# Soldiers accused of stealing from fellow CF members



## PMedMoe

Article Link

Two Edmonton soldiers are accused of stealing from three fellow Canadian Forces members -- two of whom are currently serving in Afghanistan, and a third soldier who recently returned from the war-torn country. 

Police say the charges came after several recreational vehicles were removed from a compound on CFB Edmonton. 

"The men were arrested and charged after pulling a trailer that was reported stolen. The trailer was for sale but the buyer became suspicious and contacted police and police then started the investigation," police spokesperson Chad Orydzuk told CTV Edmonton. 

More at link

It's a sad state of affairs when stuff like this happens.


----------



## Wookilar

Please tell me they are PAT's?...please?

Wook


----------



## 211RadOp

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Please tell me they are PAT's?...please?
> 
> Wook



According to the DIN, no.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Figured I'd throw their picture up from the CTV site.


----------



## OldSolduer

I may be off on a tangent on this one, however, with the rise of organized crime (ie bikers) what's the chances that a few soldiers/sailors/airpers are involved with OC?

Just a thought....


----------



## blacktriangle

Wow I actually know the one guy. His Dad was/is a Capt @ LFCA HQ IIRC. Really nice man too. I'm sure he's less than impressed by his son's shenanigans. From what I have heard though, he (the member in question) was no longer in his Bn due to injuries and on his way out.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I may be off on a tangent on this one, however, with the rise of organized crime (ie bikers) what's the chances that a few soldiers/sailors/airpers are involved with OC?
> 
> Just a thought....


Bad _enough_ troops stealing from troops, that would be even worse.

Then again, we're all presumed innocent until proven guilty, too.


----------



## OldSolduer

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Bad _enough_ troops stealing from troops, that would be even worse.
> 
> Then again, we're all presumed innocent until proven guilty, too.



Agreed. 

I have heard that in US forces certain gangs from the US major cities have inifiltrated. Not a good thing.


----------



## Journeyman

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> ...with the rise of organized crime (ie bikers) ....



Hey, riding a bike isn't a crime.


----------



## OldSolduer

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Hey, riding a bike isn't a crime.



I know you're joking, 

I mean criminal bikers like the stupid ones here in Winnipeg.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Hey, riding a bike isn't a crime.


It's not _riding_ the bike, it's the OTHER stuff done by those who one hangs out with in some "motorcycle clubs" that draws the eye.  We know YOU'RE ok, though.  ;D


----------



## Pieman

If I am not mistaken I worked briefly with one of those fellows overseas, on his second tour.


----------



## darkskye

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Please tell me they are PAT's?...please?
> 
> Wook



Because we hold the PAT personnel to a lower standard? No, all members of the CF are held to the same professional standard.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

had a young guy stealing combats from his mates, silly sod attempted to exchange them at clothing stores with the other persons nametag still attached. Sadly the MP's got to him before we did.

Had a guy in the Coast Guard at Kitsolano station, take the very well marked company truck, rob a 7-11 while in uniform, he then returned to the base to complete his shift. 

Cop: "did you notice any identifing marks on the robber or his vehicle?"

Store owner: "Yes well he was driving a red van with a white stripe with coast guard on it and wearing a blue uniform with......"

Needless to say the VPD were able to qucikly close the case. Yet when the turd got out, CCG re-hired him and sent him to sea for a bit. We were not to happy and the office got the message.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I may be off on a tangent on this one, however, with the rise of organized crime (ie bikers) what's the chances that a few soldiers/sailors/airpers are involved with OC?
> 
> Just a thought....



Jim, we are in the CF a mirror of Canadian society as you know.  There have been and are a few bad apples that get into the CF.  I had dealings with some 20 years ago that had connections to OC.  But, thankfully they were the exception and rare.  Sadly, not all of us are decent human beings.


----------



## Gronk

If convicted, I hope these two get the book thrown at them. Thievery cannot be tolerated in the military.


----------



## VIChris

Short march to Club Ed. Won't even have to change their postal codes.


----------



## Springroll

They should have kept this tight lipped and dealt with them they way they should be dealt with....
You know, accidents happen all the time  >


----------



## Good2Golf

Springroll said:
			
		

> They should have kept this tight lipped and dealt with them they way they should be dealt with....
> You know, accidents happen all the time  >



Seriously?

Come on.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Dissident

OMGs and other gangs are indeed part of the US forces. There was a gang related shooting between American forces somewhere when I was there (remaining vague on purpose).

An American Capt. platoon "leader" and his 1st Sgt were arrested for stabbing some guy, in a OMG related incident:
http://m2m.tmcnet.com/news/2011/04/28/5473570.htm

DoD also compiled a list of suspected gang members in the US Mil. They are around down there.

Up here I haven't seen anything. Yet. It would not surprise me that we would have some members who also have ties to OMGs or OC. As someone mentioned, we are a reflection of the population at large.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Springroll said:
			
		

> They should have kept this tight lipped and dealt with them they way they should be dealt with....
> You know, accidents happen all the time  >



Well, it's been known to happen, but we all know its not the way to go.

In another thread we recently discussed the need for formal parades (summary: many thought spending days to prepare for and do a change of command parade was a waste: I agree). IMHO dealing with thieves merits a parade. We have to go back to the good old days:

After a short, and sometimes fair, trial, the guilty bastard is very quick-marched to the front of the unit, assembled on parade, stripped of rank, medals, badges or any other regimental regalia and his cap placed back on backwards while the charges he was guilty of a read aloud for all to hear and the word "GUILTY" pronounced clearly after each count. Then turned about and very-quick marched off to camp Ed.

That's how to deal with this.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Or, and this is just a WAG here, they're not gangsters at all, and just a couple of thieving sentient manure spreaders who tried to make some easy money.


----------



## mariomike

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> IMHO dealing with thieves merits a parade. We have to go back to the good old days:
> After a short, and sometimes fair, trial, the guilty bastard is very quick-marched to the front of the unit, assembled on parade, stripped of rank, medals, badges or any other regimental regalia and his cap placed back on backwards while the charges he was guilty of a read aloud for all to hear and the word "GUILTY" pronounced clearly after each count. Then turned about and very-quick marched off to camp Ed.
> 
> That's how to deal with this.



[Morris Island South Carolina. The rogues march drumming a thief out of camp] Date: c. 1863:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldeyankee/2726751894/in/photostream

Modern times on civvy street:
http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/images/i-am-a-thief-i-stole-from-walmart-shoplifting-sign1.jpg

Edit to add:
"All suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."


----------



## Springroll

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> After a short, and sometimes fair, trial, the guilty ******* is very quick-marched to the front of the unit, assembled on parade, stripped of rank, medals, badges or any other regimental regalia and his cap placed back on backwards while the charges he was guilty of a read aloud for all to hear and the word "GUILTY" pronounced clearly after each count. Then turned about and very-quick marched off to camp Ed.



I really like this, alot!


----------



## Tharris

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, it's been known to happen, but we all know its not the way to go.
> 
> In another thread we recently discussed the need for formal parades (summary: many thought spending days to prepare for and do a change of command parade was a waste: I agree). IMHO dealing with thieves merits a parade. We have to go back to the good old days:
> 
> After a short, and sometimes fair, trial, the guilty ******* is very quick-marched to the front of the unit, assembled on parade, stripped of rank, medals, badges or any other regimental regalia and his cap placed back on backwards while the charges he was guilty of a read aloud for all to hear and the word "GUILTY" pronounced clearly after each count. Then turned about and very-quick marched off to camp Ed.
> 
> That's how to deal with this.



Agreed.


----------



## OldSolduer

All stations this is Jimbo:

This is the year 2011. The days of "blanket parties" and "burn the witch" style Summary Trials went out eons ago.

All accused are innocent til proven guilty. Try any of your types of justice and you'll be the ones on trial.

Message ends

Out


----------



## HavokFour

Send then to Alert for a couple of months.  >

EDIT: If found guilty.

 ;D


----------



## aesop081

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Send then to Alert for a couple of months.  >


Why ?

We need quality people to work up there and i'm sure they don't want theives around either.

We have a prison and CFS Alert isn't it.


----------



## midget-boyd91

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Why ?
> 
> We need quality people to work up there and i'm sure they don't want theives around either.
> 
> We have a prison and CFS Alert isn't it.



Why not move the prison TO Alert? Go ahead, try escaping.... I DARE you.  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> All stations this is Jimbo:
> 
> This is the year 2011. The days of "blanket parties" and "burn the witch" style Summary Trials went out eons ago.
> 
> All accused are innocent til proven guilty. Try any of your types of justice and you'll be the ones on trial.
> 
> Message ends
> 
> Out




Well said, Jim.

I served in the "old Army," it was fun, there were a bunch of good fellows back then and yes, some things were a bit rough and ready and yes again, some rough justice was meted out to barrack room thieves.

_Fast forward_ 20 years from the time I was a young soldier to a time, 30 years ago, when I was a commanding officer. A soldier was accused of theft (in barracks) I did, as QR&Os required, investigate the charge - quickly but thoroughly, and determined that the charge was "good and proper." The RSM (a man from the same "old Army" as mine) and I had a chat and we agreed that the summary trial would be conducted early the next morning and that, since the superintending clerk had already been hard at work, he could be on his way to Trenton for a flight to Edmonton within hours - should I award him some time in detention. There was no rough stuff, no publicity, no retribution, just swift, fair military justice.

Later, I explained to some soldiers - I used to practice "management by wandering about" - that the soldier, like every soldier who ended up in the Service Detention Barracks, represented a "system" failure. We are not supposed to recruit weak willed people, we have tests and we employ psychologists to screen out less than desirable people. Recruit training is supposed to instill discipline and service in a unit is supposed to transform that into self discipline and strengthen the bonds of fellowship that make barrack room theft rare. Thus, when I sent a soldier to Edmonton I was announcing that we, the military leadership, had made another mistake. We all hoped that the repeat of the recruit syllabus, which is what Edmonton does used to do (maybe still does) is supposed to correct training mistakes - that's why many soldiers came back from detention and resumed good, productive careers, we 'fixed' our mistake; release was used to correct recruiting and selection mistakes, where retraining could not solve the problem.

I also explained that in the "old Army" there were, normally, two men on (separate) orders parades: the thief and the victim. The victim was charged if he had left his locker or barrack box unlocked; the theory, based on centuries of experience, was that a lock, even a small lock, keeps a weak willed man honest; and standing orders required lockers and barrack boxes to be secured. The "new Army" - the one 30 years ago   - allowed things like TVs and stereo systems in barrack room (and soldiers had the money to buy them) so we didn't have a "everything locked up" rule and more.


----------



## old fart

In the old army...at least the Brit one...dealing with a thief caught stealing in the shacks often never made it to a charge (or the official radar of the CoC)...I only know of one instance in this case early in my post basic career (1979) - where a thief was caught (in my troop) and admitted what he had done.

'Barrack room' justice was served, his arm tied to the banister which was then given a wack with the heavy oak handle from a floor bumper....of course his arm broke.

I served 9 years in the Brits, and this is the only instance of theft I personally was aware of.

The British Army of the 70s early 80s was a different beast in many respects from their army of today, with which I am also acquainted.  

In closing, for the younger members, let the system deal with the accused....nuff said.


----------



## CountDC

With Jim and Mr Campbell on this one.  As much as I would like these two dealt with it has to be done correctly. Hopefully in this case it will include a one way out the door.


----------



## OldSolduer

CountDC said:
			
		

> With Jim and Mr Campbell on this one.  As much as I would like these two dealt with it has to be done correctly. Hopefully in this case it will include a one way out the door.



Not only justice must be done, it must be seen to be done. 

We try to choose a known "talker" as the escort to the accused. Also, Summary Trials are supposed to be published in ROs.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Not only justice must be done, it must be seen to be done.
> 
> We try to choose a known "talker" as the escort to the accused. Also, Summary Trials are supposed to be published in ROs.



Way back when, closer to the stone age than the space age I'm afraid, we had a useful thing called *Part II Orders** - everything that really mattered to everyone was published for all the world to see: pay raises, promotions, demotions, punishments, postings, attachments and on and on and on. Everyone could see pretty much everything - it helped keep rumours down and discouraged internal to the unit BS.


_____
* Part I Orders were roughly the same as today's ROs


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Not only justice must be done, it must be seen to be done.
> 
> We try to choose a known "talker" as the escort to the accused. Also, Summary Trials are supposed to be published in ROs.



Could not agree more, Jim. I did not propose that with dispense with proper military trial.

But the "seen to be done" part is where, in the Navy, it was customary to hold the type of parade I mention. It's a leftover from the old days of sail when the whole ship's company was mustered amidships to witness any punishment meted out under the Articles of War. 

I recall having to attend at least one of those parades at the Dockyard, in Esquimalt as a young seaman, when a Leading Seaman was so marched off to Edmonton after being found guilty of possession of narcotics. I can tell you that it makes a strong impression on a young member of the military such as I was then.

AS for the "locker box padlock" thing, ERC, I cannot comment on army matters, but I can tell you  that I have never locked my cabin or even my locker in my cabin on any ship I served on. It has been pointed out to me from time to time but I have always answered that I would quit the Navy the day I felt I needed to lock it up. I have not had to quit  .


----------



## Rifleman62

ERC: 





> Part II Orders* - everything that really mattered to everyone was published for all the world to see....



I believe the Part II Orders did not detail, straight forwardly, commissioned officer misdeeds. The "punishment" was indicated in Part I Orders.


----------



## old fart

Part I Orders was/is over the pond for day to day unit routine/activities and Part II orders reflecting other admin nause/postings/courses/awards and punishments....  :yellow:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ERC:
> I believe the Part II Orders did not detail, straight forwardly, commissioned officer misdeeds. The "punishment" was indicated in Part I Orders.




Officers' _minor misdeeds_ were, indeed, visible in Part I Orders via the Orderly Officer roster but, and I may be mistaken, things that had to be actioned by someone else (another, maybe higher HQ), like recording a reprimand or a fine, had to be in Part II Orders, no matter what the rank of the person involved.

As to "straight forwardly," as I recall - and it was 40+ years ago, all that was shown, for all ranks, was a reference to the article in QR (Army) under which a conviction had been registered - but units being units, and gossip being gossip, it wasn't hard to connect all the dots. I don't recall getting any _formal_ punishments as an officer and by the time I was a CO Part II Orders and the fairly simple, reliable and economical administrative system they represented was long gone, replaced by complex, cumbersome, computer-aided mayhem.


----------



## OldSolduer

I beleive Mr. Campbell is referring to in Part I Orders, Duties, where one's name appears with "monotonous regularity". 

Mine did, as did several other very senior MWOs and CWOs who were then Sgts/WOs.

When one found an officer's name appearing with "monotonous regularity", it was usually the subject of some talk about what the offending young officer had done in the Officers Mess.

I did see a Pioneer Platoon Commander one day sporting some very black eyes. The CO "counselled" him.


----------



## Kat Stevens

When I was a young Sapper, I participated in a fair few orders parades, both avec and sans headddress.  At the end the RSM would march us back out into the hallway, and would yell out at the top of his substantial lungs "THE OFFENDER HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF THE FOLLOWING CHARGES, AND IS AWARDED XX DAYS DETENTION/CB/EW&D".  there was no scuttlebut about what he/I got as punishment.


----------



## Old Sweat

I believe, and it was a long time ago, that punishments appeared in Part II orders. This was to "gazette" the action and to authorize, for example, the pay office to deduct the fine. As Edward said, it was simple and effective, so it had no place in the emerging CF centralized administrative system. Other "stuff" that appeared in Part II orders included marriages, promotions, granting of PMQs, upgrades in trade groups, in short, anything that would effect one's pay and allowances.


----------



## Blackadder1916

From an old (from the 1940s) pub that is on my library shelf, there is this explanation of Part I and Part II Orders.



> 3.   _Regimental or Unit Orders_. -  Issued daily and divided into two parts.
> 
> i.   _Part I_ will deal with training, manoeuvres, parades and matters which do not affect a soldier's pay, service, or documents.
> 
> ii.  _Part II_ will deal with matters which will affect a soldier's pay, service, or documents.



There was some carryover (at least in partition/title) to the "Routine Orders" procedures of CFAO 4-8 and the superceding DAOD 1000-2.


> . . . . .
> 
> Items for inclusion must be grouped into four parts:
> Part 1 - Duties and Appointments;
> Part 2 - Current Items;
> Part 3 - Periodic Items; and
> Part 4 - General Interest and Social Events.
> 
> . . . . .



At least from my recollection of the 1970s, there did seem to be a pattern of including in "Routine Orders - Part 2" many of the items that would have been in "Part II Orders", but this pattern had pretty much disappeared by the 1990s.


----------



## OldSolduer

In the early 90s, a soldier was caught stealing from another. He was apprehended and fell down the stairs. He either couldn't or wouldn't identify who took him into custody.

He was released within a month.

A few years later, a Sergeant was charged (can't remember the charge) as it was contended that he "ordered" his soldiers to "sort him out". His soldiers gave the slow one a blanket party. He was found not guilty.

My point here is that blanket parties are unacceptable and should be discouraged.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Why is it that every time a thread gets started, about someone being charged, we have to go through the same boring exercise over and over again?

Someone will suggest back alley justice (which we don't speak of here) get chastised, then the stories start and then someone will post about old vs. new military.

Some crusty MWO sorts everyone out and usually that's where it ends.


----------



## OldSolduer

:deadhorse:

Sir, one x crusty MWO guilty as charged!!


----------



## Rifleman62

There is no horse to dead not to flog.


----------



## john10

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why is it that every time a thread gets started, about someone being charged, we have to go through the same boring exercise over and over again?
> 
> Someone will suggest back alley justice (which we don't speak of here) get chastised, then the stories start and then someone will post about old vs. new military.



I like the stories. They give us insight into the evolution of military culture, for good or bad. Thanks for sharing E.R., Jim and oldfart.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Could not agree more, Jim. I did not propose that with dispense with proper military trial.
> 
> But the "seen to be done" part is where, in the Navy, it was customary to hold the type of parade I mention. It's a leftover from the old days of sail when the whole ship's company was mustered amidships to witness any punishment meted out under the Articles of War.
> 
> I recall having to attend at least one of those parades at the Dockyard, in Esquimalt as a young seaman, when a Leading Seaman was so marched off to Edmonton after being found guilty of possession of narcotics. I can tell you that it makes a strong impression on a young member of the military such as I was then.
> 
> AS for the "locker box padlock" thing, ERC, I cannot comment on army matters, but I can tell you  that I have never locked my cabin or even my locker in my cabin on any ship I served on. It has been pointed out to me from time to time but I have always answered that I would quit the Navy the day I felt I needed to lock it up. I have not had to quit  .



Army, Navy, Air Force all have personnel that represent a cross section of Canadian society. Unfortunately there are people who steal despite being held to high standards. Being on small ships for the last 18 years, I have witnessed instances where people had things stolen from lockers, wallets etc and I have been on the receiving end a couple of times. I suspect some were by civy workers but some were from shipmates. In my opinion open lockers are inviting thievery and when I did evening rounds with the XO we picked up people with unlocked lockers.
Things have changed somewhat from they once they were and not always for the good.


----------



## Danjanou

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Not only justice must be done, it must be seen to be done.
> 
> We try to choose a known "talker" as the escort to the accused. Also, Summary Trials are supposed to be published in ROs.



 I see we studied at the same school.  8)

I used to routinely use the biggest mouths in the company and/or someone who looked like he/she may be going down the wrong pathtehmselves. Being the escort often gave him (her) and idea of what their potential future would be if they diddn't start changing their attitude/ways. both simple but effectives tools in minimizing crimes and other assorted shortcomings in the first place.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Danjanou said:
			
		

> I see we studied at the same school.  8)
> 
> I used to routinely use the biggest mouths in the company and/or someone who looked like he/she may be going down the wrong pathtehmselves. Being the escort often gave him (her) and idea of what their potential future would be if they diddn't start changing their attitude/ways. both simple but effectives tools in minimizing crimes and other assorted shortcomings in the first place.




Sage advice that was given to me many years ago....hey wait a minute, now I remember where I know you from!

dileas

tess


----------



## ModlrMike

Danjanou said:
			
		

> I see we studied at the same school.  8)
> 
> I used to routinely use the biggest mouths in the company and/or someone who looked like he/she may be going down the wrong pathtehmselves. Being the escort often gave him (her) and idea of what their potential future would be if they diddn't start changing their attitude/ways. both simple but effectives tools in minimizing crimes and other assorted shortcomings in the first place.



I've used that ploy myself a time or two.


----------



## armyvern

Springroll said:
			
		

> They should have kept this tight lipped and dealt with them they way they should be dealt with....
> You know, accidents happen all the time  >



I see you're back, but haven't moved forward.  :

This crusty old CSM would charge the ass of anyone who caused any _accidents_; sadly, those would be the young troops these days - despite their bitching about us crusty old members. Ironic that.


----------



## Edward Campbell

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I see you're back, but haven't moved forward.  :
> 
> This crusty old CSM would charge the ass of anyone who caused any _accidents_; sadly, those would be the young troops these days - despite their bitching about us crusty old members. Ironic that.




 :+1:

And this old, retired colonel would have done the same ... and the punishment awarded to the 'vigilante' would have been, at least, equal to that awarded to the thief: detention, enough to require a superior commander's sign off.

And any of you young, inexperienced troops who think Army Vern, Jim Seggie and I are exceptions: go ahead and try it; I am 99% certain you will find that 99% of senior NCOs and senior officers think exactly like us.

Springroll (and like minded others): way back when, when I heard a NCM say things like that I made a mental note: "not ready for advancement." I trained a few of the people who are in command now; they probably think now, like I did back then.


----------



## Springroll

I would like to add that I had added the  > as a note that I was far from being serious when I made my comment. I do not condone vigilante justice and would sooner have the higher ups deal with that stuff then watch my buddies get in trouble for handling it themselves. 

For future reference, I will ensure that I am very clear and concise in what I am trying to state rather than making a smart a** comment like I did.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Early in my career as a MS I utilized 'vigilante justice' on a subordinate (nothing too serious). I think of that incident every day and know of a million ways the situation could have been diffused in a better way. As luck would have it, the individual on the receiving end became a close friend and even though he has been retired for 4 years, we are still best friends....I consider myself EXTREMELY fortunate.
Bottom line-It should never be an option...no matter how mad you may be.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

The Modern Charge Process (Current as of 2 weeks ago):

-Charge outcomes are still published in the ROs ( to include rank, name, offense, and charge outcome)
-All available unit personnel attend the orders parade to both quell the rumour mill and to act as a deterrent. 
-Escorts are still loudmouths, souls that need deterrence or both.

As it has been said before, the "old army" way of doing things is has no place. Period. It even sounds as though the old way is still the new way. Charge, Summary trial, Consequences, Deterrence for others. Seems legit to me


----------



## Bzzliteyr

mrc_wannabe:  Wow, that looks totally different from what I was involved in two months (almost to the day) ago.

As someone who just finished the summary trial (Court martial charges were dropped and I innocently elected summary trial when the charges were re-laid) process and found guilty, I would think that having been brought in front of the regiment and stripped from Sgt to Cpl would have been an immensely traumatizing incident and might have resulted with me releasing from the forces.  

Seeing as procedural errors were (allegedly) done during my trial, and the outcome was so seriously flawed (in my opinion and that of my lawyer) that there is a "request for review" in at this moment, I question how it would be dealt with if the review was positive and my rank returned?  Would the regiment have another parade to admit their mistake out loud therefore losing credibility? How would they redeem the Sgt that for the past two months has been running around as a corporal duty driver?  The credibility is lost now, that old school tactic would not be effective these days.

On a side note, I was punished, my punishment was issued as a "deterrent".  I recently spoke to my ex-CO about that exact point: how can it be a deterrent if no one in the regiment knows what I did?  Aside from rumours or my version of events, nobody has any details of what I did to deserve the punishment.  What's funny though is that most people are absolutely sure I must have killed or seriously injured someone to deserve such a sentence.

My two cents.


----------



## john10

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> On a side note, I was punished, my punishment was issued as a "deterrent".  I recently spoke to my ex-CO about that exact point: how can it be a deterrent if no one in the regiment knows what I did?  Aside from rumours or my version of events, nobody has any details of what I did to deserve the punishment.  What's funny though is that most people are absolutely sure I must have killed or seriously injured someone to deserve such a sentence.
> 
> My two cents.


 Unit members weren't there to see the trial?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

john10 said:
			
		

> Unit members weren't there to see the trial?



Summary Trials are seldom done in front of anyone except those involved.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

recceguy said:
			
		

> Summary Trials are seldom done in front of anyone except those involved.



Odd, every unit I have a been a part of they have been attended by "a majority of unit pers, unless tasked otherwise." 

Maybe my experiences are the exception to the rule?  ???

Bzzltyr:

Firstly, that really sucks and I'm sorry you were hanged in spite of procedural errors. Secondly, I am not stating the system is perfect however I was stating to those that were calling for blood in the OP that the "old way" of dealing with things is actually how the "new army" deals with issues (with experiences from E.R Campbell, and Jim Seggie). 

I can only speak to my personal experiences which don't involved being hat-less at any point in my career. This is mostly because the deterrence factor was shown to me as a young Private watching a Sgt I respected getting knocked down to Private and carted off to Edmo for embezzling Crown money. Justice and the administration of it are something that can be debated and has been debated for eons.

I hope that it further explains my earlier post.


----------



## Sythen

recceguy said:
			
		

> Summary Trials are seldom done in front of anyone except those involved.



I've literally watched dozens of summary trials (and have done the hatless dance myself) and there has always been an audience. It was always explained that the purpose of the audience was so that everyone could watch and understand military justice in action, and so there would be no rumours.


----------



## Snaketnk

I have a similar experience to Sythen; however I've witnessed fewer. Also haven't been the hatless one myself.


----------



## Franko

john10 said:
			
		

> Unit members weren't there to see the trial?



Most venues are the OC/ CO's office for Summary Trials. Can't fit a whole lot of troops in there.

Regards


----------



## OldSolduer

I was Assisting Officer for a MCpl. She was hatless but was allowed to sit through the trial due to a broken ankle. For some reason or another she couldn't march....


----------



## Pusser

I believe the right to a public trial actually dates back to the Magna Carta.  Although many folks would prefer as few people as possible see their dirty linen being aired, the principle of public trials is to prevent the application of Star Chamber (i.e. secret) justice.  In other words, public trials keep the system honest.  I would argue that many Summary Trials are held in small venues because it is not anticipated that larger ones are necessary.  It would be interesting to see what would happen if the accused were to ask for a larger venue in order to ensure all his friends could attend.

In my experience in ships, they're usually held in the Main Cafeteria - lots of room.


----------



## Brutus

10 years ago, I may have fallen on the 'vigilante justice' side of the argument. Now, being a smidgen more wise than back then, I completely disagree with it. 

I believe underhanded solutions such as leaders asking troops to 'sort him out' only further encourages would-be offenders as it shows a lack of faith in the CFs ability to police their members. If that fool assumes the 'Wise Old Sgt' has no faith that the system can punish the guilty, he will likely assume that HE will not be punished if he steps over the line. 

Aside from all of that, how can we ask young troops to abide by all of the rules, yet condone breaking the rules to punish others who break the rules? If that sentence is confusing, imagine how confusing it is to a new recruit.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Most venues are the OC/ CO's office for Summary Trials. Can't fit a whole lot of troops in there.
> 
> Regards



What DPk said. I've 'attended' quite a few, throughout my career, in one sort of capacity or another and they've always taken place in these confines.

Except one, that seemed to be attended by an inordinate amount of Infantry officers.


_edit to add second line_


----------



## john10

OK I see. The only one I'm personally aware of took place in front of the whole platoon during BMQ.


----------



## Brutus

I have attended only one in 14 years (not mine!), and it was in a room large enough for the entire Unit. 

EDIT: I have attended 2 - the other was in a school soccer field during forest firefighting ops in BC.


----------



## gun plumber

I recently attended one that was mandatory for all members of the unit in our regimental theater. We were told it was for PD purposes.


----------



## garb811

Under ordinary circumstances, Summary Trials must be open to spectators.

*QR&Os, CHAPTER 108 - SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS*



> *108.28 – WHO MAY BE PRESENT AT A SUMMARY TRIAL*
> 
> (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), summary trials shall be public and, to the extent that accommodation permits, members of the public, military and civilian, shall be permitted to attend the proceedings as spectators.
> 
> (2) The officer presiding at a summary trial may direct that the public be excluded during the trial or any part of the trial where the presiding officer considers it to be in the interests of justice and discipline, public safety, defence or public morals.
> 
> (3) Except for those with an appropriate security clearance and a need to know, members of the public shall be excluded from those portions of a summary trial where classified information will be given in evidence.
> 
> (4) Any direction made under this article shall be recorded in a minute to be signed by the officer presiding at the summary trial and attached to the Record of Disciplinary Proceedings.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

garb811 said:
			
		

> Under ordinary circumstances, Summary Trials must be open to spectators.
> 
> *QR&Os, CHAPTER 108 - SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS*



I don't think anyone is arguing that. I'm simply saying that any I've been involved in were held in small offices with only the principles involved. Others have had different experiences.

YMMV


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brutus said:
			
		

> 10 years ago, I may have fallen on the 'vigilante justice' side of the argument. Now, being a smidgen more wise than back then, I completely disagree with it.
> 
> I believe underhanded solutions such as leaders asking troops to 'sort him out' only further encourages would-be offenders as it shows a lack of faith in the CFs ability to police their members. If that fool assumes the 'Wise Old Sgt' has no faith that the system can punish the guilty, he will likely assume that HE will not be punished if he steps over the line.
> 
> Aside from all of that, how can we ask young troops to abide by all of the rules, yet condone breaking the rules to punish others who break the rules? If that sentence is confusing, imagine how confusing it is to a new recruit.



You ordered the Code Red!

The only time I've seen troops start to take things into their own hands is when the system of military justice is inefficient or clearly messed up in some way. As always, when leaders at all levels do their jobs right, things tend to work right. When they don't, all hell can break loose.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!"

I know "everyone" was allowed to be there but circumstances made it so that only a select few officers and very senior NCMs (read, RSM) were able to fit in the large conference room that my summary trial was held in.  I heard murmurs from the troops that they were told there was "no room available" for them.  Though I am not sure that the information as to when and where the trial was being held was passed on either...  In the end, I did get to change my rank slipons in the RSM's office, away from the troops. This results in me still being called Sgt and getting yelled at in the cpl's mess by the people that aren't yet in the loop!! 

There were procedural errors in the laying of my original charges as well, I had been lined up to go to court martial when the charges were dropped by the prosecution for the reason that the person who laid the charge was NOT on the list of authorised charge layers.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> There were procedural errors in the laying of my original charges as well, I had been lined up to go to court martial when the charges were dropped by the prosecution for the reason that the person who laid the charge was NOT on the list of authorised charge layers.



And thus, the reason I don't think we should try to make these activities spectator sports: sometimes they're really screwed up goat rodeos!


----------



## Pusser

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And thus, the reason I don't think we should try to make these activities spectator sports: sometimes they're really screwed up goat rodeos!



Although justice must be done, it must also be seen to be done.  In theory, a public trial protects the accused from being railroaded and forces the system to have its ducks in a row.  A summary trial that is effectively closed could be cause for complaint.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Pusser, very much so.  If all my witnesses to the summary trial decided to band together and say "that never happend" in regards to my request for review, then I'd be royally screwed.


----------



## john10

It's none of my business, but I'm curious, what do they allege you did to deserve the demotion?


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Well, as of 15:30 local I have returned to the rank of Sgt.  I was found guilty of NDA 83 Disobeying a lawful command.  I have instead received a fine of $2500 and a reprimand.


----------



## Old Sweat

Congrats. Is that finding open to appeal? Can you get a posting to get a fresh start?


----------



## Bzzliteyr

That finding is from the "appeal" (request for review) and yes, a posting is looking like it's in the works..


----------



## Franko

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> That finding is from the "appeal" (request for review) and yes, a posting is looking like it's in the works..



Back to the School you!  LOL

Regards


----------



## old fart

Holding summary trials in the presiding officers office was generally the case and still is for the most part in my experience.  

However, during my last stint at CFSME, they where held in a school common area with plenty of seating for all and sundry (in the case of a trainee being charged, the rest of their course would attend); I was presiding officer on many occasions in this "more open/accessible" format.


----------



## Gunner98

Amendments to the QR&O Volume II, Chapter 108, 108.28 (Who may be present at a Summary Trial) were made effective 1 September 1999, therefore experience before and after that date may vary.  http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-02/doc/chapter-chapitre-108.pdf


----------



## Blackadder1916

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Amendments to the QR&O Volume II, Chapter 108, 108.28 (Who may be present at a Summary Trial) were made effective 1 September 1999, therefore experience before and after that date may vary.  http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-02/doc/chapter-chapitre-108.pdf



From the Jul 96 version of the OLTRS disk and may be the applicable QR&O wording before the changes in summary trial procedures and mindset that started before the turn of the century.



> 108.29 -- GENERAL RULES FOR TRIAL BY COMMANDING OFFICER
> 
> . . . . .
> 
> (4) To the extent that accommodation permits, members of the public,
> military and civilian, shall be permitted to attend a summary trial as
> spectators unless the accused requests that the public be excluded and, in
> the opinion of the commanding officer, the request should be granted.
> Except for those with an appropriate security clearance and a need to
> know, members of the public shall be excluded from those portions of a
> summary trial where classified information will be given in evidence.
> 
> NOTES
> 
> . . . . .
> 
> (B)  To comply with paragraph (4) of this article, a commanding of officer
> should make every reasonable effort to ensure that members of the
> public wishing to attend a summary trial can do so.
> 
> (M)                                                          (10 Jan 83)



With the exception that the guilty b*****d accused is no longer permitted to request that the public be excluded from the trial, there is not much difference about summary trials being open to the public.  However, there were a number of problems identified about the fairness of the summary trial process and thus the changes.  I'm of that generation (or at the tail end of it) when a summary conviction (or two) was not an unknown event in the career of many successful soldiers - I've been on both sides of the table, standing hatless as well as sitting in judgement.

In "the old army" (a deliberately facetious comment), I don't think there was much thought to purposefully excluding the public (military or civilian) from summary proceedings, they were just semi-routine activities that occurred in the life of the unit.  Daily routine for those not personally involved in the process still continued, why would normal training and administration be suddenly frozen to permit all and sundry to attend - someone still had to sweep the hanger floor or drink coffee in the platoon cage.

I've not much experience with this new paradigm of summary trials being spectator events.  The closest may be a trial before a delegated officer in the field during a WAINCON in the 1970s when the sixteen accused simply switched hats and position until we were all dealt with; wasn't even any double quick time in and out of the tent.  Similiarly, after I was commissioned and was on course in Borden (1980s), the Commandant of the CFMSS held a summary trial for two privates on their TQ3 course.  Everyone on course (all the courses) had to attend and not only did the Colonel conduct the trial in public, but he would interrupt his proceeding at each stage and provide commentary on the what and why.  Not only was I astonished by the show, many of my coursemates (like me, most either from the ranks or re-classed from another MOC) also said they had never seen anything like it.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

> Everyone on course (all the courses) had to attend and not only did the Colonel conduct the trial in public, but he would interrupt his proceeding at each stage and provide commentary on the what and why.



On my PLQ last winter same thing happened.


----------



## medicineman

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I've not much experience with this new paradigm of summary trials being spectator events.  The closest may be a trial before a delegated officer in the field during a WAINCON in the 1970s when the sixteen accused simply switched hats and position until we were all dealt with; wasn't even any double quick time in and out of the tent.



Sounds like what happened in St Jean when I was at the Language School.  About 150-200 folks got charged on one day after the Base Duty WO got bored and collected ID cards at 2332 hours outside the Private's mess on a school night (we were supposed to be in our mods by 2330 on school nights).  The guilty folks were marched in 3x3, changed positions twice and were marched out with either 50 & 5 or 100 & 7.  Felt sorry for the duty officers that week with that many defaulters to inspect hourly, plus quarters inspections on weekends...

MM


----------



## mikeninercharlie

I'd like to think that being a member of the infamous "Rainbow Junction 16", that BA describes, prepared me for  for a senior appointment within our glorious corps... >


----------



## medicineman

Dare we ask?

MM


----------



## Journeyman

mikeninercharlie said:
			
		

> I'd like to think that being a member of the infamous "Rainbow Junction 16", that BA describes...
> 
> 
> 
> Dare we ask?
Click to expand...

op:  Yes, do tell.


----------



## Blackadder1916

mikeninercharlie said:
			
		

> I'd like to think that being a member of the infamous "Rainbow Junction 16", that BA describes, prepared me for  for a senior appointment within our glorious corps... >



Yeah, whether being of the "Unholy 7" or later part of the "16", it seemed to be good experience.  But most of you got off easy with the extra duty and drill assigned as punishment, the evac platoons went out for the next several days and the extras were burned off in the bush.  The CP and Amb Pl stayed at Rainbow Junction and I had to do 5 days straight of pot-walloping and then a radio shift after.  The RSM made sure of it; guess he didn't get over wanting to charge me with inciting to mutiny the year before.


----------



## medicineman

Can't ever see anyone wanting to mutiny in 1 Fd Amb... :

MM


----------



## Gunner98

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> From the Jul 96 version of the OLTRS disk and may be the applicable QR&O wording before the changes in summary trial procedures and mindset that started before the turn of the century.



This para is a little different:

(4) Any direction made under this article shall be recorded in a minute to be signed by the officer presiding at the summary trial and attached to the Record of Disciplinary Proceedings.

This and the fact that prior to 1999 the Presiding Officer did not have to make a record of any decisions other than finding and sentencing if appropriate on the Charge Sheet.


----------

