A soldier has issues with his command about stupid stuff. Basically the command said the soldiers wife couldnt take care of two dogs by way of taking them outside. When this was not true and that other NCO leadership lied to the command about that. Now the command is trying to charge this soldier with disobeying a lawful order of commisioned officer. This order is obviously personal in nature and with no ill nature to warrant such an order. The article speaking of disobeying states no order is lawful if it is personal in nature. Does this constitute personal in nature? Any help would be great. Thank you.
2006-11-19 22:06:30 · 8 answers · asked by Adam O 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
If the co had grounds for issue the order then it was right if not he could go to IG.
Now if complaints come to the co(would they do if there are any)that came from housing /building coordinator or even the 3 strike rule has been in forced the co has all ground to put an order out like that and its not personal.What he is trying to do then is protect the soldier and his wife to sit on the street.If you had a 3 strike rule put out and you do not get rid of those dogs housing will evict u in a matter of days and then the co has to deal with that issue too.
So you see if you think that order was right get rid of the dogs.
If you think it was wrong go to IG.
2006-11-20 01:00:02 · answer #1 · answered by Sunshine 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is petty, but unfortunately, Soldiers don't get to pick what is considered petty. As for the Soldier's concern, maybe his wife is screwing him, unintentionally. She may not understand fully how the Army works. If they live on post, it's even worse. He will be able to see a JAG officer about the problem and he can even pay for civilian advice from a military lawyer. If the squad leader has a problem with the Soldier, then the Soldier should request another squad or even another unit.
This would not constitute personal in nature. Orders to take showers may seem personal, but they aren't. Art 90, 91, and 92 of the UCMJ are very vague to allow for interpetation.
The question isn't if the wife can take care of the dogs, it is is the Soldier a dirtbag with discipline problems (in the commands eye).
2006-11-20 00:31:31 · answer #2 · answered by Brewjar 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Jessica has no concept of the law here and is very wrong. Of course she had that right. If she didn't, she wouldn't have given you a ticket. This is pretty simple. She was acting as an officer of the law and told you to move. You thought you were smart by moving up by 30 ft. You stated here she was signaling for you to continue moving. You failed to do this. So, what did you do? You disobeyed her order. You disobeyed her lawful order. That's why you were given a ticket. The legibility or illegibility of the ticket don't matter, having no signs don't matter either. If an officer has created a road block in the middle of nowhere and tells you to stop and you drive through it, you disobeyed a lawful order. No signs are required. She doesn't have to tell you why you're being stopped upon demand. You're free to go to court on your court date and argue the merits of the ticket, but you'll likely be found guilty. Also, since this is an infraction, you don't have a right to a jury trial. While some states afford jury trials to you upon request for infractions, they are under NO requirement to give you one. And I'll leave you with this note. If you are able to request a jury trial and do so for a traffic violation, you are setting yourself up to be found guilty. People don't want to waste their time on such a small thing.
2016-05-21 21:59:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like we are not getting the full story here. I suggest that we avoid the rush to judgment - especially when the person making the claim thinks that "no order is lawful if it is personal in nature."
2006-11-20 03:05:25 · answer #4 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As judges and claims adjusters learn, early on, there are at least two sides to every story.
If the soldier is Court Martialed, he has the right to a trial and has to right to counsel. Even though military courts seem one-sided, the prosecution still has to prove it's case.
2006-11-19 22:25:34 · answer #5 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good luck with this. It sounds like an Article 15, but the root of the issue is pettty in nature. I don't think its fair, and maybe an administrative hearing will get you a better outcome, and maybe not.
2006-11-19 22:13:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
it sounded like the soldiers wife left the dogs unattended.
2006-11-19 22:11:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
hell yes its personal,as it always is
2006-11-19 22:16:30 · answer #8 · answered by john doe 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋