Commanders are dropping like flies this year

[Tank]

9 minutes ago, Ch33s3 said:

RUMINT: sexual assault accusation

 

 

What’s sad is that it’s still an accusation and he was fired over that (if that is what it was for).  
 

I had a buddy who was named the Wing CC at a UPT base and when he was enroute, he was also accused.  He was then promptly told not to report and he would no longer be the Wing CC and was turned back around to DC.  

Fast forward and he was found not guilty and the accuser was then charged for filing a false report.  
 

Career ruined, accusation followed him even though it was a false accusation, he promptly retires.
 

I really wish they would keep their positions and command until actually found guilty...

[Bigred]

1 hour ago, Tank said:

What’s sad is that it’s still an accusation and he was fired over that (if that is what it was for).  
 

I had a buddy who was named the Wing CC at a UPT base and when he was enroute, he was also accused.  He was then promptly told not to report and he would no longer be the Wing CC and was turned back around to DC.  

Fast forward and he was found not guilty and the accuser was then charged for filing a false report.  
 

Career ruined, accusation followed him even though it was a false accusation, he promptly retires.
 

I really wish they would keep their positions and command until actually found guilty...

I’ve always wondered, if a CC was fired for what ends up being false accusations, do they have any legal recourse? 
 

My guess is no, but I’ve never actually looked for an answer. 

[Homestar]

Wouldn’t there be an arrest record if there were a sexual assault?

I understand that for PR reasons a credible accusation of sexual assault would be cause for loss of command, but damn. 
 

 

[ClearedHot]

7 hours ago, Tank said:

What’s sad is that it’s still an accusation and he was fired over that (if that is what it was for).  
 

I had a buddy who was named the Wing CC at a UPT base and when he was enroute, he was also accused.  He was then promptly told not to report and he would no longer be the Wing CC and was turned back around to DC.  

Fast forward and he was found not guilty and the accuser was then charged for filing a false report.  
 

Career ruined, accusation followed him even though it was a false accusation, he promptly retires.
 

I really wish they would keep their positions and command until actually found guilty...

It is only going to get worse.

Over the past few years Congress had edged closer to taking prosecution for Sexual Assault cases AWAY from the military chain of command.  As December 2020 the language to do was in the proposed NDAA.  It did not survive conference but I understand it was very close and likely just a matter of time.

NDAA envisions new military policies on sexual assaults

[Royal]

I'm baffled that there's virtually no cost to filing a false report. If during the course of the investigation there's incontrovertible evidence the accusation was contrived, the legal consequences of the original accusation should be transferred to the person who falsely brought up the claim.

[SurelySerious]

25 minutes ago, Royal said:

I'm baffled that there's virtually no cost to filing a false report. If during the course of the investigation there's incontrovertible evidence the accusation was contrived, the legal consequences of the original accusation should be transferred to the person who falsely brought up the claim.

Especially when the standard of introducing a charge is lower under the UCMJ than civil criminal law. 

[Sua Sponte]

58 minutes ago, Royal said:

I'm baffled that there's virtually no cost to filing a false report. If during the course of the investigation there's incontrovertible evidence the accusation was contrived, the legal consequences of the original accusation should be transferred to the person who falsely brought up the claim.

Never will happen in the military. 

[Royal]

12 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Never will happen in the military. 

Regardless of whether or not it will happen, there should be a mechanism to reduce the likelihood of false accusations.

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, Royal said:

Regardless of whether or not it will happen, there should be a mechanism to reduce the likelihood of false accusations.

Well Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) is slowly stripping the rights of the accused slowly away to try to gain more convictions. Currently, Article 32 hearings are nothing more than a paper trial that lasts maybe 5-10 minutes (mine lasted about 10 minutes). The complaining witnesses (defense name for victims) don't have to testify anymore at an Article 32 hearing, thus not subject to be cross-examined and possibly have their testimony impeached. Regardless of what the investigating officers finds (for Art 120 offenses, it must be a JAG) and recommends, no convening authority in the USAF is not going to refer the charges to a general court martial if a Art 120 charge is attached.

Gillibrand will get her way of changing the UCMJ, or she'll continue to ruin senior officer's careers for making legitimate decisions within their authority, but against her wishes. Much like she did to the 3 AF/CC's career for overturning the verdict in the U.S. v. Wilkerson case.

[Royal]

6 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Well Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) is slowly stripping the rights of the accused slowly away to try to gain more convictions. Currently, Article 32 hearings are nothing more than a paper trial that lasts maybe 5-10 minutes (mine lasted about 10 minutes). The complaining witnesses (defense name for victims) don't have to testify anymore at an Article 32 hearing, thus not subject to be cross-examined and possibly have their testimony impeached. Regardless of what the investigating officers finds (for Art 120 offenses, it must be a JAG) and recommends, no convening authority in the USAF is not going to refer the charges to a general court martial if a Art 120 charge is attached.

Gillibrand will get her way of changing the UCMJ, or she'll continue to ruin senior officer's careers for making legitimate decisions within their authority, but against her wishes. Much like she did to the 3 AF/CC's career for overturning the verdict in the U.S. v. Wilkerson case.

It's nauseating to watch this thing unfold. I'm with you: We're trending in the wrong direction.

[Sua Sponte]

44 minutes ago, MyCS said:

Let's put it this way. CCs didn't do enough when evidence was legitimate because they aren't lawyers. JAG is like the Hobby Lobby of attorneys.

Then you have that case where the pilot who is a Lot Col has a GO step in and save him from his sexual assault allegations. Then big blue sends him to the same base as his accuser or where her family is located. This is why the hammer has come down. Everyone is guilty....

If you're referring to happened in U.S. v. Wilkerson, that's not remotely what happened.

[Pitt4401]

2 hours ago, MyCS said:

Let's put it this way. CCs didn't do enough when evidence was legitimate because they aren't lawyers. JAG is like the Hobby Lobby of attorneys.

Then you have that case where the pilot who is a Lot Col has a GO step in and save him from his sexual assault allegations. Then big blue sends him to the same base as his accuser or where her family is located. This is why the hammer has come down. Everyone is guilty....

You forgot the part where people claimed the convicted was morally impeccable...while having a previously undisclosed love child.

[FourFans]

2 hours ago, MyCS said:

Let's put it this way. CCs didn't do enough when evidence was legitimate because they aren't lawyers. JAG is like the Hobby Lobby of attorneys.

Then you have that case where the pilot who is a Lot Col has a GO step in and save him from his sexual assault allegations. Then big blue sends him to the same base as his accuser or where her family is located. This is why the hammer has come down. Everyone is guilty....

Go troll somewhere else.  This is actually a serious topic for adults.

[HeloDude]

23 minutes ago, Pitt4401 said:

You forgot the part where people claimed the convicted was morally impeccable...while having a previously undisclosed love child.

Kind of irrelevant as to if one committed rape or not, right? 

[arg]

11 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Well Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) is slowly stripping the rights of the accused slowly away to try to gain more convictions. Currently, Article 32 hearings are nothing more than a paper trial that lasts maybe 5-10 minutes (mine lasted about 10 minutes). The complaining witnesses (defense name for victims) don't have to testify anymore at an Article 32 hearing, thus not subject to be cross-examined and possibly have their testimony impeached. Regardless of what the investigating officers finds (for Art 120 offenses, it must be a JAG) and recommends, no convening authority in the USAF is not going to refer the charges to a general court martial if a Art 120 charge is attached.

Gillibrand will get her way of changing the UCMJ, or she'll continue to ruin senior officer's careers for making legitimate decisions within their authority, but against her wishes. Much like she did to the 3 AF/CC's career for overturning the verdict in the U.S. v. Wilkerson case.

And another senator from MO I think.

[pawnman]

16 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Kind of irrelevant as to if one committed rape or not, right? 

Does speak to the morals though, don't you think? 

Integrity first, unless you have a love child with your mistress. 

[pawnman]

20 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Well Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) is slowly stripping the rights of the accused slowly away to try to gain more convictions. Currently, Article 32 hearings are nothing more than a paper trial that lasts maybe 5-10 minutes (mine lasted about 10 minutes). The complaining witnesses (defense name for victims) don't have to testify anymore at an Article 32 hearing, thus not subject to be cross-examined and possibly have their testimony impeached. Regardless of what the investigating officers finds (for Art 120 offenses, it must be a JAG) and recommends, no convening authority in the USAF is not going to refer the charges to a general court martial if a Art 120 charge is attached.

Gillibrand will get her way of changing the UCMJ, or she'll continue to ruin senior officer's careers for making legitimate decisions within their authority, but against her wishes. Much like she did to the 3 AF/CC's career for overturning the verdict in the U.S. v. Wilkerson case.

At this point, I support Gillibrand's first idea. Take these cases away from the military entirely.  Try them with civilian prosecutors, civilian judges, civilian juries.

Edited February 28, 2021 by pawnman

[HeloDude]

17 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Does speak to the morals though, don't you think? 

Integrity first, unless you have a love child with your mistress. 

Again, how is this relevant to whether or not he raped someone?  Unless you’re now saying that someone’s past behavior should be relevant when determining if that same person committed a crime or not?

Funny...we have another thread in which people are suggesting that Floyd’s past crimes should be irrelevant to his interaction with the police on the day he died.  And Floyd is now hailed a hero...

[Homestar]

Still not a single word from the chain of command that I’m aware of. Seems like the firing of the boss should result in a least a Sq/CC message to the troops. 

[pawnman]

21 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Again, how is this relevant to whether or not he raped someone?  Unless you’re now saying that someone’s past behavior should be relevant when determining if that same person committed a crime or not?

Funny...we have another thread in which people are suggesting that Floyd’s past crimes should be irrelevant to his interaction with the police on the day he died.  And Floyd is now hailed a hero...

I'm not saying it had bearing on the rape accusation. But maybe it should have had some bearing on his supporters saying he has "impeccable moral character".

[HeloDude]

4 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I'm not saying it had bearing on the rape accusation. But maybe it should have had some bearing on his supporters saying he has "impeccable moral character".

But that was the basis for my original comment—that what Pitt4401 said was irrelevant as to whether the dude committed rape.  I said nothing about the dude’s character...I was speaking to whether or not he raped someone.

If the Air Force wanted to originally discharge the guy because they thought his character was not in line with being a good officer, then that’s the argument they should have made.

[pawnman]

24 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

But that was the basis for my original comment—that what Pitt4401 said was irrelevant as to whether the dude committed rape.  I said nothing about the dude’s character...I was speaking to whether or not he raped someone.

If the Air Force wanted to originally discharge the guy because they thought his character was not in line with being a good officer, then that’s the argument they should have made.

This is how you get cases like the Marine who spread around naked pictures of another Marine, confessed, every member of the chain wanted him gone...then the commanding general retained him and put him back to work in the same unit as the victim.

"Well, he didn't rape her, so I guess there's no problem".

Look past Wilkerson.  The fact that senior officers are willing to make these kinds of statements on behalf of the accused, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, is part of why there's a perception that no one above the rank of captain is ever punished for these behaviors.

Would YOU have put your credibility on the line for a subordinate sleeping around on his wife, with a love child, by saying "oh, he's a great guy.  Impeccable moral character.  The highest levels of integrity.  Never seen him do something wrong"?  Because I wouldn't.  But someone in Wilkerson's chain decided that they would.

Again...this is why we should punt all these cases to civilian courts.  They don't give a fuck about rank, or about statements of character.

[HeloDude]

Just now, pawnman said:

This is how you get cases like the Marine who spread around naked pictures of another Marine, confessed, every member of the chain wanted him gone...then the commanding general retained him and put him back to work in the same unit as the victim.

"Well, he didn't rape her, so I guess there's no problem".

Look past Wilkerson.  The fact that senior officers are willing to make these kinds of statements on behalf of the accused, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, is part of why there's a perception that no one above the rank of captain is ever punished for these behaviors.

Would YOU have put your credibility on the line for a subordinate sleeping around on his wife, with a love child, by saying "oh, he's a great guy.  Impeccable moral character.  The highest levels of integrity.  Never seen him do something wrong"?  Because I wouldn't.  But someone in Wilkerson's chain decided that they would.

Again...this is why we should punt all these cases to civilian courts.  They don't give a fuck about rank, or about statements of character.

Dude, are you still drunk?  How is what I’m saying have anything to do with a Marine spreading naked pictures of chicks online?

Go ahead and make your own posts, but if you’re commenting on mine, then stick to what I’m saying:  Someone’s past that has nothing to do with said crime is irrelevant as to whether or not someone committed said crime.  

 

 

[pawnman]

Just now, HeloDude said:

Dude, are you still drunk?  How is what I’m saying have anything to do with a Marine spreading naked pictures of chicks online?

Go ahead and make your own posts, but if you’re commenting on mine, then stick to what I’m saying:  Someone’s past that has nothing to do with said crime is irrelevant as to whether or not someone committed said crime.  

 

 

Try to follow along: the fact that bro bro was sleeping around on his wife and hid a kid from that relationship is VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE that his morals were not, in fact, impeccable.  Yet his senior officers made the statement that his morals were, in fact, impeccable.

How is this difficult for you?

Edited February 28, 2021 by pawnman

[HeloDude]

1 minute ago, pawnman said:

Try to follow along: the fact that bro bro was sleeping around on his wife and hid a kid from that relationship is VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE that his morals were not, in fact, impeccable.  Yet his senior officers made the statement that his morals were, in fact, impeccable.

How is this difficult for you?

He wasn’t charged with his morals being out of whack when he was stationed in Italy...he was charged with rape (aggravated sexual assault—see link below).

I have yet to make any argument as to whether or not the dude had good character or not.  Nor have I made any comments as to the leadership’s decision on why they overturned the original conviction.  I have clearly said that someone’s past is irrelevant as to if someone committed a crime or not.  Oh I’m sure lawyers use that as a way to sway a jury, but again, just because someone was a dirt bag (cheating on a spouse, for example), doesn’t equate to him also raping someone.

So who are you arguing with?  “How is this difficult for you?”

https://www.stripes.com/news/former-aviano-ig-is-found-guilty-in-sexual-assault-case-1.195656