Army 1LT Clint Lorance: Sentenced to Prison for Protecting His Unit

[JakeStarkey]

Attempting to protect American lives is a crime in todays politically correct military

No, shooting and killing civilians that posed no threat is a crime.

Civilians get killed in war .if he didn't know they were civilians ,then he did nothing wrong. Do you think bombing Germany or nuking Japan killing 10s of thousands of civilians was wrong? Should we have not done that?

The eltee, Jroc, knew the guy was not a target authorized by the ROE.

The air war in WWII is a false equivalency used as a red herring to distract the OP: there is no defense in it.

All veterans on the Board know what the rules were, son. It was drilled into troops' heads all the time. The eltee knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily murdered.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The members of a U.S. military Courts-Martial are high ranking officers.

Not a bunch of mush headed civilians.

If they found the soldier 'guilty' then he most definitely had broken the UCMJ.

And deserved what ever sentence was handed out to him. ....

Maybe he saw his men killed and maimed by the muslim scum and he over reacted. It happens in war.

All the vets on the Board, many who served on courts-martial and in Articles 15, are fully aware of matters in extenuation and mitigation.

You can be sure that the eltee's defense counsel submitted whatever he could to help his client.

 

[Jroc]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq2-DNR63Ag]Defend Veteran Lorance : Clint Lorance - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Jroc]

The members of a U.S. military Courts-Martial are high ranking officers.

Not a bunch of mush headed civilians.

If they found the soldier 'guilty' then he most definitely had broken the UCMJ.

And deserved what ever sentence was handed out to him. ....

Maybe he saw his men killed and maimed by the muslim scum and he over reacted. It happens in war.

All the vets on the Board, many who served on courts-martial and in Articles 15, are fully aware of matters in extenuation and mitigation.

You can be sure that the eltee's defense counsel submitted whatever he could to help his client.

Our rules of engagement in Afghanistan specified that we could not shoot, kill, or injure unarmed civilians. But what about the unarmed civilian who was a skilled spy for the illegal forces we were tying to remove? What about an entire secret army, diverse, fragmented, and lethal, creeping through the mountains in Afghanistan pretending to be civilians?
Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell

“Okay…let me get this straight. President Obama can order drone Hellfire missile strikes in Afghanistan…knowing full well all the civilians in the building and area will be killed as well (some 7,000 killed)…but one soldier gives an order to protect his platoon from what could be a suicide bomber, and kills 2 in a war zone, and HE gets charged with murder?”

The Black SphereArmy 1LT Clint Lorance: Sentenced to Prison for Protecting His Unit

 

[dreolin]

Maybe he saw his men killed and maimed by the muslim scum and he over reacted. It happens in war.

Sounds like something IDF juden would say.

So how many years did you serve?? ...

What's it to you holocaust denier? You wouldn't have the balls to face me down boy. You I would consider muslim scum

My money would be on the "muslim scum" who served his country, the USA, and knows the purpose of Rules of Engagement.

He probably knows the rules of grammar as well and isn't afraid of a well placed comma or two.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Maybe he saw his men killed and maimed by the muslim scum and he over reacted. It happens in war.

All the vets on the Board, many who served on courts-martial and in Articles 15, are fully aware of matters in extenuation and mitigation.

You can be sure that the eltee's defense counsel submitted whatever he could to help his client.

Our rules of engagement in Afghanistan specified that we could not shoot, kill, or injure unarmed civilians. But what about the unarmed civilian who was a skilled spy for the illegal forces we were tying to remove? What about an entire secret army, diverse, fragmented, and lethal, creeping through the mountains in Afghanistan pretending to be civilians?
Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell

“Okay…let me get this straight. President Obama can order drone Hellfire missile strikes in Afghanistan…knowing full well all the civilians in the building and area will be killed as well (some 7,000 killed)…but one soldier gives an order to protect his platoon from what could be a suicide bomber, and kills 2 in a war zone, and HE gets charged with murder?”

The Black SphereArmy 1LT Clint Lorance: Sentenced to Prison for Protecting His Unit

Jroc, what BHO ordered is not at trial.

Only the convict's acts count at the court-martial.

He was weighed in the balance and found wanting.

Justice was indeed served.

 

[Jroc]

Sounds like something IDF juden would say.

So how many years did you serve?? ...

What's it to you holocaust denier? You wouldn't have the balls to face me down boy. You I would consider muslim scum

My money would be on the "muslim scum" who served his country, the USA, and knows the purpose of Rules of Engagement.

He probably knows the rules of grammar as well and isn't afraid of a well placed comma or two.

You'd loose punk. and you can take your comma and shove it.

 

[BDBoop]

Written By : Tami Jackson, December 30, 2013

In August 2013 Army 1LT Clint Lorance, 28, of Celeste Texas, was found guilty of 2 counts of murder.

Our military and political leaders have us bogged down in yet another no-win war and are seeking scapegoats for their failures. Libtards rant at Allen West for doing exactly what this young lieutenant did – protect his troops. That's what a leader is supposed to do.

According to our ridiculous Rules of Engagement, soldiers in a combat zone are told to hold their fire unless there is evidence of hostile action or direct hostile intent.

Read the full disgusting piece @ Army 1LT Clint Lorance: Sentenced to Prison for Protecting His Unit | Right Wing News and to hades with all you who make a stupid big deal about the source.

There are Rules of Engagement for a reason and this guy violated them. We cannot have our troops gunning down non-combatants.

Seriously??? Do you actually think the military frivolously and whimsically court martials troops. If anything, the opposite is true and ift they didn't have a good, airtight case, they wouldn't proceed.

Furthermore, if the command lets troops run amok, it is not only detrimental to the mission but also detrimental to the image of our country and our military.

Oh, and your source is biased.

He is only the second so accused and tried in all these years.

 

[Jroc]

All the vets on the Board, many who served on courts-martial and in Articles 15, are fully aware of matters in extenuation and mitigation.

You can be sure that the eltee's defense counsel submitted whatever he could to help his client.

“Okay…let me get this straight. President Obama can order drone Hellfire missile strikes in Afghanistan…knowing full well all the civilians in the building and area will be killed as well (some 7,000 killed)…but one soldier gives an order to protect his platoon from what could be a suicide bomber, and kills 2 in a war zone, and HE gets charged with murder?”

The Black SphereArmy 1LT Clint Lorance: Sentenced to Prison for Protecting His Unit

Jroc, what BHO ordered is not at trial.

Only the convict's acts count at the court-martial.

He was weighed in the balance and found wanting.

Justice was indeed served.

Military officials say his case will be automatically appealed.

 

[Coyote]

Written By : Tami Jackson, December 30, 2013

In August 2013 Army 1LT Clint Lorance, 28, of Celeste Texas, was found guilty of 2 counts of murder.

Our military and political leaders have us bogged down in yet another no-win war and are seeking scapegoats for their failures. Libtards rant at Allen West for doing exactly what this young lieutenant did – protect his troops. That's what a leader is supposed to do.

According to our ridiculous Rules of Engagement, soldiers in a combat zone are told to hold their fire unless there is evidence of hostile action or direct hostile intent.

Read the full disgusting piece @ Army 1LT Clint Lorance: Sentenced to Prison for Protecting His Unit | Right Wing News and to hades with all you who make a stupid big deal about the source.

There are Rules of Engagement for a reason and this guy violated them. We cannot have our troops gunning down non-combatants.

Seriously??? Do you actually think the military frivolously and whimsically court martials troops. If anything, the opposite is true and ift they didn't have a good, airtight case, they wouldn't proceed.

Furthermore, if the command lets troops run amok, it is not only detrimental to the mission but also detrimental to the image of our country and our military.

Oh, and your source is biased.

He is only the second so accused and tried in all these years.

I think the rarity of that makes the case more compelling - it isn't done lightly. His own men were disturbed enough to report it up the chain of command.

In addition, this article states:

The charging document depicts Lorance as abusive. He warned an Afghan man whose property abutted the outpost that “if there is enemy activity on your land, we will shoot and kill you, your family and your kid,” the document says.

I suspect there is alot of evidence not public that further supports the ruling.

 

[BDBoop]

Written By : Tami Jackson, December 30, 2013

In August 2013 Army 1LT Clint Lorance, 28, of Celeste Texas, was found guilty of 2 counts of murder.

Our military and political leaders have us bogged down in yet another no-win war and are seeking scapegoats for their failures. Libtards rant at Allen West for doing exactly what this young lieutenant did – protect his troops. That's what a leader is supposed to do.

According to our ridiculous Rules of Engagement, soldiers in a combat zone are told to hold their fire unless there is evidence of hostile action or direct hostile intent.

Read the full disgusting piece @ Army 1LT Clint Lorance: Sentenced to Prison for Protecting His Unit | Right Wing News and to hades with all you who make a stupid big deal about the source.

There are Rules of Engagement for a reason and this guy violated them. We cannot have our troops gunning down non-combatants.

Seriously??? Do you actually think the military frivolously and whimsically court martials troops. If anything, the opposite is true and ift they didn't have a good, airtight case, they wouldn't proceed.

Furthermore, if the command lets troops run amok, it is not only detrimental to the mission but also detrimental to the image of our country and our military.

Oh, and your source is biased.

He is only the second so accused and tried in all these years.

 

[BDBoop]

Part of the problem is - he has a sweet smile. Kind eyes. If anybody isn't looking past those, and the uniform? They need to look again.

 

[Jroc]

Part of the problem is - he has a sweet smile. Kind eyes. If anybody isn't looking past those, and the uniform? They need to look again.

He's a patriot... I don't look past that fact

 

[JakeStarkey]

Part of the problem is - he has a sweet smile. Kind eyes. If anybody isn't looking past those, and the uniform? They need to look again.

He's a patriot... I don't look past that fact

He is a convicted murderer, not a patriot.

 

[dreolin]

Part of the problem is - he has a sweet smile. Kind eyes. If anybody isn't looking past those, and the uniform? They need to look again.

He's a patriot... I don't look past that fact

Patriots bring honor to their country, not dishonor.

And good soldiers follow the Rules of Engagement.

 

[pinqy]

The ROE stated they could fire based on hostile action or intent. Intent could be inferred from weapons, explosives, or cell phones. Lorance lied to his platoon, claiming the ROE had changed so that anyone on a motorcycle was a legitimate target. There were no indications of any hostile intent, and no weapons,explosives, radios, or cell phones were found on the bodies. Lorance lied and claimed civilians removed the bodies before they could be searched. He had previously ordered unlawful shootings at civilians (to scare not kill) including near children.

Yes, the ROE can be overly strict. I had to watch one known, positively identified bad guy get away because i couldn't get a kill order because of stupid ROE, but lying to your soldiers and superiors? Falsifying reports? That's not the way. The regs say you don't have to obey lawful orders, but they don't say anything about stupid orders.

If he really thought it necessary to break the rules, he would have been man enough to admit it. Lying and covering it up? He knew he had no justification and there was no reason to think his men were in danger.

 

[BDBoop]

The ROE stated they could fire based on hostile action or intent. Intent could be inferred from weapons, explosives, or cell phones. Lorance lied to his platoon, claiming the ROE had changed so that anyone on a motorcycle was a legitimate target. There were no indications of any hostile intent, and no weapons,explosives, radios, or cell phones were found on the bodies. Lorance lied and claimed civilians removed the bodies before they could be searched. He had previously ordered unlawful shootings at civilians (to scare not kill) including near children.

Yes, the ROE can be overly strict. I had to watch one known, positively identified bad guy get away because i couldn't get a kill order because of stupid ROE, but lying to your soldiers and superiors? Falsifying reports? That's not the way. The regs say you don't have to obey lawful orders, but they don't say anything about stupid orders.

If he really thought it necessary to break the rules, he would have been man enough to admit it. Lying and covering it up? He knew he had no justification and there was no reason to think his men were in danger.

Nope. His own man knew he was in no danger, but followed the order to fire.

If he thought they were gathering intel, he should have taken them hostage (if that is an option under UCMJ).

 

[pinqy]

The ROE stated they could fire based on hostile action or intent. Intent could be inferred from weapons, explosives, or cell phones. Lorance lied to his platoon, claiming the ROE had changed so that anyone on a motorcycle was a legitimate target. There were no indications of any hostile intent, and no weapons,explosives, radios, or cell phones were found on the bodies. Lorance lied and claimed civilians removed the bodies before they could be searched. He had previously ordered unlawful shootings at civilians (to scare not kill) including near children.

Yes, the ROE can be overly strict. I had to watch one known, positively identified bad guy get away because i couldn't get a kill order because of stupid ROE, but lying to your soldiers and superiors? Falsifying reports? That's not the way. The regs say you don't have to obey lawful orders, but they don't say anything about stupid orders.

If he really thought it necessary to break the rules, he would have been man enough to admit it. Lying and covering it up? He knew he had no justification and there was no reason to think his men were in danger.

Nope. His own man knew he was in no danger, but followed the order to fire.

If he thought they were gathering intel, he should have taken them hostage (if that is an option under UCMJ).

Ummm what are saying nope to? It's clear he didn't actually think they were in danger...before the patrol he lied about the ROE changing, meaning he had intent to kill anyone on a motorcycle.

 

[BDBoop]

The ROE stated they could fire based on hostile action or intent. Intent could be inferred from weapons, explosives, or cell phones. Lorance lied to his platoon, claiming the ROE had changed so that anyone on a motorcycle was a legitimate target. There were no indications of any hostile intent, and no weapons,explosives, radios, or cell phones were found on the bodies. Lorance lied and claimed civilians removed the bodies before they could be searched. He had previously ordered unlawful shootings at civilians (to scare not kill) including near children.

Yes, the ROE can be overly strict. I had to watch one known, positively identified bad guy get away because i couldn't get a kill order because of stupid ROE, but lying to your soldiers and superiors? Falsifying reports? That's not the way. The regs say you don't have to obey lawful orders, but they don't say anything about stupid orders.

If he really thought it necessary to break the rules, he would have been man enough to admit it. Lying and covering it up? He knew he had no justification and there was no reason to think his men were in danger.

Nope. His own man knew he was in no danger, but followed the order to fire.

If he thought they were gathering intel, he should have taken them hostage (if that is an option under UCMJ).

Ummm what are saying nope to? It's clear he didn't actually think they were in danger...before the patrol he lied about the ROE changing, meaning he had intent to kill anyone on a motorcycle.

Beats me. It almost feels like I quoted the wrong post. Sorry - I woke up not so long ago (work graveyard).