| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front: Culture Wars | ||
| Air Force Colonel Pleads Guilty to Vandalizing Cars | ||
| 2006-07-15 | ||
| DENVER (AP) - An Air Force officer pleaded guilty Friday to defacing cars with bumper stickers supporting President Bush, and was given a two-year deferred sentence. Lt. Col. Alexis Fecteau, a decorated officer who flew 500 combat hours in the Gulf War, Kosovo and Bosnia, pleaded guilty to felony mischief and must pay restitution to the owners of the damaged cars to clear his record. Fecteau, 43, of Colorado Springs, did not speak during the hearing nor comment after it.
Mulligan said the plea agreement ``affords Lt. Col. Fecteau the opportunity to get back on track,'' noting his record will be cleared in two years if he stays out of trouble.
After the charges became public, Fecteau was removed as director of operations for reserve forces at the National Security Space Institute at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs. | ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #11 P.S. Yes, I am saying that people can be convicted in each level court for the same crime. However, for many reasons, that rarely happens. Off the top of my head, Terry Nichols is the only person I can think of who was tried and convicted first in federal court, and then again in Oklahoma state court (because the federal sentence was only life in prison, and locals wanted him to fry). |
| Posted by: exJAG 2006-07-15 19:50 |
| #10 Double jeopardy means being tried on the same charges, by the same tribunal, a second time, after having been acquitted the first time -- and that's it. It's possible only after contested cases where the defendant pleads not guilty; it's not possible if the plea is nolo contendere or guilty (because the defendant is not claiming innocence). The separate sovereigns doctrine is based on the fact that states are sovereign entities separate from the federal government. This does indeed mean that if you're acquitted of a charge in state court, you can then be tried on the same charge in federal court, or vice versa. Happens all the time -- often in moonbat cases like these, where local moonbat juries won't convict a fellow "resister." (Happily, that wasn't a problem here). I don't know the exact origins, but these two principles have long been black letter law -- i.e., the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 5th Amendment, ratified by Congress in that it took no action to reverse the Court's rulings legislatively. I do know, however, that both of these things have been enshrined in US law since well before the commies "got creative" with the Constitution. As a prosecutor, these rules made me very happy, but I understand full well the potential for abuse. These principles are only as good as the government that's in charge. |
| Posted by: exJAG 2006-07-15 19:44 |
| #9 Tell me exJAG, are the lawyers and judges getting creative with the constitution again. Amendment V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. He plead guilty to the crime, he didn't plead 'no contest'. Therefore he is convicted of the crime. What I understand you are saying, is that the person can be convicted in each level court for the same crime. |
| Posted by: Glush Creremble5121 2006-07-15 12:11 |
| #8 He got better legal advice than the deserter "free speech" idiots had. At least in this case he doesn't face "conduct unbecoming" charges before a VERY UNSYMPATHETIC court-martial board. "The lawyer knew it and didn't want to screw things up with a transparently chicken shit defence that would insult the court." Nimble is spot-on. This way he gets it expunged if he acts like a man instead of a d*mned schoolboy. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2006-07-15 11:48 |
| #7 No double jeopardy, Gruth. A, double jeopardy can occur only after an acquittal. B, separate sovereigns doctrine. LTC Moonbat was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced by a state court, and can now be charged & tried by a federal court, (which all courts-martial are). However, the command rarely prefers charges where there's already been a civilian conviction. But they can screw him real good-like on his resignation & retirement. |
| Posted by: exJAG 2006-07-15 11:44 |
| #6 What an idiot. I didn't like seeing Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers on base (the very few that there were) but it would never even cross my mind to vandalize someone's car over it. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-07-15 10:47 |
| #5 Double Jeopardy here. Since he's faced civil charges for the act, he can't/won't face similar UCMJ for the same act. The only charge the civies could not charge that is still open under UCMJ is the 'actions unbecoming' article. Usually, that is employed to get them to sign the papers for ‘early’ retirement or release from service. Though I suspect that in this case, it has been done under administrative punishment which means a formal letter in his permanent record the results of which is no promotion, no good assignments. Is there still a base on Kiska? |
| Posted by: Gruth Grorong4534 2006-07-15 08:59 |
| #4 AP probably took flying hrs to mean combat hrs, has you know they are not military literate. :) |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-07-15 07:18 |
| #3 He did what he did. The lawyer knew it and didn't want to screw things up with a transparently chicken shit defence that would insult the court. I'd bet he's saving the PTSD for mitigation in the damage hearing. Admit he screwed up, show remorse, help him get back on track is a good strategy at this point, if it's sincere. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-15 07:17 |
| #2 a decorated officer who flew 500 combat hours in the Gulf War, Kosovo and Bosnia I call bullsh*t. It takes pilots years to fly 1000 hours, or the equivalent of 41 1/2 straight days in the air. He might have been able to do that if he was riding AWACS, JSTARS or another multi-crew combat support bird that flies somewhat away from the fighting, but even if that was the case he wasn't getting shot at for 500 hours. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-07-15 07:07 |
| #1 If he flew 500 combat hours, why didn't he try a PTSD defense? I'm not saying he isn't a scumbag disgrace, I'm just saying he got shitty legal advice. He would have saved his pension. I bet his real story is interesting. |
| Posted by: Penguin 2006-07-15 00:44 |