# Judge blasts acquitted reservists



## ex_coelis (27 Feb 2009)

'Canada deserves better ... you should be ashamed of yourselves,' men told after jury's assault verdict

Feb 26, 2009 04:30 AM 
Comments on this story  (3) 
Betsy Powell 
Courts Bureau


The Canadian military should take a "sober second look" at the continuing affiliation of three "callous" and "cowardly" reservists after they were acquitted yesterday of aggravated assault, a visibly angry judge said after excusing jurors from his courtroom.

"Your behaviour was nothing short of disgraceful," Superior Court Justice Robert Clark thundered.

After retiring Tuesday night, the jury returned late yesterday afternoon and found Ryan Crossman, 23, Ryan Livesey, 23, and Sean Jones, 21, not guilty.

While noting a jury's verdict reigns supreme, Clark said he had also listened as the men testified during the two-week trial.

And what the judge said he heard were accounts showing the three men had little regard for the sanctity of human life because each admitted leaving Hesam Zeinal-Zedeh, 25, lying unconscious on Richmond St. W. with a fractured skull.

Prosecutor Lorna Spencer alleged that the injury was the result of a "vicious three-on-one fight."

But each denied starting the altercation. They blamed Zeinal-Zedeh for being the aggressor because he was miffed that one of them had asked his then-girlfriend, Nasim Mahani, for directions. They testified Zeinal-Zedeh punched Jones in the back of the head, prompting Livesey to swing at him and knock him to the ground. 

The defence argued he had fractured his skull when he hit his head on the pavement and not from the kicks to the head the prosecution alleged the men had delivered.

"Canada deserves better ... you should be ashamed of yourselves," Clark told the three as they stood silently in front of him.

Clark said defence lawyer Michael Owoh made a wise decision not to introduce photographs of the men taken earlier in the evening because then the jury would have seen them for what they were, "a gang of drunken louts."

The three naval reservists had just completed basic military training at CFB Borden, north of Toronto, the day before they took in a Blue Jays game and headed to the Entertainment District.

During the trial, Zeinal-Zedeh and Mahani testified they were minding their own business sharing a sandwich when they were approached by three men around 11:30 p.m. on July 14, 2006. Both testified the trio warned the couple they were military personnel.

Clark said he was appalled the three had tried "intimidate" the couple by "boasting" about being in the military.

Zeinal-Zedeh, 25, is a renovator from Richmond Hill. He spent five days recovering in hospital, suffered severe memory loss and for months walked with a cane.

After Clark finished blasting the men, they hugged their parents and shook hands with their lawyers before leaving the court.

http://www.thestar.com/article/593269


----------



## chris_log (27 Feb 2009)

Interesting how you never hear these comments from judges when they address drug dealers, child molesters or gang members. 

Edit: Look at the third comment on the article....a reference to the CAR, that was fast. It's like Goodwin's Law, but replace 'Nazi' with 'Airborne' and you've got the CF's own little version of it whenever violent criminal charges are laied against CF members.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (27 Feb 2009)

They closed the comments pretty quickly after the Somalia comment...Brutal.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (27 Feb 2009)

While I agree that is a terrible double standard to see judges speak harshly to CF members and not to other criminals I am still deeply disturbed by the events that took place here.  To make matters worse, one of the members is from my unit.  It will be interesting to see what happens now.


----------



## Cleared Hot (27 Feb 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> Interesting how you never hear these comments from judges when they address drug dealers, child molesters or gang members.



First off Judges do like to give lectures to whoever comes in front of them, you just don't hear about it in the media.  You can't exactly report on every trial that is held.  Second, being trained in the disciplined application of force and having taken the oaths we have, I have no issues what-so-ever with being held to a higher standard.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Feb 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> Interesting how you never hear these comments from judges when they address drug dealers, child molesters or gang members.



I'm sure the judge makes them, they just aren't as "newsworthy".


----------



## ArmyRick (27 Feb 2009)

I agree with one of the comments above. I was sitting in court once (one of my troops was in court) and I listened to the judge jack a few dirt bags up. She came on to one person for having the gall to chew gum in her courtroom and another one she said in round-about way cut the crap and find a lawyer already.

Since these men were members of the forces, thats why they are being scrutinized. The Canadian public has higher expectations of our behaviour than they do of regular joe blow.


----------



## geo (27 Feb 2009)

... gotta remember it hasn't beel all that long ago that some members of the QOR kicked & pummelled to death a homeless person after a night of heavy drinking.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Feb 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> ... gotta remember it hasn't beel all that long ago that some members of the QOR kicked & pummelled to death a homeless person after a night of heavy drinking.



MODERATOR POST- and that subject has been debated and debated over and over again on this site and doesn't 
                            require rehashing.
                             Bruce


----------



## geo (27 Feb 2009)

?  Umm... Bruce - my post had nothing to do with wanting to rehash and beat a dead horse but, given that the trial of Brian Deganis, Jeffery Hall and Mountaz Ibrahim happened less than a year ago, I believe that it is pertinent.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2009)

I don't know what the debate is about. They were found not guilty by a jury of their peers. Personal feelings and bias are moot. It's over, let it go.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 Feb 2009)

What frustrates me the most is that they were just newly graduated and in my eyes aren't even "soldiers" yet though they managed to tarnish the reputation of the whole CF.

I would think a non-renewal of contract would be a great idea for these young gentleman.


----------



## dangerboy (27 Feb 2009)

If they were found not guilty by the courts I think it would be kind of hard not sustifiy  not offering them a new contract when their current one expires.


----------



## geo (27 Feb 2009)

... would also be grounds for a grievance that they would win.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> What frustrates me the most is that they were just newly graduated and in my eyes aren't even "soldiers" yet though they managed to tarnish the reputation of the whole CF.
> 
> I would think a non-renewal of contract would be a great idea for these young gentleman.



Once again, they are being judged after being found not guilty. Twelve people who heard all the evidence presented by both sides don't agree they desreve to be held culpable. No one here has a right to judge based on scant, biased info gleened from the media. As despicable and atrocious as it sounds they have been exonerated. The Charter and the law on their side. Don't like it? Change the system.

Should this turn into any more of a witch hunt, the thread will be locked.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Monsoon (27 Feb 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> ?  Umm... Bruce - my post had nothing to do with wanting to rehash and beat a dead horse but, given that the trial of Brian Deganis, Jeffery Hall and Mountaz Ibrahim happened less than a year ago, I believe that it is pertinent.



It's "media" pertinent ("soldiers! fighting!"), which is why the Toronto Star, which looooves that sort of thing, keeps re-hashing it. But the cases are fundamentally different. The QOR case was completely inexcusable, whereas the guys in this case were fighting back against someone who punched one of them in the back of the head. I'd be interested to hear what the judge said to him, but of course you'll never be able to find it.



			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> If they were found not guilty by the courts I think it would be kind of hard not sustifiy  not offering them a new contract when their current one expires.


As far as I can tell from Outlook, only one of them (the guy who tried to break up the fight) is still in.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2009)

Two things:

(1) Reservists are generally enrolled for an indefinite period, so there usually isn't a contract renewal per se.

(2) That being said, acquittal at trial does not necessarily mean there will be no repercussions.  Any criminal trial results in a review board, regardless of whether the individuals were found guilty.  Depending on the nature of the findings in court and the review authority, individuals may be released from the CF (generally 2a, "_by reason of unsatisfactory civil conduct, or conviction of an offence by a civil court, of a serious nature not related to the performance of his duties but reflecting discredit on the Service;_")


----------



## geo (27 Feb 2009)

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/589825
I have read this write up on the testimony from two of the accused.  It is a story that I can relate to & it could / would have happened to me - should I have nudged the young lady and asked for these directions : "where the hot spots are, where should we be?".. The boyfriend woulda interpreted those to be a really, really sad pick up line... and responded accordingly - as only a jealous boyfriend would.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Feb 2009)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell from Outlook, only one of them (the guy who tried to break up the fight) is still in.




Not everyone has an Outlook account.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Feb 2009)

Cleared Hot said:
			
		

> Second, being trained in the disciplined application of force.....



I'm not sure that three naval reservists, having "just completed basic military training at CFB Borden" should be considered "trained in the disciplined application of force."


I was going to post a pic of "Kung Fu Panda" as a sly reference to the Navy's 'black & whites,' but I restrained myself.   ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Feb 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> What frustrates me the most is that they were just newly graduated and in my eyes aren't even "soldiers" yet though they managed to tarnish the reputation of the whole CF.
> 
> I would think a non-renewal of contract would be a great idea for these young gentleman.



Nor will they be soldiers, not that the public will seperate Naval Reservists from Reg Force soldiers.  Regardless, members of the CF just the same.



> The three naval reservists had just completed basic military training at CFB Borden, north of Toronto, the day before they took in a Blue Jays game and headed to the Entertainment District.



They were from NRTD.


----------



## Monsoon (27 Feb 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not everyone has an Outlook account.



It's increasingly uncommon, especially in NAVRES, for people not to have them. I reckon guys who have been in for a couple of years would have an account. But you could be right.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Nor will they be soldiers, not that the public will separate Naval Reservists from Reg Force soldiers.  Regardless, members of the CF just the same.



I sure hope no one rises to that bait. It smells rancid.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Feb 2009)

What it is, like it or not, is the truth.


----------



## reccecrewman (27 Feb 2009)

We as members of the CF are held to a higher standard and so we should be. We are the defenders of rights and liberties for all Canadians. These men were accorded due process and a jury acquitted them. They were presented with all the evidence and facts and decided the 3 members be free to leave. That should be the end of it, let them soldier on.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Feb 2009)

If you read the article(s), you'd know they aren't part of the army.  I am not sure what sailors say in place of "soldier on", one of our Naval folks can tell us the Navy equivalent I am sure.


----------



## chris_log (27 Feb 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I'm sure the judge makes them, they just aren't as "newsworthy".



Thats what I meant, these lectures aren't reported as much. I just worded it poorly. 



> Nor will they be soldiers, not that the public will seperate Naval Reservists from Reg Force soldiers.  Regardless, members of the CF just the same.



You don't need to be a trained infantryman to know how to hurt someone. The media uses the term 'soldier' for anyone wearing a CF uniform, hence why these three naval reservists were referred to as such. I don't see what their status or what environment they are in has to do with what happened.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 Feb 2009)

I apologize.. I posted half asleep and forgot to take into account that they were found "not guilty".  I had read about this article prior to today and my statements should have actually been made before the verdict was rendered, as I truly felt that if they were guilty they should not have been retained in the CF.

My comments are in err, I apologize again.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Feb 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> You don't need to be a trained infantryman to know how to hurt someone. The media uses the term 'soldier' for anyone wearing a CF uniform, hence why these three naval reservists were referred to as such. I don't see what their status or what environment they are in has to do with what happened.



They also call a M113 a tank, but thats not right either.

The media is calling them soldiers.  They are not.  Simple.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Feb 2009)

Since we've reached the inevitable hair-splitting stage of discussion....

The article uses both terms, "acquitted" and "found not guilty." Now, I'm not a lawyer (real, barrack-room, or TV) but I was under the impression that there were three basic decisions: 
- guilty, 
- not guilty, and 
- acquitted.

I'd always assumed that acquitted meant 'not proven guilty,' for any number of reasons, but mostly pertaining to insufficient evidence, or doubt regarding the truth of witnesses/evidence.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Feb 2009)

I believe its 'guilty' or 'not guilty'..thats all.

...of course, in the real world, "not guilty" does not mean innocent.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2009)

Journeyman:

Scottish Law has three possible outcomes:

Guilty;
Not Guilty; and
Not Proven.

(as an ex-girlfriend who was a lawyer explained when she declined to discuss the time I thought I'd seen her out with another guy)


In Canadian law, we have only Guilty or Not Guilty, though there can be shadings to both.


----------



## Snakedoc (27 Feb 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If you read the article(s), you'd know they aren't part of the army.  I am not sure what sailors say in place of "soldier on", one of our Naval folks can tell us the Navy equivalent I am sure.



I would assume "sail on!"  ;D


----------



## Cleared Hot (27 Feb 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that three naval reservists, having "just completed basic military training at CFB Borden" should be considered "trained in the disciplined application of force."



Maybe not but at 3:1 they knew enough to have the right force ratios!


----------



## ltmaverick25 (27 Feb 2009)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> I would assume "sail on!"  ;D



I started saying sailor on.  Whenever I said soldier on my collegues gave me dirty looks, now they just give me weird looks, a marked improvement  ;D


----------



## geo (27 Feb 2009)

Cleared Hot said:
			
		

> Maybe not but at 3:1 they knew enough to have the right force ratios!


Based on some of the testimony, it was never 3 on 1.
Once the rumble was on, two were trying to fight while the other two were trying to break it up.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Feb 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> > Maybe not but at 3:1 they knew enough to have the right force ratios!
> 
> 
> Based on some of the testimony, it was never 3 on 1.
> Once the rumble was on, two were trying to fight while the other two were trying to break it up.



"Humour is the tendency of particular cognitive experiences to provoke laughter and provide amusement....The majority of people are able to be amused, to laugh or smile at something funny, and thus they are considered to have a 'sense of humour'."
       _~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour_


----------



## geo (27 Feb 2009)

Funny.... people say I don't have much of a sense of humour.... which in a sense IS humorous


----------



## Journeyman (27 Feb 2009)

"People" say that, eh?  Imagine that.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 Feb 2009)

geo, they let you talk to "people" at work??  I thought they had you tucked away in a deep, dark corner?


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Feb 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> While I agree that is a terrible double standard to see judges speak harshly to CF members and not to other criminals.....



I don't reckon the CF are being singled out here. We don't have to cry fowl, the judge is doing his/her job. I've seen trash from all sides of life cop a verbal hiding from a decent judge.

Its the media who give the unnecessary attention to things like this IMHO.

OWDU


----------



## Monsoon (27 Feb 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The article uses both terms, "acquitted" and "found not guilty." Now, I'm not a lawyer (real, barrack-room, or TV) but I was under the impression that there were three basic decisions:
> - guilty,
> - not guilty, and
> - acquitted.



Acquittal refers to any end of a trial that doesn't involve a finding of "guilty". It includes "not guilty", but also dismissal or dropping of the charges for procedural reasons.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Feb 2009)

Thanks for the terminology explanations DAPat & HamilT....

I guess I'll just stick to not getting caught  

To quote those wise philosphers, The Traveling Wilburys:
"Jan had told him many times; it was you, to me, who taught
In Jersey anything's legal as long as you don't get caught

Thus endeth the sermon of _Tweeter and the Monkey Man_  ;D


----------



## 40below (28 Feb 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> Interesting how you never hear these comments from judges when they address drug dealers, child molesters or gang members.



Really? I've been covering criminal courts on and off for 20 years, in two provinces and one territory. Judges rip into people convicted of crimes all the time, and in fact, some old-schoolers make the lecture worse than the sentence. There were a few judges whose sentencings I'd attend specifically because of the surgical precision they would use to take apart the person they were about to send to prison.

And after I don't know how many thousands of sentencing hearings I've sat through, I'll assure you that judges save their best material for people before them who have done something especially heinous and who are not career criminals - accountants who embezzle, fathers who molest their daughters and yes, reservists who act like gang thugs – than for some rounder doing life on the instalment plan. No point giving the latter a lecture, he doesn't care.


----------



## 40below (28 Feb 2009)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Acquittal refers to any end of a trial that doesn't involve a finding of "guilty". It includes "not guilty", but also dismissal or dropping of the charges for procedural reasons.



That's not correct. An acquittal is a finding of not guilty by a judge or a jury, after which point, the person cannot be legally retried for the same offence. 

If charges are dropped or stayed, they can be refiled by the Crown and the defendant can be tried again - the person has not been 'acquitted.' An acquittal is a final decision of a court, not the mere abandonment of process.


----------



## geo (28 Feb 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> geo, they let you talk to "people" at work??  I thought they had you tucked away in a deep, dark corner?



Am allowed to come out once in a while... usually to clean up someone else's mess


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Feb 2009)

40below said:
			
		

> That's not correct. An acquittal is a finding of not guilty by a judge or a jury, after which point, the person cannot be legally retried for the same offence.
> 
> If charges are dropped or stayed, they can be refiled by the Crown and the defendant can be tried again - the person has not been 'acquitted.' An acquittal is a final decision of a court, not the mere abandonment of process.



EXAMPLE:

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/02/28/8565086-sun.html

Murder probe not over yet

Two men, now free to resume lives put on hold after their arrests in the slaying of teenager Abdikiram Abdikiram 11 months ago, could face charges again with new evidence, police and attorneys said yesterday.
But they said once a prosecutor has charges withdrawn, the Crown risks a court battle if it tries to recharge a released person.

"They can do it, but the defence can apply to have it declared an abuse of process," an ex-prosecutor said.
Brendan Crawley, an attorney general's spokesman for Crowns, said the department would not comment on whether any withdrawn charges can be laid again.

Crown attorney Joe Callagham asked a judge Thursday to withdraw charges against two men and a woman accused of harbouring one of them.
"The evidence of the identity of the shooter and the evidence of the degree of participation of the second male are insufficient to pass the test at a preliminary hearing," he told the judge.
"The Crown has no reasonable prospect of conviction on the murder charge."

Owen Anthony Smith and Wendell Damian Cuff, both 25 and each charged with first-degree murder, were later released.
Their lawyers yesterday said the pair would not grant interviews.

Toronto Police spokesman Mark Pugash said investigators are "disappointed" by the decision. They felt they had a case that should go before the court and be judged on the evidence.

"If new information came forward, we'd look at it ... it might be useful," he said yesterday.
But while the file on Abdikiram's fatal shooting last March 14 in Lawrence Heights remains open, "there is no active investigation."

In the wake of complaints from members of the Somalian community that surveillance cameras are useless, Pugash said they have been the key to numerous past convictions, including of killers.
Some Somalian critics said they could not understand why a dramatic surveillance video of the shooter firing repeatedly at a group of young men while walking backwards was insufficient evidence.

But the image, released by police with an appeal for witnesses, shows the shooter in silhouette, plus two people fleeing -- one close to the killer -- the other a block away.
Investigators relied on Abdikiram's five wounded companions to testify, sources said. But Cuff's lawyer, John Struthers, told reporters "they were having difficulty with the witnesses. There is fear and people live by the code, not co-operating with police."

After 20 years in Canada, the victim's father, Ahmed Abdikarim Mohammed, said the family is so upset, it will return to Somalia.

IAN.ROBERTSON@SUNMEDIA.CA


----------



## chris_log (28 Feb 2009)

40below said:
			
		

> Really? I've been covering criminal courts on and off for 20 years, in two provinces and one territory. Judges rip into people convicted of crimes all the time, and in fact, some old-schoolers make the lecture worse than the sentence. There were a few judges whose sentencings I'd attend specifically because of the surgical precision they would use to take apart the person they were about to send to prison.



Read up a couple posts (as opposed to addressing the second post in a four page topic) where I clarified my comments, I was referring to how the media reports these things. I.e. you don't often see "Judge Blasts Drug Dealer Found Not-Guilty of Crime X". I just worded it quite poorly. 

I'm well aware that judges like to get their two-cents in on an offender, whether they are found guilty or not guilty.


----------



## McG (28 Feb 2009)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> If they were found not guilty by the courts I think it would be kind of hard not sustifiy  not offering them a new contract when their current one expires.





			
				geo said:
			
		

> ... would also be grounds for a grievance that they would win.


Just because they were found not guilty by a court, it does not mean that they did not demonstrate conduct completely unacceptable for the CF.  While the judges opinion seems to suggest their conduct might justify a 5F, I don't think there is anyone on this site familiar enough with the case to say for certain one way or another.  

Speculating on the outcome of an administrative review will be about as unhelpful as speculating on the outcome of a criminal trial.  So, lets wrap-up that conversation for now.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Feb 2009)

It is entirely consistent for a verdict to be "not guilty" and for there to be undisputed facts in evidence that document discreditable conduct.  It is surely appropriate for a judge to admonish the accused in any trial for discreditable conduct, provided the line is not crossed into "I think you're guilty, no matter what the jury decided" territory.

I can not see why the CF would not undertake consideration of, or should have to ignore, facts admitted publicly and officially (ie. in court).

I hold reservations as to how much "higher" a standard of conduct young people should be held to during or shortly after attending the foreshortened reserve component equivalent of basic training.  In my view the practical reality is that some time-in is required for the institution and in particular for the command and NCO chains and peers to emphasize the values and standards of the CF.  Until then, the "standard" is that applicable to any adult.


----------



## 40below (28 Feb 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I can not see why the CF would not undertake consideration of, or should have to ignore, facts admitted publicly and officially (ie. in court).



Oh, they will. I live in a military town and do a lot of court cases, which sometimes involve military personnel. In a case involving one, in every single instance, there are only two people writing stuff down: me and someone from the CF taking note of everything that is said. In cases involving soldiers from Fort Drum who got drunk and stupid here, it's an American officer. 

I dunno what the CF does with it, but it's safe to say at the very least it goes up the COC and back down into their pers files forever after a detour into the JAG office.


----------



## Cleared Hot (28 Feb 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I can not see why the CF would not undertake consideration of, or should have to ignore, facts admitted publicly and officially (ie. in court).


Disciplinary vs Admin action.  This is certainly not the end of this for these chaps.


> I hold reservations as to how much "higher" a standard of conduct young people should be held to during or shortly after attending the foreshortened reserve component equivalent of basic training.  In my view the practical reality is that some time-in is required for the institution and in particular for the command and NCO chains and peers to emphasize the values and standards of the CF.  Until then, the "standard" is that applicable to any adult.



If you had said that reservists training was not "equal" enough to allow them to deploy on ops as peers with the reg force every reservist on here would be getting out the flame throwers.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Feb 2009)

DAOD 5019-2 specifies the review process following such an incident.



> As a general principle, the appropriate administrative action is the one that best reflects the degree of incompatibility between the CF member’s conduct and performance deficiency and the CF member’s continued service in the CF.


----------



## geo (28 Feb 2009)

Cleared Hot said:
			
		

> Disciplinary vs Admin action.  This is certainly not the end of this for these chaps.



Based on the published stories, the "victim" took the 1st swing and started the doneybrook... with a shot to the back of the head of the "agressor".

Unless the CF has more info than the civy court, there isn't much the CF can do WRT this incident.


----------



## Cleared Hot (28 Feb 2009)

ex_coelis said:
			
		

> "Your behaviour was nothing short of disgraceful," Superior Court Justice Robert Clark thundered.
> 
> While noting a jury's verdict reigns supreme, Clark said he had also listened as the men testified during the two-week trial.
> 
> ...



They were not innocent, they were found "not guilty" two different beasts.  Just because it apparently couldn't be proven whether the fracture came from the fall or the boots to the head doesn't mean that they didn't do anything.  Judges aren't stupid, this one heard the testimony and knew these three were getting off on a technicality thus the lecture.  The CF's attending officer at the trial will have heard the same evidence and when he files his report there could be lots more that the military decides to do.  Hell, the military doesn't let it's serving members give their opinions in public, how do you think they are going to feel about them publicly announcing that they were military just before they boot-**** some guy in a 3:1 fight and leaving him for dead.

Two thoughts, First, yes people pick fights with troops so when you defend yourself don't announce it to the world that you are CF.  Second, proportionality may be what we call it in LOAC, but reasonable force applies in the civi world as well.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Mar 2009)

>If you had said that reservists training was not "equal" enough to allow them to deploy on ops as peers with the reg force every reservist on here would be getting out the flame throwers. 

I doubt it.  The vast majority of reservists are aware that completion of basic training doesn't qualify one to do much of anything except proceed to the next level of training.


----------



## McG (1 Mar 2009)

and  	:locked:


----------

