Social Question

ragingloli's avatar

What would be your response to the convicted war criminal, pardoned by Trump, whining that no one wants to hire him?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

17 Answers

ragingloli's avatar

There are lots of bridges to jump off.

Dutchess_III's avatar

He’d going to have to do what any felon does, and start searching for places that WILL hire felons.

josie's avatar

Murder is bad. It’s worse if you’re an officer.

mazingerz88's avatar

I smell something fishy here. He’s going into politics.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Tough shit on killer soldier boy.

Having Trump stand up for you won’t win you a lot of friends. Heck, I wouldn’t hire him.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Trump will hire his sorry killing ass in a New York minute but not as nanny for Barron Trump . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Oh Oh Putin is looking for a couple of US citizens!

kritiper's avatar

“Tough tittie, cupcake.”

Patty_Melt's avatar

I know where he could get work. Shoot, they even hire Democrats.

seawulf575's avatar

@Patty_Melt but does he lack the self-respect to work there?

seawulf575's avatar

Not knowing the details of the case other than the little bit offered by the article, I can’t make a decision. War time killing is tough. Being at war doesn’t excuse murder, but it might blur the lines as to what is justified/necessary killing and what isn’t. If Trump pardoned him and offered to expunge his record, and his staff countermanded the second part of that, that isn’t right either. Like it or not, it was done.
As for not being able to get a job at Walmart or Target, there are other options out there. Get the training and CDL to become an independent trucker, for instance. Heck, he could run for political office. LOTS of criminals in that field!

Patty_Melt's avatar

There is an aspect of war civilians don’t think about.
Nerves stay frazzled for hours or even days at a time.
If he had just found himself faced with potential death, he could have been battle high; exultant not because people were dead, but because he was still alive.
It is a powerful thing, and very hard to shuck.
In the military, if you wake someone,whatever they do in the first fifteen seconds they can’t be held accountable for. That is because you get trained to be ready to spring into action to not die. When you are wakened, the first few seconds you are incoherent and simply not responsible.
Battle high is similar.
I don’t know if it was the case for him or not, but I have those facts in mind whenever I hear of such occurrences.

kritiper's avatar

He needs to forget about getting a “white collar” job.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Here is more of the story @seawulf575.

@Patty_Melt, a lot of people were willing to forgive him based on the same reasoning (in other words, they weren’t there,) but his own men, who were there said he was ”…ignorant, overzealous and out of control. That he hated the Afghan people and that he had spent recent days tormenting the locals and issuing death threats.”

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III thank you for the link. Interesting story. The attorney says there was exculpatory evidence that the government (prosecution) failed to disclose to the defense or the courts. I would want to know what that was. According to some of the comments, there were things that came to light that the two “civilians” that were shot were actually Taliban bomb makers. There were comments that the Afghanistan National Army soldiers accompanying the LT’s platoon actually initiated the shooting at the soldiers. There was the information that this same platoon had suffered 4 casualties in the last couple days leading up to this event, including the platoon leader that the LT was replacing.
Given the information I now have I came up with a few other things to consider. The NCOs in the platoon that testified against Lorance all said the same thing…they felt the orders he was allegedly giving were wrong and illegal. And they carried them out anyway. If they felt that badly about it, why do it? They have the right to refuse an illegal order. The prosecution gave the soldiers that would testify against Lorance immunity from prosecution for their actions. Why? I have seen first hand how courts martial work. If in the process of testifying and or revealing evidence it comes to light that another crime was committed, the person committing that crime is dealt with right then. There isn’t a new set of charges and a new trial scheduled. They testify under oath and if they lie or if they admit to committing a crime they are guilty of a crime. So why was this case against Lorance this important to give immunity to these people? He didn’t fire his gun. At best he gave bad orders. So the immunity thing bothers me.
None of this that I am saying means that Lorance was not a douchebag and I’m not saying he didn’t give bad orders. I don’t know the guy and I was not present. But there seem to be some things being suppressed I’d like to hear more about.

Dutchess_III's avatar

If they felt that badly about it, why do it?” Because it was a direct order. That’s what the armed forces train you to do, or be court marshaled.

Remember the Mu Lai Massecure? ”Twenty-six soldiers were charged with criminal offenses, but only Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader in C Company, was convicted.”

Patty_Melt's avatar

The UCMJ clearly states that personel have the right to refuse illegal orders.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III since you were never in the military you have no point of reference for how things work. Even when I was in, we were taught to follow orders, but not to be stupid. Just because an officer gives you the order to commit a crime does not mean you are required to do so. The Uniform Code of Military Justice has three sections (articles 90, 91, and 92) about the crimes and punishments of disobeying lawful orders. If an officer gives you an order to do something and you don’t want to, don’t think it’s safe, don’t understand the importance, etc. that does not make it an unlawful order. However, if the officer gives you the order to commit murder, that is an order directing you to commit a crime. That is an unlawful order since it is an order to break the law. You have the right to refuse that order. Now, the officer can bring you up on charges of violating an order, and you might have to go to a court martial to defend yourself. But if the order was, say, to kill unarmed civilians and you refused you have a pretty solid defense. In fact, it is likely that unless the officer is unhinged (which does happen), they would not bring charges against you because they know they would have to defend those orders in this same court martial.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther