[applesthecat]

Actually Frau Kaleun said that the Germans in general did not shoot people in the water. She never said or alleged that it was common practice for anyone to do so.

I never said she said it was common practice to do so. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I merely provided a video on a topic that was previously discussed.

When claiming an item (i.e. a video) as evidence of a crime, being able to link the pieces is absolutely vital. Otherwise it proves nothing. Period.

LOL. It wasn't a crime. As I said, it was legal to do this. Mush Morton was not tried like Eck.

They seem to be connected in your mind, and that's enough for you. You want to believe it, so any possible link is proof. When extreme wrongdoing is allegated [sic], I like my evidence to be absolutely concrete. This video isn't even close.

Again, you seem to think this is some sort of trial. You turned an innocent thread into some sort of courtroom drama for absolutely no reason. No one is arguing for anyone to be tried and convicted of a crime. So your insisting that this video can not "prove" anything is juvenile. If one does not wish to believe what it clearly shows, that is up to them.

I've only pointed out that the film itself is useless as evidence.

Again with the evidence bit. What is this Law and Order?

but you keep avoiding the part where he says he was fired on first.

Ah ha. Now we come to the root of your motivation for making a mountain out of molehill. You resent that video because you find what is in that video to be disturbing and wish to mitigate these actions by suggesting that perhaps they were justified. "He might have been fired on first". Wow. Now let's assume that happened. What rational person would justify massacring men in a life raft because someone in that life raft would have fired a side arm at a large vessel? Why didn't he just sail away and leave them there? There is no moral defense of that. It may have been legal at the time, but it certainly is not legal today and for good reason.

I only point out that the video shows nothing that could actually be called direct proof. It's that simple.

Again with the "proof". Where is this trial for which you seem so concerned with acting as defense attorney? It is a video that shows men in the water being shot. It is not being used in any war crime trial. It was legal to do what is described in the video. So you can forget about being a defense attorney relying on the old canard that "you can't prove it was me". lol. It is merely an interesting piece of archival footage to which you have taken great exception. This whole trial is only in your head. Nobody cares.

BTW, we can see in one scene both the shooter and the man in the water in the same frame. That is pretty hard to refute. And the reason why he was shot was because the Navy instructed its sailors to not allow Japanese survivors aboard.