Replies

If Pantano shot them in reasonable apprehension that his life or the life of another was in danger that's self-defense. It doesn't matter that his uncuffing the perps was a link in the events that created the apprehension.

Congratulations, you've shown that you do not understand how the law works.

Once he disobeyed his orders, he was committing a felony. Once that happens, you lose the protection of "self defense."

I don't follow your claim that Pantano committed a felony.

"Failure to obey order or regulation" is a court martial offense per Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That's a felony.

Are you saying uncuffing the terrorists and telling them to search the car is a felony?

Yes, because in doing so, Pantano disobeyed orders intended (primarily) to safeguard his Marines and (secondarily) the lives of the prisoners (the USMC doesn't safeguard prisoners out of mere kindness; they merely view them as sources of intelligence information, and dead men tell no tales).

What felony is that?

I didn't realize that there were so many FReepers who expect the military to be a place to practice anarchy. But I will explain things, once again, in the hope that it will sink in.

He disobeyed orders that were drilled into his head in boot camp, risked the lives of his Marines, and denied intelligence to his chain of command. Sorry, bubba, that's felony stupid, it's felony murder, and I'm absolutely amazed that people think that obeying orders is optional in the military.

Without regard to the facts of the case, which we shouldn't be trying to discern here anyway...

Wouldn't interference in the investigation and eventual court-martial on the part of either the Congress or the SecDef be construed as undue command influence? And wouldn't that almost necessarily taint the court-martial?

Bottom line, as both of you have said...is to let the military handle this the way they have been for a couple of hundred years.

As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. Your felony murder theory would result in a big fat "F" in first year criminal law. Violating a standing order does not strip a defendant of the affirmative defense of self defense.

Indeed, your felony murder theory is just plain nutty. If you have any evidence Pantano actually has been charged with felony murder as distinct from deliberate murder, pleas provide the link.

"Felony stupid" is not a crime, but you knew that.

If you have any evidence Lt. Pantano has been charged with violating Art. 92, please provide the link.

I agree with you that Lt. Pantano showed poor judgment and poor leadership in combat. He should not again be put in command of troops in combat. If it can be shown that Lt. Pantano violated a direct order or a published standing order of his unit, he could be subject to court-martial for violating that order. Do you have any evidence Lt. Pantano violated an order? Gotta link? If not, if he violated principals of his training or SOP's, non-judicial punishment would be appropriate.

If you want to lecture on the law, take the LSAT and attend a good law school.