MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
You have defended clients in a murder trial? I didnt think you were into criminal law defense.
So When will Murtha Apologize?
- Thread starter Merkinball
- Start date
You have defended clients in a murder trial? I didnt think you were into criminal law defense.
I have a general practice and I take on all types of matters - I'm even on the public defenders rotation is a couple of counties. Most do not go to trial and most of the deals cut are on behalf of clients that are likely guilty as charged, but the deals are cut for a lesser crime than charged.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
That wasnt a yes, or a no answer. Honestly, have you defended someone in a murder trial?
I've sat second chair with another solo lawyer on a handful of murder trials.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
At least they werent sacrificed for public relations. With the Iraqis refusing to testify or allowing the bodies to be exummed for examination the case already weak collapsed. From the Geneal preciding the insurrgents used "civilians" as human shields. Ultimately it came down to marines reacting as trainned unfortunity with there own lives at stake resulting in civilian deaths though not deliberate murder rather "fog of war"
Merkinball I dont know how you drew those conclusions but from the preciding generals ruling it seems pretty clear to me.
The right decision was made I feel but lets have the full story out so that people can make the right conclusion please
READ TRANSCIPT HERE:
http://www.usmc.mil/lapa/Iraq/Haditha/Haditha-Rel-015-070809.htm
http://www.usmc.mil/lapa/Iraq/Haditha/Haditha-Rel-016-070809.htm
I love how you take on a lawyer like you know better about how courts work.
It's like this one time on Apolyton where Michael the Great totally pwned this person talking about the energy sector. The person called out MtG's credentials that just happened to be a market analyst in the energy sector.
Merkinball
Deity
Well, I am a Marine, I have had the UCMJ drilled in my head. I'd say I'm pretty familiar with things... Of course, I already KNEW that JR was a lawyer. That's seems really irrelevant to me. Now, I may not be a lawyer, but I do know, with absolute certainty, that murder charges do NOT get completely dropped for s--ts and giggles. JR hasn't done, no prosecutor has done it. The only time that MURDER charges get completely dropped, not reduced, but DROPPED, is when there is clear concise evidence that there was no murder. These cases aren't even gonna go to trial. MAYBE SSgt Wuterich will go to trial, but I strongly doubt he will be found guilty of cold blooded murder.
Everything is getting dropped in this case. Everything. The military has made examples out of the Abu Grahib soldiers, and the Mahmoudiya soldiers. The idea that this an example of patting your boys on the back is absurd. Especially considering it's Mattis overseeing it all.
This was a sham.
Oh yeah, you uh, really think this apart of why the case has collapsed? Well, what do you think about the Hammurabi Rights Group? The entire story that was fed to the media was a bunch of horse crap. There was no such thing as the Hammurabi Rights Group, it had just TWO members. The first was the man who shot the video, the second was the doctor who declared the victims were assassinated in cold blood. Both of which have been found to be tied to terrorist groups within Iraq. Time made that retraction, as well as the fact that the man who video taped it VIDEO TAPED EVERYTHING and then went back and edited it all. Yup, the initial car bomb was on tape, the entire ordeal was on tape, and he fled. The entire thing was staged.
What about NCIS's involvement? It hasn't been reported, but NCIS TOLD THE MARINES the night before that this EXACT THING was going to happen. They were briefed that there was to be an ambush in Haditha, that a white vehicle was going to pull up the scene afterwards, and that a secondary ambush was going to involve shooters from houses. They knew this before they went in! Which of course, is one reason why there is aerial drone fotage of the whole thing.
Nobody knows jack about this case. I would be willing to bet that if you were to go out on the street, and ask what people thought about Haditha, they would tell you that Marines murdered 24 innocent civilians, when 8 of them were gunmen or tied to terrorist groups. They know nothing, just Jack Murtha's disgusting words that Marines murdered innocent people in cold blood.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Abu Grahib ??? It was a time bomb, over crowding, poor conditions, overworked outnumbered soldiers.
"I dont care .... were winning the war"
"No sir you are not, Not inside my wire, you are not winning, you are making enemies, You're making enemies out of every one of those people you're holding withou a reason .. This isnt a fair carrage of justice. This isnt dignity and respect. This isnt the road ahead you are allegedly preaching all the time. This is smoke and mirrors, a facade of security in Baghdad. There is no such thing" Karpinski to Wojdakowski - FIASCO - Thomas E Ricks
---
I concer with Gen Mattis conclusion however he did not include that within hes judgment(s). Nor did he mention any cover up, it was simple and precise. Can you provide links to this information ? Though I dont think it really changes things as pointed out the insurrgents used civilians as human shields. With the marines being exonerated.
As for Mutha he should retract & apologies but then again so should Bush, Rumsfield, Fieth, Bremer and a long long list of far far more deadly mistakes. But they will do no such things for poltical reasons. That is the sad state of todays discusting poltices
Your experience as a marine seems pretty irrelevant to me in this case. In fact it taints your credibility. you'll defend the military, just like mobboss, for any and all reasons. it's like defending your mom's honor. you're a apologist that doesn't want the military to look like it has bad elements in it.
regardless, i still think I trust a defense lawyer that has been involved in murder cases to be a better expert on court proceedings than an apologist marine that speaks but doesnt want to listen.
regardless, i still think I trust a defense lawyer that has been involved in murder cases to be a better expert on court proceedings than an apologist marine that speaks but doesnt want to listen.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/18/iraq.haditha/index.html?eref=rss_world
It looks like 2 of the original 4 are still on the hook, one has some degree of culpability but is cooperating, and one was just at the wrong place at the wrong time, but acting within the law. Since it's CNN (which I personally finds misses a lot of details on a lot of stories), it is unclear to me if all charges have been dropped against the 2, if minor charges remain, or if the cooperating Marine is at risk of being back on the hook if his cooperation is lacking (and if he is still facing lesser charges in spite of his cooperation - the usual scenario). It appears Murtha should at least acknowledge regret in regards to his characterization of one of the four. The cooperating Marine could still be culpable and I think Murtha's statement of "the matter still being ongoing" is an ok (but not ideal) response until details come out showing the cooperating Marine was not culpable.
Merkinball
Deity
I don't see what this has to do with what really led to it. An undertrained company, with horrible company and battalion leadership, that sent a unit to guard the most intensive prison in Iraq for POW's. A unit that...had no discipline whatsoever. It has nothing to do with the fact that these people did some pretty awful things in that prison, nor does it have nothing to do with the fact that these soldier's owned up to what they did, were found guilty, and are serving longer prison sentences than most murderer's here in the states.
Cover up? There was no need for Mattis to discuss this. What exactly do you want me to provide for you?
I think Bush has admitted some of his mistakes. I don't think Rumsfeld ever will. I don't know about Feith and Bremer. The political reasons for their silence will only erode support for the Republican's. One thing that I've said for quite sometime is that Bush needs to lick his wounds, admit his failures, and do so on an international forum. He needs some more outside help, and he's not gonna get any without asking for it.
Since your reading skills are lacking: Do you see me defending the Mahmoudiya incident? Or the Abu Grahib incident? Or was I pretty clear and concise in agreeing that those involved were guilty?
You don't know jack about me or my opinions on the military. I damn well know the military has bad elements in it. And coincidentally, I probably hate and despise it much more than you. Unlike you, I've had the pleasure of witnessing all kinds of BS from bad apples that exist within the military. Conversely, I've also watched good Marines get hung out dry by NCIS. I've seen NCIS throw Marines out to the dogs. I know what NCIS does and that they hate the real military.
Actually, there was originally 8.
On December 21, 2006, the U.S. military charged eight Marines in connection with the incident.[5] Four of the marines, Frank Wuterich, Sanick de la Cruz, Justin Sharratt and Stephen Tatum were accused of unpremeditated murder.[27] Tatum was further charged with negligent homicide and assault, while de la Cruz was also charged with making a false statement. Squad leader Frank Wuterich was charged with 12 counts of unpremeditated murder against individuals and one count of the murder of six people "while engaged in an act inherently dangerous to others".[28] The battalion commander, Jeffrey Chessani, was charged with one count of violating a lawful order and two counts of dereliction of duty. First Lieutenant Andrew Grayson was charged with obstruction of justice, dereliction of duty, and making a false statement, while Captain Randy Stone and Captain Lucas McConnell were charged with dereliction of duty. Stone also faced an additional count of violating a lawful order.[27] All charges against Stone were dropped.[29]
I believe one Marine is in, or has had pretrial hearings and Mattis hasn't concluded if he (Wuterich) will face trial, and that the last has not gone through any hearings yet.
You dont think the soldiers are guilty until a body of authority labels them as such. You and mobboss are like two peas in a pod. Still taking orders and positions from above.
as for hating NCIS, this is exactly what I mean where you perceive they run counter to good elements of the military, therefore any crimes they persue are bogus.
as for hating NCIS, this is exactly what I mean where you perceive they run counter to good elements of the military, therefore any crimes they persue are bogus.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
What part of 'innocent until proven guilty' do you not comprehend?
And thats a problem how? We still have our own brains and think for ourselves I assure you. We just dont see things the way you do.
I was referring to those charged with murder.
skadistic
Caomhanach
The same part Murtha didn't.
Probably the same part that the people that think OJ is guilty don't understand.
Merkinball
Deity
How un-American of me... Go figure. Innocent until proven guilty. Let me guess, you foist guilt upon service members based upon the seriousness of the charges and what Jack Murtha tells you?
So tell me, are they guilty?
Sometimes they pursue good charges. Sometimes they don't. I've seen them pursue some good charges, I've seen them pursue bad ones. When my buddy (who was an outstanding Marine in line for meritorious corporal) gets assaulted out in town by third country nationals on libo, and needs staples put in their head, and he ends up getting demoted for it in a summary court martial, there is a serious problem there. NCIS falls into the political side of things too many times. They'll feed us to the dogs so as to make the military not look bad, or to throw bones to host countries. They do what the politicians want and it beefs up their resumes. Some of them are pretty good guys, but the pretty good guys will come right out and tell you who you need to look out for and the shady crap that goes down.
Merkinball
Deity
Why did OJ have to give up all that money to the Goldman's? You're the legal expert. Explain why he had to do that if he didn't KILL THEM.
He lost a civil trial which has a lower burden of proof than a criminal trial trial. Technically, he is liable (civil trial), but not guilty (criminal trial).
If OJ had been a CEO that wasn't convicted, but lost a shareholder civil suit on the same matter as the criminal trial, many who have your view on OJ would have decried the poor CEO's civil suit outcome while whining for tort reform.
