# TF Cdr Reports Self for Possible Accidental Discharge



## The Bread Guy (17 Apr 2010)

This from the Canadian Press:


> The commander of Canadian troops in Afghanistan is being investigated after his assault rifle unexpectedly went off at Kandahar Airfield.
> 
> Brig.-Gen. Daniel Menard says it's not been determined whether there was a malfunction - or whether it was an accidental discharge.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Apr 2010)

Yon would have a field day with this - if he werent banned from Afghanistan.


----------



## PanaEng (17 Apr 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Yon would have a field day with this - if he werent banned from Afghanistan.


First thing that crossed my mind when I heard it on a news channel.


----------



## danchapps (17 Apr 2010)

This is an excellent case of leading by example. It sucks that this happened, but I give the man all the credit in the world for stepping up and taking responsibility for this.


----------



## Teeps74 (17 Apr 2010)

Good for the Gen., we are all expected to stand up when we screw up, it it is always good to see someone doing exactly that (does not matter if it is a Pte or a Gen... It is a sign of honour, and respect to those they work for and with).

In other news... Yon is banned from Afghanistan?! I can't imagine why... I guess I missed it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Apr 2010)

This, from the goofy headline department of the Cosmic Butterfly Corporation....
*Afghan mission chief orders probe of himself*


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Apr 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This, from the goofy headline department of the Cosmic Butterfly Corporation....
> *Afghan mission chief orders probe of himself*


Oh, if only I had a nickel for every time I ordered a probe of....whoa, wait a minute...not going there!


----------



## the 48th regulator (17 Apr 2010)

Why is it call called a Negligent discharge when troop does it, and accidental when a General does it?

Something like Crazy for the Poor, eccentric for the Rich.....

dileas

tess


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Apr 2010)

Sorry to interject but who is "Yon" ? Can someone explain ? Just PM to keep the thread flowing


----------



## the 48th regulator (17 Apr 2010)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Sorry to interject but who is "Yon" ? Can someone explain ? Just PM to keep the thread flowing




In my Saturday haze, I was thinking the same thing too.

dileas

tess


----------



## GAP (17 Apr 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Yon would have a field day with this - if he werent banned from Afghanistan.



Did this actually happen?


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Apr 2010)

According to a comment towards the end of this page, it is true.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/under-cover-of-the-night/page-2.htm


----------



## George Wallace (17 Apr 2010)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Sorry to interject but who is "Yon" ? Can someone explain ? Just PM to keep the thread flowing



Michael Yon calls for firing of BGEN Menard

Yon on The Surge

Michael Yon on Canadians in K'Har

Michael Yon in a Panic over Afghanistan

I have seen the horror (Iraq) by MICHAEL YON


and many more.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Apr 2010)

Oh well that will be the first and last time I go to Yawn's yawnblog  :boring:  He is full of himself, a real "great I am".


----------



## GAP (17 Apr 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> According to a comment towards the end of this page, it is true.
> 
> http://www.michaelyon-online.com/under-cover-of-the-night/page-2.htm



here's what he says

On Saturday, 10 April, a message came from military that this embed has ended.  No reason was offered.  The troops here have no idea why.  On Sunday a reason was given: overcrowding by journalists.  Haven’t seen a journalist in weeks.

I had gone to great expense to be here with 5/2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team and promised to stay with them until they leave Afghanistan.  Then suddenly a nameless feature decided to pull the plug.  The decision likely came from General officer level.  It is a bad sign indicating that they think they are losing the war and don’t want anyone there to see it.  Saw this in Iraq.

It has been said that between Iraq and Afghanistan I’ve spent more time embedded with combat units than anyone in U.S. history.  I do not know if this is true but it sounds good.  It’s been a long journey and fortune favored my every step.  Many people have been killed or maimed and I am walking out without a scratch.  I will continue to cover the war but will not give the military another chance to pull the plug.  I will cover the war from outside the wire where it’s far safer.  Many people erroneously think that embedding is the safest way to cover the wars.  This is untrue.  Journalists who are afraid or reluctant to endure long periods of stress and combat will brag that going alone somehow seizes the high ground of truth.  There is no truth in this.  In many cases the journalists are missing crucial information because they fear the combat and the difficult living.  The infantry company on this mission has lost twelve comrades KIA during this tour, with others wounded for life.

It’s just as easy to accurately sense the direction of the war winds alone as with troops.  The military media machine is playing games during a time of war.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Apr 2010)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Why is it call called a Negligent discharge when troop does it, and accidental when a General does it?
> 
> Something like Crazy for the Poor, eccentric for the Rich.....
> 
> ...



There are still many who refer to it as an AD vice what it is - and ND, or a technical malfunction (very rare).  I hate the phrase "AD" - but imagine that calling it that in this case is case of ignorance rather than malfeasance


----------



## SeanNewman (17 Apr 2010)

I don't know, it's a tough call.  I absolutely agree with you that if you look at every single case individually you will see that some negligence is involved...but overall if you were ask everyone in here honestly if they have ever had one I think they numbers would be pretty high.

Another matter altogether is to ask everyone on this board who has ever had one (and knew damn-well they had one) but were in some sort of environment where only friends were around and they didn't have the integrity to bring it up the chain of command until they were rightly charged.

I am of the belief that yes every soldier needs to be in control of his rifle, but his integrity means even more.  TFK Comd's integrity points will go up more than his fieldcraft stock will go down.

And at the end of the day, nobody is infallible in terms of mistakes.  However, there is a difference between making a mistake and doing wrong.*  To lie about it would have been to do wrong, and would not have been recoverable from.

*Note* Can't take credit for that line, it's from the new ethics pub "Duty With Discernment".


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (17 Apr 2010)

Why is the NIS involved?  When Machine Gun Pete had an ND with a Leopard C6 Coax in Kosovo in 2000 the NIS was not called in.  He was a LCol at the time, plead guilty, and received a $5000 fine.


----------



## Teeps74 (18 Apr 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> There are still many who refer to it as an AD vice what it is - and ND, or a technical malfunction (very rare).  I hate the phrase "AD" - but imagine that calling it that in this case is case of ignorance rather than malfeasance



I usually refer to them as an Unauthorized Discharge while conducting the investigation. I hate doing those investigations, only done two so far... Hoping to keep it that way by judicious use of pre-training and enforcement of proper handling drills.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Apr 2010)

Like anyone, this General is a human, just like a Digger, and if it is proven he f'd up, just pay the Piper and carry on.

Let the investigation run it's course.

I am sure the media will ride this to the extreme, along with the leftist dogooders and certified shyte disturbers, who will all be foaming at their pathetic mouths.

Here we don't have ADs or NDs, we have UD's, and a protocol for such, which is actually listed in the pertinant weapons part of the EMEIs (Electrical and Mechanical engineering Instructions - our CFTOs). I've been involved in numerous investigations over the past 15 years on MAG 58, Minimi, and of course F88 (Steyr AUG family), all except one were operator fault.

OWDU


----------



## Gunner98 (18 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I don't know, it's a tough call.  I absolutely agree with you that if you look at every single case individually you will see that some negligence is involved...but overall if you were ask everyone in here honestly if they have ever had one I think they numbers would be pretty high.
> 
> Another matter altogether is to ask everyone on this board who has ever had one (and knew damn-well they had one) but were in some sort of environment where only friends were around and they didn't have the integrity to bring it up the chain of command until they were rightly charged.
> 
> ...



Petamocto,

There are many in this topic thread who will vehemently disagree with you!

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/85031/post-913716.html#msg913716

This by far my favorite statement on this issue by a CBC reporter:

If it was an accidental or negligent incident, Ménard would likely face a court martial. *The penalty for a guilty finding in such cases is often as low as $10 or even a reprimand*, but because of Ménard's rank and position, he would probably be fined a much heftier amount.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/17/menard-afghanistan-investigation-rifle-discharge.html#ixzz0lQ7fet3R


----------



## Pusser (18 Apr 2010)

We should all remember that there was a Fleet Commander (Commodore) who turned himself in for looking at "Penthouse-like sites" on his DND issued laptop.  He was court-martialed, found guilty and received the same fine as a Captain who had allowed his son to play computer games on his DND issued laptop - $200.


----------



## ballz (18 Apr 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Petamocto,
> 
> There are many in this topic thread who will vehemently disagree with you!
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/85031/post-913716.html#msg913716



Seems like that is purposefully directed towards me. If I disagree with something, I am quite capable of doing so myself. 

Back to the topic at hand...

I was wondering why a big investigation is needed as well. The NDs that I saw, one of our course staff just function tested the weapon in front of them (3 times? can't remember now) and said "this weapon is functioning correctly." And well shortly after they were receiving their punishment...


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Apr 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> I was wondering why a big investigation is needed as well. The NDs that I saw, one of our course staff just function tested the weapon in front of them (3 times? can't remember now) and said "this weapon is functioning correctly." And well shortly after they were receiving their punishment...



A bullet has no conscience, and goes were the muzzle is pointed. Blank or live a UD is a UD, and having course staff, who are just that, course staff, are unquallified in making any proper fault diagnosis, also there is a bias.

Deployed or at home (seen UDs in both enviroments, and they are treated equally). The operator/defendant has rights to a fair trial, not some kangaroo court. I would not call a UD a big investigation, but a standard investigation to see why the UD happened, and any recommendations for this, plus there is usually/pretty much always a charge, in which proper reports must be heard, and not some  lame statement from a course staff person.

The weapon has a complete technical inspection, as per the EMEI, and this is followed up with a hard copy ATI report, and a factual statement of the armourer with his findings.

Here the weapon is quarantined until the investigation is over, and the chgarge is heard.

Do it right, or not at all.

OWDU


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Apr 2010)

Goodness me - it's a rifle, not an "Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_the_Martian

If you can't do the time, do the drills right.


----------



## ballz (18 Apr 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> A bullet has no conscience, and goes were the muzzle is pointed. Blank or live a UD is a UD, and having course staff, who are just that, course staff, are unquallified in making any proper fault diagnosis, also there is a bias.
> 
> Deployed or at home (seen UDs in both enviroments, and they are treated equally). The operator/defendant has rights to a fair trial, not some kangaroo court. I would not call a UD a big investigation, but a standard investigation to see why the UD happened, and any recommendations for this, plus there is usually/pretty much always a charge, in which proper reports must be heard, and not some  lame statement from a course staff person.
> 
> ...



Oh sorry I didn't mean that question to you and the way its done out that way. I think that's an interesting approach you have going on though, definitely like that it's done the same way no matter what too. Whether we should take that kind of route or not is obviously well beyond me and I'm not even going to pretend to have an opinion or a clue about that stuff.

What I was wondering was WRT being within the same military, the CF, the differences in how they're approaching an ND is varying drastically. Where as my course mates were dealt with in a matter of a few minutes really (and then a this General has the NIS come in and do a full investigation and plasters his face across the media... I realize rank has some impact on this but... I mean it's too opposite ends of the spectrum here.

Daft.... too funny hahaha...


----------



## ballz (18 Apr 2010)

WOW, the Globe and Mail decided that the whole "reported himself" thing wasn't an important enough fact to mention....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-top-soldier-in-afghanistan-faces-probe-after-rifle-incident/article1538105/



> The commander of Canadian troops in Afghanistan is being investigated after his assault rifle unexpectedly went off at Kandahar Airfield.
> 
> Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard says it's not been determined whether there was a malfunction or whether it was an accidental discharge.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Apr 2010)

Yon reports that Canadian sources said the ND hit a US helicopter and narrowly missed a high level Canadian visitor. If true it might be the reason he self reported. Or maybe it happened as stated. No doubt the results will be embarassing.


----------



## AIC_2K5 (18 Apr 2010)

> TF Cdr Reports Self for Possible Accidental Discharge



It's interesting to see that the media have got a hold of this. What's even more interesting is how rumors grow around this place. When word of this first came out it was a 5 round burst from a C7 through both doors of a spooled blackhawk and narrowly missing the CDS.  

Latest word is that it was a single shot from a 9mm.  :-\


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Apr 2010)

Bubbles said:
			
		

> It's interesting to see that the media have got a hold of this. What's even more interesting is how rumors grow around this place. When word of this first came out it was a 5 round burst from a C7 through both doors of a spooled blackhawk and narrowly missing the CDS.
> 
> Latest word is that it was a single shot from a 9mm.  :-\


I heard that it was a 30mm from a Skyguard AA gun that we have over there, narrowly missing Pres Obama, HM the Queen and His Holiness The Pope, as they were about to buy a burger from Burger King on the boardwalk.


And people like Amir Attaran wonder why we don't believe rumours!


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Apr 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Oh, if only I had a nickel for every time I ordered a probe of....whoa, wait a minute...not going there!


What a difference a few hours online makes....
*General orders investigation into himself*



			
				Bubbles said:
			
		

> It's interesting to see that the media have got a hold of this. What's even more interesting is how rumors grow around this place. When word of this first came out it was a 5 round burst from a C7 through both doors of a spooled blackhawk and narrowly missing the CDS.
> 
> Latest word is that it was *a single shot from a 9mm*.  :-\


Not what the General apparently told the media:


> The commander of Canadian troops in Afghanistan is being investigated after *his assault rifle* unexpectedly went off at Kandahar Airfield.....


Hence Technoviking's (and others') skepticism.


----------



## Gunner98 (18 Apr 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> WOW, the Globe and Mail decided that the whole "reported himself" thing wasn't an important enough fact to mention....
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-top-soldier-in-afghanistan-faces-probe-after-rifle-incident/article1538105/




ballz,

You should read what you quote before you post! What does the second last line of the article you quoted states, "that's why he ordered the investigation on himself."

Why the big investigation? Well I don't know, perhaps we could have a Lt or a MCpl on his staff do a quick interrogation of the BGen?


Edit:  I forgot to mention that you (ballz) really should read the other posts in the thread I previously cited, there were actually people discussing 'real NDs' long before the thread took a tangent to Saint-Jean.  Things that happen during training in Saint-Jean ain't the "real world" of soldiering!


----------



## ballz (18 Apr 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Edit:  I forgot to mention that you (ballz) really should read the other posts in the thread I previously cited, there were actually people discussing 'real NDs' long before the thread took a tangent to Saint-Jean.  Things that happen during training in Saint-Jean ain't the "real world" of soldiering!



Petamocto's post was about good integrity and the importance of it, and you directly linked to MY post, not the thread, as an example of people "vehemently disagreeing" with him . I'll point out that the post you directed him to is in no way even related to his points, which is why I don't need you putting words in my mouth for me, just like you are now saying that I have compared Basic training to real soldiering, in this thread or the other one.


----------



## SeanNewman (18 Apr 2010)

Agreed.

I don't really know what he was referring to either and was a bit confused where the link directed me to since it wasn't for or against anything I was saying.

Does he disagree that integrity is important?  Does he disagree that a relatively high percentage of people who have a full career in the combat arms and work with C7s regularly have some sort of ND at some point and many never report on themselves or buddies?

I am the first to admit that I am guilty of this.  As a young Lt platoon commander, the platoon 2IC (Warrant Officer) of all people had an ND in front of the platoon, and it was quite obvious that it was not on purpose, even though it was followed by the old "Test fire weapons!".

He didn't turn himself in, and while I was debating in my head how to handle it, low and behold Karma paid me a visit and I had one shortly after (although mine was on video camera, believe it or not).  Of course I was made fun of for it, but the troops saw that I owned up to it, got charged, and had to pay a much larger fine than they did for an ND (about 5 x as much, and rightfully so).  It's impossible to know for sure what they thought of me after that, but I think they got over it and the only thing they could make fun of me for was that 90% of them could out-run me.


----------



## Ammo (18 Apr 2010)

Haven't seen this topic anywhere else so here we go:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/18/Canadian-generals-rifle-discharge-probed/UPI-35741271633387/
The general who leads Canadian troops in Afghanistan said he ordered an investigation into his actions after accidentally firing his rifle at an air base.
Brig. Gen. Daniel Menard, the head of Joint Task Force Afghanistan, said the military's National Investigation Service would look into the Mach 25 incident, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported Sunday. 
Menard had been loading his C8 carbine at Kandahar Airfield when it discharged. 
No one was injured. 
Under Canada's National Defense Act, it is it illegal to accidentally discharge a weapon. The investigation will focus on whether the gun was fired accidentally or negligently and whether it malfunctioned. 
The CBC said if the incident proves to be an accident or a result of negligence, Menard would likely face a court-martial.

General orders investigation into himself
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/17/menard-afghanistan-investigation-rifle-discharge.html
The commander of Canadian troops in Afghanistan has ordered a special investigation into his own actions. 
Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard, the head of Joint Task Force Afghanistan, announced Saturday that he has summoned the military's National Investigation Service to probe the unintended discharge of his gun.
Ménard said he was loading his C8 carbine at Kandahar Airfield on March 25, something he said he has done thousands of times, when it went off. No one was injured and nothing was damaged, but the National Defence Act makes it an offence to accidentally discharge a weapon. 
The military police probe will determine whether the general's weapon was fired accidentally or negligently, or whether it malfunctioned. 
If it was an accidental or negligent incident, Ménard would likely face a court martial. The penalty for a guilty finding in such cases is often as low as $10 or even a reprimand, but because of Ménard's rank and position, he would probably be fined a much heftier amount. 
Ménard said he felt compelled to relate the information in the name of openness. 
In the last 18 months, more than 600 Canadian Forces soldiers have been convicted of accidentally or negligently discharging their weapons. Most of those incidents involve junior officers or recruits, and often it's a case of pulling the trigger on a firing range before being given the command to do so.


----------



## SeanNewman (18 Apr 2010)

There is another thread on this.  It has several pages.  Not sure how you couldn't find it.

Added - When I posted this it was on a different thread, and no longer makes sense now that it has been moved here.  Mods: feel free to delete this post now.


----------



## Snakedoc (19 Apr 2010)

I think the CBC article in Ammo's post gives much better context to the average reader regarding the incident with the mentioning of number of convictions and common consequences.  IMO, some articles try to sensationalize the incident disproportionately by only mentioning that the General would be court martialled if charged (where the average reader often associates jail time,  much more serious charges such as murder etc. with court martials).


----------



## Gunner98 (19 Apr 2010)

You're confused?  Integrity was what I was referring to...and now you post this!  Is not reporting yourself or your buddies - an example of having good integrity?



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> I don't really know what he was referring to either and was a bit confused where the link directed me to since it wasn't for or against anything I was saying.
> 
> ...



So your Pl WO had an ND and you thought it necessary that he turn himself in.  Why wouldn't you as the Pl Comd report him and have charged? Have you looked at your commissioning scroll lately? Your Pl WO was not your "buddy".

Did you own up to it or was it just that it was caught on tape and you could not deny it?  

Since you were charged, did you take one for the Pl Command team and did not report the WO.  Did he support you like this ...often?  I am sure the troops were impressed that both of their superiors have an ND in a short period of time.  I doubt they got over this very quickly and it probably still brings a smile to their faces at Pl reunions.

If 600 people have been charged in 18 months it would seem that by this statement, "many never report on themselves or buddies", that we have an even bigger problem or you're mistaken.  Please 'un'confuse me?


----------



## ballz (19 Apr 2010)

Edit: brought to and dealt with in PMs. I promise I'm buying a subscription soon so I can delete this damn things myself.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Apr 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Yon would have a field day with this - if he werent banned from Afghanistan.


Sadly, it doesn't matter that he's not there - the latest:
http://www.facebook.com/MichaelYonFanPage/posts/106781272697382


----------



## Gunner98 (19 Apr 2010)

This from a journalist, "Mendard fires a shot head 'round the world" - shouldn't that be *Ménard and heard*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Apr 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> This from a journalist, "Mendard fires a shot head 'round the world" - shouldn't that be *Ménard and heard*



Perhaps his fingers turn to sausages when he's in a hurry to slander a Canadian with his sensationalistic "News of the World' brand of pulp fiction.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Apr 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> This from a *journalist*, "Mendard fires a shot head 'round the world" - shouldn't that be *Ménard and heard*


You flatter him, my friend (or you're an optimist)...


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Apr 2010)

This, from the CF:


> The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), the investigative arm of the Canadian Forces Military Police, has charged Brigadier-General Daniel Menard in relation to an incident on March 25, 2010, when his personal weapon discharged.
> 
> Brig.-Gen. Menard, Commander Joint Task Force Afghanistan, was charged with one count of Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline contrary to section 129 of the National Defence Act.
> 
> ...


----------



## SeanNewman (19 Apr 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Have you looked at your commissioning scroll lately? Your Pl WO was not your "buddy".



Thank you for preaching to me.  I am happy to know that you didn't make any mistakes as a young Lt like I did.

The difference between you and I _Sir_, is that I can admit that I have made mistakes and learned from them.  

You, however, are obviously infallible, and I respect you for that.  Or you have made mistakes and didn't realize it.

Either way, thank god that you were here on this message board to remind me that I did something wrong when the whole reason I posted it in the first place was to confess that I did something wrong.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Thank you for preaching to me.  I am happy to know that you didn't make any mistakes at a young Lt like I did.
> 
> The difference between you and I _Sir_, is that I can admit that I have made mistakes and learned from them.
> 
> ...



Don't take it personally, from what I have noticed criticism around here roles off ones tongue ehm I mean keyboard much easier when sitting behind a computer, like you said atleast you have the guts to admit that you did something wrong, and take it in stride.


----------



## Gunner98 (20 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Thank you for preaching to me.  I am happy to know that you didn't make any mistakes as a young Lt like I did.
> 
> The difference between you and I _Sir_, is that I can admit that I have made mistakes and learned from them.
> 
> ...



Don't mistake my intent and thanks for not answering the questions for us to learn more about the lessons you are sharing.

I have made mistakes in my 26 years in uniform.  However, I don't choose to brag about them, in a thread about a TF Commander, as an example of my integrity for all to see on this site.  It seems I keep making more mistakes by even trying to post anything in a thread in which you have expressed an opinion.  I guess I will have to keep riding around on my high horse and just keep my mouth shut. Tata, carry-on.


----------



## SeanNewman (20 Apr 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> ...However, I don't choose to brag about them, in a thread about a TF Commander...



There may be a misunderstanding if you see it as bragging.  I am not exactly sure how you could come to the conclusion that I was bragging about something that I admit was my biggest lapse in judgement so far in uniform.  As I mentioned though, I learned from it, and I am more than willing to admit that two-months into the job as a platoon commander I was on a fairly steep learning curve.

I bring it up only as a demonstration that I am well aware of all sorts of people in the CF who have had NDs and not had the integrity to bring themselves up on charges, not as any sort of personal crusade.


----------



## Gunner98 (20 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I bring it up only as a demonstration that I am well aware of all sorts of people in the CF who have had NDs and not had the integrity to bring themselves up on charges, not as any sort of personal crusade.



I ask you to please help me try to understand the lessons you have presented in this thread thus far.  

You are saying that the WO (who had more than two months of troop leadership experience, and was not caught on video) should have manned up and reported himself.  Therefore, the first lesson you are offering is that he showed a major failure in leadership and integrity, which is very unlike the BGen.

Second lesson, you as newly trained Lt had a ND which was a failure in conduct and weapons discipline.  There are all sorts of other people who have them but do not charge themselves.  This is dissimilar to a BGen with more than 2 months command experience having a ND.

Third lesson, you knew the WO had a ND and you did not report him.  You showed questionable integrity by protecting him.  You "admit (this) was my biggest lapse in judgement (sic) so far in uniform."

Fourth lesson, because it was caught on video, you had no choice but to man up, therefore, the troops should see you as having integrity and after a short period of chuckling and reflection they should respect you.  The BGen reported himself to the NIS.  The NIS conducted an investigation and have charged him with NDA 129.   This makes you and the BGen comparable because you were both commanding troops? 

Fifth lesson, you went before a summary trial and did not offer any mitigating evidence about any other NDs.  You showed questionable integrity by continuing to protecting the WO and should be respected because you took one for team, like the BGen.

Sixth lesson, because you were charged as an officer, the Presiding Officer made an example of you and you received a substantial fine, 5 x what a soldier would get.  So the BGen, who is an officer with more than 2 months of command experience, should get at least the same fine you got (or maybe 5 x the fine you got).

Seventh lesson, “every soldier needs to be in control of his rifle, but his integrity means even more.  TFK Comd's integrity points will go up more than his fieldcraft stock will go down.”

Eighth lesson, “And at the end of the day, nobody is infallible in terms of mistakes. However, there is a difference between making a mistake and doing wrong.  To lie about it would have been to do wrong, and would not have been recoverable from.”

Ninth lesson, this BGen in a Multinational Command role has IYHO showed good judgment.

As well could you please explain these:

IYHO was your ND considered "making a mistake"?  
Did the Presiding Officer have the same opinion?  
IYHO, is a big "lapse in judgment" - a mistake or doing wrong?  
Is/was the "biggest lapse in judgment" recoverable from?  
How does any of this compare to the BGen's current situation?

Thanks for helping me to understand your contributions to this thread.

(IYHO - In your humble opinion)


----------



## SeanNewman (20 Apr 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I ask you to please help me try to understand the lessons you have presented in this thread thus far.



No.  As per above:



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Thank you for preaching to me.


----------



## TimBit (20 Apr 2010)

Alright, major hijack and personal back-and-forth quarrel. 

Someone lock this one up?


----------



## GAP (20 Apr 2010)

:rofl:


----------



## Danjanou (20 Apr 2010)

Ok boys and girls and take everything else to PMs.

Staff


----------



## SeanNewman (20 Apr 2010)

We have already self-policed and it was taken there hours ago.

I apologize to others who may have been upset by seeing two strong-willed people have a stare down.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 May 2010)

Regardless, here's a good example of proper load/unloading bay drills, which hundreds of Canadians no doubt perform successfully on a daily basis:

2:50 into this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZl3kitXp7w&feature=related


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 May 2010)

CF media advisory:


> Standing Court Martial proceedings will take place on May 25, 2010, at the Asticou Centre in Gatineau, Québec, for Brigadier-General Daniel Menard, Commander Joint Task Force Afghanistan, in relation to an incident on March 25, 2010, when his personal weapon discharged.
> 
> Brig.-Gen. Menard is charged with one count of Neglect to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline contrary to section 129 of the National Defence Act.
> 
> ...



Charge sheet attached.


----------



## Rheostatic (21 May 2010)

I'm wondering, does he need to be present at the proceedings?


----------



## SeanNewman (21 May 2010)

Ahhh, the good'ole "129" memories.

It would be interesting to see how many people on this board have one of those on their pers file.


----------



## HItorMiss (21 May 2010)

Sure do....


----------



## xena (21 May 2010)

Didn't Chesty Puller do the same thing to himself once?  (Now _*THERE*_'s a phrase that can be taken out of context...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesty_Puller#Chesty_Puller_in_Marine_Corps_culture


----------



## Pusser (21 May 2010)

Has BGen Menard finished his tour in Afghanistan?  If not, surely they didn't have to come all the way back to Canada to do this?


----------



## mariomike (22 May 2010)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Has BGen Menard finished his tour in Afghanistan?  If not, surely they didn't have to come all the way back to Canada to do this?



May 21, 2010: 
"Menard, as the leader of Task Force Kandahar, now has command of several thousand U.S. troops in Kandahar City and in districts abutting the provincial capital and an approximately equal number of Canadians in the city and in Panjwaii, to the west.":
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Upcoming+battle+Afghanistan/3060586/story.html

May 13, 2010:
"The case is to heard by a military court in Gatineau, Que., on May 25.":
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/general+could+testify+Menard+court+martial/3024069/story.html


----------



## Bin-Rat (25 May 2010)

Seen this listed on the London Free Press, If in wrong place or posted elsewhere, please move and or delete, Thank you.
http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2010/05/25/14080551.html

"Canada's top soldier in Afghanistan will face a court martial on Tuesday after his rifle went off unexpectedly at Kandahar Airfield.

Brig.-Gen. Daniel Menard is charged with one count of "neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline" under the National Defence Act. The charge is related to his personal weapon discharging in March. No one was injured.

The Department of National Defence declined to comment further on the circumstances surrounding the shot because "the matter is before a service tribunal."

Menard's standing court martial proceedings will be held in Gatineau, Que.

The penalty for a conviction is usually a fine. Military officials have said the charge is a common one and unintentional discharges are rarely investigated.

"But because of his rank, they wanted to see it through," military spokeswoman Maj. Paule Poulin told QMI Agency.

Menard has served as the commander of Joint Task Force Afghanistan since November, overseeing Canadian and other Western forces in the war-torn country."


----------



## Nfld Sapper (25 May 2010)

Last updated at 3:16 PM on 25/05/10   

Top general in Afghanistan found guilty in court martial for inadvertent shot  
The Canadian Press — GATINEAU, Que.  


Canada’s top soldier in Kandahar has been fined $3,500 for negligently firing two rounds with his assault rifle as his boss the chief of defence staff stood nearby.
A court martial handed down the fine Tuesday after finding Brig.-Gen. Daniel Menard guilty of an offence under the National Defence Act.
It’s the stiffest fine handed down to a soldier for mishandling a weapon. Menard, who presides over similar cases in Afghanistan, said the most he has ever fined someone is $1,200.
In delivering the sentence, military judge Col. Mario Dutil said “this case sends a clear message” that the Canadian Forces takes weapons offences seriously.
The March 25 incident occurred as Menard and Gen. Walt Natynczyk, the chief of defence staff, were about to board a Blackhawk helicopter at Kandahar Airfield.
Menard, commander of Task Force Kandahar, struggled to load a magazine into his C8 assault rifle and put the safety on. His gun was at waist level, pointing at the runway, when it fired a two-round burst.
The bullets whizzed between two armoured vehicles, missing two Blackhawk helicopters and about 10 soldiers also within range. No one was hurt and no property was damaged.
Menard handed the weapon to his driver and ordered him to have it looked at. Then he and Natynczyk boarded the helicopter and left the base.
The next day Menard reported the incident to the Task Force provost marshall. When an investigation found no problem with Menard’s weapon, he assembled about 300 troops to tell them about the incident.
“He mans up right away,” defence lawyer Lt.-Col. Troy Sweet told the court martial. “He says, ’Yes, it’s me. I did it.”’
Menard said he talked to the troops to put any rumours to rest.
“The last thing that I wanted was for rumours to go around,” Menard told reporters outside the court room.
“So I said ’I’ll kill that immediately.”’
Menard pleaded guilty at the start of Tuesday’s court martial to one count of “neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline” under the National Defence Act.
“I did accept, right from Day 1, full responsibility of my actions. And now it’s something that is behind us,” he said.
“I’m certainly very eager to go back to my troops.”
Menard, who took over as commander of Task Force Kandahar last November, has until Aug. 1 to pay the fine.
He is only the second general to be court martialled. The first was in 2001 over the misuse of a Defence Department computer.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 May 2010)

$1750 x 2 rounds = $3500. 

$1750.00 a round is in line with other fines given his rank and station. 

However, I am getting tired of how they keep saying he "manned up" and took full responsibility. Most other soldiers, including Privates, do the same thing, especially when they do it in front of the boss, and in a sensative area. 

 You fuck up, you take your lumps. It's over. Time to move on and get back to work.


----------



## observor 69 (25 May 2010)

Ya "manned up" after accidentally firing two rounds in front of the CDS and a flight line full of personnel.

Why to go !

Mind you Gen Menard didn't say that, his defence lawyer did.


----------



## SeanNewman (25 May 2010)

You see the "manning up" thing as what you notice.

I would be willing to bet that most troops read that and the biggest thing they think about is "He got on a helo to go into action without a rifle???".


----------



## Infanteer (25 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I would be willing to bet that most troops read that and the biggest thing they think about is "He got on a helo to go into action without a rifle???".



Flying with the CDS to a large FOB constitutes "going into action"?


----------



## HItorMiss (25 May 2010)

If the Helo goes down?

Ok ok I know no one would be on the ground long ...but you know


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> You see the "manning up" thing as what you notice.
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most troops read that and the biggest thing they think about is "He got on a helo to go into action without a rifle???".



No, it's just what I've been hearing and seeing all day. No great deep thought processes at work. I don't try overanalyse simple news articles.

And I certainly don't presume to speak for 'most' when I clearly don't. You should try it sometime.

Oh, I get it! You're calling me a useless REMF for not being able to pull the SA from the Canadian Press. Yup, guess those days of swinging in my hammock have got the best of me. I don't have to prove my bona fides to you. Fortunately, there are real professionals around here that I can consult if need be, so don't wait by your mail order bat phone expecting a call there Junior.


----------



## SeanNewman (25 May 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't have to prove my bona fides to you...



I genuinely do not understand why you bring so much negativity to this message board.

While I may disagree with people occasionally, it is usually under a tone that they have the right to their opinion and I try to be civil about it.

You however, are just a mean person who seldom adds anything to a thread other than to tell someone how wrong they are, how stupid they are, how bad government is, or some other reason that someone had the audacity to write a post that bothered you.

People are supposed to relax and chill out when they age.


----------



## Gunner98 (26 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> You see the "manning up" thing as what you notice.
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most troops read that and the biggest thing they think about is "He got on a helo to go into action without a rifle???".



I disagree Petamocto, you paint with a very broad brush on behalf of "most" soldiers.  I think at least some troops would read it and say, "Two round burst - from waist level - pointing at the runway, Holy Crapola - a safe direction is not pointing your rifle at two friendly armoured vehicles and 10 of your own soldiers."

I would only be concerned if he and the CDS went to a FOB without their personal security escorts and not minus one rifle.


----------



## MARS (26 May 2010)

Nothing to do with the ongoign discussion, but have you seen the (file?) photo from CANWEST?  WTF is up with his capbadge being above his f*****g sideburns?  is that an army thing, infantry thing or GO thing?


----------



## vonGarvin (26 May 2010)

MARS said:
			
		

> Nothing to do with the ongoign discussion, but have you seen the (file?) photo from CANWEST?  WTF is up with his capbadge being above his f*****g sideburns?  is that an army thing, infantry thing or GO thing?


None of the above.  It's a NOthing.  I think it's been brought up before on here.


----------



## armyvern (26 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> None of the above.  It's a NOthing.  I think it's been brought up before on here.



Tell the truth; MARS just needs to narrow his grouping down a wee bit further.   8)


----------



## SeanNewman (26 May 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I disagree Petamocto, you paint with a very broad brush on behalf of "most" soldiers.  I think at least some troops would read it and say, "Two round burst - from waist level - pointing at the runway, Holy Crapola - a safe direction is not pointing your rifle at two friendly armoured vehicles and 10 of your own soldiers."



You are correct, and yes I didn't exactly word it the best.  I could have written "most I know" or "a lot of soldiers".

Agreed with the two-rounds as well.  The article says "burst", but it would be interresting to know if it was a burst or double tap.  Hard to say what they mechanics may have been.  I can see a mistake being made of flipping it the wrong way to auto instead of safe, but why the trigger was pulled with a mag on...one can only speculate.

But at least he owned up to it!


----------



## Danjanou (26 May 2010)

Ok after 6 pages I think we're pretty close to done here. Incident reported dealt with, fine issued, media take, et cetera et cetera.
Also starting to go off the rails into another Springer like flame war. Not locking it yet as there may stll be some useful on topic debate still to come.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 May 2010)

MARS said:
			
		

> Nothing to do with the ongoign discussion, but have you seen the (file?) photo from CANWEST?  WTF is up with his capbadge being above his f*****g sideburns?  is that an army thing, infantry thing or GO thing?




It's been discussed before, but it's a bit of a _thing_ with some soldiers, especially those from one particular brigade. Wearing the cap badge on the side of the beret is customary in some countries - notably France, but they wear theirs on the right side of the head, not on the left as is the case in Canada, the UK, USA and so on.

But it is not unique to France, see this, for example:





A German army aviation unit

and this





A Finnish general officer in his UN baby-blue beret

It's a venal rather than a mortal sin, not on the same scale as accidentally discharging one's weapon.


----------



## dapaterson (26 May 2010)

However, like certain other venal sins, it's covered off in a bible, in this case the CF Dress manual.  



> A-AD-265-000/AG-001, Canadian Forces Dress Instructions, is issued on authority of the Chief of Defence Staff.





> c. Beret. The beret shall be worn evenly on the head, with the sweatband 2.5 cm (1 in.) above the eyebrows, the badge centred over the left eye, and the crown pulled downward to the right. The break of the sweatband shall be worn centred at the back of the head, with no draw string visible.




Thus, in wearing his beret in that manner, he is disobeying an order issued by the CDS.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 May 2010)

You know, we used to tolerate "regimental _quiffs*_" with a good humoured shrug. Of course that was _back in the day_ when we had more than twice as many sailors, soldiers and air force members and slightly fewer admiral and generals; perhaps that ratio explains why _they_ didn't sweat the small stuff.


----------
*Careful when you _google_ that word; here is the correct meaning.


----------



## dapaterson (26 May 2010)

Have I just out-RCR'd a member of The RCR?



I feel a sudden need to paint some rocks...


----------



## SeanNewman (26 May 2010)

DAPaterson,

1.  Good job beating me by a few minutes on the reference, and you are right that rules are rules.

2.  That being said, I do not know anyone who wears the front edge of their beret 2.5cm above the eyebrow (and thank god, because it would look rediculous).

3.  There are some Regimental "quiffs", but also individual officer ones, known as "schticks".  This may be his schtick.  Some officers bring a dog to work, I choose to wear an eye patch.


----------



## MARS (26 May 2010)

All good points.  I didn't mean to derail this thread.  

I am not particularly bothered either - most Ship's Captains I know wear their peak caps in a slightly jaunty  manner.  It simply jumped right out at me in the photo on the Ottawa Citizen website.


----------



## dapaterson (26 May 2010)

There is a larger, philosophical issue at play here.

Why was this trial not conducted in Afghanistan?  Military judges are mobile.  Military lawyers are mobile.  Miltiary justice is best served in the location the incident occurred, with the soldiers who witnessed it / are aware of it present.

Apparently we yanked the TF commander from theatre (with travel etc, probably took a week or more) so he could spend a morning pleading guilty.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> 3.  There are some Regimental "quiffs", but also individual officer ones, known as "schticks".  This may be his schtick.  Some officers bring a dog to work, I choose to wear an eye patch.


I choose to not wear pants.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 May 2010)

Hey MARS, jaunty means "dashy, self-confident". Nothing in the regs say you have to wear your cap in such a way as to look unsure of yourself or unfashionable. 

Besides, as ship's captains, we are confident, and last time I checked, we were all dashing young naval officers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 May 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Hey MARS, jaunty means "dashy, self-confident". Nothing in the regs say you have to wear your cap in such a way as to look unsure of yourself or unfashionable.
> 
> Besides, as ship's captains, we are confident, and last time I checked, we were all dashing young naval officers.




But, doubtless and continuing the highjack, neither as handsome nor _Wellentonian_ as we dashing young army officers.  8)


----------



## SeanNewman (26 May 2010)

Slanting away more from the ND issue here, but since that topic is more or less over with does anyone know of any formal regulation written as to what an officer is supposed to wear on civie street, or has that always been on the unwritten side of the house, in terms of things like "Officers don't wear jeans" or "Officers don't drive pick ups/motorcycles", etc.

As always, just like mess kit and playing hockey, there may be no law stating you must do it, but be mindful that your name is on a magnet once per year and can be shifted accordingly...


----------



## xena (26 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I choose to not wear pants.



Like all good Highlanders...


----------



## Journeyman (26 May 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Apparently we yanked the TF commander from theatre (with travel etc, probably took a week or more) so he could spend a morning pleading guilty.


Maybe it was intended to improve the war effort. 

In 1814 the British won the battle of Lundy's Lane, possibly on the strength of their commander, MGen Riall, having been captured right at the beginning. Things went a lot better for the British than they had at the battle of Chippawa a few weeks earlier, when Riall was on scene to muck things up


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 May 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Why was this trial not conducted in Afghanistan?  Military judges are mobile.  Military lawyers are mobile.  Miltiary justice is best served in the location the incident occurred, with the soldiers who witnessed it / are aware of it present.  Apparently we yanked the TF commander from theatre (with travel etc, probably took a week or more) so he could spend a morning pleading guilty.


Good point.

Another cheaper alternative - if prisoners on remand in Ontario can appear before a judge via video connection, why not hook up the TF Cdr via video conference if it was just going to be "I did it, what's my fine?"


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 May 2010)

Quote from: Technoviking on Today at 09:24:21



> I choose to not wear pants.



But not in your video.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 May 2010)

xena said:
			
		

> Like all good Highlanders...


Nope, more like this dude (on the left)


----------



## vonGarvin (26 May 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> But not in your video.


In my video, I just chose to go topless.   8)


----------



## armyvern (26 May 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Good point.
> 
> Another cheaper alternative - if prisoners on remand in Ontario can appear before a judge via video connection, why not hook up the TF Cdr via video conference if it was just going to be "I did it, what's my fine?"



Which is exactly what occured from CFS Alert during my time there. That was '97 & they managed to pull it off with way old technology then.


----------



## Infanteer (26 May 2010)

I think he was on leave - that's what the news reported yesterday when the DComd discussed the casualty.  Maybe it was a case of "hey, if you're going to be in Canada, we'll do it then"....


----------



## Danjanou (26 May 2010)

Well to be honest, the whole adjust your beret so the cap badge is over the ear thing is just envy and imitation by those not blessed to serve in REAL hard core units.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 May 2010)

And with that, I think we can call this a wrap.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------

