He sounds like someone who broke the law and should be prosecuted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archigeek
See? This is what happens when you are consistent... you look less like a hypocrite.
Printable View
He sounds like someone who broke the law and should be prosecuted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archigeek
See? This is what happens when you are consistent... you look less like a hypocrite.
I almost feel sorry for this one. He drank all the kool-aid and is going to pay for it big time. Do they strip your military pension if you're convicted of attacking the government whose military you have a pension from?
Carrying those zip tie handcuffs is not going to be a good look for him in court.Quote:
Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Larry Rendall Brock Jr., of Texas, is a former former fighter pilot photographed on the Senate floor wearing a military style helmet and body armor and carrying plastic zip-tie handcuffs. He is charged with knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.
He loses it while in prison, but it returns after he gets out. He could be court-martialed though, as he is retired, and it could be stripped then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archigeek
Not quite true. He would lose any VA disability payments, but he would not lose his military retirement pension.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
As for courts martial, the courts have ruled both ways on this, so it's a possibility but unlikely.
Ah, yeah, I was thinking of Disability. It isn't a "both ways" thing on court martialing a retiree though. The US Supreme Court has said they can.Quote:
Originally Posted by caelric
I heavily doubt they would, he'd probably need to literally shoot a congressman.
And I believe at other times, they have said they can't. It's not cut and dried, that's for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
The rioters were idiots that's for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archigeek
Side note - semantically speaking - the oath of serving in the Military is to the Constitution - not the currently elected Government. Though lawful obedience to the President and Officers appointed is there as well. So to go against the elected leaders does not "technically" apply to military personnel if actions taken by the elected leaders are in conflict with the Constitution. Just as disobeying an unlawful order from the President or Officers is not considered illegal - though it would be contested in a legal setting.
But again, the rioters were dumb for doing what they did, and should be handled in the legal system.
Edit: Just as the Joint Chiefs statement was correct in preemptive action to avoid any confusion or conflict with regards to any potential illegal orders given by President Trump. They were right in issuing that clear statement to avoid any potential conflict.
The Supreme Court has ruled on it one time, and it is also a recent ruling (2019). That trumps any other ruling. The guy raped a kid in Japan, they charged him, sentenced him to 8 years and dishonorable discharge. A retired Major General was court martialed in 2017 as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by caelric
The UCMJ specifically states it applies to retirees and any others receiving pay.
An interesting note on the AF LtCol, he could not be court-martialed. He retired from the reserves, not active duty, so he no longer falls under the UCMJ. Had he retired from active duty, he would.
Was about to say that, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
The Marine Corps Times, surprisingly, has a pretty good article about it all, and the various legal issues involved in court martialing a retiree