Discussion in 'Military' started by Gunny, Dec 14, 2007.
Wow. I totally disagree with the sentence. If he is guilty of murder, he should be doing some time.
Negligent homicide..that essentially means it was an accident. A stupid accident, but still an accident. No point in sending him to prison for all eternity, no purpose is served.
I had a similar arguement on my other board about this. Murder is murder.
Negligent homicide isn't murder. It's accidentally killing somebody. Murder is intentionally killing somebody.
Negligent homicide is acting like a jerk and not paying attention and backing over your buddy. Murder is getting him in the headlights and intentionally running him down.
From the article...
Some accident. And by the way negligent homicide isn't just an accident, its an accident where you fucked up bigtime. That is, you didn't want to kill him, but its pretty much all your fault.
Just as well he wasn't a teenage boy in Ga getting head from a teen girl, he'd be in BIG trouble. He only killed an Iraqi so he can walk. No biggie eh?
Explain please how one "accidentally" stabs someone 17 times?
Wrong. He took the life of another human being, and IMO, unjustifiably so.
The Iraqi WAS violating light discipline. Smash his phone and knock his cigarette out. Rat on his ass. Tie him up. Get him off the line.
But stab him 17 times with a bayonet? I don't see it.
This is where Im tough on crime. The killer should be locked up for a long time. If the killing was an accident, then the killer should be kept out of society so that his clumsiness wont result in another accident.
It reminded me of the fact that there are so many drunk driving repeat offenders. I just dont see how our justice system allows people who have been convicted time and time again to drive. It even allows people who have committed serious accidents to be back on the road after a fine and perhaps a brief time in jail. Anyway, this is probably a different rant suitable for a different thread.
The thing about accidents (not really applicable in this case...perhaps a little bit) is that oftentimes the person failed under pressure. That is, they should have acted differently but the events that put them into that position weren't really that fault. Its hard to justify punishing someone if they find themselves in a situation which is extremely unpleasant which they then make the wrong choice about.
If you are tailgating someone and they stop suddenly because a child is in front of them, and you rear end them and kill them, it IS an accident. Were you acting stupidly? Yes. Is it reasonable to think that it would end in death? Probably not.
The thing about drunk driving is that we are essentially punishing people for a crime they *might* commit. We don't really care about them driving drunk, we care about the increased risk of killing someone when driving drunk. So we are basically saying "its illegal to do something which might injure someone"...that is punishing them for what could have happened, but didn't.
Separate names with a comma.