IIRC, the “other guy” had immunity from prosecution.

Immunity deals can become void if the witness lies to prosecutors.  If he was expected to testify as to the guilt of the accused, then changes his story in mid-testimony, that agreement MAY be withdraw if written to include him doing that.

However, if the agreement grants immunity for the charges he confessed to without qualifications, the prosecution can't use his confession against him unless he waives immunity.

In other words, the state/feds have to be able to prove the immunized confessor committed the crime independent of the testimony he gave, because his immunized statement can't be used against him.

Given the testimonies of the other unit members against Gallagher, it's highly unlikely the prosecution can build a case against him without the confession.  If they do decide to try him, the testimonies and charges in the Gallagher case can be used to argue an alternate theory of the crime -- i.e. reasonable doubt.

I think this "crime" has already been litigated as much as it can.

I wonder if this was overzealous prosecution or just going with what they had from the other witnesses?

When the other guy steps forward and says he killed the guy it would certainly make any prosecution near impossible unless they could discredit the guy.

I didn't see anything in the news about what was going to happen to the guy who admitted he killed the taliban though I haven't been following this story closely.

The fact that there is video of the said moment that "exonerates" Eddie, there shouldn't even had been a trial.  Investigation should have stopped there once they "cleared" him.  If his wife wasn't awesome, he would have been hung out to dry.

But to be fair, that's not how the military works and it's knows for fucking people over.  So really can't expect any common sense outcome.

There is more to the story of the younger Seals.  Group text between them all.  A buddy of mine even noticed that the younger guys becoming Seals are like millennial's (pussies offended by everything).  Not the stone cold, bad ass guys like before.

The fact that there is video of the said moment that "exonerates" Eddie, there shouldn't even had been a trial.  Investigation should have stopped there once they "cleared" him.  If his wife wasn't awesome, he would have been hung out to dry.

But to be fair, that's not how the military works and it's knows for fucking people over.  So really can't expect any common sense outcome.

There is more to the story of the younger Seals.  Group text between them all.  A buddy of mine even noticed that the younger guys becoming Seals are like millennial's (pussies offended by everything).  Not the stone cold, bad ass guys like before.

Saying there never should have been a trial is really ignoring that even if he didn't murder the guy he still broke at least one law. He took picture with a dead body which is against the law and he should still be adjudicated as appropriate for the violation of that law. The most important thing is that an innocent man doesn't go to jail but after that the most important question regarding the trial is did the prosecutors do their job properly and on good faith.

The last 3 books I have been reading are about the military and I find myself continually sort of stuck on difficult question about the killing they do. Stuck because there is no clear answer and certain guiding principles conflict when trying to answer.

In multiple accounts I have read in the books there are a number of killings that fall into a real gray area. Similar to police shootings in some ways but intensified and with less oversight. The authors covered killings that weren't clearly justified and weren't clearly murder. In the heat of battle a soldier kills a guy who looks to be a combatant but could never be said to be certain. A combatant hides behind an innocent person and a soldier kills them both. An non-combatant points a gun at a soldier in what is self defense in their mind and gets killed. A combatant who was disabled by a shot and is no longer fighting but still could possess the ability to so the soldier puts a few more rounds. An enemy soldier surrendering during an assault but where our troops have no way of safely detaining the enemy safely. Studies show that if an enemy soldier surrenders at the point where an assault gets real close, like bayonets range the likelihood that the surrendering soldier will still be killed is insanely high even though soldiers are not supposed to kill unarmed surrendering enemies.

The situations are nearly endless and who is to make the final call? In a way that is exactly what a court's job is. It certainly would suck to be a soldier who was just trying to do their duty facing murder charges because the killing fell within a gray area. Unjustified killings are a real problem though on multiple levels so the military definitely has to make an effort to show they are confronting it. But just overall the nature of their job is intensely difficult. Trained for aggression and to kill yet be able to not kill the wrong person in the middle of hectic combat when the adrenaline is flowing and higher brain functions are not at optimum levels. Innocent people get killed and sometimes we could say there was no way to know or no way to avoid but in the end an innocent was killed and is that not wrong in and of itself? Sorry, kinda diving deep real fast into the ethical dilemmas that exist.

IIRC the key witness who cleared this guys name of murder said he killed the prisoner out of mercy. I don't know if the UCMJ allows for mercy killings but if that is truly the case it raises a real difficult question..



Bleeding heart Navy Seals... now that is just hard to fathom. But seriously, would they go so far as to frame an innocent man of murder? I guess at this point nothing would surprise me since soldiers have gone so far as to kill other soldiers they didn't like.

I think that collateral damage is acceptable and even unavoidable when in a war zone.  Compared to here in the US where you're not in a war zone, even in Chiraq.

So most ROE may say if a threat appears to you at that time.

So could they investigate Eddie for the pic he took.  Of course.  But they wouldn't put him in jail until his trial if he goes to one.  He may just take a plea deal and reduction in rank or something to save time.  Take a pic of a dead combatant is way diff from killing an unarmed combatant who is wounded.  And like I said, video clears him 100%, so at most, confined to his barracks during investigation.  Watch the 20 min vid and say "OK, you're free to go".

So in the end he did get fucked by the green weenie (not sure what they call the navy one).

I remember watching an ethics class at Annapolis.  They asked potential pilots, what if you're given orders to destroy an enemy convoy?  But as your plane pulls up, they waive a white flag.  Do you fire or not?  Because if you don't then every time the enemy hears a plane, they will wave their white flag so they don't get bombed.

Another one was if you're on a ship and have to rescue a Cuban raft, the kind they used to flee from Cuba years ago to go to Florida.  A woman is pregnant on that raft and you allow her on the US ship.  That US ship is US soil.  So if she gives birth aboard, her kid is a US citizen.  Do you allow her on the ship, or leave her on the raft, or give her a US navy raft that's more sturdier and send her along her way?

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/asap-rocky-free-until-assault-verdict-announced

Racist!

Wonder when the fake news will start using reverse racist.

I think that collateral damage is acceptable and even unavoidable when in a war zone.  Compared to here in the US where you're not in a war zone, even in Chiraq.

So most ROE may say if a threat appears to you at that time.

So could they investigate Eddie for the pic he took.  Of course.  But they wouldn't put him in jail until his trial if he goes to one.  He may just take a plea deal and reduction in rank or something to save time.  Take a pic of a dead combatant is way diff from killing an unarmed combatant who is wounded.  And like I said, video clears him 100%, so at most, confined to his barracks during investigation.  Watch the 20 min vid and say "OK, you're free to go".

So in the end he did get fucked by the green weenie (not sure what they call the navy one).

I remember watching an ethics class at Annapolis.  They asked potential pilots, what if you're given orders to destroy an enemy convoy?  But as your plane pulls up, they waive a white flag.  Do you fire or not?  Because if you don't then every time the enemy hears a plane, they will wave their white flag so they don't get bombed.

Another one was if you're on a ship and have to rescue a Cuban raft, the kind they used to flee from Cuba years ago to go to Florida.  A woman is pregnant on that raft and you allow her on the US ship.  That US ship is US soil.  So if she gives birth aboard, her kid is a US citizen.  Do you allow her on the ship, or leave her on the raft, or give her a US navy raft that's more sturdier and send her along her way?

I will have to find and watch the video myself so I can have a more well informed opinion.

War doesn't have all the same protections of rights we expect in our day to day life within the USA and realistically it cannot because war cannot be conducted that way. Yet it conflicts with the principles so dear to us, principles that are supposed to be universal. Thats where the hang up is for me. Its like we say rights are universal then say except not always.

I am currently reading the book Black Hawk Down and not even half way through and there are numerous shootings by soldiers that are in a gray area, They leave me with a nagging sense of injustice but i know that if I were in the same place I would likely do the same thing to protect myself and my partners. And this is apparently one of the things that contributes to PTSD.

I know that our military has made many strides one might not expect in terms of accountability. Even in combat zones, efforts are made to document the kills to show they were justified. I know that we hold pretty high standards for rules of engagement as well. Even in WW2 Americans had good reputations for treatment of prisoners.

It is just a kind of messy that leaves you with a bad feeling. It suggest a dark interpretation of life in this world, You get killed? To bad, there is no right or wrong, no injustice, you just die

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/asap-rocky-free-until-assault-verdict-announced

Racist!

racist!

That makes this evil bastard the grand wizard

I'm not surprised, most of these robots are from Japan a country known for its systemic white supremacy.....

It only makes sense.  White people are much easier for robots to imitate.

 

That makes this evil bastard the grand wizard

I'm not surprised, most of these robots are from Japan a country known for its systemic white supremacy.....

obviously, that robot is making "sieg heil"
therefore, racist nazi

I will have to find and watch the video myself so I can have a more well informed opinion.

War doesn't have all the same protections of rights we expect in our day to day life within the USA and realistically it cannot because war cannot be conducted that way. Yet it conflicts with the principles so dear to us, principles that are supposed to be universal. Thats where the hang up is for me. Its like we say rights are universal then say except not always.

I am currently reading the book Black Hawk Down and not even half way through and there are numerous shootings by soldiers that are in a gray area, They leave me with a nagging sense of injustice but i know that if I were in the same place I would likely do the same thing to protect myself and my partners. And this is apparently one of the things that contributes to PTSD.

I know that our military has made many strides one might not expect in terms of accountability. Even in combat zones, efforts are made to document the kills to show they were justified. I know that we hold pretty high standards for rules of engagement as well. Even in WW2 Americans had good reputations for treatment of prisoners.

It is just a kind of messy that leaves you with a bad feeling. It suggest a dark interpretation of life in this world, You get killed? To bad, there is no right or wrong, no injustice, you just die

There is a saying, a 10 year old can pick up an AK and kill just like an adult can.  So every soldier has to answer their own moral questions. But in the heat of battle, does 1 see a child or just a sullouette holding an ak.  Does tunnel vision also come in.

Also remember firearm rule, know whats beyond ur target. Pretty sure in war,  that rule is out the window. Room clearing with 223s, ordinance dropped on a single home in a clustor of homes, etc.

War zone laws are more lenient than police standards.  Then again WACO taught us you can murder kids and women and get promoted.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

There is a saying, a 10 year old can pick up an AK and kill just like an adult can.  So every soldier has to answer their own moral questions. But in the heat of battle, does 1 see a child or just a sullouette holding an ak.  Does tunnel vision also come in.

Also remember firearm rule, know whats beyond ur target. Pretty sure in war,  that rule is out the window. Room clearing with 223s, ordinance dropped on a single home in a clustor of homes, etc.

War zone laws are more lenient than police standards.  Then again WACO taught us you can murder kids and women and get promoted.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Maybe the best way to summarize it is that the killings are wrong but not illegal. I can't figure out how else to compartmentalize such things. Thats probably why such killing can haunt servicemen so much.

Maybe the best way to summarize it is that the killings are wrong but not illegal. I can't figure out how else to compartmentalize such things. Thats probably why such killing can haunt servicemen so much.

The ones i talked to werent bothered so much by collaterale damage. Whats more haunting are the what ifs and seeing their brothers killed/harmed.

What if i dont pull the trigger, call in the air strike, etc... and more soldiers die from that person as a result of missed opportunity to kill them.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The ones i talked to werent bothered so much by collaterale damage. Whats more haunting are the what ifs and seeing their brothers killed/harmed.

What if i dont pull the trigger, call in the air strike, etc... and more soldiers die from that person as a result of missed opportunity to kill them.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

If you are interested, I recently finished a good book that dives into the science and effects of killing. I will list a number of most interesting parts.
https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=on+killing&qid=1564990610&s=gateway&sr=8-1

-There appears to be an innate resistance in humans from killing other humans. There is lots of evidence of soldiers in combat missing on purpose or flat out refusing to fire. Military training around Vietnam was modified to help overcome this.
-The closer the kill was made the more likely a soldier is to have PTSD from the killing. You generally don't see it among pilots and artillery members who never see their killing. This effect is also true when someone is trying to kill you, the closer, the more personal, the more traumatic it is.
-A lot of soldiers would go up and see their kill and it really effected them, especially when they found it was a child. It had a number of heavy first hand accounts where soldiers killed at close range and remained next to the enemy soldier as they died. Sometimes sharing water or a cigarette. Many soldiers completely broke down and cried even when they were clear justified shootings by any combat standard.
-About 2% are really good at killing and don't suffer the effects.
-Covered a lot about how to treat returning soldiers and how different factors help them cope with the trauma they faced.

It is a good book if you are interested in the subject. The author isn't the best writer, he is a little repetitive but he does get the science across effectively.

If you are interested, I recently finished a good book that dives into the science and effects of killing.
-The closer the kill was made the more likely a soldier is to have PTSD from the kill.
-About 2% are really good at killing and don't suffer the effects.

I recently read about and watched a few documentaries on Richard Kukinski aka The Iceman, a Mafia hitman who some say killed over 200 men.  He would not kill a woman or child and in fact killed the guy who wanted to hire him to hit his wife and child.  The psychiatrist interviewing him in prison said the same thing, about 2% of the population show no remorse and about 1% were totally fearless due to a genetic defect.  Having remorse and being fearful in certain situations is healthy.  In his case he had both genetic defects which was a huge benefit in his choice of work.  When mob boss Big Paul wanted to hit a mob lieutenant and gave the job to John Gotti, Gotti declined because the lieutenant always had too many loyal soldiers around him.  The Iceman killed the lieutenant for free because the guy had pissed him off earlier.  The Iceman said he liked to be as close as possible to his victim because he liked to see the fear in their eyes and then watch as their life left their eyes.

GOA is asking for national reciprocity instead of red flag laws or more gun control.

GOA is asking for national reciprocity instead of red flag laws or more gun control.

Thats not a solution for starters but it is also a false dichotomy. Its not one or the other.

If Trump or republicans play their cards right they might insert reciprocity into a bill with workable gun control ideas.

Thats not a solution for starters but it is also a false dichotomy. Its not one or the other.

If Trump or republicans play their cards right they might insert reciprocity into a bill with workable gun control ideas.

Why don't you list for us the "workable gun control ideas"?