Help With Starfleet Board Of Inquiry

In our last session of Star Trek: The Triangle Missions, the tactical officer fired first at an enemy ship without provocation. The captain was not on the bridge, having been hit by a molotov cocktail and nearly killed trying to quell a riot. The first officer ordered him to send a shot across the bow of an enemy ship, and he deliberately hit the ship and claimed the interference which was present in the atmosphere disrupted their sensors and caused an accidental hit.

This was the scenario from Beyond The Final Frontier #2.

Any ideas for exciting stuff that can happen during the board of inquiry?

Not sure you can make much exciting in anything involving a court scene, especially considering the case is pretty much open a shut. I guess the only real deciding factor is whether or not the hit caused a loss of life. If no, then a reduction in rank seems fair. If the tactical officer's deliberate reckless action caused deaths, then I don't see how you avoid sending the PC to prison.

Well, the intent might not be that readily available. Does the weapon system log clearly show that he punched in the wrong numbers? If the system was a 100% automated. there would not be any need for a skill to hit. The tactical officer would just work with prioritize targets and push the on/off button for the firing sequence.

So if there was any interference, the tactical officer needed to use his skill to compensate. But instead of compensating 20 meters to the right, he swapped the numbers and "accidentally" compensated 20 meters to the left.

If there was no provocation of any kind, or otherwise stressful and threatening, why was the warning shot ordered in the first place?

So depending on the situation in large, there might be some pressure to come up with a certain result ("We need to appease them, so we want him to be found guilty" vs. "If our officers need to second guess their every move, and are sacrificed any time they miscalculate, they will hesitate. That will cost the life of those who are willing to risk their life for our safety."

So besides it might not a clear cut case, there are quite the possibility for a political fight where the character finds himself a pawn in the battle. :D

From what I've read so far, this guy's career is toast.

Unless, of course, you can come up with some nice, dramatic sort of malfunction and have a cool "Kirk gets court-martialed for Ben Finney's untimely demise" sort of thing.

So. Wait.

Just to be sure: The officer deliberately disobeyed a direct order (hitting the shit with the shot), and in disobeying, potentially caused physical harm, and is now lying about their actions? Why? Should the board of inquiry be preceded by a psych evaluation?

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one seeing this as a black and white event. Shades of gray make for great TV and movie plots, but in a court of inquiry, things should be more clear cut. The sensor logs, bridge recordings, and eye witnesses will all show there wasn't any interference and that this soon to be ex-officer deliberately hit the other ship. To add insult to injury, they are lying to cover their actions. This is about as cut and dried a career ending case as is possible. Your player should start working on a new PC during the inquiry as their current one is going to be out of play for a very long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pericles

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one seeing this as a black and white event. Shades of gray make for great TV and movie plots, but in a court of inquiry, things should be more clear cut. The sensor logs, bridge recordings, and eye witnesses will all show there wasn't any interference and that this soon to be ex-officer deliberately hit the other ship. To add insult to injury, they are lying to cover their actions. This is about as cut and dried a career ending case as is possible. Your player should start working on a new PC during the inquiry as their current one is going to be out of play for a very long time.

---

Have you read the scenario in BTFF 2? Interference was present.

Even if there was not, however, your conclusions are wrong on a number of counts. We know what he did was wrong because we have perfect information. If this existed in real life, there would be no need for courts of law at all.

What the sensor logs will show is that he made a shot and it was into the path of a moving ship. What they will not, and cannot, show is intent. This is what makes courtroom drama. Evidence is often touted as fact, yet the key to court is how these facts are interpreted, and which side makes the compelling argument in favor of their interpretation. Remember, OJ was acquitted.

As the GM you need to detach yourself for what YOU know, and instead determine what the appropriate NPCs will know. First there will be a court of inquiry, which is like a grand jury. Like all courts under UCMJ jurisdiction the defense attorney will be more experienced and higher ranking than the prosecution. If the court returns an indictment then there will be a court martial.

The defense will contend that because of the sensor ghosts that were confusing sensors in this planetary system, the officer was attempting to compensate and fired a shot he believed would miss, but was in error. We know this is not true, but how will the prosecution counter?

The first officer, who was in charge on the bridge at the time, will also be under indictment. He will be asked why he ordered the warning shot against ships who were not firing weapons. He will be asked why he did not relieve Lt Commander Link as soon as the hit was scored. There will be plenty of hard questions to answer.

What might be the strangest indictment of all, however the most straightforward, will be the Captains. She will be charged, and of course her defense will be that she was in surgery at the time. As is generally the case, she will be held responsible for actions of her crew even if not present. Given the circumstances, its likely going to be nothing more than a formal reprimand.

What I want to avoid is a session of nothing but narration. I dont want to sit there and recount a story with little player interaction. The one PC who is not under indictment will play the part of the attorney representing the players. He will be 1 skill level higher than the prosecutor. He can present evidence and make objections. I will make the motions difficulties based on what I as the GM know to be true. But, if they can make significant arguments and get some help from the dice, maybe things might go well for the players.

I envision Link being indicted, then a plea agreement brokered by some friends in high places that in exchange for his immediate retirement they will drop charges. Rodriguez (the first officer) will get a strong reprimand and probation, while the captain will get a written reprimand.

The player who is playing Link is moving to Boise in a few weeks, so in effect this is the perfect way to say goodbye. We have a good reason to replace the character, and even though it looks bleak, his friends will come through and he will escape serious charges. Everyone else will be walking on eggshells for a while, they will be thoughtful and it should lead to increased tension.

I would like to have something interesting occur outside of the courtroom. Unknown to all of the other players, Link is a member of Starfleet Intelligence. He was certain this revolutionary faction was being bankrolled by the Romulans, and in the end he was right. Maybe one of the intelligence community delivers doctored information to him to make the plea agreement work, or maybe someone actually changes the ships records. Maybe that person is caught attempting it. I am just stumped trying to figure out what is a good direction to take this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

Have you read the scenario in BTFF 2? Interference was present.

---

I do not know the scenario, however, since you have chosen to call out my comments, I will quote your original post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

The first officer ordered him to send a shot across the bow of an enemy ship, and he deliberately hit the ship and claimed the interference which was present in the atmosphere disrupted their sensors and caused an accidental hit.

---

First, you stated that 'he claimed' that implies there wasn't sufficient interference to cause a problem. If there was enough interference, you should have been more clear as not everyone has access to Beyond the Final Frontier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

Even if there was not, however, your conclusions are wrong on a number of counts. We know what he did was wrong because we have perfect information. If this existed in real life, there would be no need for courts of law at all.

---

You are correct about not having perfect information in the 21st century, but in the 25th, the bridge records just about everything for later playback making the case very open and shut, therefore my conclusions are not wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

What the sensor logs will show is that he made a shot and it was into the path of a moving ship. What they will not, and cannot, show is intent.

---

True enough, however, in your original post you are the one who stated: "he deliberately hit the ship". The sensor logs and bridge recordings will show that his actions were no mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

This is what makes courtroom drama. Evidence is often touted as fact, yet the key to court is how these facts are interpreted, and which side makes the compelling argument in favor of their interpretation. Remember, OJ was acquitted.

---

Only because the LA Prosecutors office sucked out loud at jury selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

As the GM you need to detach yourself for what YOU know, and instead determine what the appropriate NPCs will know.

---

You can lose the condescending attitude. I've been a GM for 35 years, I know what meta-gaming is all about and with the recordings available from the bridge of a TNG Starfleet vessel, the court will have the same perfect knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

First there will be a court of inquiry, which is like a grand jury. Like all courts under UCMJ jurisdiction the defense attorney will be more experienced and higher ranking than the prosecution. If the court returns an indictment then there will be a court martial.

---

Having been the Army for 33 years I daresay I know what a court of inquiry is and how they work better than you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

The defense will contend that because of the sensor ghosts that were confusing sensors in this planetary system, the officer was attempting to compensate and fired a shot he believed would miss, but was in error. We know this is not true, but how will the prosecution counter?

---

Your original post asked how to make the court of inquiry interesting. Given the evidence the prosecution can present, the case is open and shut. However, you seem to have already decided on your course of action on how to make things interesting, so your original question seems rather moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

The first officer, who was in charge on the bridge at the time, will also be under indictment. [...]

What might be the strangest indictment of all, however the most straightforward, will be the Captains. [...]

---

As they should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

What I want to avoid is a session of nothing but narration. I dont want to sit there and recount a story with little player interaction.

---

Again, it already seems as if you have a plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

I envision Link being indicted, then a plea agreement brokered by some friends in high places that in exchange for his immediate retirement they will drop charges.

---

I completely disagree with this, but as long as no one on the other ship died, this is at least plausible. I would send the PC to prison for several years even if no one died, if someone did die, they would be a murderer and I would send them to jail for life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

The player who is playing Link is moving to Boise in a few weeks, so in effect this is the perfect way to say goodbye.

---

Since there will be no issues about the player being bent out of shape for losing their PC for their decisions, an open and shut case is just as valid as your method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

I would like to have something interesting occur outside of the courtroom. Unknown to all of the other players, Link is a member of Starfleet Intelligence. He was certain this revolutionary faction was being bankrolled by the Romulans, and in the end he was right. Maybe one of the intelligence community delivers doctored information to him to make the plea agreement work, or maybe someone actually changes the ships records. Maybe that person is caught attempting it. I am just stumped trying to figure out what is a good direction to take this.

---

Seems to me any of those options are valid. The only way this character can avoid jail is to take the bridge recordings out of the picture, otherwise the defense is a lost cause.

Well Mr Pericles, I have to say I cant agree with you at all. First of all, a claim has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the statement. I can claim there are 60 seconds in a minute just as clearly as I can claim there are 6 feet in a mile. There is no implication inherent. The assumption was yours alone, and not present in the original language.

And about whether everyone has access to BTFF, they are free on the internet. I contend everyone has access to them, though it is likely everyone does not own them. I specifically stated immediately what the scenario was, and you commented on it without doing any research about what it was.

The information in the 25th century is still imperfect in this case. What about the ships computer measures intent? Do people still make mistakes in the 25th century?

Nothing I said was an attack on you, it was a response to what you said. There was no condescension inherent in my language. I disagreed with you, and you happened to have been the last post in the thread so I quoted you.

PS: Are you sure you know more about military justice than me? I was in the navy and I studied law. I think the biggest issue here is assumptions. I am not after a pissing match, and I dont care about your qualifications vs mine. All I care about is getting other ideas from people, not 'winning'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

Well Mr Pericles, I have to say I cant agree with you at all.

---

And that is a two way street. I'm not sure why you bothered to ask your question as going by your statements, you have already decided what you want to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

First of all, a claim has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the statement. I can claim there are 60 seconds in a minute just as clearly as I can claim there are 6 feet in a mile. There is no implication inherent. The assumption was yours alone, and not present in the original language.

---

You are welcome to attempt to change the meaning of your original post, but the definition of 'is' is always going to be 'is'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

And about whether everyone has access to BTFF, they are free on the internet. I contend everyone has access to them, though it is likely everyone does not own them.

---

This is like saying because there is a book in the library, everyone has read it. I've heard of BTFF, but since I do not use CODA, I do not use the material except as reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

I specifically stated immediately what the scenario was, and you commented on it without doing any research about what it was.

---

You asked if there was a way to make a court of inquiry interesting and then proceeded to describe a situation where, based on your flawed description, made the answer no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

The information in the 25th century is still imperfect in this case. What about the ships computer measures intent? Do people still make mistakes in the 25th century?

---

The computer can clearly register whether there is sufficient interference to make the PC's claims plausible. The findings of any board of inquiry with access to Starfleet caliber bridge records will find the PC acted deliberately or with criminal incompetence, either way, the PC will be found guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

PS: Are you sure you know more about military justice than me? I was in the navy and I studied law.

---

Lucky you. I don't wish to be condescending, but I did say 'I daresay'. Just as you implied you knew more about being a GM than I, you have made some flawed assumptions as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tunglashr

All I care about is getting other ideas from people, not 'winning'.

---

However, going by the fact you seem to have already made up your mind what you want to do, your original question seems to be more along the line of seeking validation rather than in obtaining ideas. If you didn't want an answer other than what you wanted, you shouldn't bother asking questions.

Now since I do not wish to be in a pissing contest either, you asked a question, I gave an answer, you didn't like it, and we now have polar opinions about the topic. That ends the discussion in my book.

How about letting the other players vote as members of the jury? That'd take some of the burden off your shoulders.

In case of a guilty verdict you could take Tom Paris' rather similar case as an example?

(taken from memory alpha) Tom Paris was discharged from Starfleet when he tried to cover up a piloting error on his behalf which led to the deaths of three fellow officers at Caldik Prime, joined the Maquis for a few weeks before he was captured on his first mission and served 18 months in the Federation Penal Settlement in New Zealand until he was granted removal and assigned to the USS Voyager as an observer, by permission of Captain Kathryn Janeway

Imagine my delight and surprise when, after reviewing the thread, I discovered that the scenario being used was Safe Passage.

I might have to widen the door-ways at home in order to squeeze my head through them (at least till the swelling goes down).


I have to agree with tunglashr (and nearly everyone else here) that the bridge recordings and fire control records will show only actions- not intent.

And intent (or more specifically, reckless disregard for the orders he was given) is what must be proven if Starfleet wishes to put this character away for any length of time.

The demonstrable facts (as posted) are these:

• The ship was standing into an already tense situation and her Rules of Engagement were clear: she could only fire her weapons in defense of herself or others.
  
• The Takare vessels were acting in a threatening fashion, but had not yet attacked.
  
• The tactical officer was ordered to fire a warning shot across the target vessels, but instead struck the vessel.
  
• Despite damage to the target vessel, ship and crew were apparently able to extricate themselves from the situation without further incident.
  

Anything else is inference and guesswork.

Even IF the bridge recordings and transcripts show that the Tactical Officer adjusted his aim several times before taking that "perfect" final shot, it can still be chalked up to "poor judgement". Unless the officer in question incriminates himself (which a good prosecutor might trick him into doing), intent is almost impossible to prove from the evidence alone.

It's up to Starfleet to prove that the shot wasn't an accident- and proving a negative is damned near impossible.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, as to spicing up the Court-martial:

I can think of a number of ways to approach the problem.......

First, you might add in a sub-plot which serves as fore-shadowing and as a parallel to Link's case- perhaps a situation in which he must counsel a junior officer (who idolizes him) to stand up and tell the whole truth.
Dramatically speaking, this can be the most powerful of the possible approaches and draw your characters into really examining their motives and personalities(think of Picard and Wesley Crusher following the Nova Squadron incident).
Resolve the young apprentice's problem by standing up and being forthright- and then hoist Link on that same petard......





Second, you might drop a hint that the prosecution is going to bring in a Betazoid as a "ringer" to testify about Link's state of mind and truthfulness.
Heck- the rumor might even be true. :D

You can then raise and explore questions about the Link's fundamental rights to privacy and against self-incrimination when there are mind-readers about.

Depending upon how ruthless your players are (and/or their political backers), this could turn into a Section 31-esque game of ploy and counter-ploy as the various factions strive to impeach (or worse) the witnesses for the other side.





Third (and this is my favorite, but the most work), Romulan agents at the station might coordinate an attack on the ship in the midst of the court-martial.

The heroes know that the Romulans were behind (or at least supported) the coup d'etat on Takare- but without the records recorded by their starship, who'd beleive them?

So.....while researching the ship's records in order to assemble a defense, the heroes discover several attempts (as yet unsuccessful) to infiltrate the ship's computer core and alter her records.

The heroes now have a genuine mystery to explore.

Was it Link and his backers trying to destroy incriminating information?

Was it the prosecutor trying to plant incriminating information?

Was it an unknown third-party? And if so, what were they after?

This third option gives Link a chance to go out in a blaze of glory, rather than ignominy. Yes, he stands accused- but he helped unmask the Romulan spies operating at the starbase.

Lots of room for drama and adventure there.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As far as reprimands for the senior officers go, in my book the Captain gets off scot-free.

Having been in surgery, he was medically unfit for duty- and cannot legally or morally be held responsible for the actions of his crew. Simply put- he wasn't captain while this went down; his XO was.

As Acting-Captain, the XO is responsible for the conduct of his officers and crew- but he also has a number of defenses at hand.

First, the order to fire a warning shot was given in good faith, and the Exec had every assurance that it would be carried out in good faith. Even if it is proven that Link wilfully disregarded the Rules of Engagement, the Exec had no reason to believe that an otherwise trustworthy officer would behave in this fashion.

In short, as Acting Captain, the XO is legally responsible- but not necessarily legally culpable. There is a difference.

Unless the prosecution can demonstrate that the XO was in a position to reasonably know that Link was acting in direct contravention to his lawful orders, he cannot be held criminally responsible.

Unless lives were lost, the worst that would happen to the XO is to receive a letter of reprimand in his service jacket (which under normal circumstances all but guarantees he'll never be promoted again, let alone have a command of his own).

Unless willful intent to disregard orders were proven, Link would be looking at roughly the same thing.


Now- if lives were lost (the summary wasn't clear), then the situation is much bleaker. At bare minimum, the XO and Link are looking at letters of reprimand, and loss of rank at the very least. The XO might even find himself relieved and sent to some god-forsaken shore post on the fringes of oblivion.

Unless the fates (Starfleet Intelligence) intervened, Link would undoubtedly be cashiered from the Service, and dishonorably discharged (though SFI may keep him on the payroll to do their behind-the-scenes dirty work).

If it were proven that Link acted with malice (meaning that the shot was no accident), then Link IS looking at prison time for murder.

The Narrator/GM has some leeway here because he's playing the Judge Advocate (the Prosecutor). If the JA doesn't believe he can make the case stick, he'll go for lesser charges.

He might also be leaned on by the heavies in Starfleet Intelligence to do just that-starting up the game of intrigue mentioned above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selek

Even IF the bridge recordings and transcripts show that the Tactical Officer adjusted his aim several times before taking that "perfect" final shot, it can still be chalked up to "poor judgement".

---

Obviously no one can truly speak for Starfleet regulations, but in the modern American military, judgment this bad is more than enough grounds to end the officer's career. He might avoid jail time, but they would be forced to resign in disgrace at the very least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selek

As far as reprimands for the senior officers go, in my book the Captain gets off scot-free.

Having been in surgery, he was medically unfit for duty- and cannot legally or morally be held responsible for the actions of his crew. Simply put- he wasn't captain while this went down; his XO was.

---

Again in the modern American military, he would not. The commander is responsible for everything their crew does or fails to do. At the very least he will be receiving a letter of reprimand. US Navy captains are routinely found at fault even if they aren't even aboard their ship at the time of an accident as the captain is responsible for the proper training of their crew. Two US Navy captains were relieved on the spot when their ships collided when both were aboard the flag ship for a meeting with the admiral. This also applies to civilian ship masters. Google the 1934 ship disaster "Morro Castle". A board of inquiry found the master guilty of negligence even though he was DEAD when the fire started!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selek

As Acting-Captain, the XO is responsible for the conduct of his officers and crew- but he also has a number of defenses at hand.

First, the order to fire a warning shot was given in good faith, and the Exec had every assurance that it would be carried out in good faith. Even if it is proven that Link wilfully disregarded the Rules of Engagement, the Exec had no reason to believe that an otherwise trustworthy officer would behave in this fashion.

---

This one is more of a gray area. In the original post, firing a warning shot was implied to have been unnecessary. If this is true, then he's screwed for giving the order to fire. If not, he did have the reasonable expectation that his orders would be properly followed. However, given that the captain is at fault, a hard ass court will find the XO guilty as well.

Obviously using modern maritime law and US Navy precedent is an imperfect model for anything fictional, but if you do use those models, the careers of all three of these officers are over. The tac officer is going to jail while the XO and the Captain will have letters of reprimand that will ensure they never see another promotion or hold a command ever again.

Now if you want to through away the facts in order to have a more melodramatic story, which is every GM's right, then anything is possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pericles

Obviously no one can truly speak for Starfleet regulations, but in the modern American military, judgment this bad is more than enough grounds to end the officer's career. He might avoid jail time, but they would be forced to resign in disgrace at the very least.

---

And are United States Army tank gunners court-martialed and forced to resign in disgrace for errant rounds? Or is the standard somewhat higher?

Are United States Navy gunners court-martialed and forced to resign in disgrace for rounds that go astray? Or is the standard somewhat higher?

Are United States Air Force pilots and bombardiers court-martialed and forced to resign in disgrace for bombs that go astray? Or is the standard somewhat higher?

In point of fact, errant rounds and munitions are considered facts of life unless and until careless disregard, negligence, or recklessness are demonstrated to be a factor.

Collatoral damage due to errant rounds is considered a regrettable but unavoidable fact of life- unless and until someone acts carelessly or stupidly.

Unless and until the prosecution can DEMONSTRATE that the officer in question deliberately disregarded his orders, acted recklessly, or engaged in carelessness, they cannot consider that "errant" shot to be anything more than "just one of those things".

Quote:

---

Again in the modern American military, he would not. The commander is responsible for everything their crew does or fails to do. At the very least he will be receiving a letter of reprimand. US Navy captains are routinely found at fault even if they aren't even aboard their ship at the time of an accident as the captain is responsible for the proper training of their crew.
This also applies to civilian ship masters. Google the 1934 ship disaster "Morro Castle". A board of inquiry found the master guilty of negligence even though he was DEAD when the fire started!

---

Actually, you just undermined your own position. The standard by which each of these captains were hung was "negligence"- that the vessel commanders should have had rules and policies in place that would have prevented the accident (or had they been aboard, should have acted to prevent it).

Unless the Judge Advocate can demonstrate that the Captain or XO should have reasonably been able to prevent this incident, then there is no case.

Is there any evidence that this incident resulted from negligence? Is there any evidence that one or more of the officers was in a position to have prevented the accident?

Is there any evidence that this accident took place due to improper training, a lack of training, or lax policies and sloppiness aboard ship?

In short- is there any evidence whatever that the Captain bears ANY culpability for the outcome of this event?

In every example you cited above, such evidence existed.

Can you demonstrate that it does so here?

Quote:

---

Two US Navy captains were relieved on the spot when their ships collided when both were aboard the flag ship for a meeting with the admiral.

---

I'd like to see more information on this one. A LOT more.

What were the findings of the Navy board? Who was directly culpable for the accident, and how was it determined that the Captains could have prevented it?

Until you present some sort of evidence to back up this charge, you're simply repeating urban legends.

The commanders of the U.S.S. Greenville, U.S.S. Nashville (known in the fleet as the "Smash-ville" for her repeated collisions) and at least one other vessel were releaved in the last decade for palpable negligence- meaning they should have prevented the accident.

Other commanders- who demonstrated that they could not reasonably have avoided collisions- were not.

Here's an example:
http://www.adjunct.diodon349.com/Vet...y_magazine.htm

Here's another; the crew of the New Orleans- who could not have reasonably avoided the collision- were not punished in any way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Har...eans_collision

Far more salient to this topic, however, the U.S.S. Saratoga (CV-60) was involved in at least two friendly fire incidents. In neither case was her Commanding officer or Exec releived, nor, apparently, did her officers receive more than a letter of reprimand.

The first took place on 22 September 1987, a F-14A Tomcat of VF-74 out of NAS Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia, operating from the USS Saratoga, accidentally shot down a USAF RF-4C-22-MC Phantom II of the 26th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing, out of Zweibrucken Air Base, West Germany during a NATO exercise. Both RF-4C crew ejected and were rescued by a helicopter from the Saratoga within 30 minutes, suffering numerous injuries.
The Tomcat pilot was duly disciplined and permanently removed from flying status.

Note that this report does not say "disgraced and discharged from service". Nor does it suggest that the Commanding Officer of VF-74 was relieved or received a letter of reprimand.

The second incident involved the Turkish vessel Muavenet.

On 2 October 1992 Saratoga was taking part in "Exercise Display Determination 1992", a combined forces naval exercise. Saratoga's Combat Direction Center Officer aboard Saratoga decided to launch a simulated attack on nearby opposition forces, and after securing the approval of Saratoga's Commanding Officer and the Battle Group Commander, the CDC Officer implemented the simulated assault plan. Without providing prior notice, officers on Saratoga woke the enlisted Sea Sparrow missile team and directed them to conduct the simulated attack. Certain members of the missile firing team were not told that the exercise was a drill, rather than an actual event.

As the drill progressed, the missile system operator used language to indicate he was preparing to fire a live missile, but due to the absence of standard terminology, the responsible officers failed to appreciate the significance of the terms used and the requests made. Specifically, the Target Acquisition System operator issued the command "arm and tune", terminology the console operators understood to require arming of the missiles in preparation for actual firing. The officers supervising the drill did not realize that "arm and tune" signified a live firing. As a result, Saratoga fired two live Sea Sparrow missiles at Muavenet destroying her bridge and Combat Information Center, killing five ( including the commanding officer) and injuring most of the Turkish ship's officers.

The sailors who actually fired the missiles were not punished, but the ship's commanding officer, Captain James M. Drager[1], four officers and three enlisted men received admiral's non-judicial punishment, an action that the New York Times stated would effectively end their US Navy careers.[2]

In other words- they received letters of reprimand in lieu of courts-martials.

In this instance, Captain Drager and his officers were found guilty of negligence- meaning that they should have known what the terminology being used meant and that they should have clarified that this was a drill, not a live-fire.

No one was court-martialed for this incident, and Captain Drager was not relieved. He later retired and became Vice President of Corporate Shipbuilding for Carnival Cruise lines.

Quote:

---

This one is more of a gray area. In the original post, firing a warning shot was implied to have been unnecessary.

---

Actually- that's your interpretation of the original post. Others disagree.

In-game and in-character, it is up to a Board of Inquiry to decide whether or not such action was necessary. It is not self-evident that such action was unecessary, and as has been noted before- Starfleet tends to accept the word of the man on the scene in such instances.

Quote:

---

If this is true, then he's screwed for giving the order to fire. If not, he did have the reasonable expectation that his orders would be properly followed.

---

Thank you for the aquittal. You just exonerated my client.

Quote:

---

However, given that the captain is at fault, a hard ass court will find the XO guilty as well.

---

IN YOUR OPINION. Unless and until you can demonstrate that the Captain could reasonably have prevented the action, you have no evidence that the Captain (or acting captain) was at fault.

Quote:

---

Obviously using modern maritime law and US Navy precedent is an imperfect model for anything fictional, but if you do use those models, the careers of all three of these officers are over.

---

In YOUR opinion. Reasonable minds disagree, and have presented precedent to contradict your rather binary assertion.

Quote:

---

The tac officer is going to jail while the XO and the Captain will have letters of reprimand that will ensure they never see another promotion or hold a command ever again.

---

As has been amply demonstrated- not necessarily.

Before Starfleet can issue letters of reprimand to anyone other than the Tactical officer, they will have to demonstrate that said officers were both responsible and culpable and that they were in a reasonable position to have prevented the accident.

If the XO exercised reasonable judgement and discretion in ordering the warning shot to be fired (and knowing all of the circumstances in the scenario, he did), then you have no case against him. He acted prudently and responsibly.

No letter of reprimand, no court-martial.

Unless you can demonstrate that the Tactical Officer willfully disregarded orders or was criminally negligent, then you have no case against him, either.

Again, no letter of reprimand and no court-martial.


Unless you can demonstrate that the Commanding Officer, greivously wounded and under a physicians care at the time of the incident, could have reasonably (by either policy or direct action) prevented the incident, then you have no case against him, either.

Again, no letter of reprimand and no court-martial.

Simply put, the "case" against the Commanding and Executive officers boils down to two questions:

"Did the officer in question respond prudently and responsibly to potential threats against his ship?"

"Could the officer in question have reasonably prevented the hit against the Takare vessel?"

Unless you can convince a Board of Inquiry to answer "no" to both questions, then they walk.




The case against the Tactical Officer is equally simple:

"Is there any evidence to support the accusation that the Tactical Officer deliberately attacked a 'neutral' vessel in direct contravention of his orders?"

Unless you can convince a Board of Inquiry to answer "yes" to this question, a full court-martial is unlikely.

"Is there any evidence that the Tactical Officer acted negligently or irresponsibly?"

Unless you can convince a Board of Inquiry to answer "yes" to this question, then he too walks.

Quote:

---

Now if you want to through away the facts in order to have a more melodramatic story, which is every GM's right, then anything is possible.

---

You have a remarkably broad and curiously arbitrary definition of the word "fact".

I still think a preliminary psychological examination might be in order first. In this particular case, the question of what the officer's motive for disobeying the order is perhaps more salient.