[SJSAMPLE]

I'm not sure what you mean by "technical violation"?

If the officer accidentally walked into the room with his sidearm still on, I could understand.

If the officer took an approved action during questioning, but it unintentionally ventured into the prohibited areas, I could understand that.

But knowingly taking a prohibited course of action is NOT a "technical violation." I honestly hope it turns out to NOT be a violation of any kind. But wishing it away to the cornfield isn't gonna cut it. Nobody here is authorized to "forgive and forget" acts which might be criminal, even if everybody's blood is up.

[MainFrame65]

It was a technical violation in the sense that the prisoner suffered neither actual injury nor any direct threat of such injury, such as some other posts have suggested (pointing the gun at him, firing next to his ear, or barely missing him).

Another post here says that the prisoner was brought out to the colonel. If so, this incident occurred in a command location rather than in a prisoner venue, so being armed was likely not an issue. That might be enough to fit within one of the mitigating circumstances you advanced, based only on his actions. But he told the truth, and is being punished for that, too.

I contend that the proposed punishment is far too severe for the actual transgression, and that if the law fails to recognize that, it needs changing. A letter of reprimand - still a career ender - would be more suitable, although it would deprive us of the services of a truly dedicated, experienced, battle-tested leader of men in the field.

Personally, I would not trade one Col. West for half a hundred General Wesley Clarks, and I guarantee that every one of his men would echo that.