RE: Question for US Soldiers re: wearing your Class A

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Question for US Soldiers re: wearing your Class A

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Question for US Soldiers re: wearing your Class A

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Question for US Soldiers re: wearing your Class A - 4/2/2010 6:57:44 AM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

quote:

ORIGINAL: E

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

Ok, what does "without authority" mean?

Not on orders (i.e. not on "active duty").

Erm, that would mean an Army soldier could face some jail time (6 months), because he fell asleep on the couch wearing the uniform - just to wake up in the middle of the night to figure it's time to get some Lays at Walmart (without changing clothes).

No, an Army soldier is not only on orders (by virtue of being active duty), he is technically on-duty 24 hours a day for the entire term of his service. But as stated above, that behavior did use to get military personnel in trouble with their C.O.'s. Although common sense normally prevailed when it became an issue.

As an aside, if the uniform he fell asleep in was a set of BDU's, he may've actually improved it within reg's as BDU's are supposed to be rumpled (so as to breakup a soldier's outline).

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
Seriously, I rather think it means that someone who's running around in a uniform without being in the Armed Forces will get punished. No?

WILL get punished? No. (just imagine if EVERY SINGLE law on the books was enthusiastically enforced!)

COULD be punished? Yes.

PROBABLY be punished? Hell no.

I personally think the only way a civilian would ever be charged is as a "bonus" charge to accompany another crime. And then only by a pissed off prosecutor (or maybe an embarrassed one?).

Would a soldier be punished? Depends on the soldier's record, his C.O., the context, and the barometric pressure at the time. It has happened, albeit at almost, if not always, less than Courts-Martial punishment levels.

Of course, in the original post's context, I wouldn't put it past the prosecutor to contact the defendant's C.O.

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 31

RE: Question for US Soldiers re: wearing your Class A - 4/2/2010 7:17:13 AM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: E

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
Seriously, I rather think it means that someone who's running around in a uniform without being in the Armed Forces will get punished. No?

WILL get punished? No. (just imagine if EVERY SINGLE law on the books was enthusiastically enforced!)

COULD be punished? Yes.

PROBABLY be punished? Hell no.

I personally think the only way a civilian would ever be charged is as a "bonus" charge to accompany another crime. And then only by a pissed off prosecutor (or maybe an embarrassed one?).
Of course, in the original post's context, I wouldn't put it past the prosecutor to contact the defendant's C.O.

In a general sense, I agree with your statement. However, if we take the meaning of wearing a uniform, as a complete uniform to an extent of being able to impersonate a serviceman this gets into another realm. Just what was the individual trying to do. Was he trying to gain access to an installation?

Of course, questioning of individuals that happen to be in uniform walking down a street is not quite the American way. There should be some cause. Papers please!

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to E)

Post #: 32

RE: Question for US Soldiers re: wearing your Class A - 4/2/2010 7:57:09 AM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

quote:

ORIGINAL: E

I personally think the only way a civilian would ever be charged is as a "bonus" charge to accompany another crime.

In a general sense, I agree with your statement. However, if we take the meaning of wearing a uniform, as a complete uniform to an extent of being able to impersonate a serviceman this gets into another realm. Just what was the individual trying to do. Was he trying to gain access to an installation?

Not really, once you're in that other realm, the actual wear of the uniform charge would still be a "bonus" charge... (hopefully-only "Attempted" [xxxx] would very probably supercede a maximum 6 month sentence. While I took your meaning, it is noteworthy that it doesn't have to be an entire uniform. Merely "a distinctive part thereof or anything similar."

But I do have to nail myself... Jeesh! I just realized I remembered the U.S.C. Title number wrong according GoodGuy's quote... Title 18? Not title 10? In my meager, yet lame defense, it has been almost 20 years since I last read the section. *grin?* You guys are REALLY slipping, to let that one by!

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 33

RE: Question for US Soldiers re: wearing your Class A - 4/2/2010 11:08:32 AM

GoodGuy

Posts: 1506
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

quote:

ORIGINAL: E

I personally think the only way a civilian would ever be charged is as a "bonus" charge to accompany another crime.

...However, if we take the meaning of wearing a uniform, as a complete uniform to an extent of being able to impersonate a serviceman this gets into another realm. Just what was the individual trying to do. Was he trying to gain access to an installation?

Yeah, that's how I understood USC 18. Thanks for confirming that my initial thought/translation was right.

quote:

Jeesh! I just realized I remembered the U.S.C. Title number wrong according GoodGuy's quote... Title 18? Not title 10? In my meager, yet lame defense, it has been almost 20 years since I last read the section. *grin?* You guys are REALLY slipping, to let that one by!

Actually, USC 18 regulates affairs of the "Armed Forces", so it refers to Army, Navy, AirForce and US Marines, where all are subject to UCMJ (military jurisdiction = "Uniform Code of the Military Justice"), while USC 10 regulates National Guard matters, which also indicates that the National Guard is usually excempt from military jurisdiction. So in regard to the OP's question, your hint wasn't bad, as I understand that USC's title 10 �772 does at least indicate that federal law does not prohibit to wear the NG uniform off-duty, unless someone corrects me and explains what he thinks what "as the case may be" could mean.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 4/2/2010 11:20:13 AM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to E)

Post #: 34

RE: Question for US Soldiers re: wearing your Class A - 5/4/2010 12:56:23 AM

jjhouston4

Posts: 17
Joined: 3/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

As to why we carry firearms, the courthouse is packed with scumbags and their scumbag friends, all of whom would love to get a shot at an unarmed officer. The one time a defense attorney and judge tried to force one of our uniformed officers to appear without his sidearm, we stood two officers at the door with shotguns outside the courtroom.

Police officers are targets and I�ve arrested hundreds of armed scumbags inside courtrooms in my career. So trying to make an officer disarm for some stupid defense motion is just playing games with OUR lives. Something the defense seems to have no issue at all doing whenever they get the chance.

I work in a courthouse where LEO's are generally required to check firearms and I can't recall that ever causing a security issue. So I googled "police shot in court". The only two hits where an LEO was actually shot involved inmates taking guns from LEOs and them turning the guns on the LEO's.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/4275403/detail.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21670577/

_____________________________

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 35

RE: Question for US Soldiers re: wearing your Class A - 5/4/2010 2:38:53 AM

Doggie

Posts: 3244
Joined: 9/19/2001
From: Under the porch
Status: offline

Unless things have changed since I was in the army, a soldier or veteran is entitled to wear a dress uniform whenever he feels like it. There was a time when soldiers were required to wear Class As or khakis when off duty, as civilian clothing was not authorized.

More recently, fatigue uniforms were authorized only when traveling to or from work. The only authorized clothing allowed off post were civilian clothes, Class As, or khakis. Travel in BDUs was never authorized. To get on a plane, you had to be in dress uniform or appropriate civilian attire, e.g. no tank tops, flip flops or shorts. These days, I see people in BDUs everywhere, and some them aint soldiers. There's a lot of that going around.

A POS reserve JAG officer telling a real soldier he can't wear a uniform is the height of chutzpah in my opinion. Lawyers aint even required to qualify with a weapon, and are officers in name only. They are simply handed commissions other people have to earn.

_____________________________

Visit the New, Improved Mad Dog's Drive Thru

(in reply to jjhouston4)

Post #: 36

RE: Question for US Soldiers re: wearing your Class A - 5/4/2010 4:04:25 AM

Fallschirmjager

Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline

I did some quick research and I see no precedent in the state of Tennessee against wearing a military uniform in a court room.
I asked some of my colleagues who used to be in the criminal defense game for their opinion and all three said they would advise against it out of fear that the judge or jury could view it as trying to influence the verdict.

If I had clients in the military or national guard I would probably advise against it as well for the same reason.

(in reply to Doggie)

Post #: 37

RE: Question for US Soldiers re: wearing your Class A - 5/4/2010 8:15:22 AM

Doggie

Posts: 3244
Joined: 9/19/2001
From: Under the porch
Status: offline

But de-lousing a thug and dressing him up in a suit and tie is perfectly kosher?

_____________________________

Visit the New, Improved Mad Dog's Drive Thru

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)

Post #: 38

RE: Question for US Soldiers re: wearing your Class A - 5/4/2010 2:04:51 PM

Grit

Posts: 142
Joined: 4/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crimguy
Cops, even off duty, wear their uniforms whenever they can. They break policy in court to make sure they have their firearms on, because it influences the jury by adding an amount of authority to their testimony.

Being a retired Police Officer, I call bull**t. I wore civilian attire (suit and tie) and carried a concealed weapon in a shoulder harness no one could possibly see when I testified off duty as did everyone else. We only wore uniforms when on duty or when about to go on duty.

As to why we carry firearms, the courthouse is packed with scumbags and their scumbag friends, all of whom would love to get a shot at an unarmed officer. The one time a defense attorney and judge tried to force one of our uniformed officers to appear without his sidearm, we stood two officers at the door with shotguns outside the courtroom.

Police officers are targets and I�ve arrested hundreds of armed scumbags inside courtrooms in my career. So trying to make an officer disarm for some stupid defense motion is just playing games with OUR lives. Something the defense seems to have no issue at all doing whenever they get the chance.

Jim

I totally agree with Jim on all points.

The only courtroom I've ever been in where a law enforcement officer carrying a weapon wasn't allowed was in Federal District Court. In this court every person entering the building was searched and passed through a metal detector.

Trust me, the Judge and most defense attorneys appreciate armed officers in the courtroom.

_____________________________

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 39