What The US army does to People who loot

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: DeathByAnts

Um, in certain states in the US, it is legal (and practiced) to permanently impound the vehicle of someone who witnesses a drug sale and does not report it. I don't see how this is really any different/worse.

I am unaware of any such laws, and I have been a criminal litigator for five years. The federal law does allow for the seizure of property and vehicles that have been used for drug transport and trafficking, but generally there are no laws against failing to report crimes committed by others, and I would be interested if you could point me to such a law.

The thing is, our nation has laws that allow for civil forfeiture of property for drug traffickers. I personally think they are questionable from a constitutional standpoint, since the constitution generally requires the government to provide due process before taking life, liberty or property, but that's a topic for another day. The point is, there is no such law in Iraq, and these soldiers simply made up what they thought was an appropriate sanction. They are not lawyers or judges, and were basically acting as uniformed vigilantes.

The fact of the matter is that, in this country (which the Army is obviously acting on behalf of), a person would typically get a few month's probation for stealing a few dollars worth of wood. Instead, the Army destroyed what was likely the owner's only valuable property. That's wrong, and sends the worst possible message to the people whose country we went there to liberate.

In pennsylvania your car can be impounded for being involved in any crime, including soliciting a prostitute, any kind of armed robbery, theft, or drug related charges. It doesnt even have to be your car. If you are in a rental car it can be impounded and you are responsible for the enitre loss.

Impounded != Seized.

 

[chocobaR]

That will teach them to steam useless wood!

 

[biffbacon]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: Dark4ng3l
Whats bad is that even thogh they were gona crush the car they still emptied their handguns shooting at it for no reason.

they did it for a reason, they are a bunch of redneck trash that had to show these already brutilized people whos the master and whos the slave.

yup, U.S. is the master. Deal with it. dont be a raving lunatic thief, and you wont feel the consequences. im tired of people feeling sorry criminals.

 

[biffbacon]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
The tank goes

Woo Woo! 😀

- M4H

only in the mornin

 

[ViciouS]

Originally posted by: Dark4ng3l
Whats bad is that even thogh they were gona crush the car they still emptied their handguns shooting at it for no reason.

They shot it to empty fluids and flatten tires. So the car wouldn?t move or blow up. You have a bunch of people stealing from each other, the word of harsh consequences spreads quickly. One of several ways to control chaos is with fear.

 

[EMPshockwave82]

Originally posted by: burnedout
I think there is more to the story than the camera shows.

 

[HOWITIS]

bwahahaha, that was great. can you say owned?



what ever happened to the old military law of shooting looters?

 

[Scitex]

Hope the RIAA doesn't try to hire those guys when they get back...... 😀

 

[chasem]

Yea, and i bet sadam would not have let that happen to US civilians if he had the chance.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: chasem
Yea, and i bet sadam would not have let that happen to US civilians if he had the chance.

I don't think he would allow this happen to US civilians. My guess is that he'd just as soon have us tortured or shot.

 

[MrYogi]

Iraq is going to be another Viet.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: AmdEmAll
More PBS propaganda.

You know what would happen if they looted and were caught under saddam? Torture and or/death.

Which would u rather have eh?

did you watch the 2 hours? guess not. it was mostly about the battles, that incident was just an example of a mistake.

 

[jeffjs]

I never would have shot so many rounds into the car at such close range. Just pain dumb IMO.

I just get the feeling this was staged somehow - those guys firing the small arms just didn't seem to have control of them - utter lack of training, must be Marines.

Jeff

 

[JimRaynor]

Why even shoot it in the first place when you are planning to run a tank over it? The fact that guys like that are representing the united states is embarrassing.

 

[ViciouS]

Originally posted by: JimRaynor
Why even shoot it in the first place when you are planning to run a tank over it? The fact that guys like that are representing the united states is embarrassing.

Originally posted by: ViciouS

Originally posted by: Dark4ng3l
Whats bad is that even thogh they were gona crush the car they still emptied their handguns shooting at it for no reason.

They shot it to empty fluids and flatten tires. So the car wouldn?t move or blow up. You have a bunch of people stealing from each other, the word of harsh consequences spreads quickly. One of several ways to control chaos is with fear.

the car would pop out like a bar of soap if the tires where full.

 

[EXman]

The Bottom line here folks is the US soldiers made them watch the car be smashed. Saddam Would have loaded them all in the car and then run the tank over it!

I'm Buying the Soldiers a :beer:

although I think just shooting out the tires would have been ok.

 

[Jzero]

Ironically, they destroyed the wood, too.

 

[OutHouse]

any mirrors, link is dead for me.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

I think this just shows how stupid people can be. The soldiers should be punished, unless they had standing orders to destroy any vehicles used in looting.


For all of you who say the iraqis deserved it, are you going to tell me you wouldnt loot (maybe even to save your family) if your entire country had just gone through a war?

Bullsh!t.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: BlackJesus03


Yes, im sure some people could seriously say they wouldn't hate Americans if we wrecked their car after they performed theivery. These are the people who AREN"T morons. And if they do hate us, that just makes them even more idiotic, because even though the punishment might have been a little extreme, they were the ones who put themselves in that situation. Secondly, what the hell does being in the military have anything to do with commenting on the situation? Don't use your service as a basis for making what you say true because you think no one will argue with a military man/woman. You don't have to be a member of the armed services to know and understand the situation. And yes, people will always bitch about anything they can find, and if they can't find anything, they'll make something up.

Easy, tiger! You might want to try half-caff.

The sole relevance of one's military service in this context was that fredtam and a number of other posters appeared to be defending the actions of the tankers on the basis that they were understandable or justifiable based on the operational demands of the situation. I disagree.

No offense, but you throw the words "moron" and "idiot" around pretty lightly considering the rather glib thought process that appears to underlie your post. You appear to be saying that a person would have to be an "idiot" for getting angry after having his car destroyed for taking $3 worth of scrap wood. I respectfully disagree. Would you be upset if you were at the mall, and you were accused, but not convicted, of shoplifting, and the rent-a-cop smashed your car into a block? Would it make you an idiot if you were upset?

Do you think we should move to a punishment regime like this (i.e., one should have to surrender all his valuable property if he is accused of, but not proven guilty of, stealing? If not, why not, and why was it fair in the situation that appears on the tape?

Don_Vito, I thought about this for a while. Intead of thinking of it as a video shot thousands of miles away I decided to bring it closer to home. I imagined an event (war, natural disaster, ect.) in which it would be necassary to declare martial law. In this scenerio I imagined myself as a citizen who because of widespread looting, and civil unrest feared for his life and property. I would hope that in such an event that the Military/FEMA would use any steps necassary to bring the situation under control including shooting offenders or destroying their property. I can imagine that in such a situation where there is widespread panic and the military is outnumbered (not necessarily out-armed) that fear and the show of force would be a very useful tactic. Someone else in this thread refered to America as the "Masters" which I first dismissed as him being a fvcktard but then I started thinking about it. Even though there were slave revolts many slave owners had a large number of slaves and kept them in line with fear and torture. No I'm not advocating the whipping of slaves, slavery, or torture of Iraqis as I'm sure the fvcktard would suggest but
simply staing that it is a powerful tactic.
Again I don't think what the tankers did was wrong. I think it was a tactic used to quickly bring an end to the looting. This was necassary to calm the "end of the world" mentality and restore order. As I said fear is an excellent tactic for this. Once some sort of order has been restored people start thinking rationally again and it allows for progress. If it is allowed to continue for to long due to weak stances on the issue you start to lose the "good" citezens in the chaos and risk revolts creating a clusterfvck.

Fvck the speeling and graamar Nazis -I,m tired.

 

[SherEPunjab]

a bunch of fvcking morons trying to act hard and now they get the chance to re-enact all the things they did back home on their nintendo.

LOSERS. They should be court marshalled? will they be? Of course not. Their commander will probably have a nice laugh. This is what has been video taped. I hate to think of how many of this [stupidity,bully like behavior] occurs that is unreported. I'm sure at least 100:1 if not more.

 

[NOX]

It could have been worst... (click at your own risk, graphic video) :camera: they could have been these guys!

 

[B00ne]

I saw that on TV - pretty horrifying, but it came worse. There was footage of some soldiers raiding houses then murdering an Iraqi lying injured on the ground. Then cheering in joy after the murder. Makes me wonder what kind of criminals are admitted to the Army.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: B00ne
I saw that on TV - pretty horrifying, but it came worse. There was footage of some soldiers raiding houses then murdering an Iraqi lying injured on the ground. Then cheering in joy after the murder. Makes me wonder what kind of criminals are admitted to the Army.

not to knock all army people, but in my hs if you didn't graduate you had two options:

a) join the military. they 'assisted' the students in getting sufficient certification to go on to college, and would make loans/scholarships available to them.

b) Get a G.E.D.

Joining the military option always sounded more impressive. As if you weren't just a "fvck up," after all, you are doing service to the nation, and THATS the reason you joined (sure...). Whats 1 year or so, then you can come back and have insurance benefits, college tuition assistance, and respect. With the G.E.D. option, the stigma of being a 'fvck up' would be with you for life.

now i'm not saying all are like that, but the people i knew that joined were, by and large, for that reason, they were fvck ups. No doubt in my mind the two soldiers they showed there were prime examples of that category. I mean its the military, they don't exactly have the most rigorous testing process. pretty much anyone can join, they are actively recruiting for people to join them. i do find it unacceptable though that those little sh*t soldiers were using my tax dollars to roll over that mans tank.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: B00ne
I saw that on TV - pretty horrifying, but it came worse. There was footage of some soldiers raiding houses then murdering an Iraqi lying injured on the ground. Then cheering in joy after the murder. Makes me wonder what kind of criminals are admitted to the Army.

not to knock all army people, but in my hs if you didn't graduate you had two options:

a) join the military. they 'assisted' the students in getting sufficient certification to go on to college, and would make loans/scholarships available to them.

b) Get a G.E.D.

Joining the military option always sounded more impressive. As if you weren't just a "fvck up," after all, you are doing service to the nation, and THATS the reason you joined (sure...). Whats 1 year or so, then you can come back and have insurance benefits, college tuition assistance, and respect. With the G.E.D. option, the stigma of being a 'fvck up' would be with you for life.

now i'm not saying all are like that, but the people i knew that joined were, by and large, for that reason, they were fvck ups. No doubt in my mind the two soldiers they showed there were prime examples of that category. I mean its the military, they don't exactly have the most rigorous testing process. pretty much anyone can join, they are actively recruiting for people to join them. i do find it unacceptable though that those little sh*t soldiers were using my tax dollars to roll over that mans tank.

Are you mad because you only have a GED and don't get to drive a tank?
Most people in high school are fvck ups. I personally have seen many people who I thought would definately end up in jail or dead become responsible citizens due to the military. You say they let the fvck ups in because some people you knew who were immature, fvck ups, or uneducated got in but can you give an example of one you know that has not been changed by military service? Are the people you knew still fvck ups or are you just talking out of your ass (the answer is yes) and basing your assumptions on how somebody acted at 17 years old during a four year popularity contest? You must have gotten picked on a lot to be still harboring all this anger.