PDA

View Full Version : Army Officer found guilty of Murder


Eurodriver
08-01-13, 21:12
http://baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/ap/2013/08/01/Army_officer_found_guilty_in_Afghanistan_shootings.html


Prosecutors said Lorance ordered his men to open fire immediately, in violation of the military's rules of engagement, which requires soldiers to hold fire unless they have evidence of hostile action or hostile intent. They said three men on a motorcycle approached the patrol in July 2012. Two were killed and the third ran away.

Attorneys for Lorance said he was trying to protect his unit.

Very limited details on this story from the link. Anyone have more knowledge?

Personally, from the information given, I think its absolutely ridiculous that he was charged, let alone found guilty of Murder. Anyone in Iraq 10 years ago knows what happened whenever a BOLO would go out for a white van. I guess no one bothered checking inside them back then...(not that there was much to check afterwards). Some motorcyclists come speeding toward your patrol? I'd order them to shoot too.

Unless there are considerable details that change things.
Gutshot John
08-02-13, 07:19
The rules is the rules...

He got a trial and it was determined he violated those rules.

It should also be pointed out that the purpose of military justice isn't about "justice" for the individual, but rather preserving the discipline of the unit by making examples of violators.

You may dislike that this man was made the example, but I don't see where it says the facts are in question.
CodeRed30
08-02-13, 08:33
The rules is the rules...

He got a trial and it was determined he violated those rules.

It should also be pointed out that the purpose of military justice isn't about "justice" for the individual, but rather preserving the discipline of the unit by making examples of violators.

You may dislike that this man was made the example, but I don't see where it says the facts are in question.

I don't even know where to begin with you, so I'm going to refrain from speaking my mind.

OP, I'm with you. In war, you have bad kills. PERIOD. Now if there was obvious malicious intent to just go off a bunch a people, that's different.
Gutshot John
08-02-13, 08:52
I don't even know where to begin with you, so I'm going to refrain from speaking my mind.

OP, I'm with you. In war, you have bad kills. PERIOD. Now if there was obvious malicious intent to just go off a bunch a people, that's different.

How about you start with the facts. No one disputes he did what he did.

You know what CONVICTION means right? He got a trial, you know where they examine evidence and evaluate it? It's called due process, he got it and he was convicted. Do you have any indication that he didn't get a fair trial?

Bad kills do happen, and for most people, who did everything RIGHT, the facts come out in their favor. He did something WRONG.

My bet is that the men he led, testified and that was what convicted him.
kry226
08-02-13, 08:54
Just had this conversation with one of my officers today.

I am firmly convinced that we don't have all the information as there are always 8 sides to every story. For example, did anyone testify that they overheard the LT being blatantly disregarding of the ROE? Did anyone hear him talking about retribution against any locals?

Not speculating, but just giving examples of how we could have less than all of the relevant information.

But this is bad any way you look at it. :(
Frailer
08-02-13, 11:19
I've sat on enough court martial panels to know that if this young man was convicted of this offense there is a great deal more to the story.

A court martial bears little resemblence to the sort of trial where your fate is determined by 12 guys or gals who, as some have said, "weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty."

Panel members take their duty *very* seriously, know the UCMJ, understand rules of evidence, and--more often than not--have a degree of empathy for the accused.
CarlosDJackal
08-02-13, 16:32
...It should also be pointed out that the purpose of military justice isn't about "justice" for the individual, but rather preserving the discipline of the unit by making examples of violators...

Poppycock!! The purpose for this type of "military justice" is for Diplomatic Appeasement.

It has absolutely nothing to do with preserving unit discipline.
Frailer
08-02-13, 16:35
Poppycock!! The purpose for this type of "military justice" is for Diplomatic Appeasement.

It has absolutely nothing to do with preserving unit discipline.

And you know this how?

You have information that's not included in the story, or does your certainty stem from the fact that it jibes with your world view?
gun71530
08-02-13, 16:40
And you know this how?

You have information that's not included in the story, or does your certainty stem from the fact that it jibes with your world view?

Are entire ROE in Afghanistan is about appeasing the Afghans.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
Frailer
08-02-13, 16:47
Are entire ROE in Afghanistan is about appeasing the Afghans.

Remember, when you're at the bottom of the ladder every above you looks like an ass.
SeriousStudent
08-02-13, 19:45
Gents, let's discuss the case. Eurodriver brought it up, and asked if anyone had any more facts. If you have a specific link or knowledge and can help, do so.

But keep this on track about a military court making a specific decision.

Thanks.
Alpha Sierra
08-04-13, 08:57
Why would anyone want to serve the government of the United States under such conditions?

Why indeed?

The military would be the last career option I would encourage my daughter to pursue. This coming from a service academy graduate and former Naval officer.......