# Reservists face multiple charges in assault incident



## ModlrMike (29 May 2012)

From here: LINK

Reservists face multiple charges in assault incident 

Officials with the Canadian Forces are investigating after two Winnipeg reservists were arrested and charged on the weekend.

-----------------------------------------

Jim, not your lot I hope.


----------



## bick (29 May 2012)

Unfortunately, they are Jim's troops.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 May 2012)

Just a reminder....

*Under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, "any person charged with an offence has the right .... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal"*

Thou shalt not speculate, or share information that has NOT been released by police or the CF - let's let the system do its job, shall we?

*Milnet.ca Staff*

Meanwhile, a bit of information from the Winnipeg Police Service on this.


----------



## cupper (29 May 2012)

Did somebody forget something when they made their statutory declaration? :facepalm:


----------



## dogger1936 (29 May 2012)

This got dumb as dirt written all over it.


----------



## medicineman (29 May 2012)

Rhodesian said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, they are Jim's troops.



For Jim, or for them when they chat with Jim?

MM


----------



## cupper (30 May 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> This got dumb as dirt written all over it.



Please, let's not cast insults here.

What did dirt ever do to deserve a comment like that? ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper (30 May 2012)

> Investigators believe two men, who are reservists, *brought out weapons * in front of the guests.
> 
> Military officials said the *training weapons * were owned by the Canadian Forces and described them as *pyrotechnics used to simulate live fire*.



Is it me or something doesn't add up here?

_I_ believe there is going to be a deeper investigation....


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 May 2012)

medicineman said:
			
		

> For Jim, or for them when they chat with Jim?
> 
> MM


Yes


----------



## OldSolduer (30 May 2012)

medicineman said:
			
		

> For Jim, or for them when they chat with Jim?
> 
> MM



Let the process do its thing. I am not going to toss these two under the bus. They are entitled by law to due process.


----------



## GAP (30 May 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Let the process do its thing. I am not going to toss these two under the bus. They are entitled by law to due process.



 :nod:


----------



## CountDC (30 May 2012)

a little more info here:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/29/mb-reservists-explosives-found.html

Not looking so bad as the original report.


----------



## Maxadia (30 May 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Let the process do its thing. I am not going to toss these two under the bus. They are entitled by law to due process.



Best of luck to you, Jim.  I'm sure there's a bit of extra work that you're going to have to do for the next little bit concerning this.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 May 2012)

Whew... I was wondering when someone was going to draw fire from Nanaimo. 

Coincidence that our regiments landed together on D-Day? Maybe not....


----------

