Jump to content

More SARC briefings soon.


di1630

Recommended Posts

This story is beyond WOW!! I know Brooks personally...the Air Force got it wrong at many levels. "Kris" should be dishonorably discharged.

So...do you not see that THIS is "victim/accuser blaming?" And this attitude is why this is such a tough problem for commanders/units/the AF?

All I know about this case is the story linked above, and what I read here:

http://www.afjag.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-141020-038.pdf

Your visceral response to the "accuser-friendly" article leads me to believe one of two things: 1) you are aware of exculpatory evidence or facts NOT in evidence, or 2) you simply believe Brooks over Kris.

The CM voted to convict, therefore the court believed Kris' credibility over Brooks'.

This is a typical case: no eyewitness, no physical evidence, no overt confession of guilt. Just two peers in the same squadron, one accusing, the other denying.

One is lying, and the investigation (which naturally assumes the victim ISNT lying) uncovers nothing new...her word against his...what SHOULD the AF do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One is lying, and the investigation (which naturally assumes the victim ISNT lying) uncovers nothing new...her word against his...what SHOULD the AF do?

If there is no evidence, I really don't see how the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this happened nor how a jury could convict. Even in the light that the article portrayed the story I remain unconvinced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This phenomena is called the "CSI effect". Needing physical evidence to corroborate testimony. It's not common to get such evidence, and most of the time you're left with only two detailed written statements: she said vs he said.

Who is lying? Who has motive to lie? Her? What does she gain by making up the story?

Him? What is he gaining by saying it never happened?

If she is lying, she's vindictive and crazy to put herself through the ringer just to get a dude put in prison as a sex offender. Some accusers do this.

If he's lying, it's to save his ass. This is almost universally true, which is why OSI likes to get confessions or admissions.

Most CMs likely see it this way and as long as the accuser is even close to credible, the accused is toast.

Again, then, what SHOULD happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This phenomena is called the "CSI effect". Needing physical evidence to corroborate testimony. It's not common to get such evidence, and most of the time you're left with only two detailed written statements: she said vs he said.

Who is lying? Who has motive to lie? Her? What does she gain by making up the story?

Him? What is he gaining by saying it never happened?

If she is lying, she's vindictive and crazy to put herself through the ringer just to get a dude put in prison as a sex offender. Some accusers do this.

If he's lying, it's to save his ass. This is almost universally true, which is why OSI likes to get confessions or admissions.

Most CMs likely see it this way and as long as the accuser is even close to credible, the accused is toast.

Again, then, what SHOULD happen?

Apparently the JAG thought they had enough of a case to take it to court, I'm just saying even after reading the story that was pro-victim, I'm not convinced the guy was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I don't trust the current legal system in the military, in my view the well has been poisoned in relation to any sexual assault case, from the pressure for the JAG to prosecute, to the convening authority to punish, and the effect that is has on those that sit on the jury.

Edited by Fuzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JAG is spring loaded to take it to court in our current political climate. Don't know the facts of this case but I saw one go to court where the only evidence was the accusers testimony and the accusers psychologist testimony of what the accuser already said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...do you not see that THIS is "victim/accuser blaming?" And this attitude is why this is such a tough problem for commanders/units/the AF?

All I know about this case is the story linked above, and what I read here:

http://www.afjag.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-141020-038.pdf

Your visceral response to the "accuser-friendly" article leads me to believe one of two things: 1) you are aware of exculpatory evidence or facts NOT in evidence, or 2) you simply believe Brooks over Kris.

The CM voted to convict, therefore the court believed Kris' credibility over Brooks'.

This is a typical case: no eyewitness, no physical evidence, no overt confession of guilt. Just two peers in the same squadron, one accusing, the other denying.

One is lying, and the investigation (which naturally assumes the victim ISNT lying) uncovers nothing new...her word against his...what SHOULD the AF do?

All I know after reading through that link is that if I ever commit rape, I am glad I am in the Air Force and an officer, jail for a couple weeks (maybe) and I walk free?

Those punishments are disgusting.

Especially the ones involving children, sometimes their own. Punishments of 6 mos, 40 mos, etc? If I was the JAG, those motherfu**ers wouldn't make it out of the courtroom before they were lethally injected.

I thought the UCMJ was supposed to be tougher on us because we are held to a higher standard. I am truly disappointed in every single one of those punishments. My daughters are no longer allowed to be in the military.

  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I know after reading through that link is that if I ever commit rape, I am glad I am in the Air Force and an officer, jail for a couple weeks (maybe) and I walk free?

Those punishments are disgusting.

Especially the ones involving children, sometimes their own. Punishments of 6 mos, 40 mos, etc? If I was the JAG, those motherfu**ers wouldn't make it out of the courtroom before they were lethally injected.

I thought the UCMJ was supposed to be tougher on us because we are held to a higher standard. I am truly disappointed in every single one of those punishments. My daughters are no longer allowed to be in the military.

There are definitely ones in there with 12 and 15 year sentences.

Either way, different charges have different sentencing specifications. It's tough to critique when you don't know all of the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I know after reading through that link is that if I ever commit rape, I am glad I am in the Air Force and an officer, jail for a couple weeks (maybe) and I walk free?

Those punishments are disgusting.

Especially the ones involving children, sometimes their own. Punishments of 6 mos, 40 mos, etc? If I was the JAG, those motherfu**ers wouldn't make it out of the courtroom before they were lethally injected.

I thought the UCMJ was supposed to be tougher on us because we are held to a higher standard. I am truly disappointed in every single one of those punishments. My daughters are no longer allowed to be in the military.

It's all about the jury...no one can predict what they will do. The possible punishment in the UCMJ is higher in many cases, but the jury decides punishment...in jury cases. Edited by Herk Driver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are definitely ones in there with 12 and 15 year sentences.

Either way, different charges have different sentencing specifications. It's tough to critique when you don't know all of the details.

Shack. But everyone's a lawyer until mob justice is administered.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the guy that grabbed a girl's buttocks at a party and got court martialed. The Air Force should have sent some agents & JAGs to pretty much every hip hop night club I ever went to in my 20s - they would have had a field day.

zb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, then, what SHOULD happen?

One thing that absolutely SHOULD happen is that accusers and alleged perpetrators absolutely must be separated. I'm shocked that Kris was left in-place where she had to interact with the defendant on a reoccurring basis. Unless there are extreme circumstances involved (geographically isolated units engaged in combat, etc), I can't see why keeping both parties around is a good idea. Moving both parties to not demonstrate favoritism may even be wise.

Convening authorities SHOULD allow the military justice process to take its course and not demonstrate undue command influence to either side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

One of the comments to the most recent article posted:

Right now this seems to be an Active Duty issue. But the real question is there really a sexual assault culture in the Air Force or is this just a wedge issue being pushed by the special interest groups? I ran across some interesting data from a DOD IG audit of cases from 2014. Air Force had 328 opened 2012 and closed in 2013. The main victim and subject (accused) age groups was 18 to 29, 70% junior enlisted. Both victim and subject had consumed voluntarily an intoxicating substance at a rate of 45 to 50 percent, basically both were probably impaired. At this time total force with civilians was 486000 and AD female population 58,560. Now the data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics for the same age groups focuses on females per 1000 students/nonstudents they show a rate of 6.1/7.6 per 1000 sexually assaulted. Using this model the Air Force had a sexual assault rate of 5.6 per 1000.

The main theme running through both reports was intoxicant use by both victim and subject. As far as the Air Force is concerned Wingman may be not doing their jobs and looking out for their fellow Airmen. But our culture is on the whole is stronger than the civilian world."

The commenter makes a great point.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the comments to the most recent article posted:

Right now this seems to be an Active Duty issue. But the real question is there really a sexual assault culture in the Air Force or is this just a wedge issue being pushed by the special interest groups? I ran across some interesting data from a DOD IG audit of cases from 2014. Air Force had 328 opened 2012 and closed in 2013. The main victim and subject (accused) age groups was 18 to 29, 70% junior enlisted. Both victim and subject had consumed voluntarily an intoxicating substance at a rate of 45 to 50 percent, basically both were probably impaired. At this time total force with civilians was 486000 and AD female population 58,560. Now the data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics for the same age groups focuses on females per 1000 students/nonstudents they show a rate of 6.1/7.6 per 1000 sexually assaulted. Using this model the Air Force had a sexual assault rate of 5.6 per 1000.

The main theme running through both reports was intoxicant use by both victim and subject. As far as the Air Force is concerned Wingman may be not doing their jobs and looking out for their fellow Airmen. But our culture is on the whole is stronger than the civilian world."

The commenter makes a great point.

Statistics always ruin a good witch hunt, I mean crusade, I mean noble cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excerpt; The Dyess Air Force Base outside Abilene hired a touring speaker to deliver three sessions of a program called "May I Kiss You?" aimed at teaching men about consent and sexual assault prevention. The program uses humor to help boys

and men understand when it is appropriate to make sexual advances on a woman.

This training seems to be very discriminatory.

What about some training for heterosexual women kissing/making sexual advances on heterosexual men? What about some

training for lesbians kissing/making sexual advances on other lesbians? What about some training for gay men

kissing/making sexual advances on other gay men? What about some training for bisexuals kissing/making sexual advances

on members of all the different gender identity types? What about some training for transgender members kissing/making

sexual advances on whatever the hell they kiss/make sexual advances on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the problem is due to the Bible, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/13/defense-department-the-bible-constitution-and-declaration-of-independence-all-perpetuate-sexism/

"According to the presentation, the Defense Department also bans the word Redskin pitting the Pentagon against its hometown NFL team."

Funny how the biggest operation in modern times was called Geronimo. We use Tomahawk missiles to rain death on crazy radicalized Muslims. Apache gunships kill anything that moves when the fangs are out! The native Indian reference list goes on and on and on...

And we're worried about offending someone because of the name of a football team! WTFO?

These crazy progressive fuks are fundamentally changing our society, that's for damn sure. Of course, that might be my "privilege" talking...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apache gunships kill anything that moves when the fangs are out! The native Indian reference list goes on and on and on...

Actually all US Army helicopters have Native American tribal names (Kiowa, Chinook, Cheyenne, Blackhawk, etc)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"According to the presentation, the Defense Department also bans the word Redskin pitting the Pentagon against its hometown NFL team."

Apache gunships kill anything that moves when the fangs are out! The native Indian reference list goes on and on and on...

Haha, yeah. Apache, Black Hawk, Lakota, Kiowa, Chinook, Iroquois... oh, every Army helo?

Edit: juuuuust a bit late

Edited by SurelySerious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...