Nope, and the military often let's civilian court go first, just in case there's lax sentencing like this.
I knew a guy who was drunk and "sure" a gun wasn't loaded, so he pointed it his riends head, and blew his brains out.
When I lost touch, he had been waiting for the civilian court case for almost a year and still in the military, but they were making his life hell in the meantime.
They were just waiting on the civilian ruling before doing their own and sending him to Leavenworth for it.
I think it's five years later you can appeal, and almost all of them get approved.
Like, if you got a DUI or popped on a drug test, you can probably get it changed. It's a small hassle, but there's no reason not to fill out the paperwork
He'll be heading to Leavenworth shortly. The military always lets civilian courts go first, specifically to ensure that service members don't get off lightly.
This is like the $150 fine that the Commonwealth of KY will fine you if you detonate a nuclear device within city limits. They're just getting the pennies they think they might get out of you when the federal government is done with you.
"Hellonen, Coomer and Abate pleaded guilty earlier this year to parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building, a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of six months behind bars. Hundreds of Capitol rioters have pleaded guilty to the same charge, which is akin to trespassing."
They got off way too easy for violating their oath.
"None of them is accused of engaging in any violence or destruction on Jan. 6. But prosecutors said none of them has expressed sincere remorse for their crimes."
"Coomer bragged on social media about taking part in 'history,' called for a 'fresh start' and said he was 'waiting for the boogaloo,' a slang term for a second civil war in the U.S."
The court martial he’s going to have is entirely separate from civilian legal proceedings. And I expect the presiding officers are going to absolutely throw the book at him, if for no other reason than to set a graphic example.
And if they don’t, we’ll know a bit more about the dangerous personal politics of some officers in the Marines.
I heard other than honorable but again hearsay. Would prefer dishonorable
"As of Friday, all three Marines were still on active-duty status, according to the Marine Corps. But all three could be separated from the Marine Corps “on less than honorable conditions,” prosecutors said."
Doesn't say for sure but that's a exerpt from the article
I’m confused. Why did the judge use such a weird frame of reference for the sentence? How can you use casualties from one branch of the military, in a war over a century ago, for a case today? Seems entirely arbitrary and out of context.
Like, we don’t sentence thieves in 2023 based on how many boxes of tea were destroyed during the Boston Tea Party.