I do not presume to judge this or any particular case, Garaman, but I'm reminded of a scene in the film Mutiny on the Bounty (Brando version). Trevor Howard as Bligh at the court-marshall. Judges' summary:
"The court considers it has obligation to add comment to its verdict... you, Captain William Bligh, stand absolved of military misdeed. Yet, officers of stainless record and seamen voluntarily all were moved to mutiny... Your methods..., show what we shall cautiously term an excess of zeal. We cannot condemn zeal. We cannot rebuke an officer who has administered discipline according to the articles of war but the articles are fallible, as any articles are bound to be. No code can cover all contingencies. We cannot put justice aboard our ships in books. Justice and decency are carried in the heart of the captain, or they be not aboard. It is for this reason that the Admiralty has always sought to appoint its officers from the ranks of gentlemen. The court regrets to note that the appointment of Captain William Bligh was, in that respect, a failure."
You could recast moral observation in the current or similar context:
"...what we shall cautiously term an excess of prudence. We cannot condemn prudence. We cannot rebuke an officer who has observed caution according to the Terms and Conditions of his contract of employent...We cannot put courage and self-sacrifice in books.....they are carried in the hearts of...in this respect we [may have] failed".
Need I go on?