• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

OT - It was worth the time it took me away from comics!

Started by esquirecomics,

71 posts in this topic

hockey&comicsguy

hockey&comicsguy

Posted
Posted

Well, I don't know anything apart from what I read since this happened. Are the numbers right that 24 were killed? That 19 were women and children? That some of the children were as young as 3 and 1 years old?

 

I never served. My father is Army, my uncle Marine, both retired, neither of them seemed to be pulling for this guy given what has been reported over time. Far be it from me to say how a soldier should respond.

 

What are the charges now? Negligent homicide? That doesn't exactly sound good either. What's the potential sentence for that? Did anyone ever bring charges up, aside from the murder charges such as dereliction of duty, making false statements, etc..? I thought I read where they relieved some officers of their command. Is that true? One was a colonel I think. If so, did or are they going to clear those officers?

 

I'm glad that you are glad that you are helping your client. Personally, the whole thing seems tragic and wrong to me and I don't know what to really believe anymore.

 

Since this is a military proceeding is there any record of how many murder charges have been brought against soldiers and what percentage of those have been followed up on or dropped to lesser charges? Any idea what the percentage of convictions is? I am curious about those figures.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foolkiller

Foolkiller

Posted
Posted

My only comment on this is that:

 

a) this is the wrong forum (where are the rules police now?)

 

b) I think criticisms or praise are difficult here... we only know what we read. I couldn't pass judgment either way.

 

c) I can say that it is certainly a victory for his client getting the charges reduced, and from a legal perspective, given the evidence that he was faced with, I would wager to say Zaid over came significant obstacles to make this happen. Was justice done? I couldn't say, and I think that aspect of the debate is pointless to comment on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ze-man

Ze-man

Posted
Posted
Congrats Mark :golfclap:

 

pucket_zaid.jpg

Nice sunglasses! :grin:

 

I think there is a new Z in town. Agents J and K now report to the new Z (instead of to Rip Torn).

 

There can only be one Z :sumo:

 

I will go out now and buy some big spiffy sunglasses, then submit an even longer bio to Wikipedia so I can overtake this doppelganger.

 

Z-

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted
Well, I don't know anything apart from what I read since this happened. Are the numbers right that 24 were killed? That 19 were women and children? That some of the children were as young as 3 and 1 years old?

 

What are the charges now? Negligent homicide? That doesn't exactly sound good either. What's the potential sentence for that? Did anyone ever bring charges up, aside from the murder charges such as dereliction of duty, making false statements, etc..? I thought I read where they relieved some officers of their command. Is that true? One was a colonel I think. If so, did or are they going to clear those officers?

 

I'm glad that you are glad that you are helping your client. Personally, the whole thing seems tragic and wrong to me and I don't know what to really believe anymore.

 

I have the utmost admiration and respect for members of our armed forces and the impossibly difficult situations they are confronted with in Iraq. That said, it doesn't give them license to act without impunity over there, nor does it mean that there aren't bad apples in any group of people, including the military. I think we all have read of cases more clear-cut than this one where members of our armed forces committed horrible atrocities, such as the rape and murder of the young Iraqi woman and several family members in Mahmoudiya last year. No one should get a free pass from scrutiny just because they wear the uniform.

 

Regarding the case at hand, what exactly are we celebrating here other than Mark's professional success? That a soldier, who killed at least 5 Iraqi civilians while they may or may not have had their hands up (I'd like to know why this testimony was any more "wholly incredible" than that of the accused or, indeed, the judgment of the presiding Col. Ware who has admitted on the record that he does not want murder charges against Marines dampening the morale of the troops in Iraq), and presided over a civilian massacre now faces "only" a series of lesser charges including "negligent homicide"? Does this seem like the kind of human being we should really be feting? This doesn't exactly sound like the kind of person I want to have over at my house for dinner parties. If Mark successfully defended O.J. Simpson, would we be celebrating that too?

 

I have to say that this is one of the most troubling threads that I have ever read on this Forum. I am shocked that the discussion has been so one-sided - I don't claim to be an expert on this case, but from the articles that Mark himself copied above, it seems to me like this result was less about justice being served and more about clever lawyering and a politically-minded judge conspiring to lessen the charges of this person who was, at the very least, grossly and homicidally negligent, if not worse. No offense to Mark or any of the posters here, but I really don't see anything to applaud here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
october

october

Posted
Posted
Well, I don't know anything apart from what I read since this happened. Are the numbers right that 24 were killed? That 19 were women and children? That some of the children were as young as 3 and 1 years old?

 

What are the charges now? Negligent homicide? That doesn't exactly sound good either. What's the potential sentence for that? Did anyone ever bring charges up, aside from the murder charges such as dereliction of duty, making false statements, etc..? I thought I read where they relieved some officers of their command. Is that true? One was a colonel I think. If so, did or are they going to clear those officers?

 

I'm glad that you are glad that you are helping your client. Personally, the whole thing seems tragic and wrong to me and I don't know what to really believe anymore.

 

I have the utmost admiration and respect for members of our armed forces and the impossibly difficult situations they are confronted with in Iraq. That said, it doesn't give them license to act without impunity over there, nor does it mean that there aren't bad apples in any group of people, including the military. I think we all have read of cases more clear-cut than this one where members of our armed forces committed horrible atrocities, such as the rape and murder of the young Iraqi woman and several family members in Mahmoudiya last year. No one should get a free pass from scrutiny just because they wear the uniform.

 

Regarding the case at hand, what exactly are we celebrating here other than Mark's professional success? That a soldier, who killed at least 5 Iraqi civilians while they may or may not have had their hands up (I'd like to know why this testimony was any more "wholly incredible" than that of the accused or, indeed, the judgment of the presiding Col. Ware who has admitted on the record that he does not want murder charges against Marines dampening the morale of the troops in Iraq), and presided over a civilian massacre now faces "only" a series of lesser charges including "negligent homicide"? Does this seem like the kind of human being we should really be feting? This doesn't exactly sound like the kind of person I want to have over at my house for dinner parties. If Mark successfully defended O.J. Simpson, would we be celebrating that too?

 

I have to say that this is one of the most troubling threads that I have ever read on this Forum. I am shocked that the discussion has been so one-sided - I don't claim to be an expert on this case, but from the articles that Mark himself copied above, it seems to me like this result was less about justice being served and more about clever lawyering and a politically-minded judge conspiring to lessen the charges of this person who was, at the very least, grossly and homicidally negligent, if not worse. No offense to Mark or any of the posters here, but I really don't see anything to applaud here.

 

Other than your post, I don't see much to applaud either. :applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicdonna

comicdonna

Posted
Posted
Congrats Mark :golfclap:

 

pucket_zaid.jpg

Nice sunglasses! :grin:

 

I think there is a new Z in town. Agents J and K now report to the new Z (instead of to Rip Torn).

 

There can only be one Z :sumo:

 

I will go out now and buy some big spiffy sunglasses, then submit an even longer bio to Wikipedia so I can overtake this doppelganger.

 

Z-

lol:golfclap:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anfield Fox

Anfield Fox

Posted
Posted
Well, I don't know anything apart from what I read since this happened. Are the numbers right that 24 were killed? That 19 were women and children? That some of the children were as young as 3 and 1 years old?

 

What are the charges now? Negligent homicide? That doesn't exactly sound good either. What's the potential sentence for that? Did anyone ever bring charges up, aside from the murder charges such as dereliction of duty, making false statements, etc..? I thought I read where they relieved some officers of their command. Is that true? One was a colonel I think. If so, did or are they going to clear those officers?

 

I'm glad that you are glad that you are helping your client. Personally, the whole thing seems tragic and wrong to me and I don't know what to really believe anymore.

 

I have the utmost admiration and respect for members of our armed forces and the impossibly difficult situations they are confronted with in Iraq. That said, it doesn't give them license to act without impunity over there, nor does it mean that there aren't bad apples in any group of people, including the military. I think we all have read of cases more clear-cut than this one where members of our armed forces committed horrible atrocities, such as the rape and murder of the young Iraqi woman and several family members in Mahmoudiya last year. No one should get a free pass from scrutiny just because they wear the uniform.

 

Regarding the case at hand, what exactly are we celebrating here other than Mark's professional success? That a soldier, who killed at least 5 Iraqi civilians while they may or may not have had their hands up (I'd like to know why this testimony was any more "wholly incredible" than that of the accused or, indeed, the judgment of the presiding Col. Ware who has admitted on the record that he does not want murder charges against Marines dampening the morale of the troops in Iraq), and presided over a civilian massacre now faces "only" a series of lesser charges including "negligent homicide"? Does this seem like the kind of human being we should really be feting? This doesn't exactly sound like the kind of person I want to have over at my house for dinner parties. If Mark successfully defended O.J. Simpson, would we be celebrating that too?

 

I have to say that this is one of the most troubling threads that I have ever read on this Forum. I am shocked that the discussion has been so one-sided - I don't claim to be an expert on this case, but from the articles that Mark himself copied above, it seems to me like this result was less about justice being served and more about clever lawyering and a politically-minded judge conspiring to lessen the charges of this person who was, at the very least, grossly and homicidally negligent, if not worse. No offense to Mark or any of the posters here, but I really don't see anything to applaud here.

 

Okay, im guilty of just skimming through the thead and posting. Now i took law for a year. It just didn't take and wasn't for me (wish i stuck with it but that's a different matter). Anyway my understanding is everyone has the right to a fair trial no matter what you may or may not have done. If a judge finds someone innocent then isn't that enough to say the incident never happened? Again, not referring to this particular case as i didn't read the specifics. Just not sure why people are upset. Maybe i should read it more carefully but as i said before, law just isn't for me! :hi:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicdonna

comicdonna

Posted
Posted
Well, I don't know anything apart from what I read since this happened. Are the numbers right that 24 were killed? That 19 were women and children? That some of the children were as young as 3 and 1 years old?

 

What are the charges now? Negligent homicide? That doesn't exactly sound good either. What's the potential sentence for that? Did anyone ever bring charges up, aside from the murder charges such as dereliction of duty, making false statements, etc..? I thought I read where they relieved some officers of their command. Is that true? One was a colonel I think. If so, did or are they going to clear those officers?

 

I'm glad that you are glad that you are helping your client. Personally, the whole thing seems tragic and wrong to me and I don't know what to really believe anymore.

 

I have the utmost admiration and respect for members of our armed forces and the impossibly difficult situations they are confronted with in Iraq. That said, it doesn't give them license to act without impunity over there, nor does it mean that there aren't bad apples in any group of people, including the military. I think we all have read of cases more clear-cut than this one where members of our armed forces committed horrible atrocities, such as the rape and murder of the young Iraqi woman and several family members in Mahmoudiya last year. No one should get a free pass from scrutiny just because they wear the uniform.

 

Regarding the case at hand, what exactly are we celebrating here other than Mark's professional success? That a soldier, who killed at least 5 Iraqi civilians while they may or may not have had their hands up (I'd like to know why this testimony was any more "wholly incredible" than that of the accused or, indeed, the judgment of the presiding Col. Ware who has admitted on the record that he does not want murder charges against Marines dampening the morale of the troops in Iraq), and presided over a civilian massacre now faces "only" a series of lesser charges including "negligent homicide"? Does this seem like the kind of human being we should really be feting? This doesn't exactly sound like the kind of person I want to have over at my house for dinner parties. If Mark successfully defended O.J. Simpson, would we be celebrating that too?

 

I have to say that this is one of the most troubling threads that I have ever read on this Forum. I am shocked that the discussion has been so one-sided - I don't claim to be an expert on this case, but from the articles that Mark himself copied above, it seems to me like this result was less about justice being served and more about clever lawyering and a politically-minded judge conspiring to lessen the charges of this person who was, at the very least, grossly and homicidally negligent, if not worse. No offense to Mark or any of the posters here, but I really don't see anything to applaud here.

 

Okay, im guilty of just skimming through the thead and posting. Now i took law for a year. It just didn't take and wasn't for me (wish i stuck with it but that's a different matter). Anyway my understanding is everyone has the right to a fair trial no matter what you may or may not have done. If a judge finds someone innocent then isn't that enough to say the incident never happened? Again, not referring to this particular case as i didn't read the specifics. Just not sure why people are upset. Maybe i should read it more carefully but as i said before, law just isn't for me! :hi:

hm I'm not sure he was actually found innocent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
esquirecomics

esquirecomics

Posted
  • Author
Posted
My only comment on this is that:

 

a) this is the wrong forum (where are the rules police now?)

 

b) I think criticisms or praise are difficult here... we only know what we read. I couldn't pass judgment either way.

 

c) I can say that it is certainly a victory for his client getting the charges reduced, and from a legal perspective, given the evidence that he was faced with, I would wager to say Zaid over came significant obstacles to make this happen. Was justice done? I couldn't say, and I think that aspect of the debate is pointless to comment on.

 

I wish I could say I was surprised by your comments Brian (and the same for the echoing by October), but I'm sadly not.

 

What I find most interesting is that in my going back only two weeks worth of CGC threads that were created I find not one where you posted something similar that the "rules police" should be involved.

 

Yet there are numerous threads that don't touch upon comics in any way, shape or form.

 

There are threads on the spice girls, baseball, wrestling, antiques, non-comic movies/tv programs, visits of forumites to different cities and, of course, numerous birthday threads (which is certainly nice to have given it presumably fosters camaraderie but it has nothing to do with comics).

 

Yet no calls for the forum police by Brian or Andy (happy birthday by the way, whoops, rule violation!) except in response to me. hm

 

One could perceive I'm being stalked! :insane:

 

Isn't that against the board rules? :juggle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing