Of course 'some' of the circumstances of the first incident carried over to the second.
The principle circumstance that did not carry over was any identification of weapons. No weapons were identified in the second incident
'Maybe he has a weapon down in his hand?', 'No, I haven't seen one yet'.
 
'We have one individual moving, we're looking for weapons, if we see a weapon we're gonna engage'. A full 360 degree sweep of the area was made and still no weapons were seen.
It is impossible to pick up weapons in an area where there are no weapons.
It was false information to introduce the possibility of weapons being picked up in an area known to be weaponless. But, unfortunately, it appears entirely consistent with the constant urging to 'let me engage'.
 
I am discussing, and Mr Spinkles was previously discussing, the 'van' incident, which occured some 100 metres, or so, distant from the initial engagement.
The presence or perception of weapons did not govern this incident.
 
I do not know if these people from the van were 'good Samaritans' or not. My reasonable assumption, based on what I can see of their actions, leads me to the conclusion that they were, indeed, 'good Samaritans'.
The servicemen could see, through the camera, just what I can. And I have difficulty understanding how any observer could come to the conclusion that they were not 'good Samaritans' - let alone how any could come to the conclusion that they were a threat to coalition forces.
How is rendering assistance to the wounded and picking up bodies a threat to the extent that 'we need to stop that'?