Listen to the speech at the link below. I suggest you download it to your MP3 player, phone or ipod. If you cannot, listen to the speech on-line and if all else fails come to me after school I can help you.
http://wordforword.publicradio.org/programs/2008/06/13/
According to Mary Tillman what are the reasons the Tillman family didn't sue the U.S. Government? To sue or not to sue, what do you think would be the right decision?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
I think Mary Tillman didn't sue the government because at one point of the audio interview she mentioned that the military destoyed all of the evidence such as Pat's uniform and battle armor, so she thought if there was a tape they would have destroyed that too. I also thought she didn't sue the government because their whole family knew a lot about the army and respected the people in it. Her ex-husband's family and her family were both apart of wars before Pat and Kevin(her sons) went to Iraq.
Mary Tillman didn't sue the government because she wanted to see the system itself that is actually constructed to have checks and balances would actually do its job. She said the soldiers were dying for this system and felt it would do good to show that soldiers are not dying in vain. I think Mary chose the choice that was best.
I think that Mary Tillman didn't sue the government because that she didn't have enough evidence to prove it. The government said it was friendly fire but she didn't accept it. At one point it said that the military destroyed all evidence including Pat's armor and weaponry. Even if there was evidence what can she get back? You can't bring a dead man back to life and everybody knows that.
The Tillman family didn't sue the U.S. government becouse she says she still doesn't have the full story of how her son died. She also stated that the pieces of her sons clothing were kept at room temperature and it ruend the evidence of the clothing.
i think Mary Tillman and the Tillman family didnt sue the government because she didnt have proof. In one point of listening she mentioned that the military had destroyed all the proof such as Pat's uniform and other battle equipment. she also wanted to know if the government was built well to have check and balances to do its job. therefore, i think mary tillman mad a good decision
Mary Tillman didn't sue the government, since most of the men in her family were soldiers in wars. Her son died in Afghanistan, but died with integrity. he had the will to serve the army prepared for these consequences. Mary said that she wanted to see the system of checks and balances do it's job. She said the soldiers were dying for this system and so she felt that this way the soldiers weren't dying in vain. even if she wanted to sue the government, there were no traces of evidence anywhere.
If it were me i would sue the government. since they killed my son, who served this war honorably, and covered up the truth. The other soldiers saw Pat, waving and calling it was them, yet they still shot them. These details would make any mother sad.
I think Mary Tillman did not sue the government because it was very unlikely she would win. This is because all of the evidence that could have been used against them was destroyed by the military. Because of this there was the chances of her winning were incredibly slim.
The reason why Mary Tillman and the Tillman family, didn't sue the government because she wanted to see if the system itself that it is actually constructed to have checks and balances would actually do its job. She said the soldiers were dying for this system and felt it would do good to show that soldiers are not dying in vain.I believe she did the right thing
I think Mary Tillman did not sue the government because she did not have the full story of how Pat Tillman died. She have also tried to collect the evidence, but at that point she noticed that Pat's armor was destroyed because of room temperature. Mary said that she wanted to see the system of checks and balances do it's job. She said that lots of soldiers were dying because of this system.
The reason why the Tillman family didnt sue the U.S. government is because they do not have a lot of evidence to prove it. Besides the government would have a lot of lawyers and the Tillman family would most likely lose.
I think Mary Tillman should sue the U.S. government because it is not fair how her son died in the war and have the government cover it up. I do not think it is fair. Even if the government would most likely win, I think that Mary Tillman should keep searching for evidence to sue the government.
I think that Mary Tillman didn't sue the government because first of all, she didn't know the exact story of how her son died-she only knew he was shot. Second of all, she had no evidence that would covince the jury that it is the government's fault that her son died. And last but not least, it wasn't the government's fault that her son died-they didn't kill him. Mary Tillman knew that their was any way that she would win.
The reason I think Mary Tillman decided not to sue the government is for one, she didn't know much of her son's death. And even if she decided to, she would have to go up against the government and the nation's top lawyers probably, so her chances of winning were slim. There even wasn't much evidence of his death since most of his armor and weaponry were destroyed. Tillman's family has had a long military history and has had many discussions of it. Pat wanted to help serve his country and I think that he didn't die in vain seeing he did what he thought was fighting for a good cause and I respect that. Though I am perplexed on why the government lied about his death. Who knows? They could have not known how he died, maybe someone felt pity for her and wanted Pat's family know he died valiantly instead of being shot by his own squad. Lying about his death was wrong. They should've told the truth. I don't think the government did their job well. But even so I wouldn't sue them because its not their fault. And if I did, what would I gain? Suing them wouldn't bring someone back to life.
I think Mary Tillman didn't sue the government because the military destroyed all the evidence such as armor and weapons. So she couldn’t prove anything .The government also said that it was an accident or “friendly fire”. Their family also respected that the army protects the country.
I think Mary Tillman and her family didn’t sue the government because she doesn’t have enough information how her son died . Military destroyed all his equipment from the Military so I think she made a good decision.
I think Mary Tillman didn't sue the government because she didn't know the exact story of what happened. All she knew was that her son was shot. So she couldn't really defend her case. Second, all the evidence they had was destroyed by the military, so she had no chance to defend her case. Finally, most of the men in her family were in the military. She knew that soldiers were dying for the checks and balances system, but she felt they weren't dying in vain so that's also another reason. I think she made a good choice because even if she sued and won, money won't bring her dead son back.
Mary piltan's son was killed. He was in the army. There is not enough proof leading to her son's death. She did not sue because of that. It is said that he was killed by his soldiers but she doesn't know. The right decision would be to sue.
I think that Mary Tillman didn't sue the government because there wan not alot of evidence. They said it was an accident by friendly fire. So if it was an accident there really was no reason to sue them. I think Mary did the right thing.
Mary Tillman’s son was influenced by his own father. His father, John Tillman went to different wars such as World War II, the Korean War, and then the National Guard. This influence led to Pat Tillman going to war in Afghanistan. Pat Tillman was killed in war by a American bullet. The government was hiding the evidence that it was friendly fire all along. The reason why Mary Tillman did not sue is because all evidence was taking away. So that left her no evidence to sue the government.
I think that Mary Tillman did not sue the U.S. government, because she did not have any evidence as she stated in the article, or, because she said that she does still not know the full story, and the army is important to the U.S., maybe she was thinking that if she sued the government, the U.S. would weaken and her son's death may happen more often. That is why I think that Mary Tillman did not sue the U.S. government.
I think Mary Tillman didn't sue the government because the story of her son's death was'nt fully told to her.The evicence that could've been used was also destroyed this includes his armor and weapons.
I think if she did decide to sue the government she would have had her hands full and in the end lost. Going against elite lawyersnot to mention not knowing every detail of her sons death other than "friendly fire".
I think Mary Tillman didn't sue the U.S. Government because the system of checks and balances do the work it's suppose to do. Also because she did not have enough evidence to win and she didnt have the full story on how her son died.
I think Mary Tillman didn't sue the U.S. Government because the system of checks and balances do the work it's suppose to do. Also because she did not have enough evidence to win and she didnt have the full story on how her son died.
I think the real reason why Mary Tillman won't sue the U.S Government because she doesn't know the whole truth about the death of her son. Investigators first revealed that Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire and then revealed that he was shot three times to the head. However, no members of Tillman's group had been hit by enemy fire. It has also been revealed that there were never-before-mentioned US snipers in the second group that encountered Pat's squad. I think Mary Tillman has accepted Pat's death by friendly fire as a consequence of war but still fights for the truth. If I was Mary, I would sue the U.S Government because I think the killing of her son was a cover up because the army probably wanted to deflect attention from emerging failings in the Afghan war.
Mary Tillman's family did not sue the U.S Government for many reasons. Those reasons are that they didnt have the evidence because it was all destryed by the government. Also, they said it was an ambush so that the family would believe it. And lastly, they had no evidence to prove anything.
In my opinion, I think that this family should atleast try to sue them. Mary stated that she and her family knew a lot about the army and respected it. But in return, that army didnt respect her child. They destroyed all the evidence. THIS WAS NO RESPECT TOWARD PAT.
Post a Comment