223559 Bullies, 4208 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 131 to 140 of 180
Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41011121314 15161718 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Diesel_tke is offline
    Diesel_tke's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    4,006

    Posted On:
    4/22/2010 8:08pm

    supporting member
     Style: stick,Taiji, mountainbike

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Yeah, it would be fun to live in a world where law was black and white and guilty people went to jail and innocent people went free. But we don't live in that world. Sense has a lot to do with it. Criminal cases have to deal with a reasonable doubt. You must also have mens rhea. It is not simply a tally board where you put up all of the good evidence vs. the bad evidence.

    While I'm not very familiar with the UCMJ, I am familiar with law and this free society that you are serving to protect.
    Combatives training log.

    Gezere: paraphrase from Bas Rutten, Never escalate the level of violence in fight you are losing. :D

    Drum thread

    Pavel Tsatsouline: kettlebell workouts give you “cardio without the dishonour of aerobics”.
  2. Matt Stone is offline
    Matt Stone's Avatar

    U.S. Army

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wahiawa, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,246

    Posted On:
    4/22/2010 8:20pm

    supporting member
     Style: FMA, CMA, & more

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by diesel_tke View Post
    Yeah, it would be fun to live in a world where law was black and white and guilty people went to jail and innocent people went free. But we don't live in that world. Sense has a lot to do with it. Criminal cases have to deal with a reasonable doubt. You must also have mens rhea. It is not simply a tally board where you put up all of the good evidence vs. the bad evidence.

    While I'm not very familiar with the UCMJ, I am familiar with law and this free society that you are serving to protect.
    Well, as a career Army paralegal, with my primary focus being military justice and the UCMJ, it is much less "sense" and much more "evidence." Simple questions - did the service member in question abuse the detainee? Answer "yes" or "no." There's not much intuition that needs to go into it.

    Bottom line - if a bad guy is detained by the good guys, the good guys cannot now, nor can they ever in the future, nor were they ever legally allowed to do so in the past, rough up, injure, or in any way cause additional pain, suffering, etc., once the bad guy is in custody. If they do, then they're criminals, too. I don't care how many good things the guy has done in the past, if he breaks the law he breaks the law. His good record will come into play during sentencing, but if there's evidence to support his having broken the law, his criminal conduct is no longer up for debate.

    Too many Uhmurikans are too quick to endorse abuses because "they're thuh bad guys," failing immediately to understand that our efforts to bring the rule of law to these countries are gutted if we don't follow the laws ourselves...
  3. Diesel_tke is offline
    Diesel_tke's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    4,006

    Posted On:
    4/22/2010 8:32pm

    supporting member
     Style: stick,Taiji, mountainbike

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Stone View Post
    Simple questions - did the service member in question abuse the detainee? Answer "yes" or "no."
    I just don't think that the question is that simple. There is a lot more that goes into apprehending, controlling, and transporting a detainee then simply getting him into custody and delivering him to a location. Did the detainee resist? Did he try to escape? Did he refuse to comply with verbal orders? If he did none of those things and ended up beat up, then the answer is yes. If he did any of those things, then it goes into a different line of questioning.

    I'm deeply offended by those non-serving know-nothings who endorse our devolving to the level of the primitive screwheads we're fighting against.
    I despise lawyers who get to ask questions about use of force situations when they have never been in a similar situation. I hate defense attorneys that argue for Inmate's rights against someone who tweaked an arm too hard on accident when the adrenaline is pumping. Or when he bruises he face because he did a face plant after he swung on me and I put him down a little harder than he would have liked it.
    Combatives training log.

    Gezere: paraphrase from Bas Rutten, Never escalate the level of violence in fight you are losing. :D

    Drum thread

    Pavel Tsatsouline: kettlebell workouts give you “cardio without the dishonour of aerobics”.
  4. Madgrenade is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Middlesex
    Posts
    365

    Posted On:
    4/22/2010 8:39pm


     Style: Tiger Crane combination

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I guess a soldier bears an extra burden of responsibility because of his training and what he is capable of. Respect for Matt Stone. If it wasn't for internal, objective people working within to uphold the law, who knows how far it could go, especially with modern weapons. As for hating attorneys who stick up for inmates rights, as a soldier/ police officer, part of your job is to control yourself when your "adrenaline is pumping." Otherwise any bastard could do it. Amirite?
  5. TheRuss is offline
    TheRuss's Avatar

    is badder than you

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334

    Posted On:
    4/22/2010 8:41pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by diesel_tke View Post
    I despise lawyers who get to ask questions about use of force situations when they have never been in a similar situation. I hate defense attorneys that argue for Inmate's rights against someone who tweaked an arm too hard on accident when the adrenaline is pumping. Or when he bruises he face because he did a face plant after he swung on me and I put him down a little harder than he would have liked it.
    Guess how I feel about LEOs who are okay with people who break the law and cover it up just so long as they're wearing a uniform.
    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas View Post
    Downstreet on the flip-flop, timepants.
  6. Matt Stone is offline
    Matt Stone's Avatar

    U.S. Army

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wahiawa, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,246

    Posted On:
    4/22/2010 8:43pm

    supporting member
     Style: FMA, CMA, & more

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by diesel_tke View Post
    I just don't think that the question is that simple.
    You demonstrate for me that it really is that simple.

    There is a lot more that goes into apprehending, controlling, and transporting a detainee then simply getting him into custody and delivering him to a location.
    What more is there?

    Did the detainee resist? Did he try to escape? Did he refuse to comply with verbal orders? If he did none of those things and ended up beat up, then the answer is yes.
    The answer is "yes, the service member is justified in his use of force to subdue the detainee," and the contrary position is that if the detainee did none of those things then the service member is a criminal for having assaulted, unnecessarily, someone entrusted to his care and protection.

    Thank you for proving my point for me.

    I despise lawyers who get to ask questions about use of force situations when they have never been in a similar situation. I hate defense attorneys that argue for Inmate's rights against someone who tweaked an arm too hard on accident when the adrenaline is pumping. Or when he bruises he face because he did a face plant after he swung on me and I put him down a little harder than he would have liked it.
    Perhaps, but it's not their job to be in that situation. It is their job to ensure that all parties are adequately represented, and that the law is upheld. If you are entrusted with the care of a detainee (civilian or military), then you cannot abuse that individual. If you use more force than is necessary, you were wrong. Period. It really is that simple. "Did you have to kill him?" Yes or no? If "yes," you'd be exonerated. If "no," then you failed and discipline is in order. Certainly there are gradations from each end of the spectrum as to what level of force is necessary. That's where the evidence comes in...

    Now that we're back full circle, it isn't about "sense," it's about evidence, nothing more.
  7. Diesel_tke is offline
    Diesel_tke's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    4,006

    Posted On:
    4/22/2010 8:46pm

    supporting member
     Style: stick,Taiji, mountainbike

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRuss View Post
    Guess how I feel about LEOs who are okay with people who break the law and cover it up just so long as they're wearing a uniform.
    I never said anything about breaking the law or covering it up. It is within the authorized use of force guidelines. But that doesn't keep you from getting put on the stand EVERY time you have a use of force. I hate a dirty cop more than any of you, because he makes the job 10 times harder. And we deal with the public looking at us like the bad guys, just because he decided to make some bad choices.
    Combatives training log.

    Gezere: paraphrase from Bas Rutten, Never escalate the level of violence in fight you are losing. :D

    Drum thread

    Pavel Tsatsouline: kettlebell workouts give you “cardio without the dishonour of aerobics”.
  8. TheRuss is offline
    TheRuss's Avatar

    is badder than you

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334

    Posted On:
    4/22/2010 8:53pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by diesel_tke View Post
    I never said anything about breaking the law or covering it up.
    In case you didn't notice, that happens to be what this entire thread is about.

    A U.S. sailor testified Wednesday he saw a Navy SEAL punch an Iraqi prisoner suspected of masterminding the killings in 2004 of four U.S. private security contractors, as the court-martial of another member of the elite unit allegedly involved in the incident opened at a military base outside Baghdad.

    Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas, wearing his blue Navy uniform, appeared in a military courtroom at the Victory Base Camp on Baghdad's western outskirts to answer charges of dereliction of duty and impeding an official investigation. He has pleaded not guilty.

    Huertas, 28, of Blue Island, Illinois, is the first of three Navy SEALs to go on trial in connection with the alleged assault of the Iraqi prisoner, Ahmed Hashim Abed. He is accused of failing to safeguard the prisoner and trying to get Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Kevin Demartino to lie about having witnessed the assault.
    - http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...xrs0gD9F7CMT80
    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas View Post
    Downstreet on the flip-flop, timepants.
  9. Madgrenade is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Middlesex
    Posts
    365

    Posted On:
    4/22/2010 8:53pm


     Style: Tiger Crane combination

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by diesel_tke View Post
    I never said anything about breaking the law or covering it up. It is within the authorized use of force guidelines. But that doesn't keep you from getting put on the stand EVERY time you have a use of force. I hate a dirty cop more than any of you, because he makes the job 10 times harder. And we deal with the public looking at us like the bad guys, just because he decided to make some bad choices.

    From the looks of this you're all singing from the same book. So the real question is- Did the SEALS give him a smack in the mouth while taking him into custody, or did they beat him up afterward?
  10. Mr. Machette is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,673

    Posted On:
    4/22/2010 8:53pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: FMA, Ego Warrior

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Stone View Post
    It's not an issue of "sense." It's an issue of evidence. Just because there's a conflict raging does not excuse the conduct of military professionals, most especially those who are most highly trained. If they abuse a detainee, they've violated the laws with which we govern our military. The nature of the detainee does not eliminate the service member's obligation to obey military laws and regulations.

    If our military fails to adhere to the rules, regulations, traditions and laws we claim to adhere to, we cease being military professionals and we become armed thugs. Without those rules to govern our behavior, we are no better than the enemy we battle against, and frankly, as a combat veteran, I'm deeply offended by those non-serving know-nothings who endorse our devolving to the level of the primitive screwheads we're fighting against.
    Wouldn't you say that punishment for roughing up an enemy combatant is akin to handing out speeding tickets at a formula one race though?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.