Nine children among 16 dead after US serviceman attacks villagers

[jmm99]

You assume too much as to what I personally do or do not object to. Most all of my posts are "legal opinions" based on what the "law" is - in short, subject to constraints external to myself. My wife says that I am all gray on the outside; but, all black and white on the inside. She is correct.

A very brief personal JMM (John Michael McCarthy) insider. I personally don't give a damn for the "Rule of Law", for "S.Sgt.X", and for all the rest of the gold braid that will go along with this case. I'd be more happy to have lived in a hunter-gatherer society where I and other members of the "Clan" would make the "law". Had I lived in that society, I probably would not be living at 69, but that is another story. BLUF (whatever one thinks of it) we in our complex society do have external constraints, don't we.

I'm aware of all viewpoints on the death penalty. I also see Stan as saying or almost saying: based on the facts Stan now knows, the man is guilty and should be executed. If I am wrong, Stan, correct me. Stan does not say he would perform the execution; and I don't want to put those words in Stan's mouth. But, if he said that explicitly and spelled it out in bold caps - fine, that's OK, because that's his black & white decision, and Stan is being honest.

The facts I know now about "S.Sgt. X" are not sufficient - I simply do not have enough data to analyze and reach a decison to act by my putting a .45 to the back of his head and pulling the trigger. That is not being "gray"; I simply do not know enough data to make a black & white personal decision. That is my present position - and that is written in black & white.

As another personal sidebar: when I look at "ROE situations", I ask (1) what would I decide, as the shooter, if I had no constraints (externals) subject only to my own restraints (internals); and (2) what should I decide, as the shooter, under the constraints (externals) then existing as I understand them. In fact, I use my imagination (as best I can) to try to look at those situations from the standpoints of all who were involved.

BTW: If you want to get into the political arena re: the death penalty (as some comments in this post and in this thread certainly are), then you should get active with people such as Brooks Patterson. Brooks is too controversial for state-wide office, but his county has given him multiple terms (more before that as prosecutor). He finds the death penalty acceptable (so do I). From WXYZ, Death penalty case involving 2001 fatal shooting sparks debate in Metro Detroit:

Posted: 07/12/2010

DETROIT (WXYZ) - It was years before federal investigators finally determined seven men were responsible for the fatal shooting in Dearborn of an armored truck guard in December of 2001. Now, one of the crew, 36-year-old Timmothy Dennis O’Reilly is on trial in Federal District Court for the murder of 30-year-old Norman Stephens of Detroit, the father of six children who was ambushed while servicing an ATM at the Dearborn Federal Credit Union.
...
But the possibility of a death sentence upon conviction has re-opened the debate on the ultimate punishment that hasn’t been allowed in Michigan since 1847. Federal law still allows the death penalty in capitol cases.

“I’d like to know more about the case, but I don’t know,” said Megan Shafto. “I’m Catholic, and we don’t approve of the death penalty, but sometimes, maybe,” Megan added.

“An eye for an eye, definitely, so I'm for it, absolutely” said Jay Teshka.

“I’m against the death penalty, because there’s no turning back once you’ve executed an innocent man,” said Howard Maxwell.

Former prosecutor and Oakland Co. Executive L. Brooks Patterson is a longtime death penalty advocate.

“With the use of DNA evidence, the system is closer to fool-proof, ”Patterson said. “But can mistakes be made, of course.”

In the event, the accused was found guilty on all charges; but Jury Unable to Reach a Unanimous Decision for Detroit Man Convicted on Charges of Murder and Bank Robbery:

U.S. Attorney’s Office
Eastern District of Michigan
August 25, 2010

A federal jury in Detroit today was unable to reach a unanimous decision during the penalty phase in the case of U.S. v. Timothy Dennis O’Reilly, 37, a Detroit resident originally from Camarillo, California. O’Reilly had been convicted on charges including murder, bank robbery, and conspiracy relating to armored car robberies in Dearborn and Detroit, Michigan, United States Attorney Barbara L. McQuade announced.
...
The jury deliberated for seven hours before announcing that they were unable to reach a unanimous decision. As a result, the court must impose a sentence of life in prison without possibility of release. The penalty phase of the trial began on August 9, 2010. O’Reilly was convicted on August 3, 2010, which concluded the 11-day trial before United States District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. ...

So, people will reach different conclusions about the death penalty - which I am not arguing here.

Nor am I arguing that the "Rule of Law" should be followed. John Allen has already stated that U.S. law will be followed (CNN interview). He could, of course, be overruled by President Obama, who could hand "S.Sgt. X" over to the Afghanis. Astan has the worst and most corrupt legal system in the World. Not withstanding, their cry of "Homang come down" could be answered with "Holman come down". But, lest we digress, I'm not presently arguing that either.

The basic proposition is very simple: Based on the evidence you have before you now, is there enough evidence for you to decide whether you would personally execute "S.Sgt. X" now ?

Regards

Mike