Another unfortunate accident or a crime?
- Thread starter zoofer
- Start date
zoofer, it should perhaps be noted that Administration requested that we not post entire articles, and rather post either a few paragraphs therefrom, a link, or both. I would urge you to review the appropriate featured thread in the Canadian Content.net forum. 
Sadly for his family the investigation may never find who exactly took this young man's life. God bless him.
When the bullets are removed - they can tell which one was the fatal wound - and they probably know already how Costall died.
They just don't want to release the information to the public.
Just blame it on the Americans
The articles since Costall was killed have been careful to note that Americans were present....
RIP Warrior Costall
They just don't want to release the information to the public.
Just blame it on the Americans
The articles since Costall was killed have been careful to note that Americans were present....
RIP Warrior Costall
Re: RE: Another unfortunate accident or a crime?
Five
If you are going to go after all the long posts - stop cherry picking whose posts have to be shortened up.
It's getting obvious.
FiveParadox said:zoofer, it should perhaps be noted that Administration requested that we not post entire articles, and rather post either a few paragraphs therefrom, a link, or both. I would urge you to review the appropriate featured thread in the Canadian Content.net forum.
Five
If you are going to go after all the long posts - stop cherry picking whose posts have to be shortened up.
It's getting obvious.
:!: Deleted : Post self-censored.
My apologies in advance to Wednesday's Child, had she read my brash inquery. If my attempts to bring attention to the Terms of Service, Forum Rules and the various requests by Administrators and Moderators to the attention of members has begun to offend people as I see is so clearly the case, then my apologies. Consider any such interventions in my capacity as a member of Canadian Content to have ceased on such advice.
My apologies in advance to Wednesday's Child, had she read my brash inquery. If my attempts to bring attention to the Terms of Service, Forum Rules and the various requests by Administrators and Moderators to the attention of members has begun to offend people as I see is so clearly the case, then my apologies. Consider any such interventions in my capacity as a member of Canadian Content to have ceased on such advice.
WC, it was an accident it can happen any where. His family is very proud of his service to his country.
I didn't see where they blamed it on anyone. It's sad, I hope his family has all the answers they need.
In some battles up to 30% of casualties can result from friendly fire.
A sad fact of warfare. Obviously it is accidental though in some cases troops being overrun have deliberately called artillery fire down upon their positions.
During the Vietnam war some activist ghoulish groups urged troops to shoot their officers. No doubt some did.
A sad fact of warfare. Obviously it is accidental though in some cases troops being overrun have deliberately called artillery fire down upon their positions.
During the Vietnam war some activist ghoulish groups urged troops to shoot their officers. No doubt some did.
RE: Another unfortunate a
During the Gulf War, 25% of all American casualties were friendly fire.
That said, with Costall, he wasn't "murdered" as the National Post is making it out to be. The criminal aspect relates to "negligence", something they clearly DON'T mention. Friendly fire, or as we in the Forces call it, "fratricide", because Murphys Law states "friendly fire; isn't", goes hand in hand with criminal negligence.
With regard to the Americans, he wasn't killed by a U.S. soldier., as they wouldn't be intermingled with members of the PPCLI. Being a light machine-gunner, his role was to supress the enemy. Therefore one can deduce he was most likely killed in one of two ways. First, he may have been in a dug-in (trench/fox hole) or a slightly dug-in postion (shell scrape). If that was the case, elements of the reserve component coming up from the rear may have "gone to ground" behind his LMG position and just by chance he was peppered. The 2nd, and more plausible scenario, is that Costall was moving positions, or "taking a bound" as it's termed. This could have been part of a section attack, or simply him, under his own initiative, relocating his base of fire. In that case, he could have either been shot by an errant round, or intentionally shot by a jittery member of his company seeing him "sky-lined" by the explosions. Regardless of scenario, Costall is dead, sadly, and it is highly unlikely anyone will ever be confirmed as the person who put the rounds in to him.
During the Gulf War, 25% of all American casualties were friendly fire.
That said, with Costall, he wasn't "murdered" as the National Post is making it out to be. The criminal aspect relates to "negligence", something they clearly DON'T mention. Friendly fire, or as we in the Forces call it, "fratricide", because Murphys Law states "friendly fire; isn't", goes hand in hand with criminal negligence.
With regard to the Americans, he wasn't killed by a U.S. soldier., as they wouldn't be intermingled with members of the PPCLI. Being a light machine-gunner, his role was to supress the enemy. Therefore one can deduce he was most likely killed in one of two ways. First, he may have been in a dug-in (trench/fox hole) or a slightly dug-in postion (shell scrape). If that was the case, elements of the reserve component coming up from the rear may have "gone to ground" behind his LMG position and just by chance he was peppered. The 2nd, and more plausible scenario, is that Costall was moving positions, or "taking a bound" as it's termed. This could have been part of a section attack, or simply him, under his own initiative, relocating his base of fire. In that case, he could have either been shot by an errant round, or intentionally shot by a jittery member of his company seeing him "sky-lined" by the explosions. Regardless of scenario, Costall is dead, sadly, and it is highly unlikely anyone will ever be confirmed as the person who put the rounds in to him.
zoofer said:
As I understand it, unpopular officers have, in the past, had a higher chance of being "accidentally" hit by friendly fire.
RE: Another unfortunate a
Sorry zoofer, I missed this post. I've been out of touch with the boards these last few weeks. Busy.
To answer; yes the Canadian Forces makes avid use of night vision equipment. When deployed each soldier is issued helmet mounted night vision goggles. Furthermore ALL of our armored land vehicles have night vision scopes, and our recon vehicles make frequent use of night vision cameras. Some infanteers even have night vision mounted rifle sites. Lastly, some of our NVG systems have an infrared capability.
I would like to point out however that NVGs do not work like you see in the movies. They require a certain amount of natural light to be effective. If the night has no moon, which I believe was the case on the night Costall was killed, NVGs are useless.
Sorry zoofer, I missed this post. I've been out of touch with the boards these last few weeks. Busy.
To answer; yes the Canadian Forces makes avid use of night vision equipment. When deployed each soldier is issued helmet mounted night vision goggles. Furthermore ALL of our armored land vehicles have night vision scopes, and our recon vehicles make frequent use of night vision cameras. Some infanteers even have night vision mounted rifle sites. Lastly, some of our NVG systems have an infrared capability.
I would like to point out however that NVGs do not work like you see in the movies. They require a certain amount of natural light to be effective. If the night has no moon, which I believe was the case on the night Costall was killed, NVGs are useless.