Well, I did do a site search but I got kind of bored after getting no results after about 40 different queries, so here’s a new thread. If anyone knows what the right thread is, please post a link and then a mod/admin can lock this one.
Here’s the Stars and Stripes article.
A guy who decided to beat up his girlfriend was denied enlistment and yet, the dude’s blaming the Army over it. Amazing.
Actually, I think it would be a good thing for him to enlist, then to go to jail. Although if I were a judge, I’d make sure the over seeing officer would know about the acts of the individual, just to push him harder when he gets in. What was that line from the movie ‘Blow’, go in with a PHD in marijuana, and you come out with a doctorate in Cocaine? Jail for guys like this is ridiculous. He’ll come out slapping his own mother around in no time.
The rehabilitation efforts would be placed better in the service, then in jail. And if he quits early, then he can go to jail. But the service would be the better option, IMO. And enough about these hard ass Lt. Col’s denying subpar criminals from joining the “team”. If you really feel that you can take in most men, and make them all they can be… then you need to take in guys like this, break him a new one, make him a respectable soldier, and turn him into a good honest man.
Of course it depends on the crime too. Things like assult should have the option. Rape and murder, not so much.
No . . . thank . . . you. . . I wouldn’t want a guy with “a history” in my unit. He’d be more of a problem than anything else. Besides, that’s just passing the buck: let the Army pay for rehabilitating him rather than the state. I’d end up spending more time supervisoring him alone than running the unit. You don’t want someone known (and convicted) for breaking the law in an area where you need discipline to a stricter set of laws.
You can take most men, but usually those men don’t have questionable motives, like “avoiding jail time”. You don’t want questionable people in the service, especially if they throw him into a career field/MOS where he’ll have to be accountable for something (i.e. ammunition stock, supplies, hell just cooking your food).
Of course it depends on the crime. But with assault, do you really want this guy dealing with people? I can see the next potential Abu Graib now. . . :rolleyes:
Tripler
The military is not the place for people like this.
No . . . thank . . . you. . . I wouldn’t want a guy with “a history” in my unit. He’d be more of a problem than anything else. Besides, that’s just passing the buck: let the Army pay for rehabilitating him rather than the state. I’d end up spending more time supervisoring him alone than running the unit. You don’t want someone known (and convicted) for breaking the law in an area where you need discipline to a stricter set of laws.
You can take most men, but usually those men don’t have questionable motives, like “avoiding jail time”. You don’t want questionable people in the service, especially if they throw him into a career field/MOS where he’ll have to be accountable for something (i.e. ammunition stock, supplies, hell just cooking your food).
Of course it depends on the crime. But with assault, do you really want this guy dealing with people? I can see the next potential Abu Graib now. . . :rolleyes: