Question for US Soldiers re: wearing your Class A

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: E

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

Ok, what does "without authority" mean?

Not on orders (i.e. not on "active duty").

Erm, that would mean an Army soldier could face some jail time (6 months), because he fell asleep on the couch wearing the uniform - just to wake up in the middle of the night to figure it's time to get some Lays at Walmart (without changing clothes). [;)]

Seriously, I rather think it means that someone who's running around in a uniform without being in the Armed Forces will get punished. No?

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: E

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

Ok, what does "without authority" mean?

Not on orders (i.e. not on "active duty").

Erm, that would mean an Army soldier could face some jail time (6 months), because he fell asleep on the couch wearing the uniform - just to wake up in the middle of the night to figure it's time to get some Lays at Walmart (without changing clothes). [;)]

Seriously, I rather think it means that someone who's running around in a uniform without being in the Armed Forces will get punished. No?

Yes

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

... Cops, even off duty, wear their uniforms whenever they can. 

Cops don't stop being cops after they punch-out, but a "weekend warrior" is just that.

Here in CT, Guardsman can't casually wear their Army camo jackets w/their rank and unit insignia.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

... Cops, even off duty, wear their uniforms whenever they can. 

Cops don't stop being cops after they punch-out, but a "weekend warrior" is just that.

Here in CT, Guardsman can't casually wear their Army camo jackets w/their rank and unit insignia.

Wearing the uniform in an improper manner is prohibited. If allowed, many would wear their BDU coats and jackets in a casual manner-that is not allowed. If all insignia is removed, then there is not a problem with disrespecting the uniform-civilians do it all the time. . Years ago there were also stipulations as to where a fatigue or BDU uniform could be worn.

A Class A uniform could be worn (properly) by a reservist regardless whether he was on duty or not. An M day soldier is still a soldier. His pay comes from the Department of Defense and he can be subject to the UCMJ.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.
Sounded a little odd to mee too. My dad was a 30 year city police officer, many times he'd be in court, always armed. In fact he felt that it was required of him since even an off duty officer must act if he or she witnesses a crime in progress.

In 30 odd years he only had to fire his pistol 1 time, to kill a rabid feral dog.

I too was a city police officer (Oakland), and I can’t tell you how many times I ran into wanted turds that had come to the courthouse to either watch or testify in one of their friends hearings. It was pretty common practice to make unexpected arrests when going to testify.

And when it was a gang related hearing with dozens of turds showing up, there was almost always at least one armed individual in the group every time we moved into the crowd of them to grab the wanted individuals we recognized.

Jim

[conger]

no, he should not: you're only suppose to wear them to a court martial

[Crimguy]

Jim, here in AZ we have a nice big gun locker for the cops and every judge I know save one requires the officers to check their weapon before entering the courtroom. And this is, next to Texas, the gun capital of the U.S.

From a safety standpoint I'm all too happy to have officers armed. Not during a jury trial though for the reasons previously outlined. Additionally, defendants have an electric harness that's remotely activated by the deputy in the courtroom. The deputies have tasers. And after what happened in Georgia a couple years back, firearms are not exactly anyone's guarantee of safety.

On a lighter note, it made headlines here about a year ago when an in-custody defendant was foolishly left alone for a minute in the courtroom while everyone broke for lunch. DOn't know what the deputy was thinking but he stepped out for at least a minute. The guy made it into judge's chambers, put on the judge's suit jacket, and walked out the front door.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Being a retired Police Officer, I call bull**t. I wore civilian attire (suit and tie) and carried a concealed weapon in a shoulder harness no one could possibly see when I testified off duty as did everyone else. We only wore uniforms when on duty or when about to go on duty.

As to why we carry firearms, the courthouse is packed with scumbags and their scumbag friends, all of whom would love to get a shot at an unarmed officer. The one time a defense attorney and judge tried to force one of our uniformed officers to appear without his sidearm, we stood two officers at the door with shotguns outside the courtroom.

Police officers are targets and I’ve arrested hundreds of armed scumbags inside courtrooms in my career. So trying to make an officer disarm for some stupid defense motion is just playing games with OUR lives. Something the defense seems to have no issue at all doing whenever they get the chance.

Jim

[Crimguy]

Jim - I saw I missed your point about off-duty versus on-duty. By and large I agree with you, but not necessarily for lengthy trials with patrol officers as witnesses. I know their schedules and frequently know when they're on or off duty. Are you suggesting that police officers wouldn't dare influence a jury in such a manner?

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Crimguy
Cops, even off duty, wear their uniforms whenever they can. They break policy in court to make sure they have their firearms on, because it influences the jury by adding an amount of authority to their testimony.

Being a retired Police Officer, I call bull**t. I wore civilian attire (suit and tie) and carried a concealed weapon in a shoulder harness no one could possibly see when I testified off duty as did everyone else. We only wore uniforms when on duty or when about to go on duty.

As to why we carry firearms, the courthouse is packed with scumbags and their scumbag friends, all of whom would love to get a shot at an unarmed officer. The one time a defense attorney and judge tried to force one of our uniformed officers to appear without his sidearm, we stood two officers at the door with shotguns outside the courtroom.

Police officers are targets and I’ve arrested hundreds of armed scumbags inside courtrooms in my career. So trying to make an officer disarm for some stupid defense motion is just playing games with OUR lives. Something the defense seems to have no issue at all doing whenever they get the chance.

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

We don’t give a seconds thought to the jury or what may or may not influence them. That realm of game playing we leave to the attorney’s since it’s one aspect of the justice system we despise. Believe it or not we hate testifying. Everything was put down in the reports, so getting us on the stand is just an attempt to try and trip us up by the defense or to simply have us repeat what we already put down in writing by the prosecution.

Eye witness testimony is of course a different matter, if I see the offense in progress, then it makes sense I should be called. But testifying that I came to a scene and did x, y and z while collecting evidence and interviewed witnesses 1-4 and took their statements is really a waste of time in my opinion.

Jim

Edit: And the routine notion that the defense always throws out that we want to convict suspects and we are all crooks is just a paranoid fantasy. I arrested over 8,000 people in my career, probably half those were felonies. Just trying to remember the case is hard enough, let alone making stuff up or putting even a seconds thought towards what attire might influence a jury…

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.
Sounded a little odd to mee too. My dad was a 30 year city police officer, many times he'd be in court, always armed. In fact he felt that it was required of him since even an off duty officer must act if he or she witnesses a crime in progress.

In 30 odd years he only had to fire his pistol 1 time, to kill a rabid feral dog.

I too was a city police officer (Oakland), and I can’t tell you how many times I ran into wanted turds that had come to the courthouse to either watch or testify in one of their friends hearings. It was pretty common practice to make unexpected arrests when going to testify.

And when it was a gang related hearing with dozens of turds showing up, there was almost always at least one armed individual in the group every time we moved into the crowd of them to grab the wanted individuals we recognized.

Jim

Jim that sounds a lot rougher than my dad had it. He was in Ventura, (VPD) his whole career, (badge #9). He retired in 1992 or so, the gang thing in Ventura was more wannabe than real IMHO. Still it was enough to make him want to retire a bit early. He's up in Oregon now, away from cities and people. Anyway, it's good to hear from you.

[E]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: E

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

Ok, what does "without authority" mean?

Not on orders (i.e. not on "active duty").

Erm, that would mean an Army soldier could face some jail time (6 months), because he fell asleep on the couch wearing the uniform - just to wake up in the middle of the night to figure it's time to get some Lays at Walmart (without changing clothes). [;)]

No, an Army soldier is not only on orders (by virtue of being active duty), he is technically on-duty 24 hours a day for the entire term of his service. But as stated above, that behavior did use to get military personnel in trouble with their C.O.'s. Although common sense normally prevailed when it became an issue.

As an aside, if the uniform he fell asleep in was a set of BDU's, he may've actually improved it within reg's as BDU's are supposed to be rumpled (so as to breakup a soldier's outline).

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
Seriously, I rather think it means that someone who's running around in a uniform without being in the Armed Forces will get punished. No?

WILL get punished? No. (just imagine if EVERY SINGLE law on the books was enthusiastically enforced!)

COULD be punished? Yes.

PROBABLY be punished? Hell no.

I personally think the only way a civilian would ever be charged is as a "bonus" charge to accompany another crime. And then only by a pissed off prosecutor (or maybe an embarrassed one?).

Would a soldier be punished? Depends on the soldier's record, his C.O., the context, and the barometric pressure at the time. It has happened, albeit at almost, if not always, less than Courts-Martial punishment levels.

Of course, in the original post's context, I wouldn't put it past the prosecutor to contact the defendant's C.O.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: E

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
Seriously, I rather think it means that someone who's running around in a uniform without being in the Armed Forces will get punished. No?

WILL get punished? No. (just imagine if EVERY SINGLE law on the books was enthusiastically enforced!)

COULD be punished? Yes.

PROBABLY be punished? Hell no.

I personally think the only way a civilian would ever be charged is as a "bonus" charge to accompany another crime. And then only by a pissed off prosecutor (or maybe an embarrassed one?).
Of course, in the original post's context, I wouldn't put it past the prosecutor to contact the defendant's C.O.

In a general sense, I agree with your statement. However, if we take the meaning of wearing a uniform, as a complete uniform to an extent of being able to impersonate a serviceman this gets into another realm. Just what was the individual trying to do. Was he trying to gain access to an installation?

Of course, questioning of individuals that happen to be in uniform walking down a street is not quite the American way. There should be some cause. Papers please!

[E]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

ORIGINAL: E

I personally think the only way a civilian would ever be charged is as a "bonus" charge to accompany another crime.

In a general sense, I agree with your statement. However, if we take the meaning of wearing a uniform, as a complete uniform to an extent of being able to impersonate a serviceman this gets into another realm. Just what was the individual trying to do. Was he trying to gain access to an installation?

Not really, once you're in that other realm, the actual wear of the uniform charge would still be a "bonus" charge... (hopefully-only "Attempted" [xxxx] would very probably supercede a maximum 6 month sentence. While I took your meaning, it is noteworthy that it doesn't have to be an entire uniform. Merely "a distinctive part thereof or anything similar."

But I do have to nail myself... Jeesh! I just realized I remembered the U.S.C. Title number wrong according GoodGuy's quote... Title 18? Not title 10? In my meager, yet lame defense, it has been almost 20 years since I last read the section. *grin?* You guys are REALLY slipping, to let that one by!

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

ORIGINAL: E

I personally think the only way a civilian would ever be charged is as a "bonus" charge to accompany another crime.

...However, if we take the meaning of wearing a uniform, as a complete uniform to an extent of being able to impersonate a serviceman this gets into another realm. Just what was the individual trying to do. Was he trying to gain access to an installation?

[/quote]

Yeah, that's how I understood USC 18. Thanks for confirming that my initial thought/translation was right.

Jeesh! I just realized I remembered the U.S.C. Title number wrong according GoodGuy's quote... Title 18? Not title 10? In my meager, yet lame defense, it has been almost 20 years since I last read the section. *grin?* You guys are REALLY slipping, to let that one by!

Actually, USC 18 regulates affairs of the "Armed Forces", so it refers to Army, Navy, AirForce and US Marines, where all are subject to UCMJ (military jurisdiction = "Uniform Code of the Military Justice"), while USC 10 regulates National Guard matters, which also indicates that the National Guard is usually excempt from military jurisdiction. So in regard to the OP's question, your hint wasn't bad, as I understand that USC's title 10 §772 does at least indicate that federal law does not prohibit to wear the NG uniform off-duty, unless someone corrects me and explains what he thinks what "as the case may be" could mean. [:)]

[jjhouston4]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


As to why we carry firearms, the courthouse is packed with scumbags and their scumbag friends, all of whom would love to get a shot at an unarmed officer. The one time a defense attorney and judge tried to force one of our uniformed officers to appear without his sidearm, we stood two officers at the door with shotguns outside the courtroom.

Police officers are targets and I’ve arrested hundreds of armed scumbags inside courtrooms in my career. So trying to make an officer disarm for some stupid defense motion is just playing games with OUR lives. Something the defense seems to have no issue at all doing whenever they get the chance.

I work in a courthouse where LEO's are generally required to check firearms and I can't recall that ever causing a security issue. So I googled "police shot in court". The only two hits where an LEO was actually shot involved inmates taking guns from LEOs and them turning the guns on the LEO's.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/4275403/detail.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21670577/

[Doggie]

Unless things have changed since I was in the army, a soldier or veteran is entitled to wear a dress uniform whenever he feels like it. There was a time when soldiers were required to wear Class As or khakis when off duty, as civilian clothing was not authorized.

More recently, fatigue uniforms were authorized only when traveling to or from work. The only authorized clothing allowed off post were civilian clothes, Class As, or khakis. Travel in BDUs was never authorized. To get on a plane, you had to be in dress uniform or appropriate civilian attire, e.g. no tank tops, flip flops or shorts. These days, I see people in BDUs everywhere, and some them aint soldiers. There's a lot of that going around.

A POS reserve JAG officer telling a real soldier he can't wear a uniform is the height of chutzpah in my opinion. Lawyers aint even required to qualify with a weapon, and are officers in name only. They are simply handed commissions other people have to earn.

[Fallschirmjager]

I did some quick research and I see no precedent in the state of Tennessee against wearing a military uniform in a court room.
I asked some of my colleagues who used to be in the criminal defense game for their opinion and all three said they would advise against it out of fear that the judge or jury could view it as trying to influence the verdict.

If I had clients in the military or national guard I would probably advise against it as well for the same reason.

[Doggie]

But de-lousing a thug and dressing him up in a suit and tie is perfectly kosher?[8|]

[Grit]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Crimguy
Cops, even off duty, wear their uniforms whenever they can. They break policy in court to make sure they have their firearms on, because it influences the jury by adding an amount of authority to their testimony.

Being a retired Police Officer, I call bull**t. I wore civilian attire (suit and tie) and carried a concealed weapon in a shoulder harness no one could possibly see when I testified off duty as did everyone else. We only wore uniforms when on duty or when about to go on duty.

As to why we carry firearms, the courthouse is packed with scumbags and their scumbag friends, all of whom would love to get a shot at an unarmed officer. The one time a defense attorney and judge tried to force one of our uniformed officers to appear without his sidearm, we stood two officers at the door with shotguns outside the courtroom.

Police officers are targets and I’ve arrested hundreds of armed scumbags inside courtrooms in my career. So trying to make an officer disarm for some stupid defense motion is just playing games with OUR lives. Something the defense seems to have no issue at all doing whenever they get the chance.

Jim

I totally agree with Jim on all points.

The only courtroom I've ever been in where a law enforcement officer carrying a weapon wasn't allowed was in Federal District Court. In this court every person entering the building was searched and passed through a metal detector.

Trust me, the Judge and most defense attorneys appreciate armed officers in the courtroom.