# MP Response to fire - Split from First infantry regular force female LCol.



## MedCorps

dapaterson said:
			
		

> She was a VanDoo when she was promoted major in 2007.



She was a Major in R22eR in 2014 when she had a Courts Martial. 
http://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/98921/index.do?r=AAAAAQAIV2VsbHdvb2QB

Interesting case.  Nice to see that the reprimand did not affect her career. 

I have crossed paths with LCol Wellwood on a number of occasions over the past 15 years and she is a good person and will do a great job as a LCol. The RCIC is lucky to have her. 

MC


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I wonder why the MP wasn't charged with assault.


----------



## brihard

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I wonder why the MP wasn't charged with assault.



Lawful use of force to overcome obstruction of the conduct of his duties, maybe?


----------



## Pusser

Brihard said:
			
		

> Lawful use of force to overcome obstruction of the conduct of his duties, maybe?



Tenuous.  The MP was out of line - the Judge even said so.  I would like to think the MP's chain of command dealt with this appropriately.

Reminds me of a similar experience of my own a few years ago when an MP drove through a gate he shouldn't have to conduct an "investigation" he was unqualified to do.  I insisted he leave immediately (which he did) and his chain of command dealt with it.

Now, to get back on track:  Congratulations to the new LCol!


----------



## RCDtpr

Pusser said:
			
		

> Tenuous.  The MP was out of line - the Judge even said so.  I would like to think the MP's chain of command dealt with this appropriately.
> 
> Reminds me of a similar experience of my own a few years ago when an MP drove through a gate he shouldn't have to conduct an "investigation" he was unqualified to do.  I insisted he leave immediately (which he did) and his chain of command dealt with it.
> 
> Now, to get back on track:  Congratulations to the new LCol!



She was equally out of line and frankly I'd expect a bit more maturity from a major.

As for the MP not being qualified to investigate......so you decide what police officers are qualified to investigate what?

Back on track....if she was the most qualified for the promotion then well done to her....nice to see a pioneer in this day and age.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> She was equally out of line and frankly I'd expect a bit more maturity from a major.
> 
> As for the MP not being qualified to investigate......so you decide what police officers are qualified to investigate what?
> 
> Back on track....if she was the most qualified for the promotion then well done to her....nice to see a pioneer in this day and age.



I'm sure he has information to back up his claim.


----------



## RCDtpr

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I'm sure he has information to back up his claim.



I'm sure he doesn't.....while I'm not disputing whether or not the MP was in the right or wrong as I wasn't there....I will dispute his claim the MP was not qualified to investigate.  MPs are the police....police investigate crimes, and nobody save for a higher ranking police officer, tells a police officer what he can or cannot investigate.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Perhaps if he's inclined he can further elaborate


----------



## quadrapiper

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I'm sure he doesn't.....while I'm not disputing whether or not the MP was in the right or wrong as I wasn't there....I will dispute his claim the MP was not qualified to investigate.  MPs are the police....police investigate crimes, and nobody save for a higher ranking police officer, tells a police officer what he can or cannot investigate.


Wild guess is it had something to do with clearances not held by the MP.


----------



## Pusser

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I'm sure he doesn't.....while I'm not disputing whether or not the MP was in the right or wrong as I wasn't there....I will dispute his claim the MP was not qualified to investigate.  MPs are the police....police investigate crimes, and nobody save for a higher ranking police officer, tells a police officer what he can or cannot investigate.



There was no crime.  It was actually a fire.  The MP breezed through the gate without authority and ended up in a dangerous place with an unauthorized radio and unauthorized weapons.  He was a danger to himself and everyone else.  Appropriate technical authorities conducted the investigation.


----------



## RCDtpr

Pusser said:
			
		

> There was no crime.  It was actually a fire.  The MP breezed through the gate without authority and ended up in a dangerous place with an unauthorized radio and unauthorized weapons.  He was a danger to himself and everyone else.  Appropriate technical authorities conducted the investigation.



I retract my statement....that guy sounds like a doorknob.


----------



## George Wallace

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I retract my statement....that guy sounds like a doorknob.



In all honesty, many of us have met such "Cowboys" representing the MP Trade, and it has been those few who have given the whole Trade the rep they have (like the bad apples whom give any Trade or organization a bad name).


----------



## dapaterson

To be fair, I've met doorknobs in every trade and occupation.  And some mornings, reflecting on things I've done, I've seen a pretty glaring one in the mirror...


----------



## ballz

Brihard said:
			
		

> Lawful use of force to overcome obstruction of the conduct of his duties, maybe?



Wouldn't he have to detain her in some fashion to use force? If she wasn't detained she was as free to walk into her own CP as anyone else was. If she wasn't detained, and wasn't resisting arrest, use of force doesn't seem lawful?


----------



## chrisf

I lost all respect for and patience with meatheads (And that's a deliberately chosen insult) when I had one physically push me out of the way... apparently she needed to get a "statement"...

Said meathead wasn't too good with the whole situational awareness thing, because until she shoved me out of the way, I had been doing c-spine support for a soldier who'd been knocked unconscious... at the direction of the paramedics who were checking the soldier over and getting the spine board ready to load her into the ambulance...

Meathead never did get her statement, given the troop was unconscious... and taken to the hospital prior to regaining consciousness...

Given that there was no "crime" committed (Individual had been struck by a mod purlong while loading a truck, three stooges style), and no one called the damned MPs, and given that she had potentially endangered the life of the soldier, I wanted to take this up with her chain of command... my chain of command told me to "drop it".

Five years later, still pissed off about the incident.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Again I think it's not fair to judge them all the same (not trying to suggest anyone is). I know they're are iggnorant Ammo techs and awesome ones. Same goes with MPs. I have one respond to a pn alarm in the compound lights going and didn't even have the where withall to stop at the admin building which you must pass to go into the compound to see where said alarm was occurring. Instead he drove around wasting his time for 10 before coming back to find out where the mag was. 

Had another one pull me over for rolling through a stop sign but had no idea about what paperwork I needed to provide him since his previous posting was ON which is slightly diff then MB and he just arrived recently. Needless to say a call to his boss resulted in me given a warning and him going back to talk with his boss. 

I also had an MP pull me over for burned out head lights. I told him I was going to Wpg to the dealer (none in Brandon) so he let me go without a ticket.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Do not think this is a MP bashing thread. If you can't be civil, don't post. Rule infractions will result in warnings or worse.

---Staff---


----------



## RCDtpr

ballz said:
			
		

> Wouldn't he have to detain her in some fashion to use force? If she wasn't detained she was as free to walk into her own CP as anyone else was. If she wasn't detained, and wasn't resisting arrest, use of force doesn't seem lawful?



No a person does not need to be detained or under arrest for a police officer to use force.  It's quite common for me to be called to the bar/residence/wherever and forcefully remove an unwanted person.  As soon as they are out the door if they settle down they are normally free to go at that point.

From reading that case law the issue doesn't seem to be her walking into the CP; the issue was her telling everyone else not to co-operate.....which is obstruction.  The fact of the matter is regardless how anyone thinks the MP acted (I will agree the comment was stupid) the MP was in the right and this was supported by the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by a judge.


----------



## Journeyman

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> The fact of the matter is regardless how anyone thinks the MP acted (I will agree the comment was stupid) the MP was in the right and this was supported by the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by a judge.



Well that same judge stated [para 8 in transcript]


> ....the *peace officer behaved in a manner that I find to be absolutely unacceptable for a representative of the law*, civilian or military. In a military context, it matters little that those with peace officer powers are not subordinates, except by their rank, as the case may be, of Forces members, who are the subjects of their day-to-day duties. They are still Forces members and are themselves subject to the duties and obligations incumbent on Canadian Forces members with regard to respect towards both subordinates in rank and superior officers.


The judge didn't appear to have any reasonable doubts in that statement.  Defend who you will.


----------



## RCDtpr

Your point being what?  I never said the MP acted professionally......but obviously he did not step outside the boundaries of the law and his decision to recommend charges was correct as was demonstrated by the Major being found guilty.


----------



## Journeyman

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> Your point being what?


You specifically made a point of saying "*regardless how anyone thinks the MP acted*."

I stated only that the judge believed the "peace officer behaved in a manner that I find to be absolutely unacceptable for a representative of the law."

It was posted in response to your statement.  No discussion required.


----------



## RCDtpr

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You specifically made a point of saying "*regardless how anyone thinks the MP acted*."
> 
> I stated only that the judge believed the "peace officer behaved in a manner that I find to be absolutely unacceptable for a representative of the law."
> 
> It was posted in response to your statement.  No discussion required.



So you're only going to use half of the sentence I said and out of context at that?  Ok then...guess discussion is over.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> From reading that case law the issue doesn't seem to be her walking into the CP; the issue was her telling everyone else not to co-operate.....which is obstruction.



But, reading the decision, that didn't _actually_ happen.  Quote directly from the decision:



> The acrimonious exchanges continued between them, and the peace officer pushed Major Wellwood with his hands at chest level to prevent her from telling her subordinates not to assist him in his investigation, *or at least so the police officer thought*.



Reading thru the decision, I noted the following:



> Major Ellwood told the peace officer that this was not a Military Police matter and that the member in question was not at CP8.



So, the MP was aware at that time, from a Senior Officer in the CAF, that the member he was ordered to locate and protect [_two members of the military police, posted to the Beauce area for the duration of the exercise in a traditional role of police and peace officer, being ordered to find the individual and take appropriate measures to ensure his safety_] wasn't at the location he was at.

So, why the need for this then?



> the peace officer pushed Major Wellwood with his hands at chest level



According to the facts laid out in the decision, the answer is this.



> to prevent her from telling her subordinates not to assist him in his investigation, or at least so the police officer thought.



I find that pretty weak.  The MP knew the person he was looking for was not inside the CP.  I am no law professor, but I think there should have been 2 people charged out of this one, the 2nd one being the MP who crossed the line IMO.  I know, I'm no judge but I wouldn't have batted an eye if I found out the MP was charged with STRIKING OR OFFERING VIOLENCE TO A SUPERIOR OFFICER.  Reading 'to notes', there is no exclusion for MP NCMs WRT this charge, as they are military police, and also subj to the CSD.

From the decision:



> In a military context, it matters little that those with peace officer powers are not subordinates, except by their rank, as the case may be, of Forces members, who are the subjects of their day-to-day duties. They are still Forces members and are themselves subject to the duties and obligations incumbent on Canadian Forces members with regard to respect towards both subordinates in rank and superior officers.





> However, this cannot be used as an excuse by Major Wellwood, an experienced officer, for her behaviour towards the peace officer. There can be no doubt that she reacted hastily and disproportionately. She showed a lack of judgment and self-control. I agree with the prosecution that her role required her to take a co-operative approach rather than to contribute to a confrontation that did nothing to resolve the situation. She had a duty to act with respect and professionalism. That is not what she did. As a superior officer and commanding officer, she too had a duty to respect the peace officers who were carrying out their duties and to not act in a way that undermined the legitimate respect that the persons mandated by law to protect persons and property in our civilian and military society deserve.



This could have as easily read:



> However, this cannot be used as an excuse by Major Wellwood the MP , an experienced officer a CF NCM and peace officer, for her his behaviour towards the peace officer SNr Officer. There can be no doubt that she reacted hastily and disproportionately. She showed a lack of judgment and self-control. I agree with the prosecution defence that her his role required her him to take a co-operative approach rather than to contribute to a confrontation that did nothing to resolve the situation. She He had a duty to act with respect and professionalism. That is not what she he did. As a superior peace officer and commanding officer Non-commissioned member, she too had a duty to respect the peace superior officers who were carrying out their duties and to not act in a way that undermined the legitimate respect that the persons  CAF members mandated by law the NDA to protect persons and property in our civilian and military society deserve under their lawful command.



I think both the MP and the Maj would have reacted differently if either or both of them would have taken 3 seconds to step back and breathe deep.  I don't see anything the Major did as warranting the MP to push her;  he'd already been informed the person he was looking for wasn't at CP8.

I think the "I thought she was going to order her subordinates to not help me so I pushed her" explanation was about as lame and desperate as it appears.  An 'after the fact, damn I screwed up there' grab at something to justify pushing a female Senior Officer to the ground in front of witnesses.  Pretty lame IMO.   :

An opinion from the cheap seats.  :2c:


----------



## Pusser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> To be fair, I've met doorknobs in every trade and occupation.  And some mornings, reflecting on things I've done, I've seen a pretty glaring one in the mirror...



Agreed. I can say the same thing.


----------



## Pusser

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think the "I thought she was going to order her subordinates to not help me so I pushed her" explanation was about as lame and desperate as it appears.  An 'after the fact, damn I screwed up there' grab at something to justify pushing a* female  *  Senior Officer to the ground in front of witnesses.  Pretty lame IMO.   :



I think her gender is irrelevant.  Pushing anyone under those circumstances is inappropriate.  I wonder though whether he would have been inclined to get physical with a 6'2", 250lb male senior officer?

I'm also not convinced that this MP necessarily got off scot-free.  I would like to think that were some repercussions.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think, in Canadian society, males pushing females is more scrutinized than male-male, or even female/male.  Ever watch a guy smoke another guy outside a bar in a fight?  How does the crowd react?

Also, there is a 'male dominance' aspect that could be taken into consideration.  As noted, there are far fewer female Snr Officers in the service than there are male.  How do we account for that?  

And, of course, your own example of the male 6'2' 250lb Major.


----------



## RCDtpr

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But, reading the decision, that didn't _actually_ happen.  Quote directly from the decision:
> 
> Reading thru the decision, I noted the following:
> 
> So, the MP was aware at that time, from a Senior Officer in the CAF, that the member he was ordered to locate and protect [_two members of the military police, posted to the Beauce area for the duration of the exercise in a traditional role of police and peace officer, being ordered to find the individual and take appropriate measures to ensure his safety_] wasn't at the location he was at.
> 
> So, why the need for this then?
> 
> According to the facts laid out in the decision, the answer is this.
> 
> I find that pretty weak.  The MP knew the person he was looking for was not inside the CP.  I am no law professor, but I think there should have been 2 people charged out of this one, the 2nd one being the MP who crossed the line IMO.  I know, I'm no judge but I wouldn't have batted an eye if I found out the MP was charged with STRIKING OR OFFERING VIOLENCE TO A SUPERIOR OFFICER.  Reading 'to notes', there is no exclusion for MP NCMs WRT this charge, as they are military police, and also subj to the CSD.
> 
> From the decision:
> 
> This could have as easily read:
> 
> I think both the MP and the Maj would have reacted differently if either or both of them would have taken 3 seconds to step back and breathe deep.  I don't see anything the Major did as warranting the MP to push her;  he'd already been informed the person he was looking for wasn't at CP8.
> 
> I think the "I thought she was going to order her subordinates to not help me so I pushed her" explanation was about as lame and desperate as it appears.  An 'after the fact, damn I screwed up there' grab at something to justify pushing a female Senior Officer to the ground in front of witnesses.  Pretty lame IMO.   :
> 
> An opinion from the cheap seats.  :2c:



Here's my issue with this...the MP was tasked to investigate (stemming from I I believe a 911 call).....at this point it is not up to a "senior officer in the CAF" who does or does not have investigational jurisdiction...that MP had a legal obligation to investigate.  For the major to walk out and basically say "yeah I got this now leave" wouldn't fly with the police in any other circumstance....why is she special?  An infantry officer has no more knowledge of the law than anyone else....being a major doesn't make her qualified to investigate crimes etc.

You also have to ask yourself....would she have reacted this way if it was a civilian police officer who attended?  While obviously nobody can say for certain....id be willing to bet the answer is no.  This strikes me as a case of a major who decided that by virtue of her epaulette, she could tell the police what to do while he was acting in the capacity of a police officer because he's a corporal......well guess what.....the judge ruled that isn't the case.

Being a police officer is a hard job....it certainly wouldn't be any easier when supposed professional senior officers behave deplorably and think they can obstruct the police whenever they want because they are a higher rank.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> Here's my issue with this...the MP was tasked to investigate (stemming from I I believe a 911 call).....at this point it is not up to a "senior officer in the CAF" who does or does not has investigational jurisdiction...that MP had a legal obligation to investigate.  For the major to walk out and basically say "yeah I got this now leave" wouldn't fly with the police in any other circumstance....why is she special?  An infantry officer has no more knowledge of the law than anyone else....being a major doesn't make her qualified to investigate crimes etc.
> 
> You also have to ask yourself....would she have reacted this way if it was a civilian police officer who attended?  While obviously nobody can say for certain....id be willing to bet the answer is no.  This strikes me as a case of a major who decided that by virtue of her epaulette, she could tell the police what to do while he was acting in the capacity of a police officer because he's a corporal......well guess that.....the judge ruled that isn't the case.
> 
> Being a police officer is a hard job....it certainly wouldn't be any easier when supposed professional senior officers behave deplorably and think they can obstruct the police whenever they want because they are a higher rank.



Isn't this why there used to be RPs and MPs embedded in the unit?


----------



## Strike

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> Here's my issue with this...the MP was tasked to investigate (stemming from I I believe a 911 call).....at this point it is not up to a "senior officer in the CAF" who does or does not have investigational jurisdiction...that MP had a legal obligation to investigate.  For the major to walk out and basically say "yeah I got this now leave" wouldn't fly with the police in any other circumstance....why is she special?  An infantry officer has no more knowledge of the law than anyone else....being a major doesn't make her qualified to investigate crimes etc.
> 
> You also have to ask yourself....would she have reacted this way if it was a civilian police officer who attended?  While obviously nobody can say for certain....id be willing to bet the answer is no.  This strikes me as a case of a major who decided that by virtue of her epaulette, she could tell the police what to do while he was acting in the capacity of a police officer because he's a corporal......well guess what.....the judge ruled that isn't the case.
> 
> Being a police officer is a hard job....it certainly wouldn't be any easier when supposed professional senior officers behave deplorably and think they can obstruct the police whenever they want because they are a higher rank.



Your error in your methodology is that you're treating this like a situation that a non-military cop would handle with a civilian.  But, because we're talking MPs and CAF members you always have to keep that into consideration.

The MP's first error was in entering the restricted area without following proper protocols warranted by the Ex - Reach the check point, allow the guards to radio in, then enter.  Instead they used lights and entered without any explanation.  As members of the CAF they are also still required to play by CAF rules.

The second error is in failing to recognize that the Maj was responsible for CP8 and everyone and everything inside of it.  As a member of the CAF, AND without REASONABLE belief that the member in question was in CP8, the MP had no reason to enter the area if the OC told him that the person they were searching for was not in there.  Heck, she's the OC AND told him the member didn't even belong to them so the guy they were searching for had no reason to be there to begin with.

Again, being an MP for the CAF, this is where that finnickiness comes into play where he needs to weigh his duties as a peace officer with his duties as a CAF member and he failed to do so.  The Sr officer was in a position of authority for the CP, there was no alcohol involved and she was carrying out her duties.  For all we know, the crowd in CP8 could have been in a very crucial part of the Ex and to have the MPs enter could have disrupted the whole thing.  Add to that that the MPs on the Ex already had a history of acting somewhat recklessly without regard to the Ex and the people participating, as stated in the decision.

There was no investigation warranted.  He was tasked to find a certain member.  Period.  No investigating required until AFTER the member is found anyway.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I tend to agree with Strike on that one: This was NOT a police investigation, it was a search for a soldier in order to protect him from himself. Once the senior person present informed him that the person he sought was not in that building, he had no business trying to enter it. The obvious next question for him would have been to inquire with the major whether she knew where the person he sought could be or how he could find said person. That's it.

BTW, is it just me or is this whole thing cockeyed? Here, I am going to ask police officers (civilian ones) to chime in.

It seems to me that if a civilian 9-1-1 centre got a call from someone claiming that their spouse  expressed suicidal thoughts, they would not dispatch a squad car, but an ambulance/paramedics (sure, if the person is not at the residence, the police may send a car to get the "missing" person's details and issue a BOLO, but that would not  be a police "investigation"). It would be treated for what it is: a medical matter (we just had Bell Canada Let's talk day on mental illnesses). When did it become a police matter to protect people with mental illness from themselves?

Here, would  not the proper course of action for the M.P. getting a 9-1-1 call have been to inform base hospital and then contact the member's unit to advise them of the situation , then up to the unit to locate its member and get him/her to the medical services?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Strike said:
			
		

> The MP's first error was in entering the restricted area without following proper protocols warranted by the Ex - Reach the check point, allow the guards to radio in, then enter.  Instead they used lights and entered without any explanation.  As members of the CAF they are also still required to play by CAF rules.



Great post Strike.  I don't envy the position MPs are in. I've heard some stories from an MP friend of officers being pulled over for traffic violations and demanding the MP salute them before speaking to them and making a big scene about it. Or SNCOs and WOs playing the do you know who I am game? (telling someone you're the RSM of a unit when the MP pulling you over is good friends with that RSM is a bad career move apparently).

It does sound like the MP in this story made some bad decisions. It's 100% not posturing but I can think of some officers at my work who, if an MP shoved them, would have any troop within arms reach piling on the MP.  It's absolutely wrong of the troops to do and they'd suffer for it big time but it is what it is.

I think where MPs run into issues is when they expect attitude from their calls so in turn show up with an "I'm the ****ing police, you got that, buds?" attitude.



_edited to fix formatting_


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> When did it become a police matter to protect people with mental illness from themselves?



Since modern policing began.........and even more prevalent nowadays.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Since modern policing began.........and even more prevalent nowadays.



Some jurisdictions have officers dedicated to respond to mental health calls. They are partnered with a MH social worker.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Additional question here:

Let's say that our friendly MP at issue here actually found "his man" and that the said man told him to "F*** O**, I am not going anywhere with you - I'm on an ex.". What then? Could the MP arrest him? On what charge? Having expressed suicidal thoughts to your wife? That is not  criminal or disciplinary infraction. What is the MP to do then?

I am sorry, but to me this whole thing, not just the specific events that led to the charge against the major, are a big military police coc*-up based on the organization's (the MP) self-importance delusion.

And Jarnhamar, that delusion I mention covers exactly the type of situation you describe: A MP making a traffic stop not saluting an officer. The MP is still a NCM in the CAF and proper forms of respect and address have not been set aside just because the MP is making a traffic stop, regardless of the fact that the "branch" has elected to buy themselves fancy uniforms to try and look like "real" cops instead of members of the military. If they hadn't done that and remained in proper military uniforms, they may be reminded daily when they dress that they are part of the military and that there are chains of command out there they would do well to keep apprised of ongoings (in fact, they may remember that not so long ago, pre-charter topsy-turvy turning of service discipline on its head, they actually answered and worked for the chain of command)/RANT OFF.


----------



## mariomike

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It seems to me that if a civilian 9-1-1 centre got a call from someone claiming that their spouse  expressed suicidal thoughts, <snip>



I don't know how they do it out of town. 

How should 911 handle potential suicide victims?
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2009/09/16/how_should_911_handle_potential_suicide_victims.html

"I go to my door and it's two ambulance guys with a gurney ... asking, `Can we come in?'"


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

All parties involved made mistakes.  IMO, the whole thing sounds completely ridiculous.  

The Colonel should have just let the MP wander around aimlessly conducting his "investigation" while the MP should have remembered he is in the military.  

Everyone involved acted like children.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Additional question here:
> 
> Let's say that our friendly MP at issue here actually found "his man" and that the said man told him to "F*** O**, I am not going anywhere with you - I'm on an ex.". What then? Could the MP arrest him? On what charge? Having expressed suicidal thoughts to your wife? That is not  criminal or disciplinary infraction. What is the MP to do then?



Can't help you there.......they are long arrested before I come into contact with them.


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've heard some stories from an MP friend of officers being pulled over for traffic violations and demanding the MP salute them before speaking to them and making a big scene about it.



About a year ago, I was pulled over while driving my own car on base (there was a lookout on a similar vehicle from an incident in town).  Once the MP completed his customary tactical approach to the car and recognized me as an officer, he saluted.  We concluded our business, he saluted again and we parted ways.  Knowing a little bit about law enforcement TTPs I would not have expected or demanded a salute. 

Officers and NCMs should not confuse thier rank with the authority of the MP.  However, MP should realize that they can get farther with honey than with salt.  Saluting an offcer, when the situation permits, costs the MP nothing and can pave the way for coooperation.

My personal rule of thumb, whether it's dealing with police/MP, game wardens, Border Services Officers, is "don't p*ss off anyone who can ruin your day".


----------



## Strike

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Additional question here:
> 
> Let's say that our friendly MP at issue here actually found "his man" and that the said man told him to "F*** O**, I am not going anywhere with you - I'm on an ex.". What then? Could the MP arrest him? On what charge? Having expressed suicidal thoughts to your wife? That is not  criminal or disciplinary infraction. What is the MP to do then?



Fair point, especially if said spouse made up the whole occurance, which has been known to happen.  In which case it then really does become a CoC issue so that they can support the member with whatever personal issues the spouse is dealing with.  The MP's responsibility then I would think would be to stand back and let his own CoC handle the false call accordingly maybe?

(I like threads like this, becase the branch really is stuck in two worlds and it's interesting to see how the overlap could be dealt with.  Thanks to the admins for not pending to the pressure of an individual who though we were bashing on the trade)


----------



## RCDtpr

Strike said:
			
		

> Your error in your methodology is that you're treating this like a situation that a non-military cop would handle with a civilian.  But, because we're talking MPs and CAF members you always have to keep that into consideration.
> 
> The MP's first error was in entering the restricted area without following proper protocols warranted by the Ex - Reach the check point, allow the guards to radio in, then enter.  Instead they used lights and entered without any explanation.  As members of the CAF they are also still required to play by CAF rules.
> 
> The second error is in failing to recognize that the Maj was responsible for CP8 and everyone and everything inside of it.  As a member of the CAF, AND without REASONABLE belief that the member in question was in CP8, the MP had no reason to enter the area if the OC told him that the person they were searching for was not in there.  Heck, she's the OC AND told him the member didn't even belong to them so the guy they were searching for had no reason to be there to begin with.
> 
> Again, being an MP for the CAF, this is where that finnickiness comes into play where he needs to weigh his duties as a peace officer with his duties as a CAF member and he failed to do so.  The Sr officer was in a position of authority for the CP, there was no alcohol involved and she was carrying out her duties.  For all we know, the crowd in CP8 could have been in a very crucial part of the Ex and to have the MPs enter could have disrupted the whole thing.  Add to that that the MPs on the Ex already had a history of acting somewhat recklessly without regard to the Ex and the people participating, as stated in the decision.
> 
> There was no investigation warranted.  He was tasked to find a certain member.  Period.  No investigating required until AFTER the member is found anyway.



With all due respect, this post shows you don't have a clue what you're talking about.  Firstly, the judge was very clear when he stated the MP was acting as a peace officer, therefore regardless of her rank, she was dealing with a peace officer conducting his duties.

Secondly, just because she is an officer, does not make her word anymore credible than anyone else's.  For all the MP knew, the guy was missing because his upper leadership was bullying him and he took off, she knew this and did not want police involved.  (I am in no way saying this is the case, however I have been to many calls where things at face value are not as they seem; to not investigate all avenues is negligence by a police officer.). 

Let's change the scenario a bit.....police officer is called to Microsoft to investigate something and middle management comes down and says "you can't investigate now leave."  Every single one of you would laugh and say that manager was an idiot.  This is no different, a major is middle management in the company that is the military and she (regardless of what her ego may think) cannot tell a police officer how he will conduct his investigation or where he will go.  This was an ex, not an operation, and it carries no weight to any police officer if something is disrupted for 10 minutes.

The fact that people here are defending her actions and saying she had the right to tell him to leave etc is mind boggling.  This attitude seems much too prevalent in the upper ranks of the CAF and it's sickening at the lack of professionalism.  I have watched first hand a LCol attempt to push past a Cpl MP by using his rank.  When a civvie cop went over and used these words exactly "get lost or goto jail you're choice" the LCol replied he was sorry and left the area.  To treat MPs (who are the police whether you like it or not) like garbage because they are a lower rank is deplorable.

You guys can argue here all you want, there is no argument.  She obstructed him and had no right to act how she did.  How do I know?  She was found guilty of obstruction.  End of story.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And Jarnhamar, that delusion I mention covers exactly the type of situation you describe: A MP making a traffic stop not saluting an officer. The MP is still a NCM in the CAF and proper forms of respect and address have not been set aside just because the MP is making a traffic stop



I understand what you're saying.  In the context my friend was talking about it sounded like the officers were trying to prove a point or assert some kind of authority over the MP, not just proper protocol.  

I recall him saying that MPs could actually refuse to salute if doing so would "put them in physical danger" in a traffic stop, such as stepping back from the car coming to attention and saluting (I guess putting them closer to traffic).  It seems like a case of **** you salute me! *** you I don't have to. 



Question about MP authority. Unit policy is that the soldiers on the duty desk will not give out members contact information over the phone. MP calls and says I'm an MP I want this guys phone number and/or address.  Does the soldier have to provide it?  (For argument sake say the phone's identical says the call is coming from the local MP detachment).


----------



## RCDtpr

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I tend to agree with Strike on that one: This was NOT a police investigation, it was a search for a soldier in order to protect him from himself. Once the senior person present informed him that the person he sought was not in that building, he had no business trying to enter it. The obvious next question for him would have been to inquire with the major whether she knew where the person he sought could be or how he could find said person. That's it.
> 
> BTW, is it just me or is this whole thing cockeyed? Here, I am going to ask police officers (civilian ones) to chime in.
> 
> It seems to me that if a civilian 9-1-1 centre got a call from someone claiming that their spouse  expressed suicidal thoughts, they would not dispatch a squad car, but an ambulance/paramedics (sure, if the person is not at the residence, the police may send a car to get the "missing" person's details and issue a BOLO, but that would not  be a police "investigation"). It would be treated for what it is: a medical matter (we just had Bell Canada Let's talk day on mental illnesses). When did it become a police matter to protect people with mental illness from themselves?
> 
> Here, would  not the proper course of action for the M.P. getting a 9-1-1 call have been to inform base hospital and then contact the member's unit to advise them of the situation , then up to the unit to locate its member and get him/her to the medical services?



This may shock you....people lie to the police.  I don't take anyone's word for anything on a call until I can establish you're credible.  And no, being an officer in the CAF means jack in my eyes as I've seen more than a few act with less than stellar integrity.

As for you question so to what to do if he's found and says I'm not going....not an option.  If you're suicidal the police will apprehend you under the provinces mental health act and you're going to hospital whether you like it or not.


----------



## Jarnhamar

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> Let's change the scenario a bit.....police officer is called to Microsoft to investigate something and middle management comes down and says "you can't investigate now leave."



Can the middle management demand to see a warrant to be on the premises and if if the officer doesn't have one tell them to leave?


----------



## RCDtpr

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can the middle management demand to see a warrant to be on the premises and if if the officer doesn't have one tell them to leave?



That will depend on how th call originated...in this case as a 911, no warrants are necessary as preservation of life is priority.

But it's moot....a good leader would say "I care about my guy how can I help or how can we work together" not to tell him to get lost.


----------



## ModlrMike

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> ...being an officer in the CAF means jack..



That, right there is the problem. If one can't balance the nuances of being an NCM and an MP at the same time, perhaps other work would be more suitable.


----------



## RCDtpr

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> That, right there is the problem. If one can't balance the nuances of being an NCM and an MP at the same time, perhaps other work would be more suitable.



I'm referring to my personal opinion as a police officer and not as an NCM.

As stated, if I'm on a call and someone tells me "I'm an officer in the CAF and this is what happened" I put no more weight into their statement than if they were homeless.

Frankly, it's attitudes like that of the Maj and people on this board that have probably caused the MPs to have the attitudes they do.  "I'm a higher rank than you and can obstruct you all I want because of that" is a terrible attitude and obviously would put ANY police officer on the defensive.

You wouldn't talk to the OPP or whoever that way' why not offer the same courtesy to the MPs?


----------



## Jarnhamar

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> That will depend on how th call originated...in this case as a 911, no warrants are necessary as preservation of life is priority.
> 
> But it's moot....a good leader would say "how can I help" not to tell him to get lost.



A leader ensuring an officer is following proper protocol, policy and the rules isn't bad leadership. If anything they may be looking out for the best interests of their employees depending on what the call is regarding.



			
				ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> This may shock you....people lie to the police.


But the police can lie to people too, can't they?


----------



## RCDtpr

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> A leader ensuring an officer is following proper protocol, policy and the rules isn't bad leadership. If anything they may be looking out for the best interests of their employees depending on what the call is regarding.



If the call originated from 911, that's not their decision to decide what is in the best interests of their employee anymore and by doing so would be obstruction......hence why she was convicted.


----------



## ModlrMike

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I'm referring to my personal opinion as a police officer and not as an NCM.
> 
> As stated, if I'm on a call and someone tells me "I'm an officer in the CAF and this is what happened" I put no more weight into their statement than if they were homeless.
> 
> Frankly, it's attitudes like that of the Maj and people on this board that have probably caused the MPs to have the attitudes they do.  "I'm a higher rank than you and can obstruct you all I want because of that" is a terrible attitude and obviously would put ANY police officer on the defensive.
> 
> You wouldn't talk to the OPP or whoever that way' why not offer the same courtesy to the MPs?



So there's no harm in MP QL3 students wearing shirts that say "Don't confuse your rank with my authority" then? That doesn't set the groundwork for problems?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I'm referring to my personal opinion as a police officer and not as an NCM.
> 
> As stated, if I'm on a call and someone tells me "I'm an officer in the CAF and this is what happened" I put no more weight into their statement than if they were homeless.
> 
> Frankly, it's attitudes like that of the Maj and people on this board that have probably caused the MPs to have the attitudes they do.  "I'm a higher rank than you and can obstruct you all I want because of that" is a terrible attitude and obviously would put ANY police officer on the defensive.
> 
> You wouldn't talk to the OPP or whoever that way' why not offer the same courtesy to the MPs?



This is a mistake on your part.  An Officer has a commission and that means something.  So yes, you should take an Officers word at higher face value than a homeless person.  

That being said, if said officer is found to be lying, acting unethically, etc.... Then the full brunt of the law should be brought down on them.

Having worked with LCol Wellwood, I can't imagine what would set off such a mild mannered woman?


----------



## Jarnhamar

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So there's no harm in MP QL3 students wearing shirts that say "Don't confuse your rank with my authority" then? That doesn't set the groundwork for problems?



I've actually seen that shirt.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This is a mistake on your part.  An Officer has a commission and that means something.  So yes, you should take an Officers word at higher face value than a homeless person.



Statements like you're responding to do seem to highlight an entrenched us vs them mentality that seems planted in Borden.


----------



## Loachman

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> And no, being an officer in the CAF means jack in my eyes



So you place yourself above our Sovereign, then, whose words on my Commissioning Scroll, and LCol Wellwood's, includes:

"*WE reposing especial Trust and Confidence in your Loyalty, Courage and Integrity* do by these Presents Constitute and Appoint you to be an Officer in our Canadian Armed Forces. You are therefore carefully and diligently to discharge your Duty as such in the Rank of .............. or in such other Rank as We may from time to time hereafter be pleased to promote or appoint you to, and you are in such manner and on such occasions as may be prescribed by us to exercise and well discipline both the Inferior Officers and Non-Commissioned Members serving under you and use your best endeavour to keep them in good Order and Discipline, and We do hereby Command them to Obey you as their Superior Officer, and you to observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall receive from Us, or any other your Superior Officer according to Law, in pursuance of the Trust hereby Reposed in you."

Your relationship to members of the CF is NOT the same as that between civilian police and ordinary citizens.



			
				ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I've seen more than a few act with less than stellar integrity.



To paraphrase: no, being an *MP* in the CAF means jack in my eyes as I've seen more than a few act with less than stellar integrity.

That goes both ways. If you want respect, earn it, including by your own words in here. I, for one, am not inclined to help those who are rude, arrogant, unprofessional, or overstep the bounds of common decency and common sense, regardless of their occupation. That previous paragraph aside, however, I have found the vast majority of MPs to be professional and respectful, and I freely return that respect. Balance has to be found, and most seem to be able to find it.

And I appreciate that, as MPs _*are part of the CF*_ and have additional authority while still carrying rank that may often be less than that of the person(s) with whom they are dealing, it is not always easy.

Both parties to this incident were at fault, but the MPs actions seem far from defensible to me and I believe that he should also have been charged.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This is a mistake on your part.  An Officer has a commission and that means something.  So yes, you should take an Officers word at higher face value than a homeless person.



BULLSHIT!!!  How freakin' arrogant can one be??  It means you finished some schooling and courses......lots of career criminal assholes have finished school and courses. 



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> That being said, if said officer is found to be lying, acting unethically, etc.... Then the full brunt of the law should be brought down on them.



"Should"........never to be confused with "will be".   We both know better........


----------



## Loachman

To paraphrase once more: Frankly, it's attitudes like that of the MPs on this board that have probably caused everybody else to have the attitudes they do.  "I'm an MP and I can go anywhere I want, anytime I want, and do anything I want, to anyone I want because of that" is a terrible attitude and obviously would put ANYBODY on the defensive.[/quote]

99% of you could be perfectly professional, and that may be the actual percentage, but it only takes one thud to put everybody off.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quoting myself from the CP thread.  [yes we are watching this close] :camo:

No one is allowed to 'abuse' any kind of authority XXXXXX.   'Authority' swings both ways and there may be overlap......

It's morons with ego's that cause that overlap to be a problem.


----------



## McG

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> It's morons with ego's that cause that overlap to be a problem.


And (just as in discussions of politics) those individuals are always on both sides of the fence.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

MCG said:
			
		

> And (just as in discussions of politics) those individuals are always on both sides of the fence.


Which I should have added......thanks, MCG.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> BULLSHIT!!!  How freakin' arrogant can one be??  It means you finished some schooling and courses......lots of career criminal assholes have finished school and courses.
> 
> "Should"........never to be confused with "will be".   We both know better........



Sorry Bruce but you're wrong this time. 

If the commission means nothing, why even bother having Officers?  Why bother having Warrants either?  

That piece of paper means something, whether you like it or not is another argument entirely.

PS 

Nobody is stopping anyone here from attending the school and receiving the training.  It's a free country, want the rank and privilege that comes with it?  Then put the time and effort in and you'll have it.


----------



## Staff Weenie

Quick question - where is the balance between enabling an MP to conduct an investigation without interference versus the need to protect OPSEC? For example, if an MP asked/demanded entrance into an area where Secret (or higher) material, crypto, comms eqpt, etc was currently in use, can the OC on the scene refuse for OPSEC purposes?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Sorry Bruce but you're wrong this time.
> If the commission means nothing, why even bother having Officers?  Why bother having Warrants either?



Every corporation needs management.......



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> That piece of paper means something, whether you like it or not is another argument entirely.
> PS
> Nobody is stopping anyone here from attending the school and receiving the training.  It's a free country, want the rank and privilege that comes with it?  Then put the time and effort in and you'll have it.



And that'll make me ethically superior then I am now???   Arrogance abounds...


----------



## RCDtpr

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This is a mistake on your part.  An Officer has a commission and that means something.  So yes, you should take an Officers word at higher face value than a homeless person.
> 
> That being said, if said officer is found to be lying, acting unethically, etc.... Then the full brunt of the law should be brought down on them.
> 
> Having worked with LCol Wellwood, I can't imagine what would set off such a mild mannered woman?



So let's break down your statement here.

I respond to a domestic disturbance, husband holds a commission wife is an NCM.  Wife says x happened, husband says y happened....because he holds a commission; immediately I'm to take his word as absolute and tell the wife she must be lying due to a lack of that piece of paper?

Or let's try this......I respond to a disturbance at a bar.  Staff say one of either 2Lt bloggins or civilian joe blow broke something.....bloggins says joe blow did it and joe blow says bloggins did it.....I should, according to you, immediately place joe blow under arrest because he doesn't hold a commission scroll?

Frankly your statement is one of the dumbest and most arrogant things I've ever heard in my life, and if that's your true attitude, frankly I feel bad for you lessers...I mean subordinates.

Loachman....I am in no way disagreeing that the MP appeared to have acted like an idiot and have not once defended his personal actions.  What I have defended is that he did, whether anyone wants to accept it or not, act within the parameters of the law.

Frankly, I don't know why he would act the way he did.  I have found in my time on the job that it takes an equal amount of effort to be polite to someone as it does to be rude and I have found the former to be infinitely more effective.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Every corporation needs management.......
> 
> And that'll make me ethically superior then I am now???   Arrogance abounds...



Has nothing to do with ethical superiority.  In the context of the military, the word of an officer who holds a commission does mean something.

The same way a police officer's word means something because of THE BADGE HE HOLDS.

Doesn't necessarily mean they are gods but given their position, they should carry themselves a certain way and should be given the benefit of the doubt.  Not all Military Officers are good people, heck NOT ALL CORRECTIONS OFFICERS are good people.  There, put that in your pipe and smoke it  :-*

As for the case, I've already stated that both parties made mistakes.  Major Wellwood owned up to her mistakes and was punished for it.  

There is a lot more to this story then what you can take out of a record of decisions from a Court Martial.  I know a certain Detachment Commander (Captain) had a 1 on 1 conversation with 1 Star General over this incident, at the position of attention with beret on.  Heads rolled on both sides of the fence.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Doesn't necessarily mean they are gods but given their position, they should carry themselves a certain way and should be given the benefit of the doubt.  Not all Military Officers are good people, heck NOT ALL CORRECTIONS OFFICERS are good people.  There, put that in your pipe and smoke it  :-*



Way too many CO's aren't good people actually..........it's one of the many hazards of this job.
Spending every working minute with non-ethical scumbags makes it way too easy to desensitize to the real world.

"Meh, not a bad guy, he only does break and enters."


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> So let's break down your statement here.
> 
> I respond to a domestic disturbance, husband holds a commission wife is an NCM.  Wife says x happened, husband says y happened....because he holds a commission; immediately I'm to take his word as absolute and tell the wife she must be lying due to a lack of that piece of paper?
> 
> Or let's try this......I respond to a disturbance at a bar.  Staff say one of either 2Lt bloggins or civilian joe blow broke something.....bloggins says joe blow did it and joe blow says bloggins did it.....I should, according to you, immediately place joe blow under arrest because he doesn't hold a commission scroll?
> 
> Frankly your statement is one of the dumbest and most arrogant things I've ever heard in my life, and if that's your true attitude, frankly I feel bad for you lessers...I mean subordinates.
> 
> Loachman....I am in no way disagreeing that the MP appeared to have acted like an idiot and have not once defended his personal actions.  What I have defended is that he did, whether anyone wants to accept it'll not, act within the parameters of the law.
> 
> Frankly, I don't know why he would act the way he did.  I have found in my time on the job that it takes an equal amount of effort to be polite to someone as it does to be rude and I have found the former to be infinitely more effective.



Substitute Officer for Policeman and tell me what you would do?

I feel you're taking things out of context.  In the context of the military, an officer should be given a certain degree of latitude and his word does mean something.


----------



## RCDtpr

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Substitute Officer for Policeman and tell me what you would do?
> 
> I feel you're taking things out of context.  In the context of the military, an officer should be given a certain degree of latitude and his word does mean something.



I'll tell you what I've done when I've responded to other police officers involved in various things.....it's called my job, which is to investigate......but thank you for questioning my integrity.  

Ok let's change it up a bit then...an MP responds to a pmq...one spouse officer, the other NCM.  Now we are talking about two service members on a base....officers word is taken by virtue of his commission?

This MP attempted to do his job and investigate and she felt, by virtue of her rank, that she was going to tell him he couldn't.....seems she was wrong.

He was wrong in the sense that it appears he acted like a complete glue bag.....but...still within the parameters of the law


----------



## Loachman

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> but thank you for questioning my integrity.



As you are doing with ours.

You're welcome.

A domestic disturbance is something completely different, and immediate action may well be required.

The MPs shot and wounded an Arty Officer in Petawawa at the beginning of the eighties, around or just before I was posted there. They were called to his PMQ, and he, at some point, attacked them with his sword. Presuming that the event happened as described to me by several people, this was entirely reasonable and justified.

Although it would have been _*nice*_ if they'd saluted him before shooting him...



			
				ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> He was wrong in the sense that it appears he acted like a complete glue bag.....but...still within the parameters of the law



Physically pushing a superior Officer falls within the parameters of what law, again? Is that a standard "investigative" technique?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I'll tell you what I've done when I've responded to other police officers involved in various things.....it's called my job, which is to investigate......but thank you for questioning my integrity.
> 
> Ok let's change it up a bit then...an MP responds to a pmq...one spouse officer, the other NCM.  Now we are talking about two service members on a base....officers word is taken by virtue of his commission?
> 
> This MP attempted to do his job and investigate and she felt, by virtue of her rank, that she was going to tell him he couldn't.....seems she was wrong.
> 
> He was wrong in the sense that it appears he acted like a complete glue bag.....but...still within the parameters of the law



I am in violent agreement with you on the part in yellow.

They both should have been charged though.  Last time I looked, at least in the Infantry, we charged people under 129 for acting like gluebags.


----------



## Loachman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> They both should have been charged though.



Yes.


----------



## Jarnhamar

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> ..but thank you for questioning my integrity.


But why should we assume you have integrity?  Weren't you just saying you basically don't trust what anyone says?
Do you not see the irony with your two statements?


----------



## RCDtpr

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> But why should we assume you have integrity?  Weren't you just saying you basically don't trust what anyone says?
> Do you not see the irony with your two statements?



When you're right you're right


----------



## RCDtpr

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I am in violent agreement with you on the part in yellow.
> 
> They both should have been charged though.  Last time I looked, at least in the Infantry, we charged people under 129 for acting like gluebags.



I don't disagree...if I was the MPs CoC I'd have some pretty serious questions and if his answers weren't absolutely satisfactory.....enjoy your summary trial.

But you still haven't answered as to whether you feel the commissioned husbands word should be automatically taken over the NCM wife.....


----------



## Strike

First of all, this is the special place that MPs hold and that you seem to be complete,y ignoring, which, given your status as an MP, I find troubling.

Responding to a call that requires you to attend to a full on exercise should not and cannot be treated the same as if you were to respond to a domestic situation outside of the work environment.

That is specifically why we have MPs and we don't have RCMP, OPP or whoever handling all of our business all the time.  Even using your Microsoft example is wrong, because you don't work for Microsoft.

Although MPs must remain independent of the CoC when responding to a call during a duty situation, their being military means that they have a responsibility to understand the nuances of the duty day, the requirements to still follow proper protocol (proper check in at the gate, calling an officer sir or ma'am and respecting the authority of an OC who may well be responsible for secure equipment, etc.), and do their best to ensure that all of that is taken into consideration while carrying out their duties to the best of their abilities.

Then, when responding to domestic issues, it is outside of the duty AOR, so to speak, and much more in line with traditional policing.

Of course, I certainly haven't pulled this all from out of my ass.  This is knowledge that was passed on to me by an MP who I happened to live down the hall from for a good 9 months while in Ottawa who happens to be a Colonel.  It was a pretty good discussion over a few beers when the branch was working to gain some independence while still remaining relevant militarily.


----------



## RCDtpr

Strike said:
			
		

> First of all, this is the special place that MPs hold and that you seem to be complete,y ignoring, which, given your status as an MP, I find troubling.
> 
> Responding to a call that requires you to attend to a full on exercise should not and cannot be treated the same as if you were to respond to a domestic situation outside of the work environment.
> 
> That is specifically why we have MPs and we don't have RCMP, OPP or whoever handling all of our business all the time.  Even using your Microsoft example is wrong, because you don't work for Microsoft.
> 
> Although MPs must remain independent of the CoC when responding to a call during a duty situation, their being military means that they have a responsibility to understand the nuances of the duty day, the requirements to still follow proper protocol (proper check in at the gate, calling an officer sir or ma'am and respecting the authority of an OC who may well be responsible for secure equipment, etc.), and do their best to ensure that all of that is taken into consideration while carrying out their duties to the best of their abilities.
> 
> Then, when responding to domestic issues, it is outside of the duty AOR, so to speak, and much more in line with traditional policing.
> 
> Of course, I certainly haven't pulled this all from out of my ***.  This is knowledge that was passed on to me by an MP who I happened to live down the hall from for a good 9 months while in Ottawa who happens to be a Colonel.  It was a pretty good discussion over a few beers when the branch was working to gain some independence while still remaining relevant militarily.



When did I ever say I was an MP?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Strike said:
			
		

> First of all, this is the special place that MPs hold and that you seem to be complete,y ignoring, which, given your status as an MP, I find troubling.
> 
> Responding to a call that requires you to attend to a full on exercise should not and cannot be treated the same as if you were to respond to a domestic situation outside of the work environment.
> 
> That is specifically why we have MPs and we don't have RCMP, OPP or whoever handling all of our business all the time.  Even using your Microsoft example is wrong, because you don't work for Microsoft.
> 
> Although MPs must remain independent of the CoC when responding to a call during a duty situation, their being military means that they have a responsibility to understand the nuances of the duty day, the requirements to still follow proper protocol (proper check in at the gate, calling an officer sir or ma'am and respecting the authority of an OC who may well be responsible for secure equipment, etc.), and do their best to ensure that all of that is taken into consideration while carrying out their duties to the best of their abilities.
> 
> Then, when responding to domestic issues, it is outside of the duty AOR, so to speak, and much more in line with traditional policing.
> 
> Of course, I certainly haven't pulled this all from out of my ***.  This is knowledge that was passed on to me by an MP who I happened to live down the hall from for a good 9 months while in Ottawa who happens to be a Colonel.  It was a pretty good discussion over a few beers when the branch was working to gain some independence while still remaining relevant militarily.



The answer to your question is located in the above statement.


----------



## Strike

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> When did I ever say I was an MP?



Sorry.  Just assuming since you seem to be commenting pretty hard on the ins and outs of MPs and their duties as if you were one yourself.

If not, forgive the error.  It's the impression you gave.


----------



## RCDtpr

Strike said:
			
		

> Sorry.  Just assuming since you seem to be commenting pretty hard on the ins and outs of MPs and their duties as if you were one yourself.
> 
> If not, forgive the error.  It's the impression you gave.



I'm a police officer....coincidentally enough so are MPs


----------



## PuckChaser

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> But you still haven't answered as to whether you feel the commissioned husbands word should be automatically taken over the NCM wife.....



Trying to relate (then) Maj. Wellwood's case to a domestic dispute is a dubious link, and just shows you're stretching to try to prove your point (which is out to lunch). Same as the situation with a 2Lt in a bar. In both of those situations, the officer is the SUBJECT of the investigation, and although should be treated with respect (as with any person in question) due to their rank, they should have statements taken just like anyone else, and compare the evidence.

How hard was it for this MP to say "Good evening Ma'am. I apologize for intruding through the CP, however we received a 911 call about a possible threat of self harm for member X. Is the member here? Can you take me to where the member is so I can ensure he is safe and file my report to close the call?"

There is no reason for a MP to ever treat anyone with disrespect. They will only allege a service offense, a judge or courts martial panel decides guilt, so don't treat the accused like crap. A holier than thou attitude taints any respect CAF members have, and its a vicious cycle creating the large chip on the shoulder for some MPs.


----------



## MARS

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> When did I ever say I was an MP?



You didnt, but are you seriously going be a fucking dolt and play at semantics?

the most cursory review of your posting history - indeed, on the FIRST page of your posting history, indeed the LAST post you made before this thread, you wrote:

"I'll throw my two cents in as I can speak from experience of having served in the combat arms and am now currently in policing."

So, either you are a civvie cop and former combat arms, which means your opinion on MP issues is about as (un)informed and (ir)relevant as any other poster.

Alternately, you are a MP, in which case fuck off with your games about whether you are or not.  What are you, 12 years old?


----------



## Jarnhamar

So you knew people presumed you were an MP and you ran with it. Or like Mars said your playing semantics and fucking around.   There's that integrity again =) 

Question for you.  Can you as a police officer lie to me in order to try and get information from me?


----------



## Strike

MARS said:
			
		

> You didnt, but are you seriously going be a fucking dolt and play at semantics?
> 
> the most cursory review of your posting history - indeed, on the FIRST page of your posting history, indeed the LAST post you made before this thread, you wrote:
> 
> "I'll throw my two cents in as I can speak from experience of having served in the combat arms and am now currently in policing."
> 
> So, either you are a civvie cop and former combat arms, which means your opinion on MP issues is about as (un)informed and (ir)relevant as any other poster.
> 
> Alternately, you are a MP, in which case fuck off with your games about whether you are or not.  What are you, 12 years old?



That was very eloquently put.  Lol

And yes, ref being a non-military cop, please see my comment as to why we don't have them doing the policing of our affairs, except as they may pertain to after-duty situations (I know some civ police forces are contracted to handle CAF housing areas for example.)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Actually I knew he was a cop from his posts.........as I certainly don't know him.
He stated that very early in this thread.

EDIT:  and in lots of his previous posts.


----------



## RCDtpr

MARS said:
			
		

> You didnt, but are you seriously going be a ******* dolt and play at semantics?
> 
> the most cursory review of your posting history - indeed, on the FIRST page of your posting history, indeed the LAST post you made before this thread, you wrote:
> 
> "I'll throw my two cents in as I can speak from experience of having served in the combat arms and am now currently in policing."
> 
> So, either you are a civvie cop and former combat arms, which means your opinion on MP issues is about as (un)informed and (ir)relevant as any other poster.
> 
> Alternately, you are a MP, in which case frig off with your games about whether you are or not.  What are you, 12 years old?



You can infer whatever you choose....I never expected anyone to infer anything and if they did...oh well.

It makes ZERO difference whether one is an MP or a civvie cop.....obstruction is a Criminal Code of Canada offence and has no bearing on the military whatsoever.

Puckchaser....please show me where I stated the MP shouldn't have been polite? 

Also, I'm not sure how you took me comparing a domestic to LCol Wellwoods situation?  My response was in regards to Mr Bogarts post saying a commissioned officers' word is worth more than someone without....which sounds a lot like that holier than thou attitude you claim the MPs have.

Not sure why Mars is getting all pissy here....an (in my opinion) interesting discussion is quickly getting jumped all over for what reason?  Because some guy assumed I was an MP due to the fact I explained how policing works and me pointing out I've never said what service I worked for has offended you so greatly?  Sorry Mars but my opinion on a police officer acting in the capacity of a peace officer is more than likely more informed than yours...unless you're in fact an MP....


----------



## Loachman

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> When did I ever say I was an MP?



Reasonably well implied on 08 September 2012:



			
				ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> When I was going through the process before I got an OT to MP



But if you're not, feel free to state as much.


----------



## RCDtpr

Loachman said:
			
		

> Reasonably well implied on 08 September 2012:
> 
> But if you're not, feel free to state as much.



I don't need to state anything....I OT'd to MP......whether I still am one or not isn't really relevant is it?


----------



## Jarnhamar

You're an MP (who makes an effort not to come out and say it)  who CTd after tour who has a posting history about pointIng out how "you're a police officer" ,  "MPs * are * police officers"  and MPs don't get the respect they deserve.   It looks like MPs being treated like real cops (which I'm not saying they're not)  seems to be a reoccurring theme and touchy subject. 

Case solved.


----------



## RCDtpr

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You're an MP (who makes an effort not to come out and say it)  who CTd after tour who has a posting history about pointIng out how "you're a police officer" ,  "MPs * are * police officers"  and MPs don't get the respect they deserve.   It looks like MPs being treated like real cops (which I'm not saying they're not)  seems to be a reoccurring theme and touchy subject.
> 
> Case solved.



I'm an MP...based on what? I was one at one point in time?  Interesting

It's not really touchy...it just boggles my mind how supposedly "professional" higher ranking soldiers seem to feel that MPs are second class citizens.  Look at you guys...I engage in a normal discussion...don't agree with some people on the boards so some members pull up posting history to what?  Discredit me somehow by stating I at one point was an MP? 

Well this thread has devolved into nonsense so I'll recuse myself while you more informed people debate how your rank should make you above the law.

Take care.


----------



## PuckChaser

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> Well this thread has devolved into nonsense so I'll recuse myself while you more informed people debate how your rank should make you above the law.



Not a single person implied that, Judge Dredd.

Take care.


----------



## Loachman

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I don't need to state anything....I OT'd to MP......whether I still am one or not isn't really relevant is it?



As you wish, but relevancy is in the eye of the beholder and whether you are an MP or not would appear to be relevant to a large number of people on one side of the discussion. Many, naturally, would take lack of denial as a tacit admission.


----------



## Strike

I'm going to quote myself here because it's whack feel is a pretty important statement regarding the difference between MPs and other police forces that you seem to want to ignore and, given that you USED to be an MP, surprises me that you haven't acknowledged and what the issue is in this case that the MP in question seemed to have missed.



> Although MPs must remain independent of the CoC when responding to a call during a duty situation, their being military means that they have a responsibility to understand the nuances of the duty day, the requirements to still follow proper protocol (proper check in at the gate, calling an officer sir or ma'am and respecting the authority of an OC who may well be responsible for secure equipment, etc.), and do their best to ensure that all of that is taken into consideration while carrying out their duties to the best of their abilities.
> 
> Then, when responding to domestic issues, it is outside of the duty AOR, so to speak, and much more in line with traditional policing.



And again, that is why we HAVE MPs and why we DON'T have civilian police forces patrolling our duty areas.

Now, if you're telling me that an MP is well within their rights to handle every matter and subject the same, be it a duty or non-duty, then what is even the point of having MPs?

Riddle me that.

(Oh, and I'm a girl)


----------



## Jarnhamar

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I'm an MP...based on what? I was one at one point in time?  Interesting


Your post history. What you say, what you don't say and what you kind of say. Ultimately it doesn't matter.



> It's not really touchy...it just boggles my mind how supposedly "professional" higher ranking soldiers seem to feel that MPs are second class citizens.  Look at you guys...I engage in a normal discussion...don't agree with some people on the boards so some members pull up posting history to what?  Discredit me somehow by stating I at one point was an MP?


Few points with that. Some soldiers DO treat MPs like shit and those guys are idiots. MPs are doing an important job. In my opinion MPs and NCOs are fairly similar. 

You may think you were just engaging in normal conversation but you were really coming across like you had a huge chip on your shoulder. And honestly that's the biggest issue with MPs and I'd say the reason for a lot of negativity towards them.

As fr your history when you play around with semantics and seem shady people are going to look deeper, you're smart enough to realize that. No one is trying to discredit you.



> how your rank should make you above the law.


No need to overplay what people said.


----------



## chrisf

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> You wouldn't talk to the OPP or whoever that way' why not offer the same courtesy to the MPs?



A few years ago, we had a pair of local police show up in the middle of a range shoot with an arrest warrant (I don't remember specifically for what)

They checked in with the sentry at the gate and waited quite patiently until the oic let them in.

I guess they had the good sense to realize there was a gate and a sentry for a reason, and it was ultimately in their best interest, as the individual was moved to the butts away from any weapons and ammunition, without being alerted he was about to be collected.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I'm an MP...based on what? I was one at one point in time?  Interesting
> 
> It's not really touchy...it just boggles my mind how supposedly "professional" higher ranking soldiers seem to feel that MPs are second class citizens.  Look at you guys...I engage in a normal discussion...don't agree with some people on the boards so some members pull up posting history to what?  Discredit me somehow by stating I at one point was an MP?
> 
> Well this thread has devolved into nonsense so I'll recuse myself while you more informed people debate how your rank should make you above the law.
> 
> Take care.



My friend,

I never implied that holding a commission makes you above the law.  Nobody here has said that, in fact, I've said the exact opposite.  

In a military context a commission is important though, especially as far as the NDA, QR&Os and Code of Service a Discipline are concerned.  If a Commissioned Officer is witness to an offence committed by someone of a lower rank than him, he can ask that an investigation be launched and that individual brought up on charges.  In fact it's his duty to do so.  

I've seen cases where the Officer was the only witness and it was his/her word against someone elses.  The accused was found guilty in a summary trial because the Officer's statement carried greater weight, because they held a commission.  

This isn't civvy street and military law along with customs and practices are different for a reason.  In your example of a domestic situation, I would agree that the Male Officer's word is worth no more than the Woman's.

In the context of Major Wellwood's case, it is worth something because it is a military affair.  Now Major Wellwood didn't handle the situation well and she was rightfully corrected for it, which respects the spirit of the laws set fourth in the Code of Service Discipline.  

It's wrong though that the MP in question was not brought up on charges under Sect 129.  The purpose of the Code of Service Discipline is to correct poor behaviour and it's a chain of command duty to apply it whenever necessary.  I find the unwillingness of this particular MP's chain of command to apply the Code of Service Discipline disturbing.  

I don't have anything against MPs but I have a bone to pick with people that don't take ownership of their mistakes.  That goes for anyone wearing a uniform, not just MPs.  As you say, the law is the law.


----------



## quadrapiper

Had an idle glance at the Criminal Code regarding obstruction - http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-129.html. Who, exactly, defines the "duty" of an MP, when dealing with things not to do with a Service or criminal offence, and is that "duty" in those circumstances subject to direction from outside the MP's own chain of command?


----------



## Loachman

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> you more informed people debate how your rank should make you above the law.



I do not recall any instances of that happening.

I read back through quite a few of your previous posts both to see if you had ever clearly stated or indicated that you were an MP and to get a better general impression of you.

We tend to agree on the same things, actually, and I am not surprised.

But commissions and ranks and appointments DO mean something in a military organization, and much more so than positions in any civilian company. I have been on a base where MPs did not feel that they had to salute an Officer at any time. There is nowhere in the NDA, or anywhere else that I know, that gives them any such exemption. I am rather easygoing in general, and do not take offence if somebody misses a salute as rank is not always blatantly obvious on some uniforms, however consistent misses by members of a certain community is rather irksome. I greet all those whom I pass in the opposite direction with a polite "good morning/afternoon/evening" etcetera, MPs included, and a salute where warranted. Why can't they offer the same courtesy?

As for the then-Major Wellwood case, would an MP have considered it acceptable to brush off and physically push the CDS in his HQ? The VCDS? Commander Canadian Army? A Brigade Commander? How about a Battalion Commanding Officer? Where is the line drawn? Between Battalion Commanding Officer and Company Commander? These people have been granted the power of Command, and very significant responsibility. Claiming that they have no more status than that of a homeless person (who still has the right to be treated decently and not wantonly shoved around) while they are conducting their duty and exercising their authority is ludicrous.

And no, ExRCDcpl, nobody is trying to "discredit" you for being, either in the past or in the present, an MP. There was sufficient implication via your posts, intentional or otherwise, that I decided to have a closer look. People are naturally curious. I do not hold MPness against you or any other MP, and I have a reasonable appreciation for the difficulties of your job as either military or civilian police. I have had many friends over many decades who are or were police, and I have been a Pilot on two police helicopter trials.

I will not slag anybody because of their occupation, nor would I attempt to defend a fellow Pilot who was a knob or did wrong - or myself, for that matter, as we can be very self-critical.


----------



## RCDtpr

Loachman said:
			
		

> I do not recall any instances of that happening.
> 
> I read back through quite a few of your previous posts both to see if you had ever clearly stated or indicated that you were an MP and to get a better general impression of you.
> 
> We tend to agree on the same things, actually, and I am not surprised.
> 
> But commissions and ranks and appointments DO mean something in a military organization, and much more so than positions in any civilian company. I have been on a base where MPs did not feel that they had to salute an Officer at any time. There is nowhere in the NDA, or anywhere else that I know, that gives them any such exemption. I am rather easygoing in general, and do not take offence if somebody misses a salute as rank is not always blatantly obvious on some uniforms, however consistent misses by members of a certain community is rather irksome. I greet all those whom I pass in the opposite direction with a polite "good morning/afternoon/evening" etcetera, MPs included, and a salute where warranted. Why can't they offer the same courtesy?
> 
> As for the then-Major Wellwood case, would an MP have considered it acceptable to brush off and physically push the CDS in his HQ? The VCDS? Commander Canadian Army? A Brigade Commander? How about a Battalion Commanding Officer? Where is the line drawn? Between Battalion Commanding Officer and Company Commander? These people have been granted the power of Command, and very significant responsibility. Claiming that they have no more status than that of a homeless person (who still has the right to be treated decently and not wantonly shoved around) while they are conducting their duty and exercising their authority is ludicrous.
> 
> And no, ExRCDcpl, nobody is trying to "discredit" you for being, either in the past or in the present, an MP. There was sufficient implication via your posts, intentional or otherwise, that I decided to have a closer look. People are naturally curious. I do not hold MPness against you or any other MP, and I have a reasonable appreciation for the difficulties of your job as either military or civilian police. I have had many friends over many decades who are or were police, and I have been a Pilot on two police helicopter trials.
> 
> I will not slag anybody because of their occupation, nor would I attempt to defend a fellow Pilot who was a knob or did wrong - or myself, for that matter, as we can be very self-critical.



Although I said I was done with this thread....Loachman I found this post to be quite civil and articulate therefore I felt it warranted a response.

I think my comment that a commission meant nothing to me was taken out of context.  I was referring to the fact that when on a call, if an individual tells me they are a commissioned officer, it holds no more weight than anyone else and warrants them no special treatment when I'm acting in a policing capacity.  Be they suspect or witness I don't believe or disbelieve them anymore than I would anyone else.  Officers are human and like any other organization, be it the MP, civilian police, armoured corps, or Microsoft.....some members are better than others.

What I do have an issue with was the comment that a commissioned officers word should be taken more than a homeless person.  I never compared the two; merely stated if I was dealing with them, they would both be treated the same.  For someone to say they (officers) are essentially better than a homeless person was uncalled for.....we all put our pants on the same way in the morning.

With regards to your comment relating to salutes, paying respect to rank etc. I 100% agree.  When I was at CFMPA I would shake my head at the (usually direct entries) quoting such bullshit as "I don't need to salute due to weapon retention."  No matter how much I'd try and explain that Lt so and so walking by you in uniform isn't going to try and disarm you so don't be an idiot and salute....but it would fall on deaf ears.  Hopefully those guys have grown up a bit as attitudes like that reflect poorly on the entire trade.  And don't even get me started on that "don't confuse your rank with my authority" nonsense.

For me personally, I didn't really change anything when dealing with anyone of a higher rank as I treat everyone respectfully regardless of social status, rank etc. simply because treating people respectfully makes my job easier to do.

You asked what if it was the CDS etc?  I ask you, what if it was a civvie cop who showed up?  Would she have reacted differently?  I am not, nor have I at any point attempted to defend the behaviour of the MP.  As I stated, he acted like a glue bag and was a poor reflection of his detachment and the trade as a whole.

I'm not really sure why Mars flew off the handle like that or why Puckchaser felt the need to start name calling with the judge dredd comment when as far as I was concerned this was simply a discussion.  Oh well.

Anyways, I enjoyed this discussion and found it quite interesting to see other points of view on this.


----------



## ballz

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> No a person does not need to be detained or under arrest for a police officer to use force.  It's quite common for me to be called to the bar/residence/wherever and forcefully remove an unwanted person.  As soon as they are out the door if they settle down they are normally free to go at that point.



Ummm, I'm not so sure on that. You are not called to be a bouncer. You are called because someone is trespassing (breaking the law), not to "forcefully remove an unwanted person" (although that may be the result). If you get there and believe that said person is trespassing, then you have the authority to detain/arrest them and remove them from the premise, and charge them with trespassing. If they resist, then you have the authority to use force in that case. Not before.

I understand that it is easier to tell the person to leave and not charge them, and we have a whole other thread talking about police officers using their discretion, but if you are applying force against someone before informing them they are being detained/arrested for "x" reason then you are already part of the problem and not the solution.



			
				ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> From reading that case law the issue doesn't seem to be her walking into the CP; the issue was her telling everyone else not to co-operate.....which is obstruction.



Well I think enough people have commented on this point and how she never actually did that. Although I wish the judge said what exactly the Maj did that constituted "obstruction." Since she didn't tell anyone not to cooperate, I'm not sure what exactly it is she did that constituted obstruction. Being irritable isn't a crime.



			
				ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> Here's my issue with this...the MP was tasked to investigate (stemming from I I believe a 911 call).....at this point it is not up to a "senior officer in the CAF" who does or does not have investigational jurisdiction...that MP had a legal obligation to investigate.  For the major to walk out and basically say "yeah I got this now leave" wouldn't fly with the police in any other circumstance....why is she special?  An infantry officer has no more knowledge of the law than anyone else....being a major doesn't make her qualified to investigate crimes etc.
> 
> You also have to ask yourself....would she have reacted this way if it was a civilian police officer who attended?  While obviously nobody can say for certain....id be willing to bet the answer is no.  This strikes me as a case of a major who decided that by virtue of her epaulette, she could tell the police what to do while he was acting in the capacity of a police officer because he's a corporal......well guess what.....the judge ruled that isn't the case.
> 
> Being a police officer is a hard job....it certainly wouldn't be any easier when supposed professional senior officers behave deplorably and think they can obstruct the police whenever they want because they are a higher rank.



Being tasked to investigate does not mean everyone else has to cooperate. There are many instances I can think of where police could show up at my door to "investigate" and me say "Sorry buds, I don't feel like answering questions. Please leave my property unless you've got a warrant." Because they are "investigating" doesn't mean they're allowed to push me out of the way and walk through my house.



			
				ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> Let's change the scenario a bit.....police officer is called to Microsoft to investigate something and middle management comes down and says "you can't investigate now leave."  Every single one of you would laugh and say that manager was an idiot.  This is no different, a major is middle management in the company that is the military and she (regardless of what her ego may think) cannot tell a police officer how he will conduct his investigation or where he will go.  This was an ex, not an operation, and it carries no weight to any police officer if something is disrupted for 10 minutes.



No, I wouldn't call him an idiot, and yes, unless that police officer has a warrant he *CAN* tell the the police officer how he won't conduct his investigation of the property and where he will go (off the property). I don't know the nuances of the MPs investigating military matters and entering a CP, but your analogies show me that you probably need some more training before you go kicking down people's doors and brandishing your authorta all over the place. I would, however, be very interested to hear about the nuances of which I spoke. For my own curiosity and just in case I end up in a situation where the MPs want to come into my jurisdiction and I don't want to let them in for whatever reason. Unlike the civilian world, it is not as black and white as "do you have a warrant? then no," or is it?



			
				ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> The fact that people here are defending her actions and saying she had the right to tell him to leave etc is mind boggling.



I don't know if anybody is doing that. They are all rightfully assessing that the MP should also have faced charges as well.


----------



## RCDtpr

ballz said:
			
		

> Ummm, I'm not so sure on that. You are not called to be a bouncer. You are called because someone is trespassing (breaking the law), not to "forcefully remove an unwanted person" (although that may be the result). If you get there and believe that said person is trespassing, then you have the authority to detain/arrest them and remove them from the premise, and charge them with trespassing. If they resist, then you have the authority to use force in that case. Not before.
> 
> I understand that it is easier to tell the person to leave and not charge them, and we have a whole other thread talking about police officers using their discretion, but if you are applying force against someone before informing them they are being detained/arrested for "x" reason then you are already part of the problem and not the solution.
> 
> Well I think enough people have commented on this point and how she never actually did that. Although I wish the judge said what exactly the Maj did that constituted "obstruction." Since she didn't tell anyone not to cooperate, I'm not sure what exactly it is she did that constituted obstruction. Being irritable isn't a crime.
> 
> Being tasked to investigate does not mean everyone else has to cooperate. There are many instances I can think of where police could show up at my door to "investigate" and me say "Sorry buds, I don't feel like answering questions. Please leave my property unless you've got a warrant." Because they are "investigating" doesn't mean they're allowed to push me out of the way and walk through my house.
> 
> No, I wouldn't call him an idiot, and yes, unless that police officer has a warrant he *CAN* tell the the police officer how he won't conduct his investigation of the property and where he will go (off the property). I don't know the nuances of the MPs investigating military matters and entering a CP, but your analogies show me that you probably need some more training before you go kicking down people's doors and brandishing your authorta all over the place. I would, however, be very interested to hear about the nuances of which I spoke. For my own curiosity and just in case I end up in a situation where the MPs want to come into my jurisdiction and I don't want to let them in for whatever reason. Unlike the civilian world, it is not as black and white as "do you have a warrant? then no," or is it?
> 
> I don't know if anybody is doing that. They are all rightfully assessing that the MP should also have faced charges as well.



You can't compare your personal residence to a CP....one your private property, the other is not.....apples and oranges.

With regards to the warrant stuff, as I said it stemmed from a 911 therefore a warrant isn't necessary.  Even private residences can be (and are) entered by the police without warrant stemming from 911 calls.  So no, I don't need to brush up on my training before I flex my authorita. 

Your thread is a prime example of a hassle dealt with by every cop in North America everyday......armchair lawyers think they know how to do our job.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

ballz said:
			
		

> Being tasked to investigate does not mean everyone else has to cooperate. There are many instances I can think of where police could show up at my door to "investigate" and me say "Sorry buds, I don't feel like answering questions. Please leave my property unless you've got a warrant." Because they are "investigating" doesn't mean they're allowed to push me out of the way and walk through my house.



But you just went totally sideways here.........if it was from a 911 call [even a hang up] they ARE pushing through you to have a look.
[hopefully being smart and asking you first and with 'just here to help" tact]

EDIT:  Got beat out by 16 seconds ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

ballz said:
			
		

> Ummm, I'm not so sure on that. You are not called to be a bouncer. You are called because someone is trespassing (breaking the law), not to "forcefully remove an unwanted person" (although that may be the result). If you get there and believe that said person is trespassing, then you have the authority to detain/arrest them and remove them from the premise, and charge them with trespassing. If they resist, then you have the authority to use force in that case. Not before.



Uniformed cops are moonlighting as security (bouncers), with the Departments permission, all over the place.


----------



## PuckChaser

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> But you just went totally sideways here.........if it was from a 911 call [even a hang up] they ARE pushing through you to have a look.
> [hopefully being smart and asking you first and with 'just here to help" tact]
> 
> EDIT:  Got beat out by 16 seconds ;D



Appropriate tact is completely correct. This whole thing could have been solved with a stop at the gate and, "Sentry, I need to see your duty officer immediately, we have had a 911 call to investigate, and it is time sensitive." Maj Wellwood comes out in a completely different frame of mind, and may even show the MP to the individual in question to confirm that he was in care and control of appropriate military authorities who are aware of the situation.

This is taught in Use of Force training, where tone and words can either escalate or deescalate a situation. The MP had to resort to open hand control (debateable if he had to resort) because he completely failed at Presence and Communication.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> This is taught in Use of Force training, where tone and words can either escalate or deescalate a situation. The MP had to resort to open hand control (debateable if he had to resort) because he completely failed at Presence and Communication.


So you were there?


----------



## ballz

Did the 911 call indicate that the member was located in the CP???

If my wife calls 911 and says "I'm worried my husband is going to harm himself, I don't know where he is but works for 2 RCR and the last place I know he was at was at work" and the police go to my peer Platoon Commander's house and say "We're looking for your peer, can you help us find him." "Sorry, he's not here and I don't know where he is but I'm also trying to help my CoC find him." Can the MPs say "sorry, but we're searching your entire house because we don't trust you any more than a homeless person" push him out of the way and come on in? Don't think so.

I acknowledge the MPs may have been perfectly entitled to go into the CP, *I don't know the answer on that and that's why I asked about the nuances,* but a 911 call does not give someone jurisdiction to do anything he wants, either.

But this all gets away from the original point... The original point was about the MP applying force where he had no lawful authority do so. She didn't even stop him from coming into the CP. She wasn't detained. So, what exactly did he push her for again? Oh right, "I thought she might tell them not to listen to me."


----------



## ballz

recceguy said:
			
		

> Uniformed cops are moonlighting as security (bouncers), with the Departments permission, all over the place.



Yes, I agree, and I think it is so commonplace that most police officers don't even realize that it is not a legitimate use of force, see below for example:



			
				ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> No a person does not need to be detained or under arrest for a police officer to use force.  It's quite common for me to be called to the bar/residence/wherever and forcefully remove an unwanted person.  As soon as they are out the door if they settle down they are normally free to go at that point.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Can we tone down the rhetoric and just stick to the facts that are know.

We don't need to be playing 50 scenarios here. It's totally counterproductive.

---Staff---


----------



## Fishbone Jones

ballz said:
			
		

> Yes, I agree, and I think it is so commonplace that most police officers don't even realize that it is not a legitimate use of force, see below for example:



The majority engage just by presence and asking the person to leave. If they don't they're escorted out. If they attack the officer, it's exactly that. Assault on a police officer. If the officers are there with the departments sanction and in uniform, they are on (overtime) duty that is paid to the department by the vendor.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Ballz......you are so out to lunch I don't know where to start.

I have way less use of force options then a police officer and yet I can use force against a member of the general public without arrest if it interferes with my duties.

And since trespassing [no longer welcome on private property] is a crime, if ordered and then refused, I'm pretty sure [since I only know my sections of the CC by heart] that they are justified in using force to remove said person.


----------



## RCDtpr

ballz said:
			
		

> Did the 911 call indicate that the member was located in the CP???
> 
> If my wife calls 911 and says "I'm worried my husband is going to harm himself, I don't know where he is but works for 2 RCR and the last place I know he was at was at work" and the police go to my peer Platoon Commander's house and say "We're looking for your peer, can you help us find him." "Sorry, he's not here and I don't know where he is but I'm also trying to help my CoC find him." Can the MPs say "sorry, but we're searching your entire house because we don't trust you any more than a homeless person" push him out of the way and come on in? Don't think so.
> 
> I acknowledge the MPs may have been perfectly entitled to go into the CP, *I don't know the answer on that and that's why I asked about the nuances,* but a 911 call does not give someone jurisdiction to do anything he wants, either.
> 
> But this all gets away from the original point... The original point was about the MP applying force where he had no lawful authority do so. She didn't even stop him from coming into the CP. She wasn't detained. So, what exactly did he push her for again? Oh right, "I thought she might tell them not to listen to me."



That's the thing, the transcripts don't state what was said in the 911 call.

As for your question the answer would be no.  The police have to be able to articulate their reasonable grounds to believe the person is in that place.  Unless she were to name your buddies residence specifically, or the call originated from that house, no the police could not enter.  If she said he's going to hurt himself and he's at his friends house....police have the right to enter it at that point.

Now I would hope that if a police officer showed up at anyone's place they would be smart enough to just be like "hey your buddies wife is worried and she says he's here and suicidal.....mind if I come in and talk to him to make sure he's ok?"  And before anyone starts....I know there are idiots (I work with a few) who will just kick the door in because they can.....I don't condone or agree with that tactic.

Without being there and seeing exactly how it went down I can't comment on his use of force being justified.  I can tell you this...the MP as a trade are brutal on their own people.....if he was not legally entitled to use force...they would have crucified him.  If anyone doesn't believe me on that, talk to any MP you may know and they will all say the the same thing that the trade is ruthless to their own people.


----------



## George Wallace

Very first post in this topic:



			
				MedCorps said:
			
		

> She was a Major in R22eR in 2014 when she had a Courts Martial.
> http://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/98921/index.do?r=AAAAAQAIV2VsbHdvb2QB



Transcript of judgment: http://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/98921/index.do?r=AAAAAQAIV2VsbHdvb2QB



> REASONS FOR SENTENCE
> 
> (Orally)
> 
> [1]               The General Court Martial found Major Wellwood guilty today: first, of the offence of resisting or wilfully obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his duty, an offence punishable under section 130 of the de National Defence Act, contrary to section 129 of the Criminal Code; and, second, of an offence of prejudicing good order and discipline for behaving with contempt through his words and actions towards a member of the military police in the presence of subordinates, under section 129 of the National Defence Act. These offences were committed on 5 February 2012 during Exercise “Rafale Blanche,” which was held in the Beauce region, in the province of the Quebec.
> 
> [2]               This Court therefore finds as proven all the facts, express or implicit, that are essential to the guilty verdicts rendered by the General Court Martial. These facts indicate that after the spouse of a Forces member taking part in the exercise with his unit made a 911 call reporting that the member had just told her that he was having thoughts about killing himself with a firearm, a series of calls between various 911 emergency call centres led to two members of the military police, posted to the Beauce area for the duration of the exercise in a traditional role of police and peace officer, being ordered to find the individual and take appropriate measures to ensure his safety. From the outset, it was assumed that this individual belonged to 2nd Battalion, Royal 22e Régiment. Relying on the information passed on to them, the members of the military police went to the area occupied by the service company of the 2eR22eR under the command of Major Wellwood. One of the members of the military police has peace officer status under section 156 of the National Defence Act, while the other, as a Reserve member, does not have such status. The police officer with peace officer status wore the black military police uniform. He wore a bullet-proof vest and carried a service weapon and other accessories with his military police uniform. He sat in the passenger seat of a 4x4 vehicle identified as a Military Police vehicle for conventional police operations. The other member of the military police wore combat clothing and was not armed. The police officers therefore proceeded to the gatehouse of the service company’s command post, CP8, early in the evening. It was dark out. Without formally identifying themselves or announcing the reasons for their presence to the gate guard, the police officers turned on their flashing lights to gain access. The gate guard moved a barrier aside to give them access but promptly contacted CP8’s tent to inform them that members of the military police had just entered the area without giving the reasons for their intrusion and described to his chain of command how they had acted. Since this sort of situation had already occurred during the exercise, a situation that the military authorities posted to this location found irritating because of staff and equipment security concerns, Major Wellwood therefore notified the members of her command post who were in CP8’s tent at the time that she would deal with the situation personally. At that time, the military authorities of the 2eR22eR, 2nd Battalion, including CP8’s command, were already aware of the situation regarding the member who had made suicidal comments, and they too were trying to locate the individual to take care of him. Neither side had all the information at this point.
> 
> [3]               Major Wellwood therefore exited CP8’s tent and headed towards the military police vehicle to inquire about the situation and above all to ask the police officers why their vehicle had not stopped at the gate house. She may or may not have passed by the peace officer on the way, and she then knocked on the passenger-side window of the vehicle several times before walking around the vehicle to talk to the driver, who was about to get out. Seeing what was happening, the peace officer came back and interposed himself between them. Major Wellwood asked them why they had not stopped at the gate house. The peace officer told her that he had come because of the 911 call. Major Wellwood then told him that the chain of command, including the unit commanding officer, was already aware of the situation and that the military authorities were handling it. Major Ellwood told the peace officer that this was not a Military Police matter and that the member in question was not at CP8. She again asked why the police officers had not stopped at the gate house. The situation escalated, and the peace officer replied that this was a matter for the police, not the chain of command, and that she should not confuse her rank with his police authority. At this point, both sides were taking an authoritarian tone, to say the least. The acrimonious exchanges between the two continued until Major Wellwood asked him in no uncertain terms to leave the premises. The peace officer ignored the explicit requests of Major Wellwood, headed directly towards CP8’s tent and went in to conduct his investigation even though he had been formally forbidden to do so by Major Wellwood, who passed him and returned to the tent’s entrance. The acrimonious exchanges continued between them, and the peace officer pushed Major Wellwood with his hands at chest level to prevent her from telling her subordinates not to assist him in his investigation, or at least so the police officer thought. She lost her balance at the tent entrance. At that moment, the officers present in the tent intervened to find out what was going on, because of all the commotion. One of the officers asked the peace officer what he was doing in CP8’s tent and how he could help him. He repeated to him the information that had already been passed on by Major Wellwood to the effect that the chain of command was already aware of the situation and that efforts were being made to find the individual. The officer escorted the peace officer out of the tent to his vehicle and gave him what information he had at the time, telling the peace officer that he would contact him by cell phone if there were any further developments. The individual was located by members of his unit a little later that evening, alone in a vehicle, near a sugar shack where a number of the battalion’s members, who were off-duty that evening, had gone to watch the 2012 Super Bowl. This concludes the summary of the facts that are relevant for sentencing purposes.
> 
> [4]               Imposing the right sentence so that it is just and fair is by far the most difficult task for a judge. We all know that certain objectives must be aimed for in light of the applicable principles, and these vary from one case to the next, depending on the offences and the individuals concerned. The fundamental purpose of sentencing in the Court Martial is to maintain military discipline and to build respect for the law by imposing fair sanctions having one or more of the following objectives:
> 
> a)                  to denounce unlawful conduct;
> 
> b)                  to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
> 
> c)                  to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
> 
> d)                 to assist in rehabilitating offenders, in order to return them to their environment in the Canadian Forces or to civilian life; and
> 
> e)                  to promote a sense of responsibility in military members who are offenders.
> 
> [5]               The sentence must also take into consideration the following principles. It must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, the previous character of the offender and his or her degree of responsibility. The sentence should also take into consideration the principle of parity in sentencing, that is, a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.
> 
> [6]               Today, the prosecution is recommending a sentence consisting of a reprimand and a fine of $2,000. Such a sentence would, according to counsel for the prosecution, promote the key objectives in this case, which are general and specific deterrence and denunciation of Major Wellwood’s conduct during the evening of 5 February 2012. The prosecution submitted that recent Court Martial decisions regarding obstruction define the range of sentences applicable to such offences. I agree with this statement, but none of the decisions cited are of any help beyond this assertion.
> 
> [7]               In addition to the usual administrative documents filed by the prosecution, the defence submitted the offender’s most recent performance evaluation reports and a conduct sheet containing two recent commendations given or written by the Commander of Command Canada and the Commander of Land Forces Command, as they then were. The Court also considered the testimony of Major Wellwood at the trial and the sincere regret she expressed regarding her conduct on 5 February 2012. Clearly, as her conduct sheet indicates, the only entries appearing in it are commendations; therefore, she had no disciplinary or criminal record before today.
> 
> [8]               The Court considers Major Wellwood’s abuses themselves, in terms of her conduct, her actions and the language she used towards the peace officer during the evening in question to be aggravating factors. It matters little that the peace officer behaved in a manner that I find to be absolutely unacceptable for a representative of the law, civilian or military. In a military context, it matters little that those with peace officer powers are not subordinates, except by their rank, as the case may be, of Forces members, who are the subjects of their day-to-day duties. They are still Forces members and are themselves subject to the duties and obligations incumbent on Canadian Forces members with regard to respect towards both subordinates in rank and superior officers. However, this cannot be used as an excuse by Major Wellwood, an experienced officer, for her behaviour towards the peace officer. There can be no doubt that she reacted hastily and disproportionately. She showed a lack of judgment and self-control. I agree with the prosecution that her role required her to take a co-operative approach rather than to contribute to a confrontation that did nothing to resolve the situation. She had a duty to act with respect and professionalism. That is not what she did. As a superior officer and commanding officer, she too had a duty to respect the peace officers who were carrying out their duties and to not act in a way that undermined the legitimate respect that the persons mandated by law to protect persons and property in our civilian and military society deserve.
> 
> [9]               However, this case cannot be dissociated from its factual matrix and from the context in which the events occurred, but it does teach lessons on many levels about the relationship that should exist between members of the military police and members of the Canadian Forces, regardless of their rank or duties. That said, the evidence filed before the Court clearly shows that Major Wellwood was up to that day, and continues to be, an absolutely exceptional officer in every respect who is highly regarded by her superiors. In light of her recent career history, there can be no doubt that she has already learned from this story, which took place in February 2012.
> 
> [10]           I find that the particular circumstances of this case do not require that the sentence passed by the Court Martial emphasize the needs related to specific deterrence. The holding of this court martial is in itself very important in the present case to promote the objectives of general deterrence and to denounce the abusive behaviour of which Major Wellwood is accused. I would add that the sentence must also promote a sense of responsibility in military members who are offenders. This is a very serious warning to officers in situations like Major Wellwood’s with regard to the standards of conduct that are imposed on them in their relations with peace officers who have an often thankless task to carry out and who are their subordinates in rank.
> 
> [11]           The Court does not, however, agree with counsel for the defence’s recommendation that a fine would be sufficient in the circumstances. I find that a reprimand must be part of the sentence that is passed for this sort of behaviour as regards superior officers.
> 
> FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
> 
> [12]           SENTENCES Major Wellwood to a reprimand.



A little COMMON SENSE could have gone a long way to this whole matter and this current head butting not having happened:



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How hard was it for this MP to say "Good evening Ma'am. I apologize for intruding through the CP, however we received a 911 call about a possible threat of self harm for member X. Is the member here? Can you take me to where the member is so I can ensure he is safe and file my report to close the call?"
> 
> There is no reason for a MP to ever treat anyone with disrespect. They will only allege a service offense, a judge or courts martial panel decides guilt, so don't treat the accused like crap. A holier than thou attitude taints any respect CAF members have, and its a vicious cycle creating the large chip on the shoulder for some MPs.


----------



## ballz

recceguy said:
			
		

> The majority engage just by presence and asking the person to leave. If they don't they're escorted out. If they attack the officer, it's exactly that. Assault on a police officer. If the officers are there with the departments sanction and in uniform, they are on (overtime) duty that is paid to the department by the vendor.



I think you are missing my point. That is how they conduct the job, yes, but that is not a legit use of force. By the book, officers can't forcefully remove people without telling them they are under arrest for trespassing first, and only then after the person doesn't cooperate.

So, in this specific case, in what way was pushing the Major a legitimate use of force? He didn't tell her "I'm placing you under arrest for obstruction, please place your hands behind you back" and then have her resist arrest (which would then give him legitimate means to use force).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Bottom line...........IMO, if she had placed herself in front of me in the same situation she would have been "moved away". [take it as you will]

Whether the judge LIKED it or not was obviously immaterial in the FACTS of this case. She was wrong,......he was just a moron,.....a RIGHT moron though.


----------



## RCDtpr

ballz said:
			
		

> I think you are missing my point. That is how they conduct the job, yes, but that is not a legit use of force. By the book, officers can't forcefully remove people without telling them they are under arrest for trespassing first, and only then after the person doesn't cooperate.
> 
> So, in this specific case, in what way was pushing the Major a legitimate use of force? He didn't tell her "I'm placing you under arrest for obstruction, please place your hands behind you back" and then have her resist arrest (which would then give him legitimate means to use force).



Since you're so versed in the job of policing...by all means please articulate where this "knowledge" of yours comes from.

The way you're stating it....it sounds like you think someone has to use force on a police officer before the police can use force on them?  Or have I misunderstood?


----------



## PuckChaser

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So you were there?



Its common sense based on the decision document. You weren't there either, so stop introducing a red herring.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Ballz, did you read my post??

He could have gone back and placed her under arrest......hell, she was CONVICTED of it.
His duty at the time was more important obviously....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> And before anyone starts....I know there are idiots (I work with a few) who will just kick the door in because they can.....I don't condone or agree with that tactic.



Didn't they all get moved to High River though? ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its common sense based on the decision document. You weren't there either, so stop introducing a red herring.



No red herring,......you stated he didn't need to do what he did.  The judge disagrees with you.....he's not happy, but.....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

recceguy said:
			
		

> Didn't they all get moved to High River though? ;D



And a whole detachment wonders why they feel a pain all of a sudden. ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

.........and we're done. On a humorous note yet.

Bu Bye.

---Staff---


----------



## No Name

Since the original topic has been locked some time ago. A interesting read regarding the recent results of court martial appeal.

R. v. Wellwood, 2017 CMAC 4

Un-locked - mm


----------

