no reason why the drowning situation would not provide a defense. However, "It was necessary for me to leave my post or disobey your lawful order in order to perform some more important function” could be another matter, one which the instant facts do not require us to resolve., See United States v. Olinger, 50 MJ 365, 366-67 (1999). GIERKE, Judge (concurring): I agree completely with the majority opinion. I write separately to set out in greater detail my reasons for upholding the military judge’s ruling on the challenge of MAJ R. In my view, the military judge should not have allowed the defense to ask questions on voir dire that asked for a sentencing commitment from court members based solely on the nature of the offenses. See United States v. McLaren, 38 MJ 112, 118 (CMA 1993) (<HOLDING>). Thus, it is not surprising that the court
recognizing the cause of action recognizing cause of action holding that it was error to deny cause challenge because although juror stated he could follow courts instructions his other responses were sufficiently equivocal to cast doubt holding that consent searches do not require probable cause to justify the search of a home recognizing that responses to artful questions and inaccurate responses do not require that a challenge for cause be granted