-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
- Thread starter Louis Corkern
- Start date
Re: US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
Saw that this morning while surfing the web, great news.
Always love to see justice be done where it deserves to be.
Saw that this morning while surfing the web, great news.
Always love to see justice be done where it deserves to be.
Re: US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
Stupid ass case in the first place, but good.
Stupid ass case in the first place, but good.
Re: US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
"Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class <span style="font-style: italic">Kevin DeMartino</span>, who was assigned to process and transport the prisoner and is not a SEAL, testified he saw one SEAL punch the prisoner in the stomach and watched blood spurt from his mouth"
Wouldn't that just be a shame if some unfortunate accident happened to him in the future. Shitting on his fellow sailors, fucking scumbag.
"Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class <span style="font-style: italic">Kevin DeMartino</span>, who was assigned to process and transport the prisoner and is not a SEAL, testified he saw one SEAL punch the prisoner in the stomach and watched blood spurt from his mouth"
Wouldn't that just be a shame if some unfortunate accident happened to him in the future. Shitting on his fellow sailors, fucking scumbag.
Re: US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
The abuse part never bothered me personally, it was the charges of tampering with the investigation and lying under oath that looked much worse. I'm glad to see this resolution - that Navy witness sounds like he needs to be brought up on charges though.
The abuse part never bothered me personally, it was the charges of tampering with the investigation and lying under oath that looked much worse. I'm glad to see this resolution - that Navy witness sounds like he needs to be brought up on charges though.
Re: US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
The dude went before a military jury, and justice was done. No military jury would have convicted him, period. A "jury of peers" is not an accidental principle, it's key in safeguarding our justice system, whether inside the military or out.
The dude went before a military jury, and justice was done. No military jury would have convicted him, period. A "jury of peers" is not an accidental principle, it's key in safeguarding our justice system, whether inside the military or out.
Re: US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
Thank God! I'm sure that Petty Officer that felt so offended will have a hard time sleeping at sea. I'm surprised they took 2 hours to deliberate.
I think the prosecutor's comment should give the rest of them a mistrial. Very unprofessional.
Thank God! I'm sure that Petty Officer that felt so offended will have a hard time sleeping at sea. I'm surprised they took 2 hours to deliberate.
I think the prosecutor's comment should give the rest of them a mistrial. Very unprofessional.
Re: US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
This is a sign of the future of our military. You're notgoing ot be able to shoot at anyone or hurt anyone's feelings without the Gov trying to put you in jail.
This is a sign of the future of our military. You're notgoing ot be able to shoot at anyone or hurt anyone's feelings without the Gov trying to put you in jail.
Re: US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
next time this happens every active duty serviceman should put down his rifle and take a sick day. see how that goes over......
next time this happens every active duty serviceman should put down his rifle and take a sick day. see how that goes over......
Re: US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
This is very good news. A terrorist who we are at war with as a witness?? Seriously?
This is very good news. A terrorist who we are at war with as a witness?? Seriously?
Re: US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
They should nit have been charged in the first place. I wish they would be more aggressive with the real enemies.
They should nit have been charged in the first place. I wish they would be more aggressive with the real enemies.
Re: US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shot In The Dark</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is a sign of the future of our military. You're notgoing ot be able to shoot at anyone or hurt anyone's feelings without the Gov trying to put you in jail. </div></div>
You think this is new?
I wouldn't have wanted to serve in a military of vigilantes who did whatever they want, totally contrary to UCMJ or the orders of their superiors.
This man received a fair and impartial trial and was judged by a panel of his peers. It seems that everything worked out just fine.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shot In The Dark</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is a sign of the future of our military. You're notgoing ot be able to shoot at anyone or hurt anyone's feelings without the Gov trying to put you in jail. </div></div>
You think this is new?
I wouldn't have wanted to serve in a military of vigilantes who did whatever they want, totally contrary to UCMJ or the orders of their superiors.
This man received a fair and impartial trial and was judged by a panel of his peers. It seems that everything worked out just fine.
Re: US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This man received a fair and impartial trial and was judged by a panel of his peers. It seems that everything worked out just fine. </div></div>
I have to disagree. Even when a defendant prevails, the legal proceedings can be devastating - financially, emotionally, etc. I hope these SEALs can get past this and get their careers back on track, but it would not surprise me at all if they became disillusioned and left the military. In my opinion, for actions taken in a war zone charges should only be brought in the most extreme cases where the proof is overwhelming. From what I know of the government's evidence in the SEALs' case, it was questionable from the start.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This man received a fair and impartial trial and was judged by a panel of his peers. It seems that everything worked out just fine. </div></div>
I have to disagree. Even when a defendant prevails, the legal proceedings can be devastating - financially, emotionally, etc. I hope these SEALs can get past this and get their careers back on track, but it would not surprise me at all if they became disillusioned and left the military. In my opinion, for actions taken in a war zone charges should only be brought in the most extreme cases where the proof is overwhelming. From what I know of the government's evidence in the SEALs' case, it was questionable from the start.
Re: US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 500grains</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This man received a fair and impartial trial and was judged by a panel of his peers. It seems that everything worked out just fine. </div></div>
I have to disagree. Even when a defendant prevails, the legal proceedings can be devastating - financially, emotionally, etc. I hope these SEALs can get past this and get their careers back on track, but it would not surprise me at all if they became disillusioned and left the military. In my opinion, for actions taken in a war zone charges should only be brought in the most extreme cases where the proof is overwhelming. From what I know of the government's evidence in the SEALs' case, it was questionable from the start. </div></div>
Perhaps in the civilian system.
This man got free counsel at public expense and was exonerated. Should there have been more of a "filter" at the prosecution's end? Perhaps. But if there were factual circumstances that suggested a crime took place, that is a question for a jury and that is why we have trials.
These guys could have taken a reprimand, but instead, they did the smart thing and demanded a court martial. I would have done the exact same thing in their shoes.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 500grains</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This man received a fair and impartial trial and was judged by a panel of his peers. It seems that everything worked out just fine. </div></div>
I have to disagree. Even when a defendant prevails, the legal proceedings can be devastating - financially, emotionally, etc. I hope these SEALs can get past this and get their careers back on track, but it would not surprise me at all if they became disillusioned and left the military. In my opinion, for actions taken in a war zone charges should only be brought in the most extreme cases where the proof is overwhelming. From what I know of the government's evidence in the SEALs' case, it was questionable from the start. </div></div>
Perhaps in the civilian system.
This man got free counsel at public expense and was exonerated. Should there have been more of a "filter" at the prosecution's end? Perhaps. But if there were factual circumstances that suggested a crime took place, that is a question for a jury and that is why we have trials.
These guys could have taken a reprimand, but instead, they did the smart thing and demanded a court martial. I would have done the exact same thing in their shoes.
Re: US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But if there were factual circumstances that suggested a crime took place, that is a question for a jury and that is why we have trials.
</div></div>
I am afraid you are not correct on that point. Only a small minority of cases in which there is some evidence of a crime does a trial actually take place. There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion, and it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the government to proceed with a weak case.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But if there were factual circumstances that suggested a crime took place, that is a question for a jury and that is why we have trials.
</div></div>
I am afraid you are not correct on that point. Only a small minority of cases in which there is some evidence of a crime does a trial actually take place. There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion, and it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the government to proceed with a weak case.
Re: US military jury clears SEAL in Iraq abuse case
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 500grains</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But if there were factual circumstances that suggested a crime took place, that is a question for a jury and that is why we have trials.
</div></div>
I am afraid you are not correct on that point. Only a small minority of cases in which there is some evidence of a crime does a trial actually take place. There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion, and it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the government to proceed with a weak case. </div></div>
If there weren't any factual disputes, there would be no basis for a trial at all and it wouldn't survive a motion to dismiss.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 500grains</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But if there were factual circumstances that suggested a crime took place, that is a question for a jury and that is why we have trials.
</div></div>
I am afraid you are not correct on that point. Only a small minority of cases in which there is some evidence of a crime does a trial actually take place. There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion, and it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the government to proceed with a weak case. </div></div>
If there weren't any factual disputes, there would be no basis for a trial at all and it wouldn't survive a motion to dismiss.
Similar threads
