History Headscratchers / AFewGoodMen

* How is it these guys aren’t guilty of straight up manslaughter? They didn’t intend to kill him, so it wasn’t murder, but they attacked him (a crime) and he died as a result. I don’t see how the notion they thought he could take the abuse absolves them of manslaughter.

*** "The lack of poison evidence already guaranteed the murder charge was never going to hold" - it's rarely put that way, but it's actually absolutely right. Given this, I now wonder just how much more severe the punishment of Dawson and Downey would be if it were not for Jessup's confession?

*** If the prosecution says that the victim died of lactose poisoning, and only lactose poisoning, then as long as that is disproved then the case is won. It really doesn't matter how the victim died, as long as it was not how the prosecutor said it was. At least the murder charge part, the conduct unbecoming is a separate charge, and that is what the defence is focused on. If they introduce an alternate theory then they are gifting the prosecution a second bite at the cherry, as well as muddying the waters for the jury too, risking the possibility of it turning a clear yes/no question into bickering over methods. It'd be like pleading "[[Webcomic/SchlockMercenary that's not how we did it]]" and the jury deciding they must have done it, just not how the prosecution said. Keeping it focused on that specific charge of lactose poisoning makes it easier to disprove the entire prosecutorial case.

*** I agree he should not ask it on the stand,at least not until he knows exactly what happened, but it is worth investigating. I don't know the rules for court-martials; but in a civilian court, this would be where you bring in an expert witness of your own to debunk the coroner's report.

** Defence 101: Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer. It is also not that easy to ask on the stand, it is more a very general pretrial question which would require a judge's ruling on admissibility of charges, but assuming the right circumstances of witnesses and questions the last thing you want is to ask that question and have a witness come up with a semiplausible theory which strengthens the prosecution's case. Knocking holes in specific prosecution allegations is a safer trial tactic than posing more general theories.

* Kaffee says at one point that "He doesn't know what killed Santiago, and he doesn't want to know." All he cares about is disproving lactose poisoning. However, in doing so, he shuts off an important defense avenue: If the rag was poisoned, where did the poison come from? For that matter, how would two Marines, neither of whom seems particularly well-educated even know what lactose poisoning is, or how to induce it?

** Standard prosecutorial tactic. You charge at as high a level as you can, with the expectation that the accused will bargain it down to a plea instead of risking trial. That is what happened, as a more reasonable plea deal was offered as an out; only the two defendants decided they didn't want to plead out and insisted on a trial.

* Dawson and Downey should never have been charged with murder in the first place. Even the prosecutor should have realized that there was no evidence that the rag was poisoned. Murder requires an intent to kill, and the rag being poisoned was the entire basis they were going to use to prove intent. Plus, if they wanted to kill Santiago there are a hundred other ways to do it. Of course the defense also screws this up, because he never asks the doctor or anybody else where two low-grade marines would be able to find an untraceable poison on their base.

*** Yes and no. At the time of the movie, confinement and diminished rations wasn't an unusual outcome of a captain's mast. In fact, it probably contributed to the common trope of prison inmates being fed a diet of "bread and water." The problem is, however, that it was a punishment that was only allowed on naval ships at sea, and the term couldn't be longer than three days.

** The simple answer is that Jessup's trapped between a rock and a hard place. If he acknowledges that his men sometimes ''don't'' obey his orders, then he looks like a weak and ineffective leader with poor control over the men under his command. And it's not just out of arrogance, stupidity or careerism that he quashes that suggestion; ''no'' ranking military officer would want anyone to get that idea about them, because the whole point of being a high-ranking officer is that you are supposed to be a good leader who commands the unquestioned obedience of the men and women under your command. And it's no good begging "extreme circumstances"; the whole point of the military chain of command to begin with is that you follow orders ''without exception'', that there are ''no'' circumstances extreme enough where that doesn't apply, and in fact deciding that you get to not follow orders if you deem the circumstances severe enough would in fact makes those circumstances ''worse'' (and pretty much the only recognised exception to this -- when obeying orders would result in the committing of a war crime -- would hardly help here, since they can hardly use "avoiding committing a war crime" as an excuse in this situation). But if Jessup ''doesn't'' allow for the fact that his men may take matters into their own hands, then he's by default acknowledging that the Code Red only happened because he wanted it to happen, and thus opens up the line of questioning that is ultimately used to bury him. Sucks for him, but then, he's only got himself to blame, since finding himself in such a position is pretty much a consequence of his ordering someone to be brutally assaulted then participating in a cover-up when it went wrong.

** Also, the simple fact is that this story isn't written exclusively for the enjoyment of current and former enlisted members of the US military, it's intended for a mass audience comprised mostly of civilians. Civilians who, for the most part, almost certainly don't give a shit about someone using the term "men with guns" in the imprecise manner being complained about here. Especially since it's just being used in an everyday "colloquial way of the describing the military" fashion and not to refer to an actual firearm. The writer almost certainly felt that "men with guns" suited the dramatic and poetic purpose he was going for in that scene, so sadly for current and former soldiers they just have to suck it up and remember the MST3KMantra on this one.

*** Yes and no. At the time of the movie, confinement and diminished rations wasn't an unusual outcome of a captain's mast. In fact, it probably contributed to the common trope of prison inmates being fed a diet of "bread and water." The problem is, however, that it was a punishment that was only allowed on naval ships at sea, and the term coulndn't be longer than three days.

----

*** But does barracks restriction allow food deprivation?