No More Jail For Marine Who Killed Iraqi

[Gunny]

(AP) A Marine reservist who killed an Iraqi soldier was sentenced Friday to a bad-conduct discharge but will serve no more time behind bars, a spokeswoman said.

Lance Cpl. Delano Holmes, 22, of Indianapolis, also was reduced in rank to private, said 1st Lt. Lisa Lawrence.

Holmes, who spent 10 months in the brig, could have faced up to eight more years of confinement.

A Marine jury convicted him Thursday of negligent homicide and of making a false official statement in the Dec. 31, 2006, stabbing death of Pvt. Munther Jasem Muhammed Hassin in Fallujah. Jurors acquitted him of unpremeditated homicide, which carried a potential life sentence.

more ... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/14/iraq/main3620344.shtml

Wow. I totally disagree with the sentence. If he is guilty of murder, he should be doing some time.

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

 

[Shogun]

I had a similar arguement on my other board about this. Murder is murder.

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

 

[Larkinn]

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...

Hassin[the Iraqi] suffered 17 stab wounds, 26 slashes and a chop to the face that nearly severed his nose, while Holmes was not injured

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.

 

[Diuretic]

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?

 

[Gunny]

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.

Explain please how one "accidentally" stabs someone 17 times?

 

[Gunny]

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?

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.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

This is where I’m 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 won’t result in another “accident”.

It reminded me of the fact that there are so many drunk driving “repeat offenders”. I just don’t 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.

 

[Larkinn]

This is where I’m 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 won’t result in another “accident”.

It reminded me of the fact that there are so many drunk driving “repeat offenders”. I just don’t 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.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

People don’t arrive in positions by magic in a puff of smoke. They arrive at locations by a series of choices that they make. If you don’t consider yourself capable of working effectively in the pressure of a “war zone”, then don’t sign up for the military.

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.

Why was he tailgating? If someone needs to drive to a particular place and arrive on time, he is to prepare and depart for the place early so that he will not have to rush and tailgate. No. Accidents don’t happen out of the blue. They are caused.

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.

Drunk driving is a crime in and of itself. It is illegal to drive while intoxicated or while merely under the influence.

 

[Gunny]

People don’t arrive in positions by magic in a puff of smoke. They arrive at locations by a series of choices that they make. If you don’t consider yourself capable of working effectively in the pressure of a “war zone”, then don’t sign up for the military.



Why was he tailgating? If someone needs to drive to a particular place and arrive on time, he is to prepare and depart for the place early so that he will not have to rush and tailgate. No. Accidents don’t happen out of the blue. They are caused.



Drunk driving is a crime in and of itself. It is illegal to drive while intoxicated or while merely under the influence.

Your first paragraph is poor logic, at best. NO ONE knows how they will react under the pressure of combat until they actually are in it. Standing guard duty stateside is one thing. Odds are good your biggest challenge will be trying to not fall asleep.

Standing guard under hostile fire conditions where you can come under attack at any second is whole different world. The Marine was correct in that the Iraqi WAS violating a basic premise of concealment by displaying lighted objects. That's all a sniper needs.

How he handled the violation, IMO was wrong. But don't go second guessing the pressure of fearing for your life every second, and don't think you can sit back here and rationalize it prior to joining.

 

[Larkinn]

People don’t arrive in positions by magic in a puff of smoke. They arrive at locations by a series of choices that they make. If you don’t consider yourself capable of working effectively in the pressure of a “war zone”, then don’t sign up for the military.

As I said its not terribly applicable for this situation. But regardless of how the people arrive at their locations to be held responsible for those choices they need to have been able to predict what would happen. If I walk outside and see someone having a seizure and I need to decide whether to help them or call 9/11, yes my choices brought me into that situation but to say that I am somehow responsible for being in that situation is ludicrous.

Why was he tailgating? If someone needs to drive to a particular place and arrive on time, he is to prepare and depart for the place early so that he will not have to rush and tailgate. No. Accidents don’t happen out of the blue. They are caused.

We can't all act perfectly in every situation. Yes sometimes people are late. Because that causes them to kill someone does not mean they are a murderer. Expecting people to act ideally in every situation is stupid. Then we are essentially punishing people who get unlucky. If thats the standard, might as well just jail people randomly and save on cop salary costs.

Drunk driving is a crime in and of itself. It is illegal to drive while intoxicated or while merely under the influence.

And pray tell, why exactly is it a crime? Because we are afraid of what MIGHT happen not what has already happened.

 

[mattskramer]

Your first paragraph is poor logic, at best. NO ONE knows how they will react under the pressure of combat until they actually are in it. Standing guard duty stateside is one thing. Odds are good your biggest challenge will be trying to not fall asleep.

Standing guard under hostile fire conditions where you can come under attack at any second is whole different world. The Marine was correct in that the Iraqi WAS violating a basic premise of concealment by displaying lighted objects. That's all a sniper needs.

How he handled the violation, IMO was wrong. But don't go second guessing the pressure of fearing for your life every second, and don't think you can sit back here and rationalize it prior to joining.

Perhaps my comments were over the top and perhaps they were not. I am reconsidering my comments. I do think that people should be held more accountable for the choice that they make than they seem to be held today. There is too much “psychobabble” today that seems to excuse people for behaving wrongly. The “temporary insanity” plea is used way too often to be an honest legitimate defense each time. People should be more responsible for their own responses to emotional events. Theft is kleptomania. Arson is pyromania. People seem to be given sympathy if they simply say “Gee. I didn’t know”. “I didn’t know that if I drink alcohol and drive, I might hit someone”. “I didn’t know that if I signed up for guard duty, I might face a dangerous situation”. I’m sorry but I don’t buy those “cop-outs”. That’s b.s. The bottom line is that people must get to know themselves and their limits. If you think that you can’t take the heat, don’t be a cook. I thought about joining the military years ago. I thought about what I would do in a dangerous life-threatening situation. I learned that I am too self-preserving. I would shoot first and ask questions later. I also don’t like the notion of blindly following someone else’s orders without my asking questions. I also don’t want to take the chance of “accidentally” killing an innocent person. Therefore, I decided that the military is not for me.

 

[Larkinn]

Perhaps my comments were over the top and perhaps they were not. I am reconsidering my comments. I do think that people should be held more accountable for the choice that they make than they seem to be held today. There is too much “psychobabble” today that seems to excuse people for behaving wrongly. The “temporary insanity” plea is used way too often to be an honest legitimate defense each time.

Just as prosecutors load up on crimes (i.e. charging 40 different crimes for the same act), Defense attorneys load up on defenses. The temporary insanity plea rarely goes anywhere and its a hard one to prove. We have over 2 million people in US jails, the US has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds incarcerated population. If there is anything we are in this country, its not soft on crime. I hear this crap over and over like people are just walking out of US jails. In the "land of the free" we imprison a higher rate of our population than almost any country in the world. The idea that we don't punish individuals enough is ludicrous.

People should be more responsible for their own responses to emotional events. Theft is kleptomania. Arson is pyromania.

No, its not. Most people steal shit somewhere between the ages of 14 and 18. They aren't all kleptomaniacs. Kleptomania is when someone can't help but steal. They can't control it.

People seem to be given sympathy if they simply say “Gee. I didn’t know”. “I didn’t know that if I drink alcohol and drive, I might hit someone”. “I didn’t know that if I signed up for guard duty, I might face a dangerous situation”. I’m sorry but I don’t buy those “cop-outs”. That’s b.s.

Please cite me a case of someone, anyone who got out of it because they said "I didn't know that if I drink alcohol and drive, I might hit someone". That is something that simply doesn't happen. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse in this country. Feel free to go into a court and plead that, you will get no sympathy.

The bottom line is that people must get to know themselves and their limits. If you think that you can’t take the heat, don’t be a cook. I thought about joining the military years ago. I thought about what I would do in a dangerous life-threatening situation. I learned that I am too self-preserving. I would shoot first and ask questions later. I also don’t like the notion of blindly following someone else’s orders without my asking questions. I also don’t want to take the chance of “accidentally” killing an innocent person. Therefore, I decided that the military is not for me.

Yes, lets start throwing people in jail because they happen to be stupid and unlucky.

 

[mattskramer]

As I said its not terribly applicable for this situation. But regardless of how the people arrive at their locations to be held responsible for those choices they need to have been able to predict what would happen. If I walk outside and see someone having a seizure and I need to decide whether to help them or call 9/11, yes my choices brought me into that situation but to say that I am somehow responsible for being in that situation is ludicrous.

There is a hard-to-find but significant difference in your example. You did not cause his seizures. He may have failed to take his epilepsy medicine or taken better care of himself. You did not create his problem. It is nice that you would try to help the person. You are not killing the person.

We can't all act perfectly in every situation. Yes sometimes people are late. Because that causes them to kill someone does not mean they are a murderer. Expecting people to act ideally in every situation is stupid. Then we are essentially punishing people who get unlucky. If thats the standard, might as well just jail people randomly and save on cop salary costs.

I disagree with your perspective. I’m not expecting people to act ideally in every situation, but I am expecting them to own up to harm that they cause. If you are late, you are still obligated to obey traffic laws and to drive safely. If you did not head out for the appointment early enough and are late as a result, it is your loss. So be late. I’m far from perfect. I’ve been late to events before, but I have not driven recklessly and dangerously, putting other people at risk for it. It is not the obligation of other drivers to get out of your way because you did not plan ahead for an appointment.

And pray tell, why exactly is it a crime? Because we are afraid of what MIGHT happen not what has already happened.

Contact a local attorney or appropriate law enforcement agency for a list of crimes. If you think that a particular behavior should not be a crime, contact your representative in government.

 

[Larkinn]

There is a hard-to-find but significant difference in your example. You did not cause his seizures. He may have failed to take his epilepsy medicine or taken better care of himself. You did not create his problem. It is nice that you would try to help the person. You are not killing the person.

Nor did I cause the person to stop suddenly when I was behind them. I am at fault for tailgating them, and I am also at fault for doing the wrong thing when they have a seizure. After all, ignorance isn't an excuse, right?

I disagree with your perspective. I’m not expecting people to act ideally in every situation, but I am expecting them to own up to harm that they cause.

Own up how? Throwing them in jail forever? That is ludicrous. If you mean by paying them money, well yes that generally happens through the courts and our tort system. Despite the cries and moans about how we are overly litigious, it generally works pretty well.

If you are late, you are still obligated to obey traffic laws and to drive safely. If you did not head out for the appointment early enough and are late as a result, it is your loss. So be late. I’m far from perfect. I’ve been late to events before, but I have not driven recklessly and dangerously, putting other people at risk for it. It is not the obligation of other drivers to get out of your way because you did not plan ahead for an appointment.

Yes you are. But if you don't, you don't deserve to be thrown in jail for it.

Contact a local attorney or appropriate law enforcement agency for a list of crimes. If you think that a particular behavior should not be a crime, contact your representative in government.

Its called federal and state statutes and the MPC. I'm well aware of what crimes out there, and I'm not advocating changing them. I'm saying that, rather then condemn people so quickly, you should think about questioning why its ok to punish someone for a harm they *might* commit.

 

[mattskramer]

Just as prosecutors load up on crimes (i.e. charging 40 different crimes for the same act), Defense attorneys load up on defenses. The temporary insanity plea rarely goes anywhere and its a hard one to prove. We have over 2 million people in US jails, the US has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds incarcerated population. If there is anything we are in this country, its not soft on crime. I hear this crap over and over like people are just walking out of US jails. In the "land of the free" we imprison a higher rate of our population than almost any country in the world. The idea that we don't punish individuals enough is ludicrous.

So we aren’t perfectly hard on violent crimes. I still think that we should be harder.
One way to reduce the number of prisoners is to repeal “crimes of consent”. I think that marijuana consumption, gamboling, and prostitution should be legalized.

No, its not. Most people steal shit somewhere between the ages of 14 and 18. They aren't all kleptomaniacs. Kleptomania is when someone can't help but steal. They can't control it.

Defense teams have tried to have defendants receive soft sentences by claiming that said defendants have mental diseases such as kleptomania and pyromania. I think that in at least some cases, the defense teams have succeeded.

Please cite me a case of someone, anyone who got out of it because they said "I didn't know that if I drink alcohol and drive, I might hit someone". That is something that simply doesn't happen. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse in this country. Feel free to go into a court and plead that, you will get no sympathy.

I did not say that people get to avoid jail through ignorance of the law. I said that they seem to get sympathy by pleading ignorance. They also get sympathy by saying that it was an accident.

Yes, lets start throwing people in jail because they happen to be stupid and unlucky.

No. Let’s start throwing more people in jail when their actions result in victims being injured or killed.

 

[Larkinn]

So we aren’t perfectly hard on violent crimes. I still think that we should be harder.
One way to reduce the number of prisoners is to repeal “crimes of consent”. I think that marijuana consumption, gamboling, and prostitution should be legalized.

No we aren't perfectly hard, but we are absurdly hard. Mandatory minimums, combined with a twisted version of personal responsibility has ended up with us putting huge numbers of people in jail.

Defense teams have tried to have defendants receive soft sentences by claiming that said defendants have mental diseases such as kleptomania and pyromania. I think that in at least some cases, the defense teams have succeeded.

That hardly ever succeeds. And when it does its usually justified because the hurdles are so high.

I did not say that people get to avoid jail through ignorance of the law. I said that they seem to get sympathy by pleading ignorance. They also get sympathy by saying that it was an accident.

Extenuating factors matter. A lot. Someone who accidentally kills someone is a LOT less culpable than someone who walks up to someone puts a gun to their head and pulls the trigger.

No. Let’s start throwing more people in jail when their actions result in victims being injured or killed.

So when I tailgate someone and nothing happens, well thats ok and I'm off scot free, but if Gunny tailgates someone and they happen to stop, he rear ends and kills them, its what...15 years for him?

The difference between off scot free and fifteen years is an action which you have no control over? Absurd.

 

[mattskramer]

Nor did I cause the person to stop suddenly when I was behind them. I am at fault for tailgating them, and I am also at fault for doing the wrong thing when they have a seizure. After all, ignorance isn't an excuse, right?

I am not an attorney but I think that when someone stops suddenly for no reason, he is contributing to the accident – I think that it would fall under “contributory negligence” and you would both be at fault – him for stopping without reason and you for tailgating. I do not see how failing to render proper aid to a seizure victim results in you being one to blame for his seizure.

Own up how? Throwing them in jail forever? That is ludicrous. If you mean by paying them money, well yes that generally happens through the courts and our tort system. Despite the cries and moans about how we are overly litigious, it generally works pretty well.

Okay. Perhaps I was a bit too harsh. People who cause injury should own up by paying full restitution to their victims – along with payment for “pain & suffering” and punitive damage. The one who caused the injury should then spend be required to spend some time in a therapy program so that he learns what he did wrong and learns how to not do it again. If he commits a similar mistake again, then I would recommend that he spend several years in jail. Some people are just too “accident prone” to allow out in public.

Yes you are. But if you don't, you don't deserve to be thrown in jail for it.

Okay. Perhaps the one who caused the accident should not be tossed into jail for years but he should have to pay in full for his mistake. If he shows to cause more problems and death, then lock him up for a long time.

Its called federal and state statutes and the MPC. I'm well aware of what crimes out there, and I'm not advocating changing them. I'm saying that, rather then condemn people so quickly, you should think about questioning why its ok to punish someone for a harm they *might* commit.

It comes down to where we draw the line. Statistics have shown that those who drink and drive cause more accidents than do those who don’t drink and drive. Therefore we have preventive measure. Yet, statistics show that crimes in which there is a victim often follows prostitution and gamboling. I understand that we can’t protect everyone from making bad choices. Should motorcyclists be required to wear seatbelts? Should drivers be required to have insurance? Should people be required to wear seatbelts? Why do we allow smoking of tobacco but not the smoking of marijuana or the injection of cocaine? It all comes down to where we are going to draw the line.