Jeffrey A. Sinclair, gets $20,000 fine, no jail time

SmarterthanYou said:
that's because most of you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty
Click to expand...

Surely you're joking. I believe people may have gut feelings about the guilt or innocence of any person but it doesn't mean they can't be persuaded by facts.

For you STY: cops in the Jordan Miles case, innocent or guilty?
 
Darla said:
Lying about a sexual assault is a crime. I certainly do believe in innocent until proven guilty. WHich is why I said I'd need more information before deciding she was guilty of that.
Click to expand...

and you skipped over the whole issue of the person accused of being a rapist because??????????
 
Darla said:
What do you think Sinclair should have gotten as punishment?
Click to expand...

Since he's a serial offender, the maximum punishment allowable. I don't know what all that includes but jail time is definitely a part of it.

Wait I just looked it up:
Maximum punishment.

Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.
 
christiefan915 said:
Nothing in the GZ trial persuaded me. That doesn't mean I don't understand why the jury found as they did.
Click to expand...
don't be obtuse. most of you considered guilty right off the bat, demanded arrest and charges, then lost your idiot minds upon acquittal.

christiefan915 said:
Well we agree about something. Unfortunately I have a gut feeling the cops are going to walk again.
Click to expand...
this should not be news to you since we've discussed it a few times in the past. and you're probably right that they will walk, which is telling of the submissive states of citizens that they willingly accept this kind of brutality because cops are cowards.
 
christiefan915 said:
Since he's a serial offender, the maximum punishment allowable. I don't know what all that includes but jail time is definitely a part of it.

Wait I just looked it up:
Maximum punishment.

Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.
Click to expand...

I find it very conflicting, because I don't think that adultery should be against the law in the military. I just don't like that. But I think he is likely to be using his position to influence sexual favors, and he may be guilty of sexual harassment. I'd have to see what all the other women who he has been screwing or trying to screw have to say.
 
Darla said:
I find it very conflicting, because I don't think that adultery should be against the law in the military. I just don't like that. But I think he is likely to be using his position to influence sexual favors, and he may be guilty of sexual harassment. I'd have to see what all the other women who he has been screwing or trying to screw have to say.
Click to expand...

I don't think it should be against the law either. It's real life and people are going to have sex whether married or not, no matter what the rules say. But OTOH, anybody who enlists knows what they're in for re: their sexual behaviour and should be prepared to pay the price if they get caught.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
don't be obtuse. most of you considered guilty right off the bat, demanded arrest and charges, then lost your idiot minds upon acquittal.
Click to expand...

I believed GZ was guilty of killing an unarmed teenager because that's exactly what he did. Maybe you're confusing this with what GZ used as his defense in a court of law.
 
christiefan915 said:
Justice denied AGAIN. WTH is wrong with the military court system that this piece of shit gets a slap on the wrist? Sinclair was caught dead to rights and copped a plea when he should be getting jail time. What a great message to send when there's an epidemic of sexual assault of women in the military... might makes right. When it was over this trash said “All I want to do now is go north and hug my kids and wife.” I wonder if any cons are going to step up and criticize Mrs. Sinclair for not kicking him to the curb?

"A disgraced Army general who admitted carrying on a prolonged, turbulent affair with an officer under his direct command and having improper relationships with two other women was reprimanded and fined $20,000 by a military judge Thursday.
To his visible relief, however, Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair was spared a jail sentence. The decorated combat veteran hugged his lawyers and friends after his sentence was imposed by Col. James Pohl, the military judge who oversaw his court-martial at Fort Bragg, N.C...

...For two years, Sinclair’s court-martial had made him the public face of the military’s struggle to prevent and police sexual misconduct in the ranks. He was only the third Army general to face court-martial in 60 years, a measure that critics called emblematic of the military’s reluctance to hold senior commanders accountable for all kinds of wrongdoing.

Although Sinclair was pleased with the outcome, his chief accuser and some advocacy groups for sex-crime victims expressed deep disappointment. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) called the sentence “a mockery of military justice” and a “laughable punishment...”

...In the end, Sinclair pleaded guilty to adultery, maltreatment of his accuser and two other improper relationships. He also admitted to making derogatory comments about women and, when challenged by his staff, replying: “I’m a general, I’ll say whatever the [expletive] I want.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...55b650-b039-11e3-95e8-39bef8e9a48b_story.html
Click to expand...


Ridiculous, but this is why they wanted control to remain in the military courts.
 
christiefan915 said:
I believed GZ was guilty of killing an unarmed teenager because that's exactly what he did. Maybe you're confusing this with what GZ used as his defense in a court of law.
Click to expand...

is it your contention then that anyone who kills another person, no matter the cause, should face trial and review by a jury of their peers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top