# Arty Sim + Gananoque McDonald's Trash Can = Criminal Charges



## The Bread Guy (13 Nov 2010)

In our system, all are presumed innocent until proven guilty.  That said, way to go........  :


> A Canadian soldier could face charges under the National Defence Act after an explosive device used to blow up a McDonald’s garbage can in Gananoque, Ont., last month was traced to a military base outside of Barrie.
> 
> On Oct. 24, police received a number of 911 calls about an explosion outside a fast food restaurant in downtown Gananoque, the reverberations of which had been heard blocks away.
> 
> ...


More in the _Globe & Mail_ here.


----------



## pbi (13 Nov 2010)

It was announced on the news yesterday here in Kingston that an individual has been arrested, after a joint investigation by MPs, OPP, and the GPS. I guess there's no accounting for morons. No doubt he will be described as a "...PTSD-crazed Afghanistan veteran..."

Cheers


----------



## exgunnertdo (13 Nov 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> No doubt he will be described as a "...PTSD-crazed Afghanistan veteran..."



According to the Globe & Mail article, he's a Private that joined in Sept 09, posted to Kingston. Putting all that together, he's not likely to have been to Afghanistan. 

I vote for "stupid kid" as the most likely explanation.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (13 Nov 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> It was announced on the news yesterday here in Kingston that an individual has been arrested, after a joint investigation by MPs, OPP, and the GPS. I guess there's no accounting for morons. No doubt he will be described as a "...PTSD-crazed Afghanistan veteran..."
> 
> Cheers



First I've heard about it and I live in Kingston. I find it interesting that it took three weeks for it to hit the news. 

At least no one was injured. An artillery Simulator is really a big firecracker and having one go off in in an enclosed space (garbage can) could of resulted in flying debris (glass, metal) that, in turn, could of caused serious injuries.


----------



## armyvern (13 Nov 2010)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> According to the Globe & Mail article, he's a Private that joined in Sept 09, posted to Kingston. Putting all that together, he's not likely to have been to Afghanistan.
> 
> I vote for "stupid kid" as the most likely explanation.



Since when was he posted to Kingston I wonder?? I'm tagging him at a school in Borden by DIN.


----------



## Jammer (13 Nov 2010)

Borden for sure.
We're not allowed to use Arty sims  in the Gore Area.


----------



## armyvern (13 Nov 2010)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Borden for sure.
> We're not allowed to use Arty sims  in the Gore Area.



We're also not allowed to use 'em at McDonalds either, but apparently that didn't stop this ID 10 T.  

The kid is posted to Borden; a candidate at a certain school - according to the DIN; I'm just questionning where the Globe & Mail is getting the "posted to Kingston" bit from.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Nov 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The kid is posted to Borden; a candidate at a certain school - according to the DIN; I'm just questionning where the Globe & Mail is getting the "posted to Kingston" bit from.


They probably don't have access to DIN  ;D

The version of the G&M article I'm looking at now doesn't mention Kingston - the _Kingston Whig-Standard_ and the official news release from Gananoque police (attached) says "The suspect is a member of the Canadian Forces currently training at Canadian Forces Base Borden".


----------



## George Wallace (13 Nov 2010)

OK.  I'm blind.  I just read the G & M article and I missed any and all ref to Kingston.  The Pte (Potvin) was from Borden.  The PAO (Lieutenant Carrie Pluck) is from Borden.  I saw a ref that the Pte could be charged under the NDA for removing an explosive from a training area, but still no ref to Kingston.  

Other than people perhaps in their minds associating CFB (K) as being the closest DND establishment to Gan, I can see no mention of Kingston.


exgunnertdo ?


----------



## dogger1936 (13 Nov 2010)

How did a student walk away with a arty sim? Sounds like some Mcpl's should be charged as well.


----------



## Zoomie (13 Nov 2010)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> How did a student walk away with a arty sim?



Expend all ammunition....  Huge orgy of explosions, smoke and blank rounds.  Easy for a few items to get slipped into a pocket.


----------



## armyvern (13 Nov 2010)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Expend all ammunition....  Huge orgy of explosions, smoke and blank rounds.  Easy for a few items to get slipped into a pocket.



Yep; that and the additional NDA service offence of making a false Declaration to the RSO when departing the trg area/range.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Nov 2010)

Costs more money to charge a reservist than they'd get back in a fine.


----------



## Jammer (13 Nov 2010)

From my perspective:
The D Staff cannot account for all expenditure of brass. they can and should account for all expenditure of smoke and pyro...ie; T flash and Arty sims. If X pyro was issued and X was expended, why was Y overlooked and not accounted for.
Yes to the false declaration, but the D Staff should be held accountable as well. DP-1 students should not be handling pyro whatsoever. Just as a supposition the only school in Borden who would be issued this kind of pyro would be CFSEME.


----------



## missing1 (13 Nov 2010)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> How did a student walk away with a arty sim? Sounds like some Mcpl's should be charged as well.



Why stop at the MCpl, Lets go for the Snr NCO and officer also


----------



## chrisf (13 Nov 2010)

So, here's a question then assuming he was a student (And that's an assumption, there's plenty pyro used other then on course. OPFOR taskings are a wonderful time for anyone who enjoys the use of pyro). Would you advocate a hand search of all students following the range? Because that's the only way for 100% accountability in this case... and if he wasn't a student, would you advocate a hand search *any* time an individual gives a declaration and leaves a range?

There's a point where you have to trust your troops and assume they're not stupid enough to steal an arty sim and jam it in a trash can...


----------



## chrisf (13 Nov 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Costs more money to charge a reservist than they'd get back in a fine.



And where does it say he's a reservist? (Although based on his age, it's not an unreasonable assumption)


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Nov 2010)

Lets stick with this:

Was a declaration done?  If not, then the CoC of that particular ex should be charged.

If an range dec was done, the individual [*glow=red,2,300] LIED *[/glow] to his COC. 

You cannot hold the CoC responsible for the failings of one individual who wasn't thinking with the big head. If that were the case, the CDS would be getting charged daily.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Nov 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> And where does it say he's a reservist? (Although based on his age, it's not an unreasonable assumption)



Just seems wierd that a RegF soldier doing training at Borden would go to Gan. Long trip with not much to do there. I shouldn't have assumed, however. There's a lot of new recruits doing dumb #@$! lately.


----------



## rampage800 (13 Nov 2010)

I think sometimes we tend to get tied  up in the schematics of Range Declarations and if it was given or if it wasn't, how about the fact that it was theft and what he stole from the CF is basically irrelevant. Range Declarations have their place, I won't argue that but we shouldn't tie ourselves to a paragraph that basically negates the responsibilities of the individual if he doesn't receive it and tie our hands. 

My 2 cents.


----------



## chrisf (13 Nov 2010)

Whether the range dec is given or not has nothing to do with the liability of the individual, it has to do with the liability of the chain of command.


----------



## medicineman (13 Nov 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Since when was he posted to Kingston I wonder?? I'm tagging him at a school in Borden by DIN.



Alot of people from a certain school in Borden get TD'd to CFSCE...could also be a local back home on leave.  Fucktard regardless.

MM


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Nov 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Whether the range dec is given or not has nothing to do with the liability of the individual, it has to do with the liability of the chain of command.



Excuse me? Are you saying that even if a range dec is given, the CoC is still liable? Clarify this please.


----------



## ballz (13 Nov 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Excuse me? Are you saying that even if a range dec is given, the CoC is still liable? Clarify this please.



I think he's saying that the individual is liable no matter what...

But if the CoC did not give the range dec, they may also find themselves liable... where as if they had given it, it would be hard to say they are liable for the individual's actions.

EDIT cause I meant to say this anyway...

I don't even see the point of a range dec... I suppose I just stated it, but really... why would somebody hold the CoC accountable for it even if they didn't give the range dec? The individual would have done it whether they did or did not give the range dec... Perhaps in my infinite inexperience I am just underestimating the whole "due dillegence" thing... but I wouldn't want to go around charging people for not issuing a range dec that wouldn't make a difference to the individual anyway...

Would someone straighten me out?


----------



## George Wallace (13 Nov 2010)

WOW!

You guys are really coming up with some doooooooozies.


Where did it come from that he was posted to Kingston?

Where did it say he was a Reservist?

Where did it say he had or didn't have a Range Declaration?

Maybe he was from the Gan?

Maybe he was on leave and wanted to see Bolt Castle?

Perhaps he had a friend in the Gan?  

Perhaps he was a Cadet?

Perhaps it wasn't even him who is responsible.

Why are we throwing out so many statements from left field?

Why did I even bother to post this?


----------



## GAP (13 Nov 2010)

> Why did I even bother to post this?



 ;D


----------



## chrisf (13 Nov 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Excuse me? Are you saying that even if a range dec is given, the CoC is still liable? Clarify this please.



I think you misread, I was saying the opposite, if the range dec is given, then the range staff is not responsible, as it's not reasonable to *assume* all your troops are thieves. If they say they don't have anything, that should be enough, it's not as if you can conduct a search of every piece of kit belonging to every troop and every unit after every range without due cause.

As for an individual, if they gave a range dec, then they lied, if they didn't give a range dec, it's still reasonable to assume they knew what they were doing was wrong, and it's still theft (Unless it can be proven that at NO point in their career had they ever been informed it was an offence to remove somthing from a range).


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Nov 2010)

Thank you. I think we agree on this point. Mind you, if anyone ever sees I agreed with a Signaller.....


----------



## Jammer (13 Nov 2010)

You can talk about us, but you cant talk without us


----------



## mike63 (13 Nov 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Thank you. I think we agree on this point. Mind you, if anyone ever sees I agreed with a Signaller.....



LoL....now that's funny Jim!


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Nov 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> First I've heard about it and I live in Kingston. I find it interesting that it took three weeks for it to hit the news.


According to the news release, the arrest happened Friday, so that would explain the delay.


----------



## chrisf (13 Nov 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> I don't even see the point of a range dec... I suppose I just stated it, but really... why would somebody hold the CoC accountable for it even if they didn't give the range dec? The individual would have done it whether they did or did not give the range dec... Perhaps in my infinite inexperience I am just underestimating the whole "due dillegence" thing... but I wouldn't want to go around charging people for not issuing a range dec that wouldn't make a difference to the individual anyway...



Because it's required. Plus it ensures troops are given an opportunity to turn in anything they may have had left.


----------



## armyvern (13 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> WOW!
> 
> You guys are really coming up with some doooooooozies.
> 
> ...



Well, from the original article we know that he is not a cadet, and that he has been arrested, that he is stationned at CFB Borden and that a range declaration is "required" to be given when leaving the range/training area.

Where whoever came up with the "reservist" or "posted to CFB Kingston" bits is beyond me.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/SOMNIA/article1797522/



> They quickly discovered it a was a military training device, and traced it first to CFB Suffield, Alberta, home of Canadian Forces research and development, and then to CFB Borden.
> 
> Working with military police, officers arrested 18-year-old Private Kevynn Potvin on Tuesday. Pte. Potvin, who joined the Canadian Forces in September, 2009, now faces seven criminal charges, including possession of explosives with intent to damage property and mischief endangering life.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Nov 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Because it's required. Plus it ensures troops are given an opportunity to turn in anything they may have had left.



To add, there are amnesty boxes on most bases that have active ranges. I know I've found a few errant casings after a shoot that made their way to an amnesty box.


----------



## ballz (13 Nov 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Plus it ensures troops are given an opportunity to turn in anything they may have had left.



Solid point. I've found a casing doing a last minute check of kit for random pieces while standing in front about to give the dec.

As for the "because it's required," well, the question was "why" but that is another good point along with the liability issue. I am embarassed glad I asked ;D


----------



## George Wallace (14 Nov 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> To add, there are amnesty boxes on most bases that have active ranges. I know I've found a few errant casings after a shoot that made their way to an amnesty box.



Ever try to fit an Arty Sim into an Amnesty Box?      ;D

I don't think they had much more than small arms ammunition in mind when they made the boxes, as well as keeping the design so that no one could use these boxes as an easy means of acquiring ammo.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ever try to fit an Arty Sim into an Amnesty Box?      ;D
> 
> I don't think they had much more than small arms ammunition in mind when they made the boxes, as well as keeping the design so that no one could use these boxes as an easy means of acquiring ammo.



I remember returning from gun camp in Germany. Three weeks later, on the way to work, there was a 105 HESH round, nose down, on the tube of the amnesty box at the TDM in Lahr. Yup, didn't fit 

Seems it got left under the floorboards of the Cent and the guys found it while getting ready for the GOC's inspection.


----------



## chrisf (14 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ever try to fit an Arty Sim into an Amnesty Box?      ;D
> 
> I don't think they had much more than small arms ammunition in mind when they made the boxes, as well as keeping the design so that no one could use these boxes as an easy means of acquiring ammo.



Depends on the box. I've seen a couple that are like mail boxes, with the tilting tray inside, managed to jam a full C9 box into it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Nov 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Depends on the box. I've seen a couple that are like mail boxes, with the tilting tray inside, managed to jam a full C9 box into it.



The size of mail boxes? Wow. Where are these boxes located? I've never seen one that big and I've been a few places.


----------



## chrisf (14 Nov 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The size of mail boxes? Wow. Where are these boxes located? I've never seen one that big and I've been a few places.



Yes. That's exactly what I said. It was as big as a mail box. And not a normal size mailbox. One of those super mail boxes. The sort they have in new subburbs to save money on postal service. And there was a ramp and a garage door so you could drop off up to an MLVW load of ammunition.

Now, go back and read what I wrote, I said it was like a mail box, in that had tilting tray rather than a tube, not in that it was the size of a mail box. It could accomodate stuff as large as a C9 box through the tray. Size wise, it was pretty standard amnesty box size, maybe a foot and a half squared.


----------



## dangerboy (14 Nov 2010)

Which base has this style of Amnesty Box?


----------



## chrisf (14 Nov 2010)

CFB Shilo.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (14 Nov 2010)

From yesterday's  Kingston Whig-Standard :



> Kevynn Potvin, 18, is charged with mischief endangering life, mischief, possession of an explosive substance, possession of a prohibited device, possession of a weapon obtained by crime, possession of property obtained by crime and use of explosives with intent to cause property damage.
> 
> ................
> 
> ...



Me thinks that Mr. Potvin is in a load of Ca-Ca.


----------



## gun runner (14 Nov 2010)

I concur with RAFG...   This was a very stupid idea on Mr. Potvins part, and to boot he possibly p!$$ed away a good career as well.


----------



## dogger1936 (23 Nov 2010)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Which base has this style of Amnesty Box?



Petawawa as well.


----------

