Fort Hood Shooter Still Getting Paid

Wyatt Burp

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
6,782
Reaction score
17,715
Location
Northern California
The guy who murdered all those soldiers at Ft. Hood has been paid over 200 grand since his rampage, and still is, while the victims, those who managed to survive, anyway, are trying to get combat related pay for their wounds. but they can't, it seems, because someone decided to call this a simple act of "workplace violence" and not terrorism, even though the shooter was yelling "ALLAHA ACKBARRR!!!" while shooting them. Work place violence can then be attributed to the supposedly "easy access to guns".
 
Register to hide this ad
This really makes some of us old timers feel good. Many of us with mudane low pay jobs didnt make much more than that in our lifetime and faihfully paid taxs on it. There is no common sense in this country. Along with the OP, how much was spent bringing those brothers over to bomb the boston marathon? The ball was dropped legaly when they went back to their country to visit and then turn around and come here again under the guise of political asylum. Lets see. They got welfare, free medical, education, hud houseing etc. They were here because they were in fear of their lives in their home country yet go back there to vacation and yet come back here again?
 
Makes me sick! If it were up to me, he would have been executed on the spot.What's wrong with this country? These monsters have no rights and deserve no due process....unbelievable!
 
Oh! For the better good I admit they should get due process alright. But in these cases of overwhelming evidence and 0 possible sane doubt, why should it take years and years to get a trial? I have a ex brother in law in jail (mental institution for criminal insane) for murder. My last contact was about in 1983. My ex MIL was instructing my ex on how to handle his affairs when something happened to her. At THAT time he had like $55,000s saved up for him in a account for soc. sec. disability! Legal? Yes. Moral and sensable? HELL NO! He has cost the system a couple uncountable million so far, still could live another 30 years and STILL gets his disability payments. Just who IS insane here?
 
Yes, however...

"Loss of all pay and allowances" is part of the sentencing order at a court-martial. Until then, Major Hassan remains a major in rank and he gets his pay.

Not to gripe too much, but jeez, guys! Doesn't the rest of the Constitution matter?

Do you truly need a jury trial in cases where there is no doubt in a case? Not saying I know enough about this one, and I suppose if there were ways to skip some of the due process because there is no doubt that might lead to cases where doubt is artificially removed to railroad someone. But I still wonder in cases where the bad guy is apprehended with the gun in his hand and there is video tape or dozens of witnesses etc why do we need to have a trial?

Even in a case where a guy who abducted, raped, and killed, and plead guilty saying that he would do it again if he ever got out and that the best thing to do would be to just execute him and save everyone the trouble - got some lawyer who was not related to the case in any way shape or form - to file a motion that by entering a guilty plea the guys lawyer was not acting in his best interest - and as far as I know the guy is still sitting in prison decades later.
 
He gets paid until he's convicted. Its been that way for as long as I know. Why would they change the rules for this worm?

Everyone has a right to a trial. If you believe in the Constitution, you should believe in that.
 
"Loss of all pay and allowances" is part of the sentencing order at a court-martial. Until then, Major Hassan remains a major in rank and he gets his pay.

Not to gripe too much, but jeez, guys! Doesn't the rest of the Constitution matter?

Out in the real world, if you are not productively employed doing something generally you aren't getting paid a nickel. If you have only worked for the U.S. government and are not familiar with that potentially unpleasant but very real concept, I understand. And yes, to many of us, the U.S. Constitution matters a great deal. :)

Here's how it works on the other side of the aisle. He is sitting in a cell, under arrest, not doing a single productive thing for his employer (The United States). He isn't "earning" a thing, so we shouldn't be paying him - simple. He is not performing any of his duties and he certainly was not incapacitated in the performance of his duties. By any reasonable standard The United States doesn't/shouldn't owe him a penny. (If by some miracle he is found innocent, he could always be entitled to collect his back-pay with reasonable interest.)

Until this kind of craziness is stopped and set right the U.S. will continue on its present downward spiral toward being the world's largest banana republic. At that time, we won't need our Constitution any longer. :)
 
Last edited:
Out in the real world, if you are not productively employed doing something generally you aren't getting paid a nickel. If you have only worked for the U.S. government and are not familiar with that potentially unpleasant but very real concept, I understand. And yes, to many of us, the U.S. Constitution matters a great deal. :)

Here's out it works on the other side of the aisle. He is sitting in a cell, under arrest, not doing a single productive thing for his employer (The United States). He isn't "earning" a thing, so we shouldn't be paying him - simple. He is not performing any of his duties and he certainly was not incapacitated in the performance of his duties. By any reasonable standard The United States doesn't/shouldn't owe him a penny. (If by some miracle he is found innocent, he could always be entitled to collect his back-pay with reasonable interest.)

Until this kind of craziness is stopped and set right the U.S. will continue on its present downward spiral toward being the world's largest banana republic. At that time, we won't need our Constitution any longer. :)

let's say, for the sake of argument, that Lance Corporal Schmuckatelli is in the brig awaiting court-martial. Maybe he's in there a year or two. But when it finally comes to trial, the case against him collapses. He's acquitted.

Isn't he entitled to his pay for that time?
 
It seems at this point in history you need to have some age on you and had been brought up prior to the mid 50s. In my view the biggest change in our country started between the korean "police action" (Hows that working for us?) and the viet nam era. (also, hows that worked for us?) It really got crazy with kent state and viet nam.
Look at it this way. A airliner makes a ditch near a nice island. By some huge qurick it is far off course and has no communication. There is 350 survivors, mostly good people. However there is 10 demon types also that survived. They wont work and help the group, steal from others their gathered food and try to sexualy assault any women that stray.
How does the main group handel them? Put them in a cage for possibly a decade untill rescued? Put needed man power to guard them? Feed them the groups dwindeling food supply? Make sure some fund of goods is put in a safe cage for them incase others prove them innocent 30 years later because there isnt many witness`s left and now it was all just heresay?
This country has about 350 million people, not just 350. Yet this country is getting close to the same shape and conditions those survivors.
The difference is sanity is bound to kick in with the survivors and I think "sane" justice will have to kick in.
 
So why is it ok for an "officer" to disobey an order and not shave off his beard? Is he exempt from following orders? It's not in the constitution but I believe he swore an oath to obey orders from superiors. So what is the consequence for disobeying an order? Just a couple random thoughts or questions is all.
 
He gets paid until he's convicted. Its been that way for as long as I know. Why would they change the rules for this worm?

Everyone has a right to a trial. If you believe in the Constitution, you should believe in that.

He gave up his rights, all of them, when he murdered innocent people. I believe in the constitution and will fight tooth and nail for it. This type of horrific act is ungodly and falls outside of anything the constitution stands for.
 
I think some of you really need to step back and look at what your saying.
WE don't summarily execute prisoners. We try them, prove them guilty, and punish them as is seen fit.
WE are innocent until proven guilty.

It seems there are an awful lot of folks out there forgetting this.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top