Asked to Disarm in Burke Wal Mart

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post

IamMick wrote:

Well put Peter I was just going off of a case I saw personally where the spouse (civilian) got 10 years for adultery under the UCMJ while her husband was temporarily assigned to the Army in Iraq. She was held under the UCMJ because they were doing it in base housing.

I'm not calling you a liar. Someone got RAILROADED!

I spent 22 years in the military and someonewas definitely railroaded in the situation you describe. The only way civilians can be held to the UCMJ is the situation I showed in my earlier post: As a contractor.

Was this guy's wife a reservist or National Guardsman? Even if she was messing around with someone in housing, the worst they could do to her as a civilian is to kick her out of housing. They have NO jurisdiction over civilians in housing otherwise.

Possibly the ONLY way a civilian could be charged with something is if they committed a felony likemurder aboard a military base. I can't see that happening with adultery. Maybe the military member she was involved with got 10 years, but I can't see how they could charge her with it being a civilian.

 

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post



[align=left]Although many jurisdictions have de-criminalized adultery, it remains a punishable[/align]

[align=left]offense in the military. “Adultery is clearly unacceptable conduct, and it reflects adversely on[/align]

[align=left]the service record of the military member.” MCM, Pt. IV, ¶ 62.c.(1). But not every act of[/align]

[align=left]adultery by a servicemember constitutes an offense under the UCMJ. The elements of the[/align]

[align=left]offense are (1) that the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person; (2) that,[/align]

[align=left]at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and (3) that, under the[/align]

[align=left]circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in[/align]

[align=left]the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. MCM, Pt. IV, ¶[/align]

[align=left]62.b. It is the third element that gives the offense its criminal character in our military justice[/align]

[align=left]system, and it is the “prejudice to good order and discipline in the armed forces” clause of the[/align]

[align=left]third element upon which this case turns.5[/align]

[align=left]Prior to 2002, the Manual for Courts-Martial explanation of the third element of the[/align]

[align=left]adultery offense defaulted to the general explanation of that element for all Article 134 offenses.[/align]

[align=left]For example, the 2000 edition of the Manual explained the third element thusly: “‘To the[/align]

[align=left]prejudice of good order and discipline’ refers only to acts directly prejudicial to good order and[/align]

[align=left]discipline and not to acts which are prejudicial only in a remote or indirect sense. . . . It is[/align]

[align=left]confined to cases in which the prejudice is reasonably direct and palpable.” MCM Pt. IV, ¶[/align]

[align=left]60.c.(2)(a) (2000 ed.) (emphasis added). In 2002, the President created a separate explanation of[/align]

[align=left]the third element of Article 134 for adultery offenses, Exec. Order No. 13,262, 67 F.R. 18773,[/align]

[align=left]18778 (2002), incorporated in the 2002 version of the MCM and subsequent editions. “To[/align]

[align=left]constitute an offense under the UCMJ, the adulterous conduct must either be directly prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. Adulterous conduct that is directly[/align]

[align=left]prejudicial includes conduct that has an obvious, and measurably divisive effect on unit or[/align]

[align=left]organization discipline, morale, or cohesion, or is clearly detrimental to the authority or stature[/align]

[align=left]of or respect toward a servicemember.” MCM, Pt. IV, ¶ 62.c.(2) (2005 ed.) (emphasis added).[/align]

[align=left]The current explanation then goes on to describe several relevant factors for use in determining[/align]

[align=left]whether adulterous conduct is directly prejudicial, including military status of the co-actors, the[/align]

[align=left]marital status of the co-actors, the impact of the conduct on the unit and remoteness in time of[/align]

[align=left]the conduct, among other things. Pt. IV, ¶ 62.c.(2)(a)-(i). These circumstances are styled as[/align]

[align=left]guidance to commanders considering UCMJ action for adulterous acts vice further explanation[/align]

[align=left]of the elements of the offense.[/align]

[align=left]The change produced by the new language concerning the third element of the adultery[/align]

[align=left]offense has been described as a narrowing of the scope of the offense under the UCMJ. See Joint[/align]

[align=left]Annual Report of the Code Committee Pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice[/align]

[align=left](October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002), reprinted at 59 M.J. LXXIII (2004). The new[/align]

[align=left]explanatory language also tends to limit the range of permissible inferences under the former[/align]

[align=left]“reasonably direct and palpable” analysis. Since 2002, there must be “obvious,” “measurably[/align]

[align=left]divisive” effects, or “clear” detriments to authority or stature, or the like. To accept a guilty plea[/align]

[align=left]for an adultery offense in violation of Article 134, the military judge should ensure that the[/align]
narrow nature of the third element is understood by the accused.

 

[IamMick]

imported post

Yea not too sure Mike she was completely civilian though...our CO used it as an example to cut back on future incidents to decrease moral is how he put it. As far as getting railroaded I'm glad she got 10 years. Screwing the guys neighbor while he's laying in a foxhole somewhere.

:cuss:

 

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post

I agree what she did was wrong, Mick. I just can't see how a military unit could prosecute a civilian for adultery. I'm amazed some Trial Judge Advocate didn't do nuts with the Constitution.

Do you have any newsclippings or links to the trial? I'd love to read about how this was done.

 

[peter nap]

imported post

What did she look like:quirky

 

[TFred]

imported post

nova wrote:

beradcee wrote:

Im still not really understanding why the big fuss about Wal-Mart's carry policy. Yes they follow the laws of the state in which the store is located... Yes it is located in a state in which open carry is also not prohibited. But does the law not also address 'Private Property' rights? If the property owner or their representative asks you not to carry in the store, doesn't that mean that you are not allowed to carry in the store? It would be just the same as going into any private business that was owned by anyone on this forum. If you say no, then the policy is no. As the manager of that particular store, she is responsible for the happenings inside that store. Most of the people on here sound like a bunch of children going crying to mom when dad says its bedtime.

Walmart manager does not equal Walmart owner. Walmart corporate office sets store policy, and Walmart corporate office says that if carry is legal in the state the store is located in, then it is legal to do so in the store.

And by the way, calling members on this site a bunch of children crying to mom is a fast way to wear out your welcome.

Just to embelish a little on nova's reply... He hit it on the head, I believe the collective "we" see it as a situation where a rogue subordinate (the local store manager) is incorrectly not following corporate policy.

I would guess virtually everyone here enthusiastically supports the right of every business to make their own policy about firearms. And we just as enthusiastically choose to spend or not spend our dollars at these businesses, based on how they choose. Walmart has chosen, and now we just want the employees at all the stores to follow the policy that has been set.

What you've missed is that this is an Open Carry forum. "We" believe that OC is, or in those places where it is not, should be, "normal" behavior, uneventful, attracting no attention, causing no commotion.

What the collective "we" would prefer to happen here is not for the manager to buck corporate policy, but rather for the manager to enforce policy, and if need be, educate the customer who complained that yes, it is corporate policy to allow open carry, because it is legal in this state, and it's really not a big deal.

We all know that does not happen all the time, but that is our ideal world, and we are getting there, one small step at a time. Sometimes those steps take the form of complaining to Walmart corporate, and letting them give a local rogue manager a talking to about following company policy.

TFred

 

[Citizen]

imported post

IamMick wrote:

SNIP I am in the military and I can tell you that having no affiliation whatsoever with law enforcement I would have to disagree with everything that's been said. You take up and around 60-65% of today's police force and they are prior military. Why is this, because after the military some guys can't let go and the police is the closest thing to serving something.

Wait a second. If you have no affiliation with LE whatsoever, how did you come up with:

• the 60-65% figure?
• some guys can't let go and the police is the closest thing to serving?

 

[essayons]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

IamMick wrote:

SNIP I am in the military and I can tell you that having no affiliation whatsoever with law enforcement I would have to disagree with everything that's been said. You take up and around 60-65% of today's police force and they are prior military. Why is this, because after the military some guys can't let go and the police is the closest thing to serving something.

Wait a second. If you have no affiliation with LE whatsoever, how did you come up with:

• the 60-65% figure?
• some guys can't let go and the police is the closest thing to serving?

LEO's generally have a higher percentage of military than the general population, but 60-65% is way out there. Probably closer to 20% on the high end.

As for guys not being able to let go... thats a bit silly. Law enforcement is NOTHING like the military with the exception of MPs. Even then, the majority of LEO's I know with military experience are currently serving reservists or national guardsmen, not retirees. Usually it seems to be the reverse of your statement... many LEOs really want to play soldier so they pursue the military as a secondary career. Part of it is the service oriented mindset, which explains why so many LEO's take part in the VDF, but unfortunately a lot of it is because we have cooler guns than them.

 

[jegoodin]

imported post

IamMick wrote:

gkp200 wrote:

IamMick wrote:

Also some civilians are subject to prosecution under the UCMJ. For instance civilian contractors not under oath working with the Armed Forces during contingency operations. Also if a wife/husband of a soldier/sailor/airman cheats on him/her they can be subject under the UCMJ for adultery. (Don't bother looking it up I'm telling you this because I've seen it first hand.)

Not true. Dependants are not subject to the adultery chapter under UCMJ.

Once again I've seen it first hand. But I'm sure someone will quote this calling me a liar.

I'm not saying you are a liar, but you are mistaken. I've no doubt that a military police unit may well have investigated a potential crime and charged a civilian spouse of a military member with something, but they were not charged under the UCMJ they were likely charged under a Federal statute.

Unless... the spouse wasn't REALLY a civilian. Perhaps she was a reservist or retiree?

 

[darthmord]

imported post

IamMick wrote:

Yea not too sure Mike she was completely civilian though...our CO used it as an example to cut back on future incidents to decrease moral is how he put it. As far as getting railroaded I'm glad she got 10 years. Screwing the guys neighbor while he's laying in a foxhole somewhere.

:cuss:

One of the grayer areas I've read about within the Military infrastructure is applicability of the UCMJ to non-service members. There are some dusty regs on retirement that were shown to us (sorry, this was back in 97, don't remember which manuals & sections) that when read indicated that anyone receiving benefits from the military was subject to the UCMJ. It also indicated to no longer be subject to the UCMJ, one merely had to refuse those benefits.

The lesson I took from that seminar was that retirees and other similar people could still be taken to task for UCMJ violations. I imagine that if the regs are written the way it was presented a creative lawyer in court could use them to railroad someone.

 

[TexasNative]

imported post

I'm pretty sure that the cite to a civilian spouse conviction under the UCMJ for adultery is incorrect. Beyond the fact that the UCMJ does not apply to non-military spouses, as far as I can tell, the maximum punishment for adultery is a Dishonorable Discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year. Obviously, the DD and forfeiture of pay and allowances couldn't apply to civilians, even if they were liable under the UCMJ. That leaves a maximum of one year of confinement.

Sorry, it just ain't true.

~ Boyd

 

[VApatriot]

imported post

HELP NEEDED!

I anyone in NoVa (Fairfax Co. area) has had to deal with Walmart, regarding their firearms policy, I would like to know who you contacted and how the situation was resolved. I would really like the phonenumber of a district manager or representative I could talk to.

Tomorrow will be three weeks since my encounter at the Burke store, and I have notyetreturned, because I have not had a direct response from Walmart, regarding their carry policy. This is mostly my own fault, as I have been rather busy with work, and I have not taken the time to clear-up the situation.

Two days after the incident, I sent an email to Walmart via the questions/comments form on their website. I requested an email response regarding the company's policy on legally carried firearms, but I never got one. In the middle of last week (almost two weeks after I sent the email) someone from Walmart called my home number while I was at work. They were calling regarding "Walmart policy", but they did not identify themselves orleave a contact number, and they have not yet called back.

Again, if anyone knows who I need totalk toand howI cancontact them, I would greatly appreciate the information. I would like to resolve this, and return to OCing whileshopping at Walmart.