• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Ft Hood Tragedy

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
SEREbuckeye;1588476; said:
Well, there is the act (cant think of the name) where the local and federal PD's have to be brought in for any off base findings that may involve any civilians. In the Air Force we have military OSI (unlike the Navy), which hinders us in a case where a military member may be buying illegal activities from civilians. In such a case we have to refer to the civilian PD's for help because military members can not arrest civilians off base.

I would think that he will get military punishment for his on base actions and the FBI could get him for any illegal actions made by him off base (ie: illegal activities on his computer). Im not 100% positive. I base this off of the fact that if you get a DUI off base you will be in trouble with your local PD as well as your base unit for failing to0 obey local laws and acting in a manner unfavorable to the military.

Is anyone here savvy with the UCMJ because there seem to be a lot of grey areas?
Click to expand...

As Milli stated, it's a case on federal property involving people covered under UCMJ. First Hasan must be tried under UCMJ for those crimes he committed against other federal employees and military ON federal property.

If he'd shot someone in a bar in downtown Killeen, then it's under civilian jurisdiction and even if the other person were also military it would not be under the UCMJ system.

In both instances he CANNOT be tried for the same crime under two legal systems. That's double jeopardy, but he can be tried for the crimes he committed to military personal under UCMJ and tried in civilian court for crimes he may have consequently committed on a private citizen not under government contract.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;1588834; said:
If the crime itself was not committed off-base, i.e. in the "civilian world", then 1.) Civilian authorities have no jurisdiction, and 2.) The fact that evidence is in Hasan's off-base residence is irrelevent as to determining jurisdiction...the UCMJ has world-wide jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Cool, I appreciate all the help.

Working in the flying community doesn't involve much talk on military legal matters. All the info greatly helps and I can put it in the memory for any banter or questions that may come up.
 
Upvote 0
Muck said:
:(
Click to expand...
The Columbus Dispatch - News
A Defense Department worker on a terrorism task force looked into Fort Hood shooting suspect Nidal Hasan's background months ago, officials said Tuesday - providing fresh evidence the military knew worrisome details about the Army psychiatrist before the shooting rampage. Two officials speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case on the record said the Washington-based joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI was notified of communications between Hasan and a radical imam overseas, and the information was turned over to a Defense Criminal Investigative Service employee assigned to the task force.
That worker wrote up an assessment of Hasan after reviewing the Army major's personnel file and the communications. The assessment concluded Hasan did not merit further investigation, in large part because his communications with the imam were centered around a research paper he was writing at the time, and the investigator had concluded Hasan was in fact working on such a paper, the officials said.
...
Click to expand...
more details are coming out.
 
Upvote 0
I heard a few more details on NPR today as to why he was not booted during his time at Walter Reed. Basically, it boiled down to the fact it is very hard to boot someone from a residency. They have to be brought up formally and voted out by 2 committees. The leadership there was split on potential dismissal. He was given a very severe warning and basically got his act together during his last few months there. I take back my "failure of leadership" comment from earlier in the thread. I didn't understand the level of difficulty involved in a dismissal.

Now, something I'd still like to know is whether or not he applied for contentious objector status as he had written a paper/presentation on why it should apply to someone like himself.
 
Upvote 0
I wondered how in the world someone could shoot that many people on a military base before somebody was able to fire back at them. I guess it never occurred to me that our military bases would be gun-free zones.

Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection."
Click to expand...

Brilliant, unless that "credible and specific threat" kills you before you can get "authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." :ohwell:

Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones - FOXNews.com
 
Upvote 0
Jake;1591800; said:
I wondered how in the world someone could shoot that many people on a military base before somebody was able to fire back at them. I guess it never occurred to me that our military bases would be gun-free zones.



Brilliant, unless that "credible and specific threat" kills you before you can get "authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." :ohwell:

Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones - FOXNews.com
Click to expand...

Oh no - not Clinton!!!!!:ohwell:

That is one tragedy per 16 years!!

On this board several vets have discussed their own experiences with soldiers who used weapons on military facilities to take theri own lives. One assumes that anyone distraught enough to do that might decide to take somebody out with them. Military couples get divorced too.

Not allowing everyone walking around on a base to be armed in light of the numbers of people coming through is just as likely to have saved the same number of lives as were lost in the tragedy.

I would love to hear what the MPs and guards at the facilities think about it. I'm sure you can point to a tragedy at a courthouse too, but I can guarantee you as a former bailiff that I did not want anyone armed in my courtroom but me.
 
Upvote 0
cincibuck;1589108; said:
In both instances he CANNOT be tried for the same crime under two legal systems. That's double jeopardy, but he can be tried for the crimes he committed to military personal under UCMJ and tried in civilian court for crimes he may have consequently committed on a private citizen not under government contract.
Click to expand...

Double jeopardy does not prevent prosecution for the same crime under two different legal systems. Jurisdiction might, but not double jeopardy.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top