How to fight a war, by a lawyer

It is just unbelieveable, where US Military personnel now who are under the pressure of a combat enviorment must now also understand that any action of arms taken may be also the scrutiny of a civil rights lawyer who will review his split second life and death decesion for legal merit after the fact.

The US Marine Officer is under investigation for making such a life death decesion in that split second, doing what all soldiers do, to protect himself and his unit from what he believed in that second to be a hostile or threatening act by an enemy. The minute those two bolted from the "captured" group, the use of deadly physical force is authorized by both UCMJ and Geneva Rules of Land Warfare ref 1947/53/62. Yet for the purpose of "political correctness" this soldier who in that split second acted within the scope and rules of war is under investigation for an "illegal killing".

Lets put lawyers out on the line with a rifle, quote the rules to the enemy under fire to ensure they are followed, and judge how they act.

This act alone jepoardizes more American lives, for now our soldiers need to hesitate in that second and weigh death vs criminal charges, by some REM* lawyer, who with all the time in the world can make judgement on that split second life and death decesion.



Edited by oldsoldier

What happened? A prisoner try to run? Soldier kill him? Sounds justified, but whats the story what happened?

Here's another incident where a soldier shouldn't have to stop and think if he's breaking any rules during the middle of a war.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/15/marine.probe/index .html

 

oldsoldier wrote: Developing, but as I hear it...from what I know, patrol of marines searching for explosives in a ville, find explosives in a house, along with several "military aged" individuals. These individuals were lined up to be searched and two bolted and ran, the Marine LT then yelled halt twice, knelt and fired dropping both. Military types are trained "center mass" shooting, none of this law enforcement incapacitation shooting, in the military when you fire your weapon at an enemy there is just one intent at that time.

Er, Police trainning says that when you fire your gun, you aim for the head or torso.  Police officers are trained to shoot to kill, not incappacitate (sp?).

I agree with you OS, but is that acronym realy forum approprate? 

wow, our government is being helled to a very high stanard. thats crazy that our troops that are fighting for freedom are now being faced with possible charges of murder. thats messed up/

I have two people going against me and I am most likely wrong, but I think these two paragraphs may prove what I am saying. If not disregard anything I say as I am dumb and feel like arguing. I just copied this out of a manual:




"The Denver Police Department recognizes the value of all human life and is committed to respecting
human rights and the dignity of every individual. The use of a firearm is in all probability the most
serious act in which a law enforcement officer will engage. When deciding whether to use a firearm,
officers shall act within the boundaries of law, ethics, good judgment, this use of force policy, and all
accepted Denver Police Department policies, practices and training. With these values in mind, an
officer shall use only that degree of force necessary and reasonable under the circumstances. An
officer may use deadly force in the circumstances permitted by this policy when all reasonable
alternatives appear impracticable and the officer reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is
necessary. However, the Police Department recognizes that the objective reasonableness of an
officer’s decision to use deadly force must allow for the fact that police officers are often forced to
make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. Above
all, the safety of the public and the officer must be the overriding concern whenever the use of force
is considered.
It is important for officers to bear in mind that there are many reasons a suspect may be resisting
arrest or may be unresponsive. The person in question may not be capable of understanding the
gravity of the situation. The person’s reasoning ability may be dramatically affected by a number of
factors, including but not limited to a medical condition, mental impairment, developmental disability,
physical limitation, language, drug interaction, or emotional crisis. Therefore, it is possible that a
person’s mental state may prevent a proper understanding of an officer’s commands or actions. In
such circumstances, the person’s lack of compliance may not be a deliberate attempt to resist the
officer. An officer’s awareness of these possibilities, when time and circumstances reasonably permit,
should then be balanced against the facts of the incident facing the officer when deciding which
tactical options are the most appropriate to bring the situation to a safe resolution."

Clark...To answer your question, having been in combat myself, when you are in a split second, your life or protecting your troopers lives decesion, any hesitation on your part increases the possibility of you or your troopers taking the hit not the bad guy. Any "enemy" action that within the scope of protecting yourself and your troopers from death or physical harm, where you make that decesion based on your training and trained response cannot be "disected" by an individual who was not there, under the stress you were under, and was forced to make a decesion.

Premeditated actions where a prolonged thought process was involved differant story, but if I was searching "military aged" individuals in a combat zone, where there is a "history" of acts against my soldiers and under that suspition two bolt off, that under my combat instinct, training and "hair at the back of your neck up threat" constitute a threat to myself and my troopers and I in that situation would drop them also.

Weigh this action, a soldier is in an intense firefight, incoming rounds and several times enemy soldiers appeared in windows and doorways and each time the soldier drops the enemy before incoming fire hits him, the soldier sees a shadow appear in a window and the figure of an enemy soldier appears for that split second the soldier fires, immediately after he hears a noise behind him, the door swings open a shadow appears, the soldier fires and shoots a small girl.....is this a "chargeable incident"?

We had a saying.....judged by 6, or carried by 6 pretty easy choice.........................Long time ago...far....far...away

Edited by oldsoldier

In Law enforcement, there is a "duty" to err on the winds of caution and restraint, and not fire your weapon unless last resort, your target more than not would rather flee than fight,   In a combat situation and in a hostile fire zone where the enemy target and sole intent is to do you harm, there is no time to think, hesitate and weigh consequences in that split second you have before the him or you question is put to the test.

Edited by oldsoldier

oldsoldier wrote: In Law enforcement, there is a "duty" to err on the winds of caution and restraint, and not fire your weapon unless last resort, your target more than not would rather flee than fight,   In a combat situation and in a hostile fire zone where the enemy target and sole intent is to do you harm, there is no time to think, hesitate and weigh consequences in that split second you have before the him or you question is put to the test.

I realize all this, I was just pointing out that they are not trained to incapcitate when they fire.  The goal at that point is to kill and eliminate.