More Troop On Troop Crime

[JSJ]

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/14243_America.html

09/16/2004 19:51
"Staff Sgt. Matthew Werner, 30, of Oxnard, California, and Spec. Christopher Hymer, 23, of Nevada, Missouri were found shot near Fort Riley, Kansas.

Staff Sgt. Werner was fatally shot to death, and Spec. Hymer is listed in critical condition.

Werner has just returned from his second tour of duty in Iraq. He was scheduled to have surgery to repair wounds he had sustained on his last tour in Iraq. He leaves behind a wife.

Sgts. Aaron Stanley, 22, of Bismarck, North Dakota, and Eric Colvin, 23, of Papillion, Nebraska, were charged in connection with the shootings. Police said a rifle and a handgun were found at the scene of the crime".

As often as accounts such as these rear up their ugly heads, I can't help but think of the July 14th, 2004 article in the LA Times that gave perhaps the only satisfactory explanation of why these episodes continue apace; ie., 30% of all active service personel come to the military with criminal records. Why the military wants criminals in the service is anybody's guess- mine is that no-one but a criminal follows the criminal orders of the CiC as reliably or as gleefully.

[DoNotRefill]

1. Ummm....It's illegal....

for any person with a felony or any person with a misdemeanor conviction for a crime of domestic violence to so much as touch a gun. This does NOT have an exemption in it for military or law enforcement officers, and does not have an exemption for "duty weapons".

[JSJ]

2. ever hear of 'morals waivers'? nt

[DoNotRefill]

5. Doesn't matter.

There was a big stink when the law first went into effect for the domestic violence misdemeanor, because a bunch of police officers lost their jobs because of it. Remember, it wasn't a grandfathered situation. If a cop or soldier was convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor way prior to the passage of law, they still lost their jobs. A long time ago, such charges were viewed as annoyances, so there were many cases where people just paid the fine to avoid going to court, like a speeding ticket. But the law didn't make allowances for that, in fact, it specifically did NOT exempt them.

[JSJ]

6. 'morals waivers' exempt whoever the command wants exempted

Now, please cite examples of active duty or pre-service personel who lost their jobs or their military enlistment despite having a waiver- or who weren't granted a waiver because of a criminal conviction in their past.

[JSJ]

7. the low-down on waives nt

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blwaivers.htm

"You don't mention your offense, your age, or any other disqualifications, but it sounds like it is likely more than a speeding ticket or shoplifting.

'First, you are not qualified, that's why you need the waiver(s). Different waivers have to go to different levels and to different ranks of officers for approval up the chain of command. The recruiter will ask for a waiver for nearly anyone...he's under lots of pressure for quota. As you move up the chain, people start comparing the time and effort spent in putting the package together and the likelihood of getting an approval. Officers put their name on you waiver package. What they are saying is: "I believe in this guy, we should take a chance on him". If they run too many ridiculous waivers or if most of their applicants with waivers fail recruit training or don't complete their first enlistment, these officers lose credibility. It is (or was) a statistical fact that the attrition rate (recruit training or first term of enlistment) for applicants is higher than those without a waiver. I used to tell my recruiters all the time..."stop wasting your time trying to qualify the unqualifiable, go out and find me someone who doesn't need a waiver." I personally submitted, reviewed, processed, recommended and approved thousands of waivers'.

'Believe me, no one wants you to get in any more than the Army recruiting people. There job is to get people in...not keep them out".

The above is a recruiter's response to an applicant (for a morals waiver of his 'criminal history') to the Army.-SJ

[DoNotRefill]

8. not so:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/domestic/opltrleo.htm

"In addition, the Act amended the GCA so that employees of government agencies convicted of qualifying misdemeanors would not be exempt from this new disability with respect to their receipt or possession of firearms or ammunition. Thus, law enforcement officers and other government officials who have been convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor will not be able to lawfully possess or receive firearms or ammunition for any purpose, including performing their official duties."

Military waivers are only good for military requirements. For example, the JAG guy who came to my law school offered me a waiver of the age requirement because I graduated 6 months after the age-cutoff date. The military does NOT have the authority to waive Federal law just because they want somebody, any more than they can waive state statutory-rape laws because one of their people got busted.

If you want to read the actual law, please click HERE:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/44/sections/section_922.html

[JSJ]

9. 'military waivers are only good for military requirements'

Those are your words, presumably. So, what the fuck are you talking about? Do you know? It seems your only point of reference are gun laws. I've been talking about the military and morals waivers granted to applicants who have criminal histories. That covers a whole lot more ground than gun laws. I will concede, maybe, that gun crimes are the exception, but I'd have to see an actual case where an applicant was denied a morals waiver because he used a gun in a crime.

[DoNotRefill]

10. The point that you seem to be missing...

is that you cannot touch a firearm or a single round of ammunition if you A) have a felony conviction, or B) have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence. If you cannot legally touch a firearm, you cannot legally join the service. It's what's called in legal terms a "legal disability".

Waivers issued by the military cannot change one simple fact: It is, ACROSS THE BOARD, a violation of Federal Law for a felon or a convicted domestic abuser to join the service if that service involves touching a firearm at ANY point, EVEN if it's overseas. It doesn't MATTER if the original crime involved a gun or not: What matters is ONLY that the government would train the person in Basic how to handle a firearm, at which point the people/entity giving the person the gun would be breaking the law.

The military can issue waivers for items of MILITARY POLICY ONLY. They can't supercede Federal Law. So they can issue a waiver if you're too old or too young, they can issue a waiver if you have a physical abnormality, they can issue a waiver if you're gay, they can even issue a waiver if you're dead, but they CAN NOT ISSUE A WAIVER IF YOU HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY OR A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MISDEMEANOR. PERIOD.

[JSJ]

11. here's what you're missing

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/3/210239

USA Today
Tuesday, July 4, 2000
WASHINGTON – The Army and Navy are accepting more recruits who have been charged with felony crimes, military records show.


The Army saw the number of recruits with felony arrests in their backgrounds rise from 166 in 1998 to 357 so far this year. The military's 2000 recruiting year does not end until Sept. 30, so the Army's felony numbers are likely to climb.

Navy recruits who had been arrested for felonies rose from 47 in 1998 to 165 last year. So far this year, the Navy has recruited 131 sailors who were charged with felony offenses.

Both services question a recruit's fitness for enlistment even if an arrest did not end in conviction and in some cases even if there are no charges filed.

The services can grant waivers, written exceptions to their rules, for recruits who committed some felonies and misdemeanors. Each branch sets its own rules regarding which offenses require waivers.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/ns99053.pdf

From the General Accounting Office- Titled 'Military Recruiting'

"Notwithstanding the moral character standards, a criminal history record for any type of crime, including a felony, does not automatically eliminate someone from consideration because they may be granted a "moral character waiver".

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309085314/html/84.html

And this from the National Academies Press

"The rate of waivers for moral character, which include drug use and various criminal behaviors, was quite high between 1980 and 1991, averaging between 16 and 18 percent of all accessions".

Now, I didn't mind looking this material up for you, but it would have been far more beneficial to you to have done so yourself. I detect a young and non-educated mind at work on your end and I can certainly understand a person not knowing this before hand. But not knowing this material and continuing to post like someone who's actually knowledgeable is an offense I don't approve of. Before jumping back into this thread or any other, please educate yourself to the facts that you claim knowledge of.

[Columbia]

13. Charged =/= convicted

[JSJ]

14. military grants waivers to charged AND convicted alike...

...now, if you're capable of reading for comprehension, go back and read the material I posted. Otherwise, suffer the fate of all who do not have the facts or who refuse to educate themselves. But, you're right on the one thing you posted; charged does not equal convicted. So what? Do you have a point to go along with that small piece of nonwisdom?

[DoNotRefill]

16. You keep saying that....

but you never offer a single shred of proof except from places like Newsmax. Please cite the relevant authority that allows the US military to ignore the quoted Federal law. You know you can't, because it doesn't exist. Oh, and BTW, that was NOT the law in the 1980's. Prior to that, they could have felons in the military. The law went into effect in 1997. How about something modern?

As for the charged bit, if you're charged with a crime, you are not convicted yet. Being CHARGED with a felony or a domestic violence misdemeanor isn't a legally disabling event. Being CONVICTED is.

[JSJ]

17. nice try, kid- now go read my posts and learn something

[DoNotRefill]

18. read my post again.

how about something dated after 1997?

[JSJ]

19. the third link is 2003- don't come back unless you got something...

...intelligent to add. The other two links are 1999 and 2000. What's your problem, dude, can't you look shit up on your own?

*edited to add link info

[DoNotRefill]

20. and your third link still says nothing about status....

as a convicted felon. Saying "I smoked pot 10 years ago" isn't a felony conviction.

[JSJ]

21. it's over, bub- you aren't making any sense...

...or any headway with your nonsensical bullshit.

[DoNotRefill]

22. and you still haven't cited anything...

that allows the military to ignore federal law.

Please do so. And not from Newsmax.

[JSJ]

23. last one, bub, then you're on your own (us military link inside)

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/julqtr/32cfr571.3.htm

If the offense is-- Then approval authority is--


(ii) Minor non-traffic offenses........... CDR, Recruiting Area
(iii) Misdemeanors........................ CDR, DRC
(iv) Juvenile felonies.................... CG, USAREC
(v) Adult felonies........................ CG, MILPERCEN
(vi) Civil restraint of unconditional CDRs in lines (i) through
suspended sentence or unconditional. (v) for the offenses
involved

Now, you gonna believe the gov, or are you just a fly?

[JSJ]

26. kick

[DoNotRefill]

27. You still haven't shown....

that the commanding general (recruiting or personnel) actually has the authority to waive Federal Law.

If you read the "small print", you'll see that they discuss expungement and restoration of rights through pardons, et cetera. Once the person's record is expunged in the court of approriate jurisdiction, legally it is as if the conviction never happened, and the person's civil liberties are restored. Under those circumstances, a waiver is both still required and is valid, because the legal disability has been made "not to be". A person with their rights restored can go into a gun store and buy a gun, and there's no reason why the military can't take them. But if they still have a felony conviction or a domestic violence misdemeanor that hasn't been expunged or pardoned, the military can NOT waive the disqualification to possess arms.

This isn't something that's left to the recruiter's CO. The CO can issue waivers for misdemeanors (as long as they're not for DV). They kick it up the chain of command to make the determination on if the person can or can not enter the military. If their rights were restored, and the CG wants the person, they can go in. If their rights have NOT been restored, and they are still convicted felons or have a domestic violence misdemeanor, they can't.

[JSJ]

29. buzz off, fly!

[jmowreader]

24. Ummm....It's also illegal....

to shoot people when you're not in combat.

Note that they said 30 percent of all military people enter the service with criminal records--not what the records were for. Lots of assaults, B&E, robbery and so on in there.

War story follows: I took basic training at Fort Dix. Before we got to go to our units, we had to go to the 901st MI Group field office that did security screening for all the MI enlistees. They told us of one guy who came in to be a Morse-code interceptor. There is this huge list of questions you're asked, and one is "are you wanted by any law enforcement agency for any crime, whether you committed it or not?" This guy said yes. "What crime?" Three counts of murder. "Did you do it?" Yeah. "What jurisdiction are you wanted in?" Wrightstown, New Jersey. Dumb motherfucker kills three people because they pissed him off, joins the army to attempt to escape and chooses a job that requires a thorough background check. Then gets sent to basic training five miles from the scene of the crime. Yeah, he's still in jail.

[JSJ]

25. couple questions

Absent a waiver, he obviously got in by lying. But was there no background check run on him at the time he enlisted? And, is he in a military jail or civilian? And does the military still have him or did he get discharged?

About the large- "lots of"- number of those adjudicated for assault- what would you say is the percentage of those with criminal histories, had records that included assault?

Thanks

[jmowreader]

28. The background check apparently wasn't that thorough

The military wouldn't have had jurisdiction over him--there is no Status of Forces Agreement for military personnel stationed in their own home states. The local cops came on post, picked him up and sent him to the New Jersey state pen.

There is one huge reason why they don't really drop a lot of cash on an investigation until you get through basic training--cost. A full-up top-secret clearance costs about $90,000. For many reasons, quite a few people who enlist in the MI never make it to the door of the Intelligence School. They decide not to report for basic training--although we all got this sheet describing the horrible things the army can do to you if you say 'fuck it,' they don't worry too much about chasing down someone who decided not to come in; they just disqualify you from ever enlisting again and are done with it. They go to basic and don't pass. They flunk the rather rudimentary security screening that's done before you go in and get sent to fuel handler school instead. So they tend to wait until they're sure you can be a soldier before they spend any real money on you. This particular individual apparently got less spent on him than the average.

As for the assault question: in a lot of places GIs tend to come from, if someone gets picked up in a bar brawl or some other kind of fight the prosecutor will probably go with an assault charge because the penalties are higher than just "fighting." And a lot of guys in the service have been busted for fighting. So I'd say that's the number-one charge in someone's record--at least 65 percent have assault in their records and more than half of them have only assault.

[JSJ]

30. thanks!

[Knurled99]

3. I'm in the delayed-entry process to the Navy

There are a shitload of questions to answer about your past... and the recruiters don't get their instant gratification unless you answer "no" to all of them. They have a saying in the recruiter's office.... "No means 'Navy Opportunity' and Yes means 'Your Enlistment Stops.'" These guys are hard-up to meet their quotas AT ALL COSTS, lest they lose their cushy recruiting position back in their home towns.
:puke:

[JSJ]

4. are you saying 'anyone' can get in? thanks for posting! nt

[JSJ]

12. bump

[JSJ]

15. bump