Posted on 03/31/2005 5:38:45 AM PST by Former Military Chick
WIESBADEN, Germany -- A military court on Thursday found a U.S. Army tank company commander guilty of charges related to the shooting death of a wounded Iraqi last year.
Capt. Rogelio "Roger" Maynulet, a 30-year-old from Chicago, stood at attention as the verdict was read.
Maynulet told a military court in Germany he killed the unarmed man "to put him out of his misery," adding that it was "honorable." He maintained throughout his trial that he shot the man to end his suffering.
But the military court in Germany found him guilty of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter. The panel will reconvene later Thursday to consider Maynulet's sentence. The charge carries a maximum of 10 years in prison.
Maynulet's patrol wounded the man when it fired on a car during a search for militiamen south of Baghdad last May. Maynulet maintains the man was too badly injured to survive. He fired two more times.
Prosecutors said he violated rules of engagement. But Maynulet said he had more important priorities on the mission than saving the Iraqi man.
Military surveillance video apparently shows the U.S. soldier shooting a wounded Iraqi.
The shaky footage from a spy drone shows military Humvees chasing a car in a city south of Baghdad. After the car crashes, the camera zooms in on a man lying on the ground, waving one arm. The outline of a soldier in battle gear can then be seen aiming a weapon at the man, followed by a flash.
Fellow officers said at an earlier hearing that the tank company commander shot the man out of compassion, to ease his suffering.
Actually, they did that before. A patrol left the wounded in aroom. The next patrol came through the same room, saw movement, and shot one dead thinking he was a trap.
He got in trouble, too.
To those who have shown at least interest and compassion for Capt. Rogelio "Roger" Maynulet, thank you. I do not have blinders on but there just be more to this case.
Sorry for any confusion I have caused.
CPT Rogelio M. Maynulet (or Roger as many of us know him) is being court martialed for a shooting incident that occurred near Najaf, Iraq last year. The U.S. Army has charged Roger with Assault with Intent to Commit Murder and Dereliction of Duty which carry a potential prison sentence of 20½ years. The court martial is scheduled to take place in Germany at the end of March of this year. The incident in question involves an allegedly unlawful shooting of a mortally wounded Iraqi insurgent loyal to Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on May 21, 2004.
Roger is being represented by a military JAG attorney. However, he has incurred, and will continue to incur, significant legal expenses in the conduct of his defense. Specifically, he must bear the cost of certain expert witness opinions and testimony as well as other costs related to transportation and lodging for witnesses testifying on his behalf at the court martial. To offset some of these costs, a legal defense fund has been established to raise money to ease the financial burdens associated with this unfortunate period in his life.
Your help and support is needed. Here in the U.S., the mantra Support Our Troops permeates our towns and neighborhoods. Whether its a yellow ribbon tied to a tree or affixed to the bumper of a car, we are reminded every day of the toil and sacrifice of our soldiers serving overseas. This is an encouraging and welcome practice, but what does it really mean? Is there substance to the statement or is it simply another hollow sound bite invoked by some politician or media pundit pandering to the public? In this instance, I ask that part of Supporting Our Troops include making a sacrifice for a soldier who has already sacrificed much for our country. Specifically, we request of you a donation to help CPT Rogelio Maynulet defend himself against the charges he is facing.
Roger has served his country with pride, dignity and respect for both his fellow countrymen and those Iraqis aspiring for something better than what they had. When faced with circumstances that most of us cannot even begin to grasp, Roger drew upon his experience, training and morality to do what was right, regardless of what those who were not there may now allege. At this point, he seeks only to clear his name, avoid prison and begin life as a civilian. War is a traumatic and difficult time that leaves many devastated lives in its wake. With your help, the conflict in Iraq need not unnecessarily rob our country of another bright future.
Maybe we should try Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo in a military court?
The question here is whether or not there were specific circumstances that justified deviating from that general law of war. If the guy was badly gut shot or clearly had a mortal wound that would result in his inevitable death shortly, I can see the argument for putting him out of his misery. Same if he presented a threat.
But I also can see why you've got to look at claims of such "mercy killings" pretty closely to avoid a de facto rule that all wounded enemy get shot. I mean was the guy really mortally wounded, or not? I dunno, because I don't know what the evidence was at trial.
I don't believe in kneejerk criticisms of actions taken in combat. Been there, done that. But I also don't believe that we should automatically justify everything a particular soldier may do unless we're sure we've got all the relevant facts.
"OUR LAWS IN THE U.S.
It is neither a defense nor mitigating factor in a murder case that the victim is either terminal or disabled. It has long been a principle of the criminal law that, if at the time of defendants conduct the victim is living, IT MATTERS NOT THAT HE WAS DYING, AS FROM A MORTAL WOULD INFLICTED BY A THIRD PERSON. DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF HOMICIDE IF HE MERELY ACCELERATES THE VICTIM'S DEATH. 2 Wharton's Criminal Law 143, § 117 (15th ed. 1994)(citations omitted). (EMPHASIS ADDED)
"IT IS HOMICIDE TO KILL ONE ALREADY DYING, to accelerate ones death, to kill one condemned to be executed the next day, or to kill a 'worthless' victim. LaFave and Scott, Criminal Law 533, ch. 7 § 67 (1972)(citations omitted). (EMPHASIS ADDED)"
Taken from Post # 38 at this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1374693/posts
Yes, it is a Terri Schavio post.
Happy the scum was killed. Saddened by the impotence of the military brass. May their political correctness run over them like a 6x6.
You have that right!! We are a screwed up society. !!!
www.freeroger.com/
10 years was the final sentence, he actually served about 3 before being released from incarceration. It was the Secretary of Defense that actually signed off on the final sentence, but you may be correct about it being done on Nixon's orders.
I appreciate all the comments I read on FR. Even those I disagree with. I just have found in the last few days that if you posted a none Terri thread that after some time it would be high jacked and we lose the purpose of the thread.
There are always writings we draw from that help us in our posting. I appreciatae the one here, thank you.
Like everyone else here - I haven't seen the footage or the facts in full that went before the trial.
My tuppence worth is that this isn't a hysterical media led proscecution. This (as I undertand it) was a procecution brought by the military itself. The man is an officer. He is educated. He knows the line and so do his peers. Given the lack of political pressure behind this one - I have no reaseon to doubt the judgement that he must have crossed the line. I don't doubt he had anything but a fair trial prior to being found guilty. The system works. That why we fight for what we fight for.
The law of war declares that we are to "collect and care for wounded, friend or foe."
No, what he did in this case is clearly counter to regulations. While this has happened in the past it was against military law then. There were some courts martials during WWII for reported incidents.
West Point does not confer a law degree, so it would be from a civilian law school. The officer in question was wrong and should definitely have known better. Part of the pre-deployment training covers or provides refresher training on the laws of war.
Nope, it does. Welcome to www.terrirepublic, all Terri, all the time!
Overturned on appeal would be best!
Outrageous.
Look for Bill O'Reilly to explode tonight.
JAG officers all go to regular law schools.
JAG corps officers are not known for their liberal Democrat tendencies. The vast majority are strict law and order types.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.