# Soldier sentenced for staying in bed during fight



## Canadian Sig (5 Aug 2007)

Did a search and did'nt find this anywhere but......if I missed it I apologise.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070801/soldier_jail_070801/20070801/


Soldier sentenced for staying in bed during fight
Updated Wed. Aug. 1 2007 10:44 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A Canadian soldier has been sentenced to 21 days in jail for staying in bed while insurgents attacked the Canadian base in Afghanistan where he was stationed.

The soldier, Master Cpl. Paul Patrick Billard, was sentenced by a military judge in Halifax who slammed his actions.

Billard was supposed to act as a stretcher bearer and be part of the reserve force in the event of an attack. Instead, he stayed under the covers on May 22, 2006 when armed insurgents staged a nighttime strike on the forward operating base. 

"You displayed a total lack of discipline and a lack of respect for orders by remaining in bed, by refusing to don your helmet and your flak vest and by refusing to report to your assigned place of duty," Lt.-Col. Jean-Guy Perron, the court martial judge, said in his decision.

He added that the base was particularly vulnerable at the time because a large number of troops were away -- a fact Billard was well aware of.

At about 2 a.m. on the night of the attack, a siren was set off warning soldiers to prepare to defend their positions after an attacker tried to fire a rocket-propelled grenade at one of the guard towers.

A guard returned fire and a patrol was sent after the insurgents during the incident, which lasted about one-and-a-half hours.

"At the start of the stand-to, other members of your living area urged you to get out of bed and tried to make you react appropriately to the alarm," the judge wrote.

However, Billard simply refused, repeatedly calling his comrades "flinchers," saying he was immune to their efforts and even attempting to discourage a corporal from responding to the order.

At one point he did get up, donning shorts and grabbing his pistol in order to go to the bathroom, but then promptly returned to bed, according to court papers.

Billard, a 33-year-old who was born in York, Ont. and joined the military in St. John's, N.L., pleaded guilty to the charge. Another charge of failing to use his utmost exertion to carry out orders, was withdrawn by prosecutors.

Court documents stated that although he stayed in bed, Billard listened to his radio to determine the threat level, and determined that his help was not needed.

However, Perron ruled that Billard had no right to pick and choose which orders to obey and said he failed the ultimate test of a soldier.

"It surely is not the conduct we expect of Canadian non-commissioned officers. Your duty is to follow orders and to ensure the welfare and discipline of your subordinates. You failed this duty miserably."

Billard is free on bail, based on the fact he plans to appeal the sentencing. He is to serve his jail term at a military prison in Edmonton.

He had been slated for promotion to sergeant prior to his actions on the night of the attack.

With files from The Canadian Press


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Aug 2007)

I notice he's appealing the sentence. He should be careful considering that he was in a "war" zone, he's an NCO, and it was a general "stand-to". In another era not so long ago, he would have been shot already.


----------



## boehm (5 Aug 2007)

I read this story on the DIN a few days ago. Buddy disobeyed orders and even tried to make another do the same. In my opinion he got what he deserved and I hope his appeal fails. 

What a disgusting example of a soldier.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Aug 2007)

boehm said:
			
		

> What a disgusting example of a soldier.


----------



## mudrecceman (6 Aug 2007)

+1 Aviator.

This jackass is in my area...where's my phone book at?


----------



## ArmyRick (6 Aug 2007)

Dirtbag. Pure and simple.


----------



## Reccesoldier (6 Aug 2007)

Only 21 days?  Wasn't the death penalty replaced by life imprisonment?


----------



## charlesm (6 Aug 2007)

Looking on the JAG site you can find out more information such as

DATE           ACCUSED             LOCATION 
06 Jul 07       MCpl Billard         Asticou Centre, Block 2600, Room 2601, Gatineau, QC. 
Charges and results Charge 1: S. 74(c) NDA, when ordered to carry out an operation of war, failed to use his utmost exertion to carry the orders into effect.
Charge 2: S. 129 NDA, neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline.

VERDICT: Charge 1: Withdrawn. Charge 2: Guilty.

SENTENCE: Detention for a period of 21 days. 

See http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/CMresults_e.asp


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Aug 2007)

wow.  WTF!?!

As I was reading this, I skimmed over his rank at first... I skimmed past it and went to the details of the event (as much as was told)... I am shocked that it was any kind of leadership rank.  As much as I'd hate to think anyone would do this, I'd sooner believe it to be a Cpl or Pte.... Not an MCpl....  That's just mind blowing.  When you go over there, no matter what your job is, you have to be able to rely on your fellow troops to be vigilant with their duties to cover your ***... especially during an attack.  Besides his own actions; the fact that he tried to convince others to stay in bed... Jeez... I'm actually getting angry just thinking about that.  What the hell kind of leader was this guy?  Why is he still in the military? Argh... his inaction could have cost lives.  
Bah... I can't even express how angry this makes me.  MCpls are the first rung in the leadership ladder and the direct link to the other Junior ranks.  They must lead by example at all times, and ensure their duties are complete first, then ensure their subordinates complete their duties proficiently... Not lay in bed... DURING AN ATTACK!! ARGH!!!   (there isn't an emoticon to express my seething anger... so this is me spewing rage 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)






Am I over reacting?  I think anyone who's been over there, been shot at, been in an attack and had to do their job should feel just as pissed... This isn't a frickin' joke... It's certainly not a joke to the families who have received a folded flag for the cause.  I wonder how much more he would have gotten if his inaction DID cost a life?  Would 21 days be enough payment for sleeping in?
But I digress.  
As ModrMike so eloquently stated; 


			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> In another era not so long ago, he would have been shot already.



+1 

Your sleep isn't worth my life... deal with it... No appeal.


----------



## medaid (6 Aug 2007)

Should have been demoted along with a release immediately right after he served his 21 days. Bastard...


----------



## Donut (6 Aug 2007)

But Mom, I don't WANNA go to battle!    >


----------



## medaid (6 Aug 2007)

Now now, that only works for some of us  >


----------



## Trooper Hale (6 Aug 2007)

And here ends this mans career. I dont think there will be many crying eyes.


----------



## q_1966 (6 Aug 2007)

Truly disgraceful, what I think is interesting is he was slated for promotion to Sgt... maybe he woke up and decided he didnt wanna be in the army anymore...


----------



## FastEddy (6 Aug 2007)

charlesm said:
			
		

> Looking on the JAG site you can find out more information such as
> 
> DATE           ACCUSED             LOCATION
> 06 Jul 07       MCpl Billard         Asticou Centre, Block 2600, Room 2601, Gatineau, QC.
> ...




Well as I've expressed my concerns and opinions on the inadequacy of the Civilian Judicial System (mainly concerning Sentencing), I am now appalled at the present CF's  JAG and R&Regs handling of this matter.

Why Charge 1 was withdrawn (probally IMO, to save embarrassment to the CF).

Why is he still in the Army and still a NCO.

Why he was only charged with Charge  2 which is the least possible that he could have been charged with.

Why, that considering the evidence against  him he has the effrontery to appeal a sentence of 21 Days, which in its self is an insult to every member of the CAF's, past, present or have paid the Ultimate Scarface for their Country is beyond me.

I'm sorry to say, this is a flagrant case of Misjudgement.


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Aug 2007)

Fast Eddy

I wonder if they simply decided that it was easier to catch him in 129 as it's really a subjective charge and requires a lot less in the way of evidence. Plus if I remember my lessons on the military justice system the penalty for 129 can go up to and include dishonorable discharge from the Queens forces. It's the one charge you can do anything with really.


----------



## FastEddy (6 Aug 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Fast Eddy
> 
> I wonder if they simply decided that it was easier to catch him in 129 as it's really a subjective charge and requires a lot less in the way of evidence. Plus if I remember my lessons on the military justice system the penalty for 129 can go up to and include dishonorable discharge from the Queens forces. It's the one charge you can do anything with really.




My point exactally, its nice and easy, sure fire, no real work, no embarrassment, nice and fast, even worse than a plea bargain and results in a Slap on the Wrist.

If JAG couldn't make a case out of this, then its a wonder they can find their way to work. And why was 74c laid in the first place. Because if ever a case fitted the bill, this one does


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (6 Aug 2007)

We're lucky the camp wasnt ran over... i knew a corporal who got demoted to private for less. Not saying he deserves to be, but i'm just wondering what are the criterias?


----------



## Petard (6 Aug 2007)

What's this guy's grounds for appeal going to be? The George Costanza defence: "was that wrong? I gotta plead ignorance on this one, if someone had told me that was wrong..."
Far more likely he's going to stick to his "I'm a veteran now and I know what's what and when to get worked up over something or not"
But of course unless tough guy happened to see the Taliban's Op order for that night there's no way he would know how much of an attack was going to happen or not. He sounds to me like someones pet who's not used to be being called out for the undisciplined sack he is.
He's already been given a considerable amount of leniency, now he wants to play the system, and it worries me that there are those who will think out of fairness what he did wasn't that big a deal so suspend the sentence. Those that think that way are forgetting this isn't about just being fair, its about having some guts in the system to maintain discipline, which certainly this Billard fellow has none of.


----------



## mudrecceman (6 Aug 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Fast Eddy
> 
> I wonder if they simply decided that it was easier to catch him in 129 as it's really a subjective charge and requires a lot less in the way of evidence. Plus if I remember my lessons on the military justice system the penalty for 129 can go up to and include dishonorable discharge from the Queens forces. It's the one charge you can do anything with really.



http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol2/ch103_e.asp#103.60

yes it IS punishable with "dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service or to less punishment".  So why did these JAGs go with something so ridicuous?

This DOES something else no one else has mentioned...its called *"setting a precedent"*.  What happens if or, hopefully NEVER, when this happens again?

"Johnny only got 21 days, and kept his rank...so I did the same thing...they can't punish me more than him because that would be discrimination".

What sort of deterrent did the judge set?  An extremely WEAK one.

Now...bear in mind, this cowards CO can get rid of his Leaf rather easily as it is an appointment.  However, this guy should have been dishonourably discharged from the CF.

I personally will have to restrain myself from stomping his guts out if I ever ended up in the same room as this coward.


----------



## armyvern (6 Aug 2007)

He pleaded guilty.

He's no doubt appealing on the grounds that the Presiding Officer was "too harsh" in meting out his sentence.  :

What's 21 days in Club Ed equivalent to in a civie detention facility (still not enough in this case)??

What I'd love to see happen at the appeal:

A decision that says the Presiding Officer's given sentence was too light.  >  Not like that's never happened before.  This man should NOT be in uniform any longer.


----------



## PeptoBismarck (6 Aug 2007)

Wow, I had no idea that the MILITARY 'legal' system was as corrupt and pussified as the civilian one. In their quest to be fair to all people, victims and criminals, they end up showing their complete disdain and disrespect for all those who are truly brave and valiant soldiers. IMHO, I would throw his CO into jail for 21 days for failing to put a bullet in his head when they were in the field.  :threat:


----------



## armyvern (6 Aug 2007)

PeptoBismarck said:
			
		

> Wow, I had no idea that the MILITARY 'legal' system was as corrupt and pussified as the civilian one. In their quest to be fair to all people, victims and criminals, they end up showing their complete disdain and disrespect for all those who are truly brave and valiant soldiers. *IMHO, I would throw his CO into jail for 21 days for failing to put a bullet in his head when they were in the field.  :threat:*



Wow. All I can say is wow; what a very professional statement that is.   :-\


----------



## Sig_Des (6 Aug 2007)

PeptoBismarck said:
			
		

> IMHO, I would throw his CO into jail for 21 days for failing to put a bullet in his head when they were in the field.  :threat:



Well, seeing as you're not in the military (and even if you were), I'll take this statement for what it's worth. Nada.

I'd suggest you avoid making statements like these in the future. While the actions of the MCpl disgust me, there are other ways to deal with it.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Aug 2007)

What amazes me it the fact that he doesn't seem to have served any time as of yet.  No doubt he will also get credited for any time served.  

Absolutely a disgrace......Both the 'actions' of a MCpl and the actions of the Court.  It is discusting that this cretin was also being considered for promotion to Sgt.  The rumblings about his actions have gone Forces wide.  No doubt another thing that will come of it, as in past 'controversial' cases, he will get a paid for and legal 'name change' to protect his 'innocence' after he has paid his 'dues'.  

What a friggin cowardly and conniving piece of work.


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Aug 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The rumblings about his actions have gone Forces wide.




If only they would throw the book at this solder thing.  Then he could be used as an example for those troops who fall asleep on shift during an Ex... or just don't follow orders to the fullest, no matter how minor.   

But now it seems this is just the kind of negative fuel needed to promote complacency; "If an MCpl can stay in bed in theater, during an attack, and only get a slap on the wrist, I'm sure I could stay in bed for PT and just get a stern talking to."

Time to set the example.  Throw the book at him.  I hope his appeal goes poorly.
But if it doesn't, I hope the guards and staff at Club Ed give him the worst 21 days of his life, and I hope it gets publicized throughout the CF.

No sympathy.


----------



## Haggis (6 Aug 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> This man should NOT be in uniform any longer.



I don't think he is.  I'm on leave right now, but according to a piece I read at work last week, this oxygen thief is already released and working in Ottawa.


----------



## geo (6 Aug 2007)

If he is released, the papertrail hasn't caught up.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Aug 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> .......... this oxygen thief is already released and working in Ottawa.



Do you know how scary that statement can be.  I have seen many cases where people have lost elections, or even been removed from a Government position while under a cloud of suspicion, and then been given a position in 'government' at a higher pay scale.  Definitely scary and a hint as to why we are in such a mess.

The defeated Liberal Member of Parliament for Renfrew/Nippissing was one such case.  Lost his seat, and then became a member of the PMO's office.  (During the Liberal's reign.)


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Aug 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Do you know how scary that statement can be.  I have seen many cases where people have lost elections, or even been removed from a Government position while under a cloud of suspicion, and then been given a position in 'government' at a higher pay scale.  Definitely scary and a hint as to why we are in such a mess.



Well... if politics are in his future, I can think of at least one politician who would harbour him... *cough* Taliban Jack *cough*  >


Either way, I hope, if he is working, he's doing something which won't affect peoples lives.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Aug 2007)

Man this would have made for a great laugh, if it appeared on mash though!

I am itching to say good on him, but that would not look professional.

_hehehe, wake me up when the fire fight is over...just reach me the handset to the radio, and if you see the cot a rocking don't come a knockin'!_

dileas

tess


----------



## Haggis (6 Aug 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Do you know how scary that statement can be.  I have seen many cases where people have lost elections, or even been removed from a Government position while under a cloud of suspicion, and then been given a position in 'government' at a higher pay scale.  Definitely scary and a hint as to why we are in such a mess.



George, I found the piece I was referring to, above: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/241994

He is employed as an "image analyst" according to this.  Doesn't sound like a government job to me.


----------



## darmil (6 Aug 2007)

I read this on Friday standing at Service Battlion TN waiting to get G wagons for my packet.It was posted to the cork board I couldn't believe what I was reading.He should have been sorted out right there.Hope I never have to work with anybody like that.Pathetic


----------



## BernDawg (6 Aug 2007)

I read that article as him still in and he would be a photo tech or an Int type working in Ottawa.  His findings make no mention of release or "ex" MCpl so I think he's still in.
     As to his appeal I think it will go badly for him.  Just read the findings and see how lucky he really was.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/sentence/2007/2007cm4019.pdf

I hope he burns in hell for his actions.  >


----------



## geo (6 Aug 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> George, I found the piece I was referring to, above: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/241994
> 
> He is employed as an "image analyst" according to this.  Doesn't sound like a government job to me.


.... (hint - It's his trade....)


----------



## ark (6 Aug 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> A decision that says the Presiding Officer's given sentence was too light.  >  Not like that's never happened before.  This man should NOT be in uniform any longer.



Taken from the oral sentence (HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. MASTER CORPORAL P.P. BILLARD)



> 6. The prosecutor recommends that the principles of general and specific deterrence
> and of rehabilitation should be applied in the determination of the appropriate sentence. The
> prosecutor recommends a sentence of 10 to 21 days of detention. Defence counsel agrees that
> the principles of specific and general deterrence apply in this case, but he does not agree that
> ...





> 23. The court believes this sentence must focus primarily on general deterrence,
> denunciation, and retribution. Your rehabilitation will also be assisted by the punishment I am
> about to impose. I would have considered a more severe sentence than what I am about to
> impose had it been proposed by the prosecution. Also, in the present case, the nature of your
> ...



Here is the complete transcript of the oral sentence:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/sentence/2007/2007cm4019.pdf

Has the prosecutor asked for a more severe punishment, the Presiding Officer would have probably opted for that.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Aug 2007)

Wouldn't that fall under Int Op?


----------



## George Wallace (6 Aug 2007)

Some interesting Legal facts there (http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/sentence/2007/2007cm4019.pdf):



> The Supreme Court of Canada touched on the concept of discipline within the
> Armed Forces at paragraph 60 of its 1992 decision R. v. Généreux. This passage, although
> possibly misused in the past, is exactly on point today. The Supreme Court of Canada stated:
> The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the Armed Forces to
> ...


----------



## BernDawg (6 Aug 2007)

It was posted on the WWW open internet.  It's all part of our transparency policies.  Check out the site lots of interesting stuff there.

(edit) I would imagine that's where the MSM got the story from in the first place considering the date of trial and the posting of results.


----------



## geo (6 Aug 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Wouldn't that fall under Int Op?



Yup


----------



## Haggis (6 Aug 2007)

OK, my bad.  I inferred from the article that he was an infanteer.  However, seeing thet he is "employed in Ottawa as an image analyst" and had been assigned duties as a stretcher bearer at the time of the incident, it's reasonable to conclude that he is an Int Op, not an Infanteer.

I really shouldn't post while on leave without ingesting sufficient coffee first.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Aug 2007)

Unfortunately, the judge's hands are tied somewhat by what the prosecution and defence propose as sentences.  One judge had the "temerity" to overrule a joint submission; on appeal, he was scolded by two of three judges, saying that the fact that loser being sentenced had never paid a fine from an earlier court-martial was irrelevant, and he should have accepted the join submission.  Judge #3 on the appeal supported the original military judge, saying his decision was fair.  (see http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/decisions/CMAC-468_e.shtml)

Thus, Canadian military judges are loathe to overrule submissions, as they'll likely just see them overturned.  I also suspect that in this instance the prosecution lowered the threshold a bit as the individual was pleading guilty .

In my opinion, this case called for much more severe punishment.  It also highlights the perils of MCpl - an appointment, not a rank.  Any demotion of a MCpl results in a Pte, not a Cpl.  However, there could still be administrative action (though I doubt it) IAW CFAO 49-4, para 6 (http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/049-04_e.asp) to remove the appointment.


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Aug 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> OK, my bad.  I inferred from the article that he was an infanteer.  However, seeing thet he is "employed in Ottawa as an image analyst" and had been assigned duties as a stretcher bearer at the time of the incident, it's reasonable to conclude that he is an Int Op, not an Infanteer.
> 
> I really shouldn't post while on leave without ingesting sufficient coffee first.



This is just an argument about his trade and not his duties while in FOB, Right? (not trying to pick a fight, just clarifying)  'cause he could have been a cook in the FOB and it still doesn't excuse him from getting the hell out of bed and doing his damn job while the enemy's attacking.  And it certainly doesn't excuse him from telling others to go back to bed during a fight. This is why every member of land forces takes SQ, 'cause no matter the trade, everyone breaks down to the lowest common denominator when under fire, and in the military that denominator is infantry.  As a Sgt once told a clerk in my unit; Every soldier in the CF is expected to take a bayonet, fix it to a rifle and stab it into the guts of his enemy... granted, his rant was focussed at the argument the clerk made about having to do the PWT, but the premise stand; Soldier First.

I just bring this up 'cause the quoted argument could be misconstrued as an excuse for his actions... I know it's not, I'm just clarifying.


----------



## Haggis (6 Aug 2007)

RHFC_Piper:  correct.  His trade is/was irrelevant given the circumstances.  Nor do I regard his not being a Cbt A soldier as an excuse for his inaction or conduct.  A soldier is a soldier.

In my original post, I had incorrectly surmised that he was released as the news article stated that he was employed as an "image analyst in Ottawa".  Knowing how Ottawa works, I, again incorrectly, concluded that an "image analyst" was a person who helps bigwigs craft a more positive corporate image for themselves and/or their business.

Now do you understand why I need coffee prior to posting while on leave???


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Aug 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> RHFC_Piper:  correct.  His trade is/was irrelevant given the circumstances.  Nor do I regard his not being a Cbt A soldier as an excuse for his inaction or conduct.  A soldier is a soldier.
> 
> In my original post, I had incorrectly surmised that he was released as the news article stated that he was employed as an "image analyst in Ottawa".  Knowing how Ottawa works, I, again incorrectly, concluded that an "image analyst" was a person who helps bigwigs craft a more positive corporate image for themselves and/or their business.
> 
> Now do you understand why I need coffee prior to posting while on leave???



Seen... as I said, just clarifying.  Don't want anyone to think that his trade excuses him.   And I see why you'd come to your former conclusions... I would assume he got the punt too... too bad he didn't.


----------



## mudrecceman (6 Aug 2007)

PeptoBismarck said:
			
		

> Wow, I had no idea that the MILITARY 'legal' system was as corrupt and pussified as the civilian one. In their quest to be fair to all people, victims and criminals, they end up showing their complete disdain and disrespect for all those who are truly brave and valiant soldiers. IMHO, I would throw his CO into jail for 21 days for failing to put a bullet in his head when they were in the field.  :threat:



Not only are you shooting at the wrong target with this one...I will go further to say...

You are on the wrong range, with the wrong weapon, with the wrong ammo, on the wrong day...get the point? 

I suggest OPME DCE 002 - Introduction to Military Law for some reading material for where you spew this stuff out...aka the bathroom.

Courts-martial are NOT handled by COs, nor do we execute people.

Did you just time-warp from the late 1800's or something?


----------



## Petard (6 Aug 2007)

Now we see the name of Sgt Goodland being grabbed at by his defence, and Billard's previous and subsequent performace in his normal trade. Both are twisting what is obvious to anyone in the military, at that particular moment he was expected to act as a soldier should and decided he was smarter than the average bear and didn't have to, and his defence council seems to miss the point of what the judge says about the importance of maintaining discipline. In his statement from a report by Charles Mandel, CanWest News Service, Billard's lawyer says about the judge that "and there's doubt about it, he's made an example of my fellow" 
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=0b662e30-ac75-4fe1-af38-f4f9769d8faa&k=68520

and then the comment about Sgt Goodland (from the canwest report)
_In his defence, McMunagle cited the case of Sgt. D. A. Goodland. In 2003, Goodland fell asleep while on guard duty at Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan and was subsequently given a severe reprimand and a $3,800 fine. “I tried to argue that what that guy did was worse than what my guy did,’’ McMunagle said._

Goodland was a member of a FOO party, 2 people should always be watching the zone, but IIRC there were 2 of them in the hole but only the sig was awake. Dumb, very very dumb, but not under fire.  I have met people from that tour over the years, and know Goodland well, as do I, I would consider him a good soldier and certainly someone I would trust. Consider where he's been lately
http://www3.thestar.com/cgi-bin/star_static.cgi?section=top&page=/Videos/070418_afghan_canadians.html
There was a lot involved behind the circumstances of what occurred with Sgt Goodland in 2002, but none that I can remember that sounds like a parallel could be drawn with Billard's incident.  

The whole point is to make an example of Billards incident of not accepting orders while under fire, and 21 days is not very much considering the effect if the sentence is suspended or over turned, good luck maintaining discipline then.


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Aug 2007)

Petard said:
			
		

> The comment about Sgt Goodland (from the canwest report)
> _In his defence, McMunagle cited the case of Sgt. D. A. Goodland. In 2003, Goodland fell asleep while on guard duty at Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan and was subsequently given a severe reprimand and a $3,800 fine. “I tried to argue that what that guy did was worse than what my guy did,’’ McMunagle said._
> 
> Goodland was a member of a FOO party, 2 people should always be watching the zone, but IIRC there were 2 of them in the hole but only the sig was awake. Dumb, very very dumb, *but not under fire*.
> ...



I agree.

Billard;
Charges and results Charge 1: S. 74(c) NDA, when ordered to carry out an operation of war, *failed to use his utmost exertion to carry the orders into effect*.
Charge 2: S. 129 NDA, neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline.

This is where I become confused (happens a lot, bear with me)... So they're comparing "Soldier A"  who was asleep at a position which was not under attack, with another person awake, etc (don't know all the details, but based on the info at hand) to "Soldier B" who was repeatedly given an order to rise and refused and then encouraged others to refuse the order, all while under fire?
Lets look at the meat and potatoes of this;
- Disobeyed a direct order = Bad
- Disobeyed a direct order under fire = Worse
- Encouraged others to Disobey a Direct order = JUNK

and yet; Charge 1 is dropped?  wha...?  I don't understand.  Where's the accountability?  And they compare that to someone who was asleep at a post (which is still pretty bad)?  It's not about sleep, it's about following orders.  "Get up, the enemy's trying to kill us!" doesn't seem like an unlawful order to me.... and the sound of sirens and weapons fire would make it a pretty clear and concise order in my book.... What's the deal?  Why did they drop the real issue and proceed with the "catch all"?  And why are they trying to compare apples to oranges?

My head hurts....  I need a nap.


----------



## FastEddy (6 Aug 2007)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Well... if politics are in his future, I can think of at least one politician who would harbour him... *cough* Taliban Jack *cough*  >
> 
> 
> Either way, I hope, if he is working, he's doing something which won't affect peoples lives.




You got that right !, like a Driver for a Emergency Service Vehicle, (hell, he'll probably be dead by the time we get, lets get another 20 winks).

Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Aug 2007)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> .......  Why did they drop the real issue and proceed with the "catch all"?  And why are they trying to compare apples to oranges?
> 
> My head hurts....  I need a nap.




Perhaps.....In today's "kinder, gentler Army" the Prosecution was to afraid of the Public image of having sent a miscreant to prison on a "Life Sentence".  Perhaps they didn't feel that they had the support in facts, and will, to make the first charge stick beyond a reason of doubt.


----------



## Haggis (6 Aug 2007)

One point to consider is that if he loses the appeal, the CMAC can *increase* his punishment, too.  That's happened before.  second, there's been no mention of an appeal by the Crown.  Maybe that's in the wings considering the adverse opinion  generated to date.


----------



## Mortar guy (6 Aug 2007)

Did anyone else notice the $2000-$3000 fine paid in monthly installments of $250!? Someone who looks almost exactly like me paid a fine of that size for a much less serious offence and I he didn't get no GD monthly payments!!

This is weak. The MCpl should have had several books thrown at him.

MG


----------



## George Wallace (6 Aug 2007)

Yes!  I too found that odd.  Usually they give you a max of three months to pay....even with my CO's letter stating I would pay back an overpayment of my pay (Pay Office mistake) in three months, a snot nosed young Lt Pay Officer took it all back as one lump sum......hard to pay rent and car payments ......... but perhaps this is a different thing.   :


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Aug 2007)

I never paid my fine in installments, must be nice to disobey orders and get to avoid the big punishments.


----------



## Haggis (6 Aug 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes!  I too found that odd.  Usually they give you a max of three months to pay....even with my CO's letter stating I would pay back an overpayment of my pay (Pay Office mistake) in three months, a snot nosed young Lt Pay Officer took it all back as one lump sum



Same thing happened to me in 1RCR a long time ago.  When I tried to get on the payment plan I was told "it was never yours to begin with so we're taking it all back before you can earn any interest on it".

$7/pay doesn't go very far.


----------



## Petard (6 Aug 2007)

I suppose defence council was still trying to make a parallel with Sgt Goodland's case, and he was fined $3600 repaid over 18 months.
Sleeping at his post? Yes he was, but like I said, supposed to have 2 pairs of eyes on the zone, wether or not you do has a lot to do with what else is going on; he made a judgement call for him and his sig to take turns resting, there was nothing going on but the zone was observed, but not in accordance with the way his officer wanted it to be, bad call on Sgt Goodland's part. But there were a lot of dodgy things that went along with that whole Goodland episode, when I heard some of it I wondered why he was being court martialed in the first place. Seems to me the real problem lay in personality conflicts that needed to be sorted out more than anything else, and Goodland got caught in the middle of it. Some of this came out during his trial. In addition Sgt Goodland had been involved with an earlier incident where he and another NCO went under fire to go help an American unit that was being attacked. Maybe those things together is why he was given leniency of the payment plan, I don't know for sure. I'll have to go digging here and research the background before saying much more, but IMO there was much credit in Sgt Goodlands performance before his incident that gave account of his good soldier qualities; Billard's performance as an image analyst does not in anyway mitigate his poor qualities as a soldier. As for everyone else over reacting, BS, has nothing to do with it, if your commander says get up lets go, you go. Doesn't anyone remember the "not right now joe boy" incident from leadership training?


----------



## a78jumper (6 Aug 2007)

Pathetic behavior. I served as a retired military flat faced civy type in Camp Julien and twice in my tour things went BANG! in the night (Tanx Terry) and I got the hell out of bed, put on my helmet and flak jacket, and made my way to the bunker behind our CP with a motorola, grabbed the phone  and cell phone as well, so our people would have a chain of command(we were not manned 24/7 in the CP, but I was the DO even in bed until 0700 the next am).


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Aug 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps.....In today's "kinder, gentler Army" the Prosecution was to afraid of the Public image of having sent a miscreant to prison on a "Life Sentence".  Perhaps they didn't feel that they had the support in facts, and will, to make the first charge stick beyond a reason of doubt.



I kinda see it the other way; I think it's even more of a detriment to public appearance to allow someone to be let off with a slap on the wrist.  

But, there's also the fact that this is now a dishonour that he'll have to carry forever... no matter what the final outcome of the legal issues.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Aug 2007)

In all seriousness, we have the Code of Service Discipline, The National Defense Act, QR&Os, CFAOs, and numerous other Rules and Regulations to govern us as members of the CF.  All of these have set what Discipline we can expect as Serving Members of the CF.  They are Black and White.  They are there for very explicit reasons.  Any member of the CF, no matter their rank or education, had better be prepared to follow those rules and regulations or face the consequences.  Any NCO or Officer who figures that they are not just and/or 'archaic' is a fool and should not be a member of the CF.   The rules and regulations are constantly being updated.   They are not some "first year university discussion group" and not open for abstract thinking from Barrackroom Lawyers.  They are pretty cut and dried.  

The guilty party was put on Courts Martial and the facts presented.  The verdict was rendered as per all the rules and regulations and to the fullest authority authorized.  The system worked the way it was meant to.  End of story.


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Aug 2007)

Deadwood! He'll never deploy again.

One in, all in. Teamwork!

There is no excuse for his actions at all, none!

Leading by example? NOT!

A discredit to his unit, and the CF.

I hope he was not in theatre long enough to collect any gongs. He is undeserving of them. His career in the CF is as well as dead, this will haunt him forever, and no man would ever seriously listen to him again, they might do what they're told, but the respect for him is long gone.

A nice cushy Comissionaires career is calling, he can sleep on the job there for less than 10 bucks an hour!


Wes


----------



## Bintheredunthat (7 Aug 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Anyone in the CF will agree that all 'soldiers' are trained to a different level, and although we have a soldier first theory, in practicality we have a soldier second.  And that is the problem of the leadership!  If this gut is an int op, as the pecualtion goes, then chances are, he had no bloody clue what the hell was going on.  Just because he is a JNCO doesn't mean jack in this case.  If I may specuate along with everyone else, it may have been the first time he was under fire, so bloody scared, and that is how he dealt with it.  He screwed up, bad call, nobody got hurt.  Perhapes you have forgotten that people are not as perfect as you, and that they can make  a bad call.  But no, lets just grill his performance on this forum because we all know better.  Give me a break!



Was that a bash of the Int Op trade - or just kind of a dumb comment.  So if he's an Int Op, chances are he had no bloody clue what the hell was going on???  What?!  Most Int Ops I know are Ex Combat Arms for one.  Next, INTELLIGENCE.....you don't just get to the rank of MCpl in that trade by showing up and getting a good score in Aircraft recognition.  Come on - give the Service Support guys a break.  Just because a trade MOC (old talk - I know) doesn't start with a Zero, doesn't mean a person has Zero knowledge of how to react in a combat situation.

And I highly doubt that anyone who was bloody scared would deal with a situation by going back to bed and calling the rest of the group flinchers.  Sounds like a little more that just shell shock to me.

 :warstory:  One time in a place far away, we were awoken by a siren from our bunks and were made to take up position in air raid shelters (Sea Cans - pffft) to simulate a possible attack.  Our designated shelter was also shared by a group of people who did not bother to attend said practice scenario.  This group of people (some who were sleeping between shifts) said that because they were shift workers, they were not required to attend these drills.  Wow.  In a way, I always kind of hoped the real thing would happen one day just to see if a poking head would come from a bunk to say, "Hey!  Stop bombing us!!  I'm on shift in a couple of hours and am trying to sleep."

I for one have seen people get by with failure many times, and am glad to see that a rat didn't sneak by this time.

Bin


----------



## medaid (7 Aug 2007)

Ladies and Gents. 


REGARDLESS OF TRADE, this individual behaved in a disgraceful manner. Please all just relax, and take a deep breathe. Yes, the individual behaved in a manner, which brought much discredit on to himself, his unit and his branch, however, lets not open the "my branch is better then your branch" argument. Also, let's not try and drag component into this too. 

His actions were disgraceful. The end. Hopefully we ALL learn from this.


----------



## fbr2o75 (7 Aug 2007)

If this is so black and white as some members of this forum think it is. My question is why was he not conviceted on the more serious charge, but what they used to call in my day "conduct unbecoming"?? I beleive that there is much more to the story than we are privy to.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Aug 2007)

fbr2o75 said:
			
		

> If this is so black and white as some members of this forum think it is. My question is why was he not conviceted on the more serious charge, but what they used to call in my day "conduct unbecoming"?? I beleive that there is much more to the story than we are privy to.



Just to sum up for you; He was charged under Section 129 (what used to be 119) Conduct Prejudice to Good Order and Discipline.

You can read all the facts in these items:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/sentence/2007/2007cm4019.pdf

http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/CMresults_e.asp

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070801/soldier_jail_070801/20070801/

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/241994

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=0b662e30-ac75-4fe1-af38-f4f9769d8faa&k=68520

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol2/ch103_e.asp#103.60


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Aug 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps.....In today's "kinder, gentler Army" the Prosecution was to afraid of the Public image of having sent a miscreant to prison on a "Life Sentence".  Perhaps they didn't feel that they had the support in facts, and will, to make the first charge stick beyond a reason of doubt.



Especially in light of a "let's get it over with quickly" guilty plea... ???

Don't matter the trade, don't matter the job - they fight, you fight.  +100 to those who say he'll be carrying this with him after this.


----------



## fbr2o75 (7 Aug 2007)

Very interesting reads, especially transcripts of the Court Martial.

Thank you


----------



## mudrecceman (7 Aug 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> George, I found the piece I was referring to, above: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/241994
> 
> He is employed as an "image analyst" according to this.  Doesn't sound like a government job to me.



As I read thru the article on the link, I was even MORE PO'd to read this POS had his defence paid for by Joe and Jane Taxpayer!

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!


----------



## xena (7 Aug 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> A nice cushy Comissionaires career is calling, he can sleep on the job there for less than 10 bucks an hour!
> 
> 
> Wes



Hey!  Not ALL Commissionaires are like that!

Granted, I know more than a few that are...  They are the ones I constantly punt back!  Maybe that's why the Commissionaire's Head Office doesn't like me... :


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Aug 2007)

It was a negotiated plea and a negotiated statement of facts.

Any and all speculation re: who  what, why, how, etc is unfounded.

This entire thread is a bunch of women gossipping over the back fence, with apologies to gossipping women.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Aug 2007)

Perhaps the solution isn't incarceration, but rather this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/world/asia/07cnd-thai.html?hp


----------



## BernDawg (7 Aug 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It was a negotiated plea and a negotiated statement of facts.
> 
> Any and all speculation re: who  what, why, how, etc is unfounded.
> 
> This entire thread is a bunch of women gossipping over the back fence, with apologies to gossipping women.



OK then if it was a negotiated plea and sentence  why is he appealing?
Oops my bad.  Misread your post.  Same speculative question though.


----------



## Pte AJB (7 Aug 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perhaps the solution isn't incarceration, but rather this:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/world/asia/07cnd-thai.html?hp



I like it! Though, I'd say this bloke deserves a lot more than an armband, perhaps a neon pink jumpsuit.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (7 Aug 2007)

"I would have considered a more severe sentence than what I am about to impose had it been proposed by the prosecution."

I find this absolutely amazing! are they saying that it is the prosecution that decides the sentence nowadays rather than the judge whose job it is to "sit in judgement?" If so then I think the system is really haywire.

I was present at a court martial for a military doctor over ten years ago who was accused of falsifying a medical document (so a member could get a pension) and he was busted in rank, fined $5K and given a severe reprimand. The prosecutor had recommended dismissal from HMs service but the judge disagreed. Now we're saying that refusing to obey an order in a theatre of war while in the presence of an armed enemy and under fire is less of an offense than trying to get some poor schmo a pension...wow this is a society whose values are way out of whack! My disgust factor is at an all time high! :rage:


----------



## FastEddy (7 Aug 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It was a negotiated plea and a negotiated statement of facts.




That's what everybody is so Pi..ed Off about, or hadn't you noticed.

Well Ladies & Gentlemen I guess we better stop all this gossiping, its back to the wash tubs, since we now have heard the Voice from the Mountain.


----------



## Scott (7 Aug 2007)

Keep it civil or it shall be locked. No need to further derail the thread...


----------



## M Feetham (8 Aug 2007)

I think he got off  too lightly, and I am curious too about how the crown can recommend a sentence and the defence can agree with it,but i thought that in the end the powers of punishment rested with the presiding officer and as long as he followed the guidelines laid out if QR &O's and the punishment was in keeping with the offence he was good to go. I would also really like to know the actual reasons they withdrew the first charge and only went with the 129. I have a question for all those who have deployed, when you find out your unit is going over, do you not do a pre-deployment workups that usually involves all personnel that will be deploying with you unit/regiment/coy/battalion? If this question dances with opsec you can pm me or just disregard. Lastly wrt whose job is better that whose, everyone know that the navy rocks!!! ;D
Feet


----------



## RHFC_piper (8 Aug 2007)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> I have a question for all those who have deployed, when you find out your unit is going over, do you not do a pre-deployment workups that usually involves all personnel that will be deploying with you unit/regiment/coy/battalion?



Yes.... and no...  You do work up from 'small' to 'big', meaning you work with your immediate organization (section) all the way up to the Full battle group... but, usually, this can't account for all situations you might face over there.   Sometimes, some people are put with organizations which they hadn't trained with on work up, but thats when you just adapt.  Training can't predict everything.

BTW, is this question in reference to the issue at hand, or just in general?  Just wondering.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Aug 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> "I would have considered a more severe sentence than what I am about to impose had it been proposed by the prosecution."
> 
> I was present at a court martial for a military doctor over ten years ago who was accused of falsifying a medical document (so a member could get a pension) and he was busted in rank, fined $5K and given a severe reprimand. The prosecutor had recommended dismissal from HMs service but the judge disagreed. Now we're saying that refusing to obey an order in a theatre of war while in the presence of an armed enemy and under fire is less of an offense than trying to get some poor schmo a pension...wow this is a society whose values are way out of whack! My disgust factor is at an all time high! :rage:



IHS:  In the case you cite the judge gave a lesser punishment than the request of the prosecutor.  Judges have limited leeway to deviate from the Crown's recomendations, and are frequently overturned when they override the proesuction and impose greater sanctions.  See, for example, the Court Martial Appeal Court's ruling in R v Castillo, where the judge attempted to jail a miscreant vice the fine submitted jointly.

Unfortunately, if a judge overrides a prosecutor there is no one arguing in court on the judge's behalf on appeal... only the PO'd proescutor...


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (8 Aug 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> IHS:  In the case you cite the judge gave a lesser punishment than the request of the prosecutor.  Judges have limited leeway to deviate from the Crown's recomendations, and are frequently overturned when they override the proesuction and impose greater sanctions.  See, for example, the Court Martial Appeal Court's ruling in R v Castillo, where the judge attempted to jail a miscreant vice the fine submitted jointly.
> 
> Unfortunately, if a judge overrides a prosecutor there is no one arguing in court on the judge's behalf on appeal... only the PO'd proescutor...



OK I follow you but this is a Court Marital not a civil case...no difference?
Here in Halifax last year a disgusted Judge sentenced a woman to jail who beat a guy unconscious with a cement block....the man has never been the same and suffers from head injuries to the extent  that he can no longer work.....his mistake was being at Pizza Corner late at night and asking the young lady to excuse him so he could get by her.
The crown asked for house arrest because she had two kids....the judge told her to prepare herself for jail (get someone to look after her kids) as she was a repeat offender and needed to be taught a lesson. The Crown was furious but the ruling held up on appeal as the Judge was within his parameters for punishment.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Aug 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> being at Pizza Corner late at night



THAT was his first mistake.....the second was the incident


----------



## ggranatstein (8 Aug 2007)

First of all. I agree that the sentence seems very lenient... People have been reduced in rank for less (as someone mentioned) - However, IIRC, sentencing someone to detention is higher on the punishment scale then reduction in rank. However, reduction in rank (to private it would have been) could have been included with the detention.

Second of all, and to play devil's advocate, everyone here is VERY harsh on this guy, perhaps rightfully so... But, do we know the whole story? No. Have all of us been in his shoes? Some yes, some no. 

No excuse for what he apparently did, but he was judged and adjudicated according to our laws. 

On top of his sentence, and much worse, in my opinion, he has to live for the rest of his life with this shame. The shame of letting down his comrades, the CF, and the Canadian public. It's something I would find very hard to live with.

At the end of the day, after my surprise and outrage, I don't feel bad for him, I think he should and could have got a lot worse, but I do pity him. He failed one of the greater tests of life. 

The next time I'm in a similar situation, this example will certainly come to mind... We'd all like to say that we'll NEVER do what he did. But you only know for sure when that time comes...

[end of devil's advocate]


----------



## M Feetham (9 Aug 2007)

Hey piper,
It is a little of both I guess. The guys is not a grunt he is an Int Op I believe, so my question should have been shouldn't he have done some sort of work up training prior to deployment? The general part of the question comes more from my own interest in deploying if I get the chance. I'm not a grunt, i'm a dory plug so the best I can ever hope for is a GD deployment if the chance ever comes up. I have a lot of buddies who have been there though and they have all talked about pre-deployment training. I was just curious about the level of training he would have had. Thanks for the info.
Feet


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Aug 2007)

EVERYONE does work up prior to deploying.


----------



## Blue Trapper (9 Aug 2007)

Petard said:
			
		

> Now we see the name of Sgt Goodland being grabbed at by his defence, and Billard's previous and subsequent performace in his normal trade. Both are twisting what is obvious to anyone in the military, at that particular moment he was expected to act as a soldier should and decided he was smarter than the average bear and didn't have to, and his defence council seems to miss the point of what the judge says about the importance of maintaining discipline. In his statement from a report by Charles Mandel, CanWest News Service, Billard's lawyer says about the judge that "and there's doubt about it, he's made an example of my fellow"
> http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=0b662e30-ac75-4fe1-af38-f4f9769d8faa&k=68520
> 
> and then the comment about Sgt Goodland (from the canwest report)
> ...


I knew Denis Goodland personally and he is a good NCO and a good leader. His Sig was telling me a different story when that FOO party got back from Op Apollo


----------



## Roy Harding (9 Aug 2007)

I was on the same tour as Sgt Goodland.  

In fact I was his Chief Clerk - the two cases are not comparable (as far as I can tell) - no matter what some lawyer (who has his client's best interests at heart, and will grasp at any straw he sees - as he should) says.


----------



## RHFC_piper (9 Aug 2007)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> I was just curious about the level of training he would have had. Thanks for the info.
> Feet



I can only speak for my tour... more specifically, about the trg I got in comparison to the trg my fellow Fusiliers got in other roles (NSE, Force Protection, etc.);

I found the trg with the Battle group to be excellent for the most part.  I learned more in 6 months with C Coy 1 RCR, than in 8 years of reserves... and all the training was geared to the mission and our roles in it.  In comparison; when I talked to the guys from my unit who were on force protection / convoy escort, they said they learned very little, and their training was almost pointless... they felt as though the were just "marking time" waiting for deployment.  And the guys who were on Gate Guard (NSE) from my unit arrived 2 months late to Petawawa, and left for the Stan 3 months before us, with only a month and change of work up.  But, everyone went through the Theater and Mission specific Training (TMST).  
So, as far as I know, everyone who goes over should be adequately trained for their jobs... and I'm sure the short-comings of the last tour will be corrected for the next tour.


BTW; If anyone here has other EXP with the NSE / force protection work up, feel free to correct me. This is just from the guys I talked to from my home unit, and may not reflect everyones experience.


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 Aug 2007)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> I learned more in 6 months with C Coy 1 RCR, than in 8 years of reserves



Sweet Jesus,

Your statement is too bizarre.  I feel the exact same way, as I served with the same battallion, and the same company.  If I see you say the third platoon and the thirds section....I would have to say bizarre again...I drigress.

I agree, the training has been phenomenal, 20 years plus. 

dileas

tess


----------



## RHFC_piper (9 Aug 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Sweet Jesus,
> 
> Your statement is too bizarre.  I feel the exact same way, as I served with the same battallion, and the same company.  If I see you say the third platoon and the thirds section....I would have to say bizarre again...I drigress.
> 
> ...



Close... 8 Platoon (Crazy 8s - which would be the 2nd platoon in the Coy), 3 section


And I stand by my statement.  When I got back to my unit, it was like traveling back in time... They're still practicing cold war tactics and just scratching the surface of modern combat.... and doing nothing but VCPs....


----------



## MikeM (10 Aug 2007)

+1 Piper, same shit, different location.


----------



## harry8422 (10 Aug 2007)

he should be in jail for life


----------



## Franko (10 Aug 2007)

harry8422 said:
			
		

> he should be in jail for life



Life? 20+ years in jail.....that's a bit harsh.

I can see a few months to a year.....but life is going a bit far.

Regards


----------



## mudrecceman (11 Aug 2007)

+1 RBD...that doesn't seem to fit the offense IMHO.


----------

