Posted on Feb 23, 2014
Art 134 for Neg. Dis. with Personally Owned Weapon at home?
9.66K
17
16
2
2
0
SM was cleaning there personally owned weapon at home. during disassembly, SM accidentally and unknowingly loaded weapon and discharged into leg. Does this meet the requirements to be charged with and prosecuted for under article 134 of UCMJ for negligent discharge?
Posted in these groups: 
UCMJ
UCMJ
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
i would assume no, but I would also have to read the article directly so as to not be misguided by barracks lawyers. I know there have been accidental/negligent discharges where I am stationed, but I do not know of any repercussions afterwards. I would also have to say that if there is something like that going on, there is probably an issue between the SM and the COC, on a personal level.
(2)
(0)
SSgt Robert Van Buhler III
Provided it wasn't in base housing, posing a risk to on base personnel and dependants.
(0)
(0)
3
1
2
<p>Look... the guy popped himself with a weapon. Now the military has to do a Line of Duty investigation, as the medical attention he probably needed will demand it. Same thing would happen if he wrecked a motorcycle with no licence or no helmet... was the act causing the injury "in the line of duty" or not?</p><p> </p><p>Going after him using an ART 134 has got to be the lamest excuse for a pussified military I've ever heard. </p><p> </p><p>I'm sick of this crap about ART 15's for someone accidentaly shooting a clearing barrel. Hell, that's why it's there... to prevent someone from getting hurt. It's a mechanical / human interaction that can and sometimes will go wrong. Automatically calling it negligence is simply some lazy bureaucratic not-worth-this-stripes/eagles fat-ass taking the easy way out. Instead of TRAINING, let's just go for the ART-15, or now in this case an ART 134. Really? These guys disgust me.</p>
(3)
(2)
GySgt (Join to see)
The clearing barrel is not there to be shot at but to catch the mistake of a person who didn't properly clear their weapon, or in other words catch the mistake of a person who was negligent with their weapon
(0)
(0)
GySgt (Join to see)
On the topic of clearing weapons, pulling a trigger is not clearing a weapon, its part of a functions check. Pulling a trigger does not clear a weapon, it functions it.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG Fair,
I usually group the functions check as we do the whole nine yards at the clearing barrel when exiting the range. Hence why I grouped there, but you are very much correct.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
And which leaves to point to weapon safety rule number 2-keep your weapon pointed in a safe direction or downrange.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Remember the old destruction of government property threats of UCMJ when a Soldier got a sunburn?<br><br>Maybe that's where we are going with this.....<br>
(1)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
Old wives tale MSG. Military personnel have never been government property. That's just something that's told to gullible Privates to keep them in line. The owning of people is called slavery, and slavery has been frowned upon (outside the south) in the US for a while.
(2)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
I know, which is why I said threats. It falls in the same realm as the kid hanging himself with the buffer cable two platoons down in basic training.<br>
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google