 and 1.21..3 (page 2 of 3)

Basically, the change to both 1.1.1.2 and 1.2.1.3 is "nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view shoot at all targets in the course of fire from any single location or view."
This is consistent with JA's "interpretation" provided to the both of us. I agree with you that, however we got there, we've got a rule we can live with.
I believe the rules discussion you referenced is:

Green Book Head Scratchers , 1.2.1.2/3, how many rounds and from where?

It is interesting to follow the evolution of the interpretation of that rule!
Without sounding smug, I believe these dialogues demonstrate that the people who wrote the rules, and who are responsible for maintaining them, realized when it was brought to their attention by OUTSIDE SOURCES that they didn't have the perspective within their own group to see that the rules could have seriously negative effects upon the Freestyle approach to IPSC.

Over the past 14 months, I have repeatedly railed against the unilateral imposition of major rules changes. Part of the reason I objected so vociferously was because I didn't believe that the rules were adequately reviewed; the way these changes affected competition wasn't usually identified, because the folks who were reviewing the changes had a "this will work!" mindset instead of looking for ways that the rules could cause problems during competition.


Another part of the reason why I have been so critical is that the IPSC and, specifically, the USPSA membership was not given adequate notification before the rules were enacted, which means there was insufficient time to find these little 'bloopers' and take care of them before the new rules were 'carved in stone'.

I present this evidence of ex post facto discussion to illustrate the folly of arbitrarily and unilaterally presenting ANY changes to competitive rules without establishing an effective review process. More, I submit that the organizational membership must necessarily be allowe to assume the responsibility for reviewing these changes, if only to avoid the embarassing situation in which we now find ourselves. Some of the rules which have been enacted are plainly not applicable to the USPSA competitive milieu.

In the actual event, so many changes were made in the current edition of the rule book that we (the membership) would possibly not have been able to discern that some of the most low-profile changes can have a major effect upon competition. This section of the rules is the most blatant of this type, although I fear it is perhaps not the ONLY set of rules which could undermine the way we run IPSC matches tomorrow.

My comments are admittedly vague. Please go to the referenced URLs, follow the discussions, and see for yourself whether the cited rules contain verbiage which clarify an existing problem, or add new problems which we have never before had to deal with.

And ask yourself whether you are satisfied with the way new competitive rules are evolved and reviewed.

For myself, the answer is a resounding NO WAY, DUDE!




Posted by at No comments:

Monday, December 13, 2004

Blog Meat

Surfing the news sites on the internet can be detrimental to a healthy mental condition. With increasing frequency, I find stories (more often links to stories) that just cry out for someone to say out loud WHAT A BUNCH OF MAROONS!

I call these stories Blog Meat.

Here's a small selection of today's menu (most links courtesy of WorldNetDaily):


The Opinion of a Total Goose!

Monday, December 13, 2004 (SF Gate)
Deserters Are Heroes/VIEW FROM THE LEFT
Harley Sorensen, Special to SF Gate

Today let us take the sad, sordid case of one George W. Bush. Our president. Love him or hate him, it was he and he alone who decided that our mighty armies should travel to Iraq and kill tens of thousands of people, most of whom were guilty of nothing more than being there.
Well ... okay. Among those who are "being there" are:
* Saddam, Uday and Qsay Hussein, internationally reknown rapists, torturers and mass murderers;
* Terrorists, torturers and head-clippers from Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, etc. whose techniques (bombing, assasination, destruction of public works including pipelines ... the primary source of funding for a new democratic country) are designed to undermine the establishment of a democratic civilian government. These yahoos have no goal greater than to prevent every Iraqi civilian from having a voice in the conduct of his or her own government.
It turned out the Iraqis didn't have those terrible weapons. But, the Iraqis are evil, Mr. Bush asserted. Well, at least their leader was, so, by extension, they all were. And, by gosh and by golly, they might have harbored terrorists at one time or another.

Quickly now, name a country that harbored the Sept. 11 terrorists! Ah, that was too easy. You got it right away. The answer: the United States of America. That's who sheltered the 19 terrorists before their attacks on Manhattan and Washington. That's where those terrorists worked and played, ate and slept, plotted and rehearsed right up to that tragic day. The U.S. of A.
Oh my, where do we start?

How about ... The U.S. of A. 'harbored terrorists' by accepting (naively, perhaps) their assertion that they were in the country as "students". The logical assumption was that these people had come to this country to study, to learn skills which they could take home and better the lives of their fellow countrymen. America, in its innocence, had no idea that they were terrorists.

Iraq, however, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein 'harbored terrorists' from other countries because they were avowed terrorists. They came to Iraq to learn terrorist techniques: shooting people, blowing people up, undermining the economy and peaceful life of a third country by sabotage and intimidation
It's an old, old story, dating back to the first war out of the cave. Young people, eager to do what's right, end up being pawns moved around the board by older men with secret ambitions.
You gotta ask yourself, is this bozo talking about the U.S. Military, or about the Palestinian Suicide Bombers? It's a little difficult to tell, but my guess is that at best Mr. Sorensen doesn't see any difference except, perhaps, American Soldiers who combat aggressors are more naive and more evil than suicide bombers who target unsuspecting and unarmed civilians.
If you still think Mr. Bush's war isn't corrupt, then you didn't see a different "60 Minutes" report, this one on Dec. 5. In that report, it was revealed that our government is ordering retired servicemen and servicewomen to return to duty, years and years after the end of their terms of enlistment.
Actually, what is happening is that retired servicemen with special skills are being ASKED by their government to VOLUNTEER for active duty. I read an article (URL not immediately available, sorry) about a 70-year old ex-military surgeon who, when asked, volunteered for active duty and is now in Iraq leading a surgical team who restore the the faces of both soldiers and civilians who have been disfigured by IEBs, mortars and gunshot.

=============================|

Here's another one, fromthe Sacramento Bee

Obituary: Gary Webb, prize-winning investigative reporter

Gary Webb, a prize-winning investigative journalist whose star-crossed career was capped with a controversial newspaper series linking the CIA to the crack cocaine epidemic in Los Angeles, died Friday of self-inflicted gunshot wounds, officials said.
Mr. Webb, 49, was found dead in his Carmichael home Friday morning of gunshot wounds to the head, the Sacramento County Coroner's Office said Saturday.

"WoundS"? As in ... PLURAL?
Not too much comment available here. Except ... how many shots does it take to kill a California Investigative Journalist?
There's an apocryphal story going around my home-town of Pendleton, Oregon, about the real estate developer who had some serious business reversals. He decided to drive out into the country and commit suicide by shotting himself in the head with a shotgun. He was home in time for breakfast; he ran out of ammunition.

Sure, we can accept that some people may attempt suicide and fail due to various factors which would otherwise be typified as being Darwinian, but how many times can you shoot yourself in the head, without help?

The article doesn't mention whether an investigation is 'ongoing'.


=======================|

Got time for one more?

Port St. Lucie woman strangles neighbor's Rottweiler, police say

December 10, 2004, 9:57 AM EST

PORT ST. LUCIE -- Police are investigating a woman who strangled a neighbor's Rottweiler after it attacked her Yorkshire terrier.

Shortly after 5 p.m. Wednesday, the 130-pound Rottweiler, named Rox, bolted past owner Rebecca Hartley and grabbed Candy, a Yorkie owned by Robin Bush, in her mouth in the 2900 block of Southwest Ventura Street.

Bush said she was in the kitchen talking on the phone while her son, Jacob, 10, took Candy, who weighs about eight pounds, and her Chihuahua outside.

"I heard my son screaming and heard a cry from my Yorkie," she said. "It was a God-awful screech."

According to Hartley's statement to police, Bush threw a beer bottle at Rox and chased and kicked the dog. Bush's son then took the Yorkie inside.

"Bush then allegedly grabbed the Rottweiler's collar and began choking the animal, screaming she 'would have it killed,' " the report states. "Bush continued to choke the animal, then began slamming the dog's head against the side of her house."
I was wondering how a woman manages to choke a Rottweiler to death. If I had thought about it, using the 'choke collar' to choke a dog makes perfect sense. I wonder if I would have had the presence of mind to use leverage on the collar. Probably not, which makes me much less of Good Mother than Mrs. Bush.
<>
Hartley, 20, said she was trying to calm 1-year-old Rox, but Bush twisted the dog's collar with one hand and had her other on Rox's snout, repeatedly striking the dog.

"I told her, 'You're killing my dog, you're killing my dog, someone please dial 911,'" Hartley said. "I could not get her to let go of the dog, and within two minutes or less Rox had suffocated."

Bush, who said she weighs about the same as Rox, said her actions were justified.

"The dog was as big as me, it seemed," Bush said. "I was afraid to let go of this dog because I thought it was going to hurt me. ... Nobody was helping me. I was trying to defend my animal, my child and myself," she said. "I didn't intentionally kill this dog."


Now, let me see if I understand the situation.
The big dog had grabbed the little dog (who was being 'taken inside' by her 10-year old son), and the mother was concerned that if the big dog would grab a mouthful of Yorkie, there's no reason to assume that it wouldn't find a boy or a mom equally as appetizing.

Yup. Sounds reasonable to me.

So is this a Hero-type thing to do?

NO!

This is A Bad Thing. Picking on a poor defenseless Rottweiler:

Prosecutors are reviewing an animal cruelty warrant application to determine whether to issue a warrant for Bush's arrest, said Officer Robert Vega, police spokesman.

"There's always two sides to every story. The officer felt ... this should be written up and forwarded to the State Attorney's Office to make a final decision," Vega said.
Well, sure. See previous reference to the "poor defenseless Rottweiler".


Hartley said Rottweilers get a "bad rap" as being "ferocious," describing her dogs as "very friendly."

"You would think that out of instinct if someone were choking you, you would resist," said Hartley, a lifelong Port St. Lucie resident. "Rox did not resist at all, she just sat there calmly and felt the woman was playing with her."
Okay, so now we've established that this is not only an aggressive Rottweiler, it is a stupid, aggressive Rottweiler. I don't know about you, but I'm not much comforted by the idea that this idiotic dog not only doesn't know any better than to attack another dog one tenths its size, but doesn't understand that this is A Bad Thing.

So what happens next?
Well, sure, we put the victim on the defensive.

Bush denied slamming the dog's head against the wall.

"I'm not a cruel person," Bush said, noting she tried to revive Rox. "I feel wholeheartedly my dog and myself were the victims."

Hartley said Bush had a "severe overreaction," and a witness told police Bush was "flipping out."
That's right, it's The Mom's Fault.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't help feeling that a domestic pet who can't control himself, who hasn't been trained to obedience (remember that the owner, Hartley, was entirely incompetent in preventing the attack or stopping it once it had started), and who is demonstrably aggressive in a social setting ... has no right to live. Sorry, my apologies to dog lovers everywhere. If you have a big dog in an open society, you have a responsibility to control it utterly at all times. The first time you lose control of your dog ... you lose the dog. And society is better off for it.


As for Candy, an animal control supervisor said the dog had three small marks on her belly that didn't puncture the skin. Bush said Candy is "traumatized" and "not moving well."

"You can't hardly pick her up; she just lets out a terrible cry," Bush said.

Eric Bush, 34, Robin's husband, said Candy was bitten more than once and will remain under a veterinarian's observation for possible internal injuries.

"They said it could be fatal," he said.
Uh huh. So the Yorkie wasn't ripped limb from limb, and devoured slowly and with great relish (a pickle relish, no doubt) by the Rotty. I suppose the fact that Ms. Bush immediately defended her property and, by extention, her son has nothing to do with the non-fatal outcome?


And the denoument?

Hartley said the incident left her "kind of numb."

"On the one hand I want retribution, but you can't bring the dog back," she said.
Well, Thank Gawd for that.
If the Rotty was human, Kim du Toit would be writing another Goblin Report. Except that Ms Bush was apparently interrupted before she could finish what would otherwise have been A Good Day's Work

I'm no Kim du Toit, but let's just consider this the Geek Goblin Count #1.

I'm happy that "you can't bring the dog back". We don't need it.
Pity, though, that the Rotty didn't actually die as an immediate and direct consequence of its actions.

Considering this story in respect to, for example, lawsuits which hold a firearms manufacturer responsible for the actions of people who buy their firearms, wouldn't it be reasonable for the owner of the dog to suffer some punitive action besides loss of her dog?

I'm not talking strangulation at a post, mind you ...
... well, maybe I am.

What do you think?

========================================}

But finally, here's a Good News contribution to take a little gloom off your day:


It had to happen.

Somebody finally wrote a thorough, reasonable article which compares and contrasts IPSC and IDPA competition, without trashing either one.

SportShooter.Com has the article, and I'm not going to 'fisk' it because ... well, I just wish I had been able to write such an informative and unbiased piece of work

The author is Scott Craig. No, I've never heard of him, either, but he does write nice clean descriptive prose; and the article includes a link to his website, which is worth visiting.

It's a medium-size article, and doesn't even take long to download.
You can read it at:
http://www.sportshooter.com/compete/idpa_or_uspsa.htm


Posted by at 1 comment:

Sunday, December 12, 2004

More on USPSA rule 1.2.1

Last Thursday I included the text of an email that I had sent to John Amidon, Vice President of USPSA, asking for clarification of the rules regarding Medium and Long Courses of fire.

Earlier today, I updated that post with the details of Mr. Amidon's reply.

Later today, I received an email from someone who commented that he wished "... the rule had been written more clearly."

Here is my reply to him:

I'll tell you a secret.

I think Amidon's "interpretation" is just that, and a darned creative one at that. It doesn't really say what the rules say.

There was a discussion about this rule last month on one of the forums (I think it was the BE forum, but may have been the USPSA forum) which included Vince Pinto. Vince is the one who actually authored this clause of 1.2.1.2 and 1.2.1.3. During the discussion, Vince gave the impression that he intended competitors to shoot through every port, and from every shooting box, which was included in the stage design. After some discussion, he suggested that instead of the verbiage being "... nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location ..." to "... nor encourage a competitor to eliminate a location ...". And after that had been discussed for a while, he finally decided that the whole thing had been a bad idea, and suggested removing the "eliminate a location ..." clause completely from those two rules.

(Sorry, I can't direct you to either the forum or the thread. When I went back to look up this discussion last week, I couldn't find it. Apparently, my search was insufficiently dilligent, or I just wasn't looking in the right places. I've since initiated the practice of archiving forum discussions which seem significant to me.)

Be that as it may, we have the rules NOW in place and it's unrealistic to start sending out 'corrections' to remove or replace problems that weren't really noticed until after the rules were published.

Mr. Amidon's 'interpretation' provides the minimal justification for the inclusion of this rule, without either admitting that a blooper was included when the rules were rewritten OR forcing us into an unacceptable situation where free-style competition was outlawed.

If my paranoid, baseless and entirely reactionary suspicions are true, this was a masterful way to sidestep the whole problem. Nobody gets hurt, the game isn't ruined, and no reputations suffer.

I can live with that.

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, December 10, 2004

Iraq Outrage

Remember the Falluja incident, where a marine shot a prone insurgent (terrorist) because he thought the SOB was faking death or incapacity?

"SlagleRock's Slaughterhouse" offers Fighting Words.


Also, a fellow named Michael Graham offers a challenge to Michael Moore.

(No permalink available on his website, but Thanx to Sgt. Rock for the link)


More to the point, Little Green Footballs provides a link to the transcript of SecDef Rumsfield's "Town Hall" meeting.

We won't talk about how the press set him up by dragging a couple of Iraq-bound troops to the meeting and prepping them with questions. But we should give Rummy a big sloppy kiss for having the cajones to put himself on the line by taking unmonitored questions directly from the troops, with the press looking on. You won't hear it from the Main Stream Media (MSM), but that's the real story here as related by the Blog-o-sphere ... which MSM hates!


And finally ... having absolutely nothing at all to do (we hope!) with Iraq, The Barking Moonbat shows us how to increase traffic to your blogsite (which is, so far, exactly ZERO access and probably this is at least partially due to the fact that I haven't yet published the URL anywhere).

His solution? Show pictures of Naked Women!





Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, December 09, 2004

USPSA Rules 1.2.1

This is the text of my most recent post to The Unofficial IPSC List:
(NB: Updated with Mr. Amidon's comments on Dec. 12)

Mr. Amidon,
the new USPSA rule book, both in rule 1.2.1.2 ("Medium Courses") and 1.2.1.3 ("Long Courses") includes the following verbiage:

"Course design and construction must not require more than 9 scoring hits from any single shooting position or view, nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view."

(Emphasis added)
JA-What this means, and has been the case for several years, you cannot shoot all the shots from one location or view, prior to the change in the wording, IPSC only allowed 9 shots from one loacation or view, this kind of contridicted free style, all it accomplished was to take the boxes off the ground and place them onto walls as ports. With the added language, they are allowing you to have more shots from one location or view, you just cannot shoot them all from one.
jdg. This clause seems to have been overlooked by both IPSC and USPSA during their evaluation of the rule book.
This clause is a concern because it seems to entirely remove the possibility of "Free Style" competition.
For example, stages which might offer the competitive option of shooting all targets from one position, or of moving down-range to engage difficult targets at a shorter distance, now seem to be illegal.
JA-What is illegal, is being able to shoot all the shots from one position.

jdg.Also, shooting from a Bianchi-type barricade, it might now be mandatory that competitors shoot at one or more targets from each side of the barricade, instead of only one side. (As you know, many USPSA classifiers require that some targets be engaged,. or 'shot at', from one side and some from the other. This establishes a precedence for this interpretation.)
JA-Classifers are a seperate course of fire and the rules allow for them to stipulate
reloads and they are exempt from having to follow freestyle completely as most are shot at local clubs (level I). Now if it wasn't a classifier and you had the Bianchi-type barricade, and there were ten shots in the stage, and you could shoot them all from one side of the barricade, it would be an illegal stage, if it were only nine shots, then no problem.

jdg.Worst, and most bizarre of possible interpretations, when the stage procedures require the competitor to 'shoot them as you see them', if it is possible to shoot at some targets from more than one position ... how does one judge when the rule REQUIRES the competitor to move to a new shooting position even if there is no other reason to do so?

JA-The rule is a course design issue, not a competitors, as 1.1.5 states competitors must be able to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner and to shoot the targets in a as visible condition.

jdg.How is the competitor to know when this clause will be considered when shooting a stage?
How is the Range Officer to know when to invoke this clause?
What are the penalties involved?

JA-There are no penalties to the shooter, as stated, these restrictions applies to course design and setup issues, if someone fails to follow them, the only issue would be an arbitration and the possibilty to have the stage thrown out.
jdg.Perhaps my ultimate question is that, if a competitor finds it possible to engage all targets from less than all possible locations or views, and chooses to do so, will penalties be imposed on the competitor? Or, alternatively, must the stage be thrown out of the match because the stage design didn't meet these arbitrary restrictions?
JA-I know this may sound repetive, but if the course of fire states on signal, engage targets,
how does a competitor obtain a penalty for figuring out a better way to shoot the stage,
assuming that everything they do is done safely and no other rules are violated? It is
not a competitor rule, it is course design and setup.

jdg.Or can we just ignore this otherwise unenforceable rule clause?
And if so, how do we reconcile this with the published rules?
JA-You cannot ignore any rule without ramifications, however, I question
your statement that it is unenforceable. If you send me stages for approval for
a level II or level III match, and it appears that you are allowing 24 rounds to be
fired from one position, even though there are other positions, I would not
approve them.

jdg.Give the new restrictions on Arbitration Committees, can you provide a guideline for acceptible decisions when this question arises during a match?
JA-I cannot predict how an arbitration committee would rule on any issue, but if a
club asked for approval on stages presented for sanction or tournament, and it was granted,
then they set up a stage that allows all the shots (more than 9) from one location or view,
and someone files an arbitration as the stage being illegal, the arbitration committee SHOULD
rule that the stage be tossed.

jdg.Are there other rules which are unreasonable upon consideration, and are similarly subject to NROI interpretation?
JA-unreasonable is in the eye of the beholder, some say no more than two hits on a
penalty target is unreasonable, some say not allowing the static target to be put at an
angle greated than 90 degrees is unreasonable, so the only answer I could give
on this question is, if you have a question, reach out.

DVC,
John Amidon
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, December 05, 2004

Pat Tillman ... Victim of "Blue on Blue"?

At the time of this writing, most internet websites have not yet noticed this, but the Washington Post has announced that their information is that former Cincinatti football player (and later U.S. Army Ranger) Pat Tillman was the victim of 'Friendly Fire'.

Army Spun Tale Around Ill-Fated Mission

By Steve Coll
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 6, 2004; Page A01

Second in a two-part series.

Just days after Pat Tillman died from friendly fire on a desolate ridge in southeastern Afghanistan, the U.S. Army Special Operations Command released a brief account of his last moments.

The April 30, 2004, statement awarded Tillman a posthumous Silver Star for combat valor and described how a section of his Ranger platoon came under attack.

"He ordered his team to dismount and then maneuvered the Rangers up a hill near the enemy's location," the release said. "As they crested the hill, Tillman directed his team into firing positions and personally provided suppressive fire. . . . Tillman's voice was heard issuing commands to take the fight to the enemy forces."

It was a stirring tale and fitting eulogy for the Army's most famous volunteer in the war on terrorism, a charismatic former pro football star whose reticence, courage and handsome beret-draped face captured for many Americans the best aspects of the country's post-Sept. 11 character.

It was also a distorted and incomplete narrative, according to dozens of internal Army documents obtained by The Washington Post that describe Tillman's death by fratricide after a chain of botched communications, a misguided order to divide his platoon over the objection of its leader and undisciplined firing by fellow Rangers.

The Army's public release made no mention of friendly fire, even though at the time it was issued, investigators in Afghanistan had already taken at least 14 sworn statements from Tillman's platoon members that made clear the true causes of his death. The statements included a searing account from the Ranger nearest Tillman during the firefight, who quoted him as shouting "Cease fire! Friendlies!" with his last breaths.

Army records show Tillman fought bravely during his final battle. He followed orders, never wavered and at one stage proposed discarding his heavy body armor, apparently because he wanted to charge a distant ridge occupied by the enemy, an idea his immediate superior rejected, witness statements show.

But the Army's published account not only withheld all evidence of fratricide, but also exaggerated Tillman's role and stripped his actions of their context. Tillman was not one of the senior commanders on the scene -- he directed only himself, one other Ranger and an Afghan militiaman, under supervision from others. And witness statements in the Army's files at the time of the news release describe Tillman's voice ringing out on the battlefield mainly in a desperate effort, joined by other Rangers on his ridge, to warn comrades to stop shooting at their own men.

The Army's April 30 news release was just one episode in a broader Army effort to manage the uncomfortable facts of Pat Tillman's death, according to internal records and interviews.

During several weeks of memorials and commemorations that followed Tillman's death, commanders at his 75th Ranger Regiment and their superiors hid the truth about friendly fire from Tillman's brother Kevin, who had fought with Pat in the same platoon, but was not involved in the firing incident and did not know the cause of his brother's death. Commanders also withheld the facts from Tillman's widow, his parents, national politicians and the public, according to records and interviews with sources involved in the case.

On May 3, Ranger and Army officers joined hundreds of mourners at a public ceremony in San Jose, where Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Denver Broncos quarterback Jake Plummer and Maria Shriver took the podium to remember Tillman. The visiting officers gave no hint of the evidence investigators had collected in Afghanistan.

In a telephone interview, McCain said: "I think it would have been helpful to have at least their suspicions known" before he spoke publicly about Tillman's death. Even more, he said, "the family deserved some kind of heads-up that there would be questions."

McCain said yesterday that questions raised by Mary Tillman, Pat's mother, about how the Army handled the case led him to meet twice earlier this fall with Army officers and former acting Army secretary Les Brownlee to seek answers. About a month ago, McCain said, Brownlee told him that the Pentagon would reopen its investigation. McCain said that he was not certain about the scope of the new investigation but that he believed it is continuing. A Pentagon official confirmed that an investigation is underway, but Army spokesmen declined to comment further.

(Further information may be found on the Washington Post website)

===============|

Here's the Geek point of view:

Yes, if true it is a tragedy. Yes, it does happen.

Anyone who has been in combat will understand that friendly fire is a fact of war. When the bullets are flying, and there is a breakdown in communications, the fire of artillary and other crew-served weapons (just as is the case of individual weapons) is often pointed at unidentified military groups who may later be identified as friendly troops.

The "Fog of War" is a well-known phenomenon, and it often results in tragic consequences.

It is the result of over-reaction on the part of local commanders who are under fire, or are reacting to calls for support from those who are under fire, and who place their barrages upon friendly troops simply because they have not had their target correctly identified.

True, it sometimes happens that artillary fire is misplaced simply because of human error ... the individual who calls in the fire incorrectly locates the target, or the officer in charge of the artillary calculates the wrong target coordinates, or the artillary crew misapplies the charge, declension or direction. Most often (as is the case here, which was a crew-served weapon) the gunner directs fire on a target which has incorrectly been identified as the enemy.

There is no possibility of confirmation of the target by an objective observer; here, the gunner perceived that his unit was under fire from an enemy and responds as best he can.

It's not always easy to know who is shooting at you, when all you really know is that your friends are being shot at and killed. You do the best you can. You want to take the pressure off your own people, so you shoot at whatever targets present themselves outside your own perimeter.

This is what happened on that day.

Pat Tillman died because of an error, which can easily be second-guessed by our huge coterie of arm-chair quarterbacks who have likely never found themselves under fire.

This is far to similar to the situation in Fallujah where a Marine shot an insurgent who he perceived as a threat to himself and to his unit ... only to find in retrospect that the insurgent might not have been armed. That Marine could reasonably be excused for having assumed that someone who was 'faking' death had the intention of killing American troops.


The machine gunner who directed fire on the (unidentified) U.S. Ranger and his native guide might also be reasonably be excused for having assumed that someone who was outside his perimeter was a threat to American troops.

It's not something to be proud of, but it is certainly something which should be understood in light of the circumstances.



Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)