At least, when Americans murder women and children, there is an American judicial system that will make them pay for their heinous crimes. Let the title of "baby killers" rest with ISIS, who truly deserve the name. Americans hold themselves to a higher standard, and woe to those who violate it. Excellent verdict.
Article is here.
Blackwater, like any entity participating in security operations in a war-type setting, is required to heed the Laws of War when conducting security operations. Indiscriminate attacks against civilians is prohibited. If one goes back to the news coverage of the time, it appeared that Blackwater's actions were inappropriate and unlawful.
Following the shooting, Blackwater issued a statement that declared, "The 'civilians' reportedly fired upon by Blackwater professionals were in fact armed enemies, and Blackwater personnel returned defensive fire." (Source: "Leila Fadel, Joseph Neff and Hussein Kadhim, "Security contractor under fire,"
Ottawa Citizen, September 18, 2007).
The two central questions were:
1. Were the people fired upon armed?
2. Did the people fired upon attack Blackwater's personnel (the "defensive" fire argument)?
In the aftermath of the shooting, the following information became available shortly after that tragedy:
1. None of the dead and wounded people were armed (Source: "Leila Fadel, Joseph Neff and Hussein Kadhim, "Security contractor under fire,"
Ottawa Citizen, September 18, 2007).
2. The police report on the incident declared that Blackwater's personnel "opened fire crazily and randomly, without any reason." (Source: "Private solders were unprovoked: Iraqi Investigators,"
Ottawa Citizen, October 1, 2007).
3. Witnesses did not report any gunfire prior to the incident nor any return gunfire against Blackwater's personnel (Source: Anne Davies, "One Blackwater guard yelled 'No, no, no,'
Sydney Morning Herald, October 6, 2007).
4. Video footage contradicted the Blackwater account of events (Source: "Private solders were unprovoked: Iraqi Investigators,"
Ottawa Citizen, October 1, 2007).
The first point undercuts the first central question. All four points undercut the second central question.
In short, the shooting appeared to have been unlawful and inappropriate based on the early evidence. As the trial evidence failed to sustain the two central questions on which Blackwater's defense rested, I don't think the verdict is surprising nor improper.
In the end, when one uses force and asserts "self-defense," one better have concrete evidence to support that claim. Absent credible evidence, "self-defense" isn't a viable legal recourse, as two recent verdicts have now demonstrated. In the Dunn murder trial, no meaningful evidence toward that end was available, as two juries concluded from the evidence that Dunn's attack was unwarranted (the unarmed targets of his shooting were trying to drive away rather than threatening him with a shotgun when he suddenly opened fire on them). In this case, no credible evidence surfaced to sustain Blackwater's argument that it responded defensively to an attack on its personnel (the victims were unarmed and Blackwater did all the shooting according to witness accounts and video evidence).