the police can have a union. Unfortunately their union's power can really only be meaningfully minimized by more political power coming from somewhere else. This whole "everyone is a camera" thing might highlight enough police misconduct to get some energy against police unions, though
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
the police can have a union. Unfortunately their union's power can really only be meaningfully minimized by more political power coming from somewhere else. This whole "everyone is a camera" thing might highlight enough police misconduct to get some energy against police unions, though
We have a cop on videotape executing someone from multiple different angles, and he's going to walk away from it. We have another cop who turned off a camera to beat the shit out of a handcuffed woman who is being reinstated with back pay. We have another cop who murdered a schizophrenic man, then shot a twelve-year-old girl with a beanbag gun point-blank, whose fellow cops then threw him a fucking parade because his wrist was being slapped too hard, who's probably going to walk away from the force with a golden fucking parachute.
If people were going to get upset, it would have happened long, long ago. No one cares.
the police can have a union. Unfortunately their union's power can really only be meaningfully minimized by more political power coming from somewhere else. This whole "everyone is a camera" thing might highlight enough police misconduct to get some energy against police unions, though
We have a cop on videotape executing someone from multiple different angles, and he's going to walk away from it. We have another cop who turned off a camera to beat the shit out of a handcuffed woman who is being reinstated with back pay. We have another cop who murdered a schizophrenic man, then shot a twelve-year-old girl with a beanbag gun point-blank, whose fellow cops then threw him a fucking parade because his wrist was being slapped too hard, who's probably going to walk away from the force with a golden fucking parachute.
If people were going to get upset, it would have happened long, long ago. No one cares.
plenty of young people are pissed off. Old people aren't seeing these videos because they don't know what the fuck youtube is.
It has been a relatively short amount of time since police brutality became something that was widely, regularly publicized. Prior to cell phone cameras people knew about rodney king and maybe things that happened in their locality. Now it seems like not a week goes by without another stupid cop doing some stupid shit and getting away with it. It will take time for that to be something that gets pounded into the public consciousness.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Police getting away with shit is not a fault of the laws they are accountable to, its a failure of the people responsible for enforcing those laws. How would changing the laws they're answerable matter if the same people are enforcing them.
I was under the impression that the biggest thing the UCMJ did was have outsiders to the situation conduct trial, avoiding many problems of corruption. The idea being that a person might protect the scumbags he knows and loves, but he wouldn't help scumbags he's never met before. As I understand, before the UCMJ, the military of the pre-1950s was as corrupt as police today are now.
If that wouldn't result in changes, then what would help reduce police corruption? It seems ridiculous that in every story I read, from Sheriff Joe to crazy DC gunmen, it always ends with 'no criminal charges were pressed against the officer.'
The UCMJ is the exact opposite. The convening authority is always in your direct chain of command and he has the authority to commute your sentence to nothing if he wants to, and the judge can't do anything about it.
The analogy to applying it to police would be if the chief of police got to have the final say in the sentence of a cop who was convicted in civilian court.
What? Since when can your chain-of-command overrule a court martial? Are you pulling this out of your ass? I didn't pay much attention to the UCMJ bullshit and never got in enough trouble to have first-hand experience when I was in the Navy but I have never heard of that.
And yes, public service unions are evil.
The convening authority for a general court martial is usually the first flag/general officer in your chain of command. For a special court martial, it could be the CO of your unit. The convening authority is the person who grants the authority for the court to try your case. They literally "convene" the court martial.
Art. 60(c)(2) of the UCMJ states, in part, "The convening authority or other person taking such action, in his sole discretion, may approve, disapprove, commute, or suspend the sentence in whole or in part."
So yes, the convening authority pretty much has ultimate power to overrule the sentence given in a court martial. Command has its privileges, after all.
Yes, but how often does that happen?
Pretty often. If the convening authority feels the sentence was too extreme it's pretty common for him to commute it. I don't have statistics on it or anything. But in cases where the convening authority is an admiral and the guilty party is a captain he's known for 30 years? You really think that he's not going to commute the sentence? Every JAG has a story of some case he or she was on where someone got off because the convening authority commuted or suspended their sentence.
They can't vacate the conviction, and if part of the sentence is discharge there's only so much they can do (lower it from dishonorable to general, or something like that).
The convening authority for a general court martial is usually the first flag/general officer in your chain of command. For a special court martial, it could be the CO of your unit. The convening authority is the person who grants the authority for the court to try your case. They literally "convene" the court martial.
Art. 60(c)(2) of the UCMJ states, in part, "The convening authority or other person taking such action, in his sole discretion, may approve, disapprove, commute, or suspend the sentence in whole or in part."
So yes, the convening authority pretty much has ultimate power to overrule the sentence given in a court martial. Command has its privileges, after all.
Yeah, I did some googling on it and it's actually all neatly worked out, with the Convening Authority even picking the jurors. But apparently is limited by codified guidelines in how much he/she can interfere; can overrule the Judge's sentence but probably not the jury's verdict. Is there a minimum sentence court-martial?
But anyway, your original point is a good one, the system would be terrible for the police. The military has a very stern line between commanding officers and enlisted/junior officers and the CO is under the authority of the President and the constitution, he/she doesn't have to worry about outside politics and unions. Fucking public service unions.
If I was the mayor I would make it extremely clear that any policeman or woman who went on strike in my town would be fired, stripped of their pension, and public benefits.
And I'd have the National Guard patrolling the streets in their place.
Also, just so we're clear, striking because your working conditions and pay are abysmal is one thing (those Boston cops had it really shitty), but striking because you are now being forced to hold yourself accountable to the same standard as the people you claim to protect and serve is something completely different.
So I'm curious... how many passing motorists were being pelted by snowballs at this event?
What would have been the appropriate reaction of the police? I'm thinking riot police or something? Essentially you have a big group of people doing some pretty stupid shit that may or may not get swept up in mob mentality.
I mean had the guy in the OP gotten out of his car, and brandished his badge instead of his gun and started ordering people to go home while he called someone else, I would have been pretty supportive of it. But at that time I may as well be living in fairyland.
It's okay folks. This officer acted appropriately because according to this FOX News he was only "involved", it was the uniformed officer that drew his weapon, and the people in the snowball fight were fucking subhuman antiwar protesters (you know, the kind that aren't teabaggers). o_O
Lets see how the zero-tolerance policy works out there at FOX. Wait, was there an on-screen graphic that got fucked up? No? Just spoken lies? Well, that's ok then!
But, what about the picture of him, out of uniform, with a gun in his hands? Did, did I photoshop that in my mind?
[FOXNEWS]It is just a natural result of you being a liberal cop hater who hates America and hallucinating the whole thing, you fucking drug-addled hippy.[/FOXNEWS]
The lack of internal controls in some police departments is just frightening. Makes me wonder what other branches of government would become this corrupt if they were allowed to unionize.
But, what about the picture of him, out of uniform, with a gun in his hands? Did, did I photoshop that in my mind?
[FOXNEWS]It is just a natural result of you being a liberal cop hater who hates America and hallucinating the whole thing, you fucking drug-addled hippy.[/FOXNEWS]
I thought Fox News was strongly anti-union, and anti-governmnet (they know cops are government right)? I mean what the fuck, does their position just default to "asshole" regardless of the politics involved? That must be it, Fox News isn't a right wing news outlet, Fox News is a news outlet for assholes, and the right wing just happens to be full of assholes at the moment.
But, what about the picture of him, out of uniform, with a gun in his hands? Did, did I photoshop that in my mind?
[FOXNEWS]It is just a natural result of you being a liberal cop hater who hates America and hallucinating the whole thing, you fucking drug-addled hippy.[/FOXNEWS]
Get out of my head, get out, get out, get out. Reaching for my aluminum foil hat.... and safe.
Edit - How did they "not" explain the civilian dressed dude with a gun in his hand?
But, what about the picture of him, out of uniform, with a gun in his hands? Did, did I photoshop that in my mind?
[FOXNEWS]It is just a natural result of you being a liberal cop hater who hates America and hallucinating the whole thing, you fucking drug-addled hippy.[/FOXNEWS]
I thought Fox News was strongly anti-union, and anti-governmnet (they know cops are government right)? I mean what the fuck, does their position just default to "asshole" regardless of the politics involved? That must be it, Fox News isn't a right wing news outlet, Fox News is a news outlet for assholes, and the right wing just happens to be full of assholes at the moment.
I think Thomas Moore described the sentiment of both FOX and the Republican Party best in the poem Tory Pledges:
I pledge myself thro' thick and thin,
To labor still with zeal devout
To get the Outs, poor devils, in,
And turn the Ins, the wretches, out.
I pledge myself, tho' much bereft
Of ways and means of ruling ill,
To make the most of what are left,
And stick to all that's rotten still.
Tho' gone the days of place and pelf,
And drones no more take all the honey,
I pledge myself to cram myself
With all I can of public money.
To quarter on that social purse
My nephews, nieces, sisters, brothers,
Nor, so _we_ prosper, care a curse
How much 'tis at the expense of others.
I pledge myself, whenever Right
And Might on any point divide,
Not to ask which is black or white.
But take at once the strongest side.
For instance, in all Tithe discussions,
I'm _for_ the Reverend encroachers:-
I loathe the Poles, applaud the Russians,--
Am _for_ the Squires, _against_ the Poachers.
Betwixt the Corn-lords and the Poor
I've not the slightest hesitation,--
The People _must_ be starved, to insure
The Land its due remuneration.
I pledge myself to be no more
With Ireland's wrongs beprosed or shammed,--
I vote her grievances a _bore_,
So she may suffer and be damned.
Or if she kick, let it console us,
We still have plenty of red coats,
To cram the Church, that general bolus,
Down any given amount of throats.
I dearly love the Frankfort Diet,--
Think newspapers the worst of crimes;
And would, to give some chance of quiet,
Hang all the writers of _"The Times;_"
Break all their correspondents' bones,
All authors of "Reply," "Rejoinder,"
From the Anti-Tory, Colonel Jones,
To the Anti-Suttee, Mr. Poynder.
Such are the Pledges I propose;
And tho' I can't now offer gold,
There's many a way of buying those
Who've but the taste for being sold.
So here's, with three times three hurrahs,
A toast of which you'll not complain,--
"Long life to jobbing; may the days
"Of Peculation shine again!"
King wants out of prison and is appealing his sentence, arguing in part that terrified coed Nicole D. should have known better than to submit to his sexual assault.
Damn. That's one scary read. To be perfectly honest, I'm just straight up glad I don't live in an area where the cops have that much power. The decisions made by the elected officials are pretty bad too.
Malkor on
0
Options
ArchonexNo hard feelings, right?Registered Userregular
But, what about the picture of him, out of uniform, with a gun in his hands? Did, did I photoshop that in my mind?
[FOXNEWS]It is just a natural result of you being a liberal cop hater who hates America and hallucinating the whole thing, you fucking drug-addled hippy.[/FOXNEWS]
I thought Fox News was strongly anti-union, and anti-governmnet (they know cops are government right)? I mean what the fuck, does their position just default to "asshole" regardless of the politics involved? That must be it, Fox News isn't a right wing news outlet, Fox News is a news outlet for assholes, and the right wing just happens to be full of assholes at the moment.
FOX News is basically is the equivalent of a TV-based shock jock program. Which, ironically, is what Glenn Beck used to be, so that should explain a fair bit about why they picked him up.
They'll go for whatever viewpoint is the most sensationalist and absurd, while keeping to a conservative viewpoint. Somewhere along the way they somehow managed to get a dedicated viewerbase that took them seriously. Not sure how that happened, honestly.
It's very telling that the management of Fox News has gone on record saying that the only reason they support the Republican party so "fervently" is because it's more profitable for them then supporting the Democrats.
I mean, hell, just think, the Democrats could be the ones with a fucked up party thanks to rabid radicals flocking to the party, had FOX and other associated news programs gone with the Dems and not the Republicans.
King wants out of prison and is appealing his sentence, arguing in part that terrified coed Nicole D. should have known better than to submit to his sexual assault.
Damn. That's one scary read. To be perfectly honest, I'm just straight up glad I don't live in an area where the cops have that much power. The decisions made by the elected officials are pretty bad too.
Suddenly my example with the mafia-esque police department doesn't seem as much of a stretch...
Rather than start another cops gone wild thread, I figured I'd post this article(Police Fight Cellphone Recordings) here.
Much of the article is really just background, but I'd say it still has bearing in the context of this thread.
An excerpt:
In arresting people such as Glik and Surmacz, police are saying that they have not consented to being recorded, that their privacy rights have therefore been violated, and that the citizen action was criminal.
And in the words of Chief Justice Margaret Marshall:
Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals when they seek to hold government officials responsible by recording, secretly recording on occasion, an interaction between a citizen and a police officer.
I'm very much in agreement with her choice of words on this, including the 'secretly' bit, primarily based on the Manzelli case mentioned in the article, in which a conviction was upheld based on the fact that the microphone used wasn't plainly visible, even though the camera was. Secondly, given the nature of their office, I'm of the opinion that any official actions by an officer should be recordable. Simply put, whether or not they are being videotaped should not have any bearing on their conduct. Either their actions are justified, or if they are not, a recording becomes necessary evidence of that.
Rather than start another cops gone wild thread, I figured I'd post this article(Police Fight Cellphone Recordings) here.
Much of the article is really just background, but I'd say it still has bearing in the context of this thread.
An excerpt:
In arresting people such as Glik and Surmacz, police are saying that they have not consented to being recorded, that their privacy rights have therefore been violated, and that the citizen action was criminal.
I find this especially hilarious in view of the other thread about how cops want UAVs to conduct 24/7 surveillance on everybody.
Rather than start another cops gone wild thread, I figured I'd post this article(Police Fight Cellphone Recordings) here.
Much of the article is really just background, but I'd say it still has bearing in the context of this thread.
An excerpt:
In arresting people such as Glik and Surmacz, police are saying that they have not consented to being recorded, that their privacy rights have therefore been violated, and that the citizen action was criminal.
Ridiculous. You don't get to have any privacy while wearing the uniform.
It's a combination of a bad law and some cops abusing it. There should be nothing illegal about openly recording anything going on in public, especially when it comes to police.
Does this mean I can sue the police department because I didn't consent to be recorded by a dashboard camera during a routine traffic stop? It seems to fit the legal and logical context. One could argue that the camera, as set up behind a barrier (the windshield), creates a private setting in which the recording device was employed.
The Crowing One on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Does this mean I can sue the police department because I didn't consent to be recorded by a dashboard camera during a routine traffic stop? It seems to fit the legal and logical context.
Does this mean I can sue the police department because I didn't consent to be recorded by a dashboard camera during a routine traffic stop? It seems to fit the legal and logical context. One could argue that the camera, as set up behind a barrier (the windshield), creates a private setting in which the recording device was employed.
In this case it deals with sound, it's only illegal if it has audio.
Indeed, you wouldn't see cops arguing when they can get their hands on video evidence of a crime.
Evidence is evidence, it doesn't suddenly become illegal just because the recorded is a government worker.
Actually what you seem to be arguing for is for inadmissible evidence to suddenly become admissible just because the recorded is a government worker.
Short Answer: "Yes, of course"
1. A government worker, who is executing the responsibilities of the government and acting in an official capacity, is not a civilian. They are subject to the constitutional limits on government rather than protected by the constitutional limits. A government accountant has no right to keep private the accounts that he/she works on. Etc.
2. Constitutional protections as to the admissibility of evidence stem only from the legality of government actions and not civilian actions. In fact, all constitutional arguments deal only with what the government may or may not do and how it may do what it can.
note: "exceptions" come when someone who would otherwise be a civilian is acting as an agent of the government. E.G. the "to catch a predator" staff have to follow the constitutional mandates as they are acting as agents of the police force.
If these provisions were not in place then things like "eye witness testimony" would be right out many cases because the person in question was committing a crime at the same time.
Does this mean I can sue the police department because I didn't consent to be recorded by a dashboard camera during a routine traffic stop? It seems to fit the legal and logical context. One could argue that the camera, as set up behind a barrier (the windshield), creates a private setting in which the recording device was employed.
Depends on the state. Some states only have one party consent requirements. And since the police officer having set up the camera consents, its legal.
The only reason the military justice system really exists is that the military operates outside the jurisdiction of US courts much of the time.
This is entirely untrue, as of the time of the creation of the USMJ [iirc] the current US law said(and still does) that the U.S. Federal Court jurisdiction extends to all cases where the U.S. military is operating. This was established when a U.S. Federal Court(or was it SCOTUS, i do not recall) ruled that Nazi war criminals, having been tried by a military court, had had their habeas rights fulfilled and a U.S. Federal Court did not need to hear their petition(but was able to do so) and was affirmed in Razul V Bush (2002) when SCOTUS ruled that anyone anywhere of any citizenship detained by any U.S. military unit, or anyone acting as an agent of the United States Government fell within the Jurisdiction of the Federal Court System. Indeed, if they did not fall within that Jurisdiction then the detainment would necessarily be illegal
Exceptions are defined away not as a matter that the Courts would otherwise have no jurisdiction, but rather to avoid that jurisdiction that they have had and continue to have. The federal and state courts are perfectly under their jurisdiction to try military members and do not only because the USMJ and court martial system was created to internalize their justice. It is the same reason[except on the other side] that enemy combatants had their own special court system set up for them. Without that special court system the federal and state courts[in the case of military incidents that occur entirely within a state] would be taking the cases.
You can argue about the precise reasons all you want[whether there are legitimate reasons to separate them out, or whether or not its political pressure to cover an institutions ass] but the Federal Courts have jurisdiction.
Posts
the police can have a union. Unfortunately their union's power can really only be meaningfully minimized by more political power coming from somewhere else. This whole "everyone is a camera" thing might highlight enough police misconduct to get some energy against police unions, though
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
If people were going to get upset, it would have happened long, long ago. No one cares.
Like most things, unions served a really important purpose. Past tense is of importance here.
plenty of young people are pissed off. Old people aren't seeing these videos because they don't know what the fuck youtube is.
It has been a relatively short amount of time since police brutality became something that was widely, regularly publicized. Prior to cell phone cameras people knew about rodney king and maybe things that happened in their locality. Now it seems like not a week goes by without another stupid cop doing some stupid shit and getting away with it. It will take time for that to be something that gets pounded into the public consciousness.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Pretty often. If the convening authority feels the sentence was too extreme it's pretty common for him to commute it. I don't have statistics on it or anything. But in cases where the convening authority is an admiral and the guilty party is a captain he's known for 30 years? You really think that he's not going to commute the sentence? Every JAG has a story of some case he or she was on where someone got off because the convening authority commuted or suspended their sentence.
They can't vacate the conviction, and if part of the sentence is discharge there's only so much they can do (lower it from dishonorable to general, or something like that).
But anyway, your original point is a good one, the system would be terrible for the police. The military has a very stern line between commanding officers and enlisted/junior officers and the CO is under the authority of the President and the constitution, he/she doesn't have to worry about outside politics and unions. Fucking public service unions.
Fuck 'em.
If I was the mayor I would make it extremely clear that any policeman or woman who went on strike in my town would be fired, stripped of their pension, and public benefits.
And I'd have the National Guard patrolling the streets in their place.
What would have been the appropriate reaction of the police? I'm thinking riot police or something? Essentially you have a big group of people doing some pretty stupid shit that may or may not get swept up in mob mentality.
I mean had the guy in the OP gotten out of his car, and brandished his badge instead of his gun and started ordering people to go home while he called someone else, I would have been pretty supportive of it. But at that time I may as well be living in fairyland.
MWO: Adamski
Yep. Plus things like this.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
So it was perfectly cool that a fucking cop pulls a gun at a snowball fight. Nice.
Or did Fox photoshop it out of my mind?
Oh God!
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
[FOXNEWS]It is just a natural result of you being a liberal cop hater who hates America and hallucinating the whole thing, you fucking drug-addled hippy.[/FOXNEWS]
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
I thought Fox News was strongly anti-union, and anti-governmnet (they know cops are government right)? I mean what the fuck, does their position just default to "asshole" regardless of the politics involved? That must be it, Fox News isn't a right wing news outlet, Fox News is a news outlet for assholes, and the right wing just happens to be full of assholes at the moment.
Get out of my head, get out, get out, get out. Reaching for my aluminum foil hat.... and safe.
Edit - How did they "not" explain the civilian dressed dude with a gun in his hand?
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
I think Thomas Moore described the sentiment of both FOX and the Republican Party best in the poem Tory Pledges:
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Reminds me of LAUSD's Finest.
At least the guy in this case was convicted.
Damn. That's one scary read. To be perfectly honest, I'm just straight up glad I don't live in an area where the cops have that much power. The decisions made by the elected officials are pretty bad too.
FOX News is basically is the equivalent of a TV-based shock jock program. Which, ironically, is what Glenn Beck used to be, so that should explain a fair bit about why they picked him up.
They'll go for whatever viewpoint is the most sensationalist and absurd, while keeping to a conservative viewpoint. Somewhere along the way they somehow managed to get a dedicated viewerbase that took them seriously. Not sure how that happened, honestly.
It's very telling that the management of Fox News has gone on record saying that the only reason they support the Republican party so "fervently" is because it's more profitable for them then supporting the Democrats.
I mean, hell, just think, the Democrats could be the ones with a fucked up party thanks to rabid radicals flocking to the party, had FOX and other associated news programs gone with the Dems and not the Republicans.
Suddenly my example with the mafia-esque police department doesn't seem as much of a stretch...
...and that makes me sad.
PSN : Bolthorn
Much of the article is really just background, but I'd say it still has bearing in the context of this thread.
An excerpt:
And in the words of Chief Justice Margaret Marshall:
I'm very much in agreement with her choice of words on this, including the 'secretly' bit, primarily based on the Manzelli case mentioned in the article, in which a conviction was upheld based on the fact that the microphone used wasn't plainly visible, even though the camera was. Secondly, given the nature of their office, I'm of the opinion that any official actions by an officer should be recordable. Simply put, whether or not they are being videotaped should not have any bearing on their conduct. Either their actions are justified, or if they are not, a recording becomes necessary evidence of that.
Evidence is evidence, it doesn't suddenly become illegal just because the recorded is a government worker.
I find this especially hilarious in view of the other thread about how cops want UAVs to conduct 24/7 surveillance on everybody.
Ridiculous. You don't get to have any privacy while wearing the uniform.
Does this mean I can sue the police department because I didn't consent to be recorded by a dashboard camera during a routine traffic stop? It seems to fit the legal and logical context. One could argue that the camera, as set up behind a barrier (the windshield), creates a private setting in which the recording device was employed.
You see...well...um...THATS DIFFERENT!
In this case it deals with sound, it's only illegal if it has audio.
Short Answer: "Yes, of course"
1. A government worker, who is executing the responsibilities of the government and acting in an official capacity, is not a civilian. They are subject to the constitutional limits on government rather than protected by the constitutional limits. A government accountant has no right to keep private the accounts that he/she works on. Etc.
2. Constitutional protections as to the admissibility of evidence stem only from the legality of government actions and not civilian actions. In fact, all constitutional arguments deal only with what the government may or may not do and how it may do what it can.
note: "exceptions" come when someone who would otherwise be a civilian is acting as an agent of the government. E.G. the "to catch a predator" staff have to follow the constitutional mandates as they are acting as agents of the police force.
If these provisions were not in place then things like "eye witness testimony" would be right out many cases because the person in question was committing a crime at the same time.
Depends on the state. Some states only have one party consent requirements. And since the police officer having set up the camera consents, its legal.
This is entirely untrue, as of the time of the creation of the USMJ [iirc] the current US law said(and still does) that the U.S. Federal Court jurisdiction extends to all cases where the U.S. military is operating. This was established when a U.S. Federal Court(or was it SCOTUS, i do not recall) ruled that Nazi war criminals, having been tried by a military court, had had their habeas rights fulfilled and a U.S. Federal Court did not need to hear their petition(but was able to do so) and was affirmed in Razul V Bush (2002) when SCOTUS ruled that anyone anywhere of any citizenship detained by any U.S. military unit, or anyone acting as an agent of the United States Government fell within the Jurisdiction of the Federal Court System. Indeed, if they did not fall within that Jurisdiction then the detainment would necessarily be illegal
Exceptions are defined away not as a matter that the Courts would otherwise have no jurisdiction, but rather to avoid that jurisdiction that they have had and continue to have. The federal and state courts are perfectly under their jurisdiction to try military members and do not only because the USMJ and court martial system was created to internalize their justice. It is the same reason[except on the other side] that enemy combatants had their own special court system set up for them. Without that special court system the federal and state courts[in the case of military incidents that occur entirely within a state] would be taking the cases.
You can argue about the precise reasons all you want[whether there are legitimate reasons to separate them out, or whether or not its political pressure to cover an institutions ass] but the Federal Courts have jurisdiction.