# Cpl Wilcox court martial - Sydney NS



## GAP (25 Oct 2007)

Soldier charged in shooting of colleague
Last Updated: Thursday, October 25, 2007 | 1:17 PM AT CBC News 
Article Link

An army reservist from Glace Bay, N.S., has been charged with manslaughter in the shooting death of a fellow Canadian soldier in Afghanistan in the spring.

Cpl. Matthew Wilcox is also charged with criminal negligence causing death and negligent performance of duty.

On March 6, Cpl. Kevin Megeney was shot in the chest while in his tent at the Kandahar airbase.

The military called it an accidental shooting, and the Megeney family stated they did not wish to see charges laid against the soldier involved.

There is no word on when Wilcox's military trial will be held.

Wilcox is with the 2nd Battalion, Nova Scotia Highlanders, based at Victoria Park in Sydney.

Megeney, a reservist from Stellarton, N.S., was a member of the 1st Battalion, Nova Scotia Highlanders and had been in Afghanistan since December.
More on link


----------



## bilton090 (25 Oct 2007)

That's the way it should be !, it's not a accidental shooting, it's a N.D ( Negligent Discharge ), your a soldier and you should know the state of your weapon at all times.
Besides it was on the KAF, no mags on the weapon and no rounds up the spout.
 What makes it worst, is one of us, shooting one of us. ( F**king no way that should have happened ).

           RIP- Cpl Megeney


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Oct 2007)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> Besides it was on the KAF, no mags on the weapon



Really?  We had mags on the weapon at all times when I was there (Roto 0 Nov 05-Feb 06).


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Oct 2007)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> That's the way it should be !, it's not a accidental shooting, it's a N.D ( Negligent Discharge ), your a soldier and you should know the state of your weapon at all times.



Keeping in mind that the soldier is _alleged _ to have commited an ND, hold off on making judgements.  
(put your helmets on: war story).
We had a GPMG fire off about 16 rounds.  IMMEDIATELY the person on the gun was convicted by consensus, until it was discovered that he was not at fault: it was a faulty sear that caused the run away gun.


----------



## geo (25 Oct 2007)

From a personal perspective, this is something that Cpl Wilcox is going to have to live with for the rest of his life.

Kudos to the family for declaring that they do not wish the military to prosecute BUT, I agree with Bilton, this has got to be done - regardless of how unpleasant this is to everyone.


----------



## bilton090 (25 Oct 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Keeping in mind that the soldier is _alleged _ to have commited an ND, hold off on making judgements.
> (put your helmets on: war story).
> We had a GPMG fire off about 16 rounds.  IMMEDIATELY the person on the gun was convicted by consensus, until it was discovered that he was not at fault: it was a faulty sear that caused the run away gun.


  I was over there at the time !!!   DELETED BY MOD

    roto 03/07 no mags on weapons in KAF


Edited by Roy Harding to remove possible persec violation


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Oct 2007)

Ok, so to me that sounds as though that should be EVIDENCE at the trial, not fodder for an open-source forum.

Mods: Feel free to delete his post.


----------



## GAP (25 Oct 2007)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> I was over there at the time !!!   DELETED BY MOD
> 
> roto 03/07 no mags on weapons in KAF



Did this not happen in Roto 01/07?


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Oct 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Did this not happen in Roto 01/07?



March 6, 2007 whatever Roto that was.


----------



## GUNS (25 Oct 2007)

Very unfortunate for all those concerned.

As was stated earlier, Military Justice has to be uphelded, regardless of how people feel.


----------



## bilton090 (25 Oct 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Did this not happen in Roto 01/07?


             Mar 07


----------



## jswift872 (25 Oct 2007)

roto 3, task force 1/07..... the numbers are being thrown out there and hurting my head...
anyway, on a more serious note. I agree that this should be done, but at the same time, Cpl. Wilcox is going to have to live with this forever, and that is quite a burden. Nonetheless RIP  Cpl Kevin Megeney


----------



## medaid (25 Oct 2007)

I shall echo the thoughts and feelings of the many. Like them, I also think we must let justice run its course. Rarely will you find families of the deceased even on civi street wanting to not press charges.the problem with this is that the justice system whether it be civilian or military there must be sufficient evidence prior to proceeding with trial. Obviously there were enough evidence to proceed to trial in this case, guilt or innocence shall be established in the courts, and we shall see then. In the mean time we should ease up on the speculations. Those in the know should also try and refrain from discussing the facts or otherwise about the case.RUMINT has its uses... Sometimes its not too good.

Just my 0.02 Rupees.


----------



## old medic (27 Oct 2007)

Father of soldier killed by comrade now has closure

Updated Fri. Oct. 26 2007 6:25 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071025/soldier_father_071026/20071026?hub=Canada



> The father of a Canadian soldier who was accidentally killed by one of his comrades in Afghanistan says it's time to move on.
> 
> Cpl. Matthew Wilcox faces charges of manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death and negligent performance of duty in connection with the March 2007 death of Cpl. Kevin Megeney.
> 
> ...


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 Oct 2007)

Saw Lew MacKenzie on TV being interviewed last night and he was saying the same thing as many here. Military regs must be respected and we must find out if this is negligent use of a weapon and enforce the regulations. My heart goes out to the families of both soldiers whose lives have been severely changed by this incident.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jul 2008)

Let's remember folks:

1)  no speculation, please; and
2)  anyone charged with any crime, military of civilian, is to be considered INNOCENT until proven guilty.

*Soldier Will Face Charges in Shooting Death*
CF news release NR-08.045, 21 Jul 08
Release link - en français (.pdf attached if English link doesn't work)

"OTTAWA –Lieutenant Colonel Bruce MacGregor, the Canadian Forces acting Director of Military Prosecutions (DMP), has preferred charges of Manslaughter, Criminal Negligence Causing Death and Negligently Performing a Military Duty against Corporal Matthew Wilcox in the shooting death of Corporal Ronald Kevin Megeney.

On March 6, 2007, while deployed to Afghanistan, Cpl Megeney was killed in a shooting incident. On October 25, 2007, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) brought charges against Cpl Wilcox. These charges were then referred to the DMP by the chain of command on December 13, 2007.

The charges of Manslaughter, contrary to Section 236(a) of the Criminal Code and the charge of Criminal Negligence Causing Death, contrary to Section 220(a) of the _Criminal Code_, are incorporated from Section 130 of the _National Defence Act_. The charge of Negligent Performance of Duty is contrary to Section 124 of the _National Defence Act_.

Military prosecutors consider two main issues when deciding whether to prosecute a charge at court martial: whether the evidence is sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether the public interest requires a prosecution be pursued. They continually reassess these issues as new information about the case becomes available.

The charges were forwarded to the Court Martial Administrator who will convene a General Court Martial at the first available date.

-30-

Notes to editors: The DMP policy on post charge screening is at:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/military_justice/cmps/policy_and_directives/policy3_e.asp. "


----------



## GAP (22 Jul 2008)

Cpl. faces court martial in comrade's shooting death
Updated Mon. Jul. 21 2008 9:22 PM ET The Canadian Press
Article Link

OTTAWA -- The military will go ahead with prosecution of a Canadian army corporal facing multiple charges in the March 2007 shooting death of a comrade in Afghanistan. 

Cpl. Matthew Wilcox was charged last October with manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death and negligently performing a military duty in the death of Cpl. Kevin Megeney. 

The head of military prosecutions decided to proceed after considering whether there was enough evidence for a court martial. 

"Military prosecutors consider two main issues when deciding whether to prosecute a charge at court martial: whether the evidence is sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether the public interest requires a prosecution be pursued," said a statement Monday from the office of Lieutenant Colonel Bruce MacGregor, the Canadian Forces acting Director of Military Prosecutions. 

"They continually reassess these issues as new information about the case becomes available." 

The charges against Wilcox were "preferred" by MacGregor, a term used when an accused person is forwarded to the next step in the court martial process. 

The decision whether to proceed with a trial is a touchy one for the military, as the wrong call could undermine the confidence of Canadians in the military justice system. 

Megeney died in his tent March 6, 2007, at the NATO base in Kandahar after what the military called an accidental shooting. 

The Defence Department confirmed at the time that the Stellarton, N.S., native was shot in the chest. 

In a story written for the magazine Mother Jones, Dr. Kevin Patterson described in excruciating detail the desperate attempts to save Megeney's life after a bullet entered his right chest, just below his armpit. 

Patterson said Megeney had no pulse when he was brought into the base hospital at Kandahar. 

Megeney's uncle said the family felt for the shooter and his loved ones. 

A general court martial will be convened at the first available date
end


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jul 2008)

While I believe military justice and discipline is paramount, I can't help but feel for the families of both the soldiers, and the other mbr's of their platoons and Bn's.  Their Pl WO is a close friend of mine, and I remember the look on his face the day of the funeral for Cpl Megeney.  

A necessary process that has to be followed thru.  

RIP Cpl Megeney


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (25 Jun 2009)

Soldier playing game when comrade was shot: lawyer
Updated Thu. Jun. 25 2009 1:18 PM ET

The Canadian Press

SYDNEY, N.S. -- The lead prosecutor in a case involving a Canadian soldier charged with fatally shooting a fellow reservist in Afghanistan says the death occurred when the accused was playing a game with a loaded weapon. 

Lt.-Cmdr. Robert Fetterley made the assertion in his opening statement today to a military panel hearing the court martial of Cpl. Matthew Wilcox of Glace Bay, N.S., who has pleaded not guilty to manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death and negligently performing his military duty. 

Fetterley says the prosecution will show Wilcox did not follow proper safety procedures when he carried a loaded 9-millimetre handgun into a tent he shared with Cpl. Kevin Megeney of Stellarton, N.S. 

Megeney was killed by a single shot to the chest on March 6, 2007. 

It was the first time details of the prosecution's case have emerged in the military courtroom, set up at the Victoria Park Garrison in Sydney. 

Fetterley says the evidence will show Wilcox had loaded the weapon with a magazine, while the safety catch was not engaged, before the weapon went off "while playing a game in a tent" in Kandahar.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090625/afghan_panel_090625/20090625?hub=TopStories


Mods, please move is not in the right spot.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jun 2009)

Certain preliminary motions have been decided in this case; they can be read online at:

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/dec/2009/wilcox-ma-eng.asp

One issue rejected was the question of including class A reservists in the available pool from which panel members are selected; this had been previously discussed in _R. v Middlemiss_ and rejected.  (See http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/dec/2009/middlemi-rj-eng.asp for details).  In this case, the judge, Cdr Lamont, deferred to that decision and rejected the appeal.  Which is quite odd, as Col Dutil, the judge in _Middlemiss_, stated:



> There is certainly serious policy considerations that would strongly militate in favour of including members in Class "A" Reserve Service in the pool of sufficient eligible members, which would enhance the efficiency of the court martial process, in particular in the case where the accused is a member of the Reserve.



Strange how a judge can cite a case as reason for dismissing a challenge, when that case argues against his own conclusion.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Jun 2009)

And things may get even more interesting, from a procedural point of view.  The defence has filed a motion in Federal Court asserting that the court martial is improperly constituted:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Somnia/1733208/story.html



> Earlier in the day the defence surprised military judge Cmdr. Peter Lamont by informing the court an application had been filed with the Federal Court in Halifax accusing the court martial as being improperly constituted because it does not include non-commissioned officers.


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (26 Jun 2009)

Soldier apologized to fallen comrade: witness
Updated Fri. Jun. 26 2009 5:48 PM ET

The Canadian Press

SYDNEY, N.S. -- Cpl. Matthew Wilcox held his dying friend in his arms and apologized as Cpl. Kevin Megeney slumped to the floor of their shared tent in Afghanistan, bleeding from a gunshot wound to the chest, a witness told Wilcox's court martial Friday.

Wilcox, a 23-year-old reservist from Glace Bay, N.S., has pleaded not guilty to manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death and negligently performing his military duty in death of Megeney, a 25-year-old reservist from Stellarton, N.S.

The prosecution team, which opened its case Thursday, is trying to prove Wilcox killed Megeney through careless use of a 9-millimetre Browning handgun. But they must first prove that he fired the shot that killed his close friend.

The military court has heard from two witnesses who said the two soldiers were apparently playing a game of quick-draw when Wilcox's gun went off.

On Friday, one of the first people to enter the tent after the shot rang out, Master Cpl. Matthew McKay, described in detail what he saw on the evening of March 6, 2007.

His testimony represents the first eyewitness account relayed in open court.

As well, McKay's recollection of Wilcox's apology is important because the prosecution contends it represents an admission that he fired the gun.

McKay, a slight man with a close crewcut, told the four-member military panel that he was off duty at Kandahar Airfield when he and some comrades heard a gunshot nearby.

"It sounded like a 9-millimetre," he told the court martial, being held in a makeshift courtroom at the garrison in Sydney, N.S. "We had a general idea of where it came from."

At first, he said he thought it was a accidental discharge, but then he heard someone scream: "Oh God! Someone help."

McKay, who now works as a bodyguard with high-ranking officials in Kabul, said he was the second person into the tent as he and others rushed in to see what had happened.

"There was still smoke in the air," he recalled. "You could smell it."

He said he saw Wilcox propping up Megeney on his right side, the wounded man bracing himself with an outstretched arm.

At that point, McKay ran out of tent, grabbed a first aid kit from a tactical vest and returned to help his comrade.

"I was just trying to talk to him, best I could," he testified.

"But he couldn't talk."

McKay was asked if Wilcox said anything.

"Corporal Wilcox said, 'C'mon Kev. C'mon Kev. I'm sorry," McKay testified.

McKay said Megeney stopped breathing and another soldier tried to revive him by using mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

He said he could see blood bubbles coming out of what they thought was the entry wound -- a small hole above Megeney's right nipple.

Another soldier, who identified himself as a "combat lifesaver," entered the tent and took over, checking Megeney's vital signs.

"He just said, `He's got to get to a hospital now or he's not going to make it," said McKay.

They called for a stretcher and lifted Megeney.

"That's when we saw blood on the floor, where he was laying," said McKay.

He said they then ran 200 metres to a nearby medical facility.

McKay said he left Megeney at that point and went back to the tents, where he said he saw Wilcox talking to the section commander.

He was asked to describe Wilcox's demeanour.

"He seemed shocked or overwhelmed by what was happening," McKay said.

At the front of the courtroom, which is usually a military bar, McKay's dramatic account appeared to take its toll on Megeney's parents, Dexter and Karen.

Dexter Megeney usually sits ramrod straight in his chair during the proceedings, but as the graphic details emerged, he leaned forward, put his hands on his knees and stared at the floor. His wife sat motionless, her hand on his leg.

Master Cpl. Kyle Keigan, the first witness at the military trial, said Wilcox told him what happened over drinks in Sydney several months after the shooting.

Keigan testified that Wilcox revealed that the two off-duty soldiers began to play a game of quick-draw in the tent when the weapon went off, but that he didn't know it was loaded.

Fetterly has said the evidence will show Wilcox had loaded the weapon with a magazine and the pistol's safety catch was not engaged when the weapon went off "while playing a game in a tent."

The military prosecutor said all soldiers within the sprawling NATO base are required to unload their weapons into ammunition barrels once they are off duty and inside their tents.

The court has heard this was a mandatory practise, even though soldiers in Wilcox's platoon carried special, UN-issued cards that said they were exempt from the rule.

Fetterly also noted that while soldiers are required to carry an unloaded firearm when they are off duty, the weapon's magazine -- the container that holds the bullets -- must be removed, rendering it incapable of firing.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090626/wilcox_trial_090626/20090626?hub=Canada


----------



## Doom (27 Jun 2009)

I know it's been a while...
But RIP...  iper:


----------



## GAP (24 Jul 2009)

Canadian soldier says he shot friend in self-defence
Updated Fri. Jul. 24 2009 2:18 PM ET The Canadian Press
Article Link

SYDNEY, N.S. -- A soldier accused of shooting and killing a colleague in a tent in Afghanistan over two years ago says he felt his life was threatened by someone when he whirled and fired his weapon. 

Cpl. Matthew Wilcox took the stand in his own defence Friday in his manslaughter trial in Sydney, N.S., and told the four military jurors that he heard someone cocking a pistol. 

He told a hushed military courtroom that "he just reacted," and turned quickly, drawing his gun from his holster before shooting. 

Wilcox says he only realized seconds later that he had shot one of his best friends, Cpl. Kevin Megeney. 

"I felt my life was threatened and lethal force was the minimum force needed," said Wilcox. 

"There was a weapon pointed at me." 

He said he realized it was Megeney two seconds later. 

"Only after the recoil of my weapon did I realize it was him," he added. 

"Everything happened so quickly, in less than two seconds. I was just reacting to a threat against my life." 

Wilcox, 24, of Glace Bay, N.S., pleaded not guilty to charges of manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, and negligent performance of duty in the death of Megeney, 25, of Stellarton, N.S. 

The prosecution has argued that Wilcox was playing a game of "quick draw with Megeney on March 6, 2007. " 

Wilcox said in Afghanistan, many people carry weapons, and he regarded any sound of a gun as a potentially deadly threat. 

For days afterward, he said he felt shock and emptiness. 

Wilcox said when he came back to Canada, deep grief and sadness set in over the death of Megeney. 

"He was a really good guy," he said. 

"He was probably my closest friend in Afghanistan. ... We lived together for almost a year and saw each other almost every day." 

Asked if he believed he was playing a game of "quick draw," where soldiers see who is the quickest to bring the weapon from their holster, he replied firmly, "No." 

Wilcox's appearance in his own defence followed 19 days of testimony by 25 witnesses called by the prosecution. 

Earlier testimony in the court martial suggested the two reservists were playing "quick draw" in their tent at Kandahar Airfield, when a Browning nine-millimetre pistol went off and hit Megeney in the right side of his chest. 
More on link


----------



## 1feral1 (24 Jul 2009)

I was not there, nor do I know the time of day this happened, but I shared a room in an old delapitated former Republican Guard barracks in Baghdad, with 5 other blokes, and there was all sorts of cocking of weapons an handling of such all the time, night or day, as war is a 24 hr thing.

I am sorry, but I don't by his rather 'lame' excuse for shooting a mate. I am sure there is more to this.

OWDU


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> I am sorry, but I don't by his rather 'lame' excuse for shooting a mate. I am sure there is more to this.
> 
> OWDU



Yup. Pathetic. Talk about dishonouring the dead.
He whirled around and shot because he heard a weapon being cocked? Inside the wire at their tent lines? 
His lawyer should have told him how stupid that sounds. After reading that lame excuse I have no sympathy for Cpl Wilcox.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jul 2009)

It's genius.  He's building the groundwork for a stress/mental breakdown defence.  Pathetic, but genius.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2009)

I thought this POS was a low-life for having a loaded wpn where he shouldn't have in the first place which ended up with him killing someone.

But this is truly the bottom of the barrel.  Wilcox you aren't worth the shit I flushed down the toilet this morning.

I can't find the words to describe how I feel knowing he is playing the "feared for my life" card.  

An embarassment to the CF, the Army, the Army Reserves, 36 Brigade and 2 NSH.  

RIP Cpl Megeney.


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (25 Jul 2009)

Okay, being a civvie, not knowing anything about guns, Cpl Wilcox story seems like a big pile of poo. 

It doesn't make sense.

If everytime he heard a weapon being cocked and "he just reacted" wouldn't that mean a lot of other soldiers being shot?  I am assuming this is not his first time hearing that.  

And doesn't the military train you to look down the gun and see who's holding it?

Seems to me like he f#*cked up royally and instead of just saying sorry, I f#*cked up, and taking the consequences he's trying to justify shooting his friend.

This must be very hard for Cpl. Kevin Megeney family, to lose their son and then to have to go through this.  It's a shame.


----------



## Jammer (25 Jul 2009)

RUBBISH!!!!
F**&ing coward!
I've seen so much of this sh*t from reservists that aren't properly trained or held to account when they are called out.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2009)

Folks, he is just doing what happens thousands and thousands of times everyday in every courtroom in the country.

Spend a day in court some time and your day will be torn between outright giggling, wanting to throw up, and/or just wanting to rip heads off.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> RUBBISH!!!!
> F**&ing coward!



Agreed!



> I've seen so much of this sh*t from reservists that aren't properly trained or held to account when they are called out.



Jammer, let's not paint the entire PRes because of Cpl Wilcox.  Having served in sub-units and the HQ of 36 CBG, I can say MOST of its soldiers aren't of the sort he is.  I've never seen someone f**k up and then point the blame at someone else to this extent before.  That he is blaming the man he killed for his own grave mistake sorta kicks at something inside me.  It took me awhile to figure it out today, but I've come to realize he is dishonouring "loyalty" in a way I've never seen before.

I just think we shouldn't use this as a stepping stone against the PRes as a whole, the Army, or the CF.  This is about Cpl Wilcox, his lack of spine and *loyalty* and *honour*.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (25 Jul 2009)

I'll be honest I don't know rules and regulations like some,but discussing a incident involved in a current military court don't seem right to me.Anyone?


----------



## Arctic Acorn (25 Jul 2009)

That's a pretty big brush you're using to tar reservists with, Jammer. I think any one of us know of an example where a CF member did something negligent with a weapon, be it a regular force member or reservist. In this case, Cpl. Megeney and his family paid an extremely high price for it. I won't comment too much on Cpl. Wilcox as the matter is still before the court, but I do think he may have committed to something that he's going to have to take to bed with him for the rest of his life. I hope he's prepared for the consequences of that. 

As for being held to account for one's own actions, again, poor judgment is not the sole province of the reserve force. Duty, Honor, Integrity, and Discipline are something ALL CF members should instill in themselves and others. Again, we've all seen examples where a few (from either component) have forgotten that. Let's not bring components into this. Its ugly, and that in today's environment where up to 20% of rotations (according to a 2008 Ombudsman's report) are reservists who serve in all areas of the theatre with distinction, it's patently untrue. 

If anything, I hope we can keep this as a reminder of just how important weapons safety is. If remembering what happened to Kevin prevents one person from doing something negligent with a weapon, then there is (as small as it may be) a silver lining to this tragedy.

RIP, my friend, and I hope your family finds peace in all this as well.


----------



## Roy Harding (25 Jul 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I'll be honest I don't know rules and regulations like some,but discussing a incident involved in a current military court don't seem right to me.Anyone?



It's a discussion based on a public process, reported in a public forum (the news media).  There is no OPSEC/PERSEC issue here (and let's KEEP it that way).

If you don't feel comfortable joining the discussion (I feel the same way) - don't.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff

Edited to add remarking about keeping PERSEC/OPSEC issues out of it.


----------



## Jammer (25 Jul 2009)

Ack,
...but it is an open forum and although we are not privy to the inner sanctum of this trial we should open this up for healthy debate.
I'm not tarring all reservists with the same brush, but lets be honest the D and S Platoon on KAF was pretty much a reservist run CoC. I have seen time and time again 18-19 and 20 yr olds who just don't have the maturity that their reg force peers have. 
Not to say that regs don't have discipline probs by any stretch, but that have more consistant supervision and tighter control by more experienced leaders, not summer PLQ wunderkinds.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2009)

Well, I don't know the Jnr NCOs from the platoon in question, but I do know the PL WO.  Over 20 years in, not his first tour, he isn't one to dick around, let people dick around or encourage people to dick around.  I can't comment on the type/quality of NCOs he had under him.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (25 Jul 2009)

If I recall correctly, the platoon responsible for convoy escorts for the TF 1-07 task force was also all reserve (at the Platoon level down, as with the guard platoon), and they performed professionally and well during our deployment...particularly when compared to other nations operating in our area, including the US, UK, and Portugese. 

Further, as far as I know, except for one (granted) highly unfortunate incident, the guard platoon in KAF for that tour also did extremely well throughout the deployment. They had a very stressful job, and despite the loss of Cpl. Megeney and the aftermath, they carried on with professionalism and pride. 

Also, there were other "all reserve" elements on deployments (CIMIC and PSYOPS teams) that are all reservists, and they don't seem to have any problems, despite being out in the field constantly, in small groups, also under trying circumstances. "Summer PLQ wunderkinds" or not, we do a hell of a lot of training before deployments, and perform a dangerous job under trying circumstances right along our regular force comrades. 

Again, the PRes bashing thing is old news. Individuals screw up, from either side of the fence, but that happens everywhere.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jul 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> I have seen time and time again 18-19 and 20 yr olds who just don't have the maturity that their reg force peers have.



Are you shitting me?  How are 19 year old Regular Privates any more mature than 19 year old Reserve Privates?

This is not a reserve vs regular force issue so drop it.  This is an issue that the court is sorting out right now - I have my opinions on this, but I'll save it until the Court Martial issues its verdict as right now, this fellow is still innocent.


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Jul 2009)

My two cents,

Before we go condemning the accused, and praising the dead troop, just remember this;

Unless the Wolcox intentionally Shot Megeney, the only other concept is what the Prosecution has put forward; the two were playing quick draw.  If that is the case, both would be at fault.

As for Jammer,  I will let Infanteer's words reprepresent mine, as I do not feel like swearing right now....

dileas

tess


----------



## Monsoon (25 Jul 2009)

ENGINEERS WIFE said:
			
		

> Seems to me like he f#*cked up royally and instead of just saying sorry, I f#*cked up, and taking the consequences he's trying to justify shooting his friend.


There's a difference between court process and how we do things in the CF. In a traditional CoC situation, we're taught to assume complete responsibility for our actions and trust in our CoC to understand things in their context and dole out an appropriate punishment if warranted.

In a court case, by contrast, there's a prosecutor employed for the sole purpose of trying to get you imprisoned for as long as possible; if you just "mea culpa" without making any kind of further explanation, they'll lock you up and throw away the key because you didn't provide a defence of yourself. The "mercy of the court" only works if the court understands why you did what you did.

Wilcox isn't trying to get himself off by saying he shot his mate the way he did - he's saying that what he did was accidental (manslaughter) rather than intentional or criminally negligent (first or second degree murder). Obviously no one (least of all Wilcox himself, I suspect) is going to say it's okay that he shot his buddy, but there's no need to excoriate him for providing a legal defence. He's going to see time either way.


----------



## Jammer (25 Jul 2009)

Infanteer,
Read my post again.


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Jul 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> I've seen so much of this sh*t from reservists that aren't properly trained or held to account when they are called out.



This post is plain wrong!

I've seen plenty of regs and militia that are just as big as idiots. People are people.

I won't say anymore.

OWDU

EDITed for clarity, not changing the flavour of this post.


----------



## Fusaki (25 Jul 2009)

> Infanteer,
> Read my post again.



I read it again, and I still think you're off.

This issue has nothing to do with Wilcox being a reservist.  It's about the discipline expected of soldiers. By the time a soldier is deployed, there is nothing to distinguish a reg force guy from a reservist.


----------



## c4th (25 Jul 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Ack,
> ...but it is an open forum and although we are not privy to the inner sanctum of this trial we should open this up for healthy debate.
> I'm not tarring all reservists with the same brush,...not summer PLQ wunderkinds.



I would truly be surprised if the court accepted that defence.  As for the above it's rubbish too.  The two D&S' I saw ran a very tight ship, took their roll seriously and executed their missions with professionalism and as a result brought us pretty much everything we needed.  The NCO's certainly were not shy about sorting discipline problems.  Possibly some extra man management was required but IMO it is just as likely a result of being in KAF as it would be a result of a soldier's relative age or component.

The PRes have the same QR&O's as the RegF and last I checked we're on the same side.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jul 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> I've seen so much of this sh*t from reservists that aren't properly trained or held to account when they are called out.





			
				Jammer said:
			
		

> Ack,
> ...but it is an open forum and although we are not privy to the inner sanctum of this trial we should open this up for healthy debate.
> I'm not tarring all reservists with the same brush, but lets be honest the D and S Platoon on KAF was pretty much a reservist run CoC. I have seen time and time again 18-19 and 20 yr olds who just don't have the maturity that their reg force peers have.
> Not to say that regs don't have discipline probs by any stretch, but that have more consistant supervision and tighter control by more experienced leaders, not summer PLQ wunderkinds.



I'm going to take a another crack at the point I was trying to make sans having a nerve hit.
Jammer I really respect your service record and you've obviously must have worked with reservists a lot in your career but I still can't even come close to agreeing with your comments.

Your first comment about reservists not being properly trained. If that were the case, who is responsible for training reservists going overseas, their home unit or the regular force?  Work up training is now in excess (stupidly) of a year. A year isn't long enough for regular force types to bring their reserve counterparts up to speed?

Arguing the maturity level of 20 year old privates doesn't jive. There is no difference between them. 
I've been overseas to Afghanistan with a full reservist platoon twice including a few months D&S.

At the platoon level at least half of our platoon were university and college educated, among them professionals such as police officers, firemen, paramedics electricians teachers, even a doctor.  More than half the troops being PLQ qualified.
One platoon walked away with 2 medals of bravery a meritorious service medal and bla bla BBQs and meetings with generals to the flavor of 'wow how are you doing so well being reservists?!' I'm told we had the most contacts out of any C/S including battlegroup which at the very least means we weren't picking our nose feeling balls on gate the whole time.

To address the PLQ summerkids comment. Running concurrently with my PLQ course was a regular force course.  On the weekends they would dress up in stealth suits with masks on and run through out tent lines flipping cots and trashing shit. The whole summer we had to lock everything we had in our cars or in a sea can so it wouldn't get ruined or stolen on weekend leave. They would drive by our course and shout out go home fucking tunes rev the shit out of their go fast cars and peel away. Future leaders indeed.

We've all seen troops doing stupid things when their bored overseas. It's not that we're not professional, it happens. You're right in that it's a leadership responsibility to combat it, and it does get combated. My (reserve) platoon WO was terrifying. You step out of line a little and you might as well burn a Canadian flag on July 1st on parliament hill, this guy didn't piss around with discipline. 

How would you stop to troops from playing quick draw (or whatever) while off duty in their own tent? Tricky.

It's a challenge being based in KAF when it comes to finding training and stuff to keep troops busy. For example, we were told we weren't even allowed to use the ranges there for gunfighter training. Only units coming in and special forces were allowed on the range.
You go to the medics or rad ops and ask for a couple of soldiers for a day or two to give your platoon some extra training and see the faces they make.


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2009)

You go to the medics or rad ops and ask for a couple of soldiers for a day or two to give your platoon some extra training and see the faces they make.


Really???
Haven't seen it yet that when a unit has requested refresher trg that they were turned down...speaking as a Rad Op.

I stand by my opinion based on my experience


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jul 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Ack,
> ...but it is an open forum and although we are not privy to the inner sanctum of this trial we should open this up for healthy debate.
> I'm not tarring all reservists with the same brush, but lets be honest the D and S Platoon on KAF was pretty much a reservist run CoC. I have seen time and time again 18-19 and 20 yr olds who just don't have the maturity that their reg force peers have.
> Not to say that regs don't have discipline probs by any stretch, but that have more consistant supervision and tighter control by more experienced leaders, not summer PLQ wunderkinds.



Another shot like that gets you on the warning ladder. Both sides have their fuckups. Let it go, and don't try bring it up again.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## helpup (27 Jul 2009)

My 2 Cents, I get trying to not go to jail.  ( dont always agree with it but I get it) However his story based on my experience is pure and utter B.S. Full stop.  There is no way that jives with where he was and the normal routine he should of been following WRT Wpns handling and states.  I do not know if they were playing a "game" nor do I care,  This guy's story does not wash with me, and by his Trg it is the wrong reaction for the time and place even if the events had of went that way.

As for beating on the Reserves, that was uncalled for.  A idiot is an idiot regardless of his reg or reserve designation.  I have worked with Reg and Reserve who were Junk.  I have worked with others who know thier jobs cold, and can perform in any situation.  There may be a discrepancy in Trg but that has been improved.  There are gaps though and for those gaps I will show you Reg force personnel who can be just as bad for what ever reason.  

Or do you want to blame Solmolia on a reservist ( and yes we had them there as well.)  

There are differances with the Reg and Reserves, they are NOT as pronounced as they use to be.  And frankly it falls on to the Reg Force that any reservist deploying or not is as highly trained as the CF can make them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jul 2009)

Next person that brings up the Reg vs Res thing, for, against, whatever, goes straight to C&P. It's not what this thread is about, nor should it ever be.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## ajp (27 Jul 2009)

I am not looking to get banned, but the training for ALL PERS on that serial was extensive, I was there.  

Within a WEEK of this incident there was another, without rounds that resulted in 5 Courts Martial (by election). THe HORSEPLAY issue is real in many scenarios, and this case truly is for the court to decide.  Even in a forum like this, we should be looking at the present case as it unfolds, not making decisions before they are released.

My thoughts.


----------



## helpup (27 Jul 2009)

I made my mind up based on his own statement of the events and I stand by calling it B.S  the whole horseplay issue is something all CoC need to address and I like to think we do a fairly good job of it.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jul 2009)

I believe the issue here boils down to training in weapons safety. I have always been taught right from day One in the CF, that you only point a weapon at someone you want to kill. The second lesson was always ensure your weapon is unloaded when its not absolutely required to be loaded. Failure to follow both of these important safety points resulted in the death of Cpl. Megeney, and I do believe Cpl Wilcox should be held accountable. Even when playing around like Rambo with your weapons (everyone's done it at least once), training and common sense should be kicking in to ensure they are not loaded and not pointed at someone.


----------



## Harley Sailor (27 Jul 2009)

As not one person is standing up for Cpl Wilcox, let me add my two cents.  I am sure he knows the real story.  Hopefully he feels remorse. In his mind he thinks it was an accident.  As for the lame defence, that belongs to his lawyer.  I was once charged with a major crime and had nothing to do with my type of defence.  The lawyer picks the defence.

Cpl Wilcox is only now doing what most of us would, trusting his lawyer to get him the best result from a bad mistake.  Honestly, how many of you just take the punishment give and not try to get it reduced.  When you get a week of extras do you not try to get out of it.  Well he is doing the same thing.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Jul 2009)

Take the extras and smile in my case, 'cause a week of duty and free mess meals is infinitely better than pushing my luck and getting 14 days on defaulters.   ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jul 2009)

Anytime I got extras, I gladly accepted them, without dickering. The alternatives were always worse.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jul 2009)

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> As for the lame defence, that belongs to his lawyer.  I was once charged with a major crime and had nothing to do with my type of defence.  The lawyer picks the defence.



No.  The lawyer works for the client  The lawyer may make suggestions and provide information, but at the end of the day it is the accused who decides.


----------



## Harley Sailor (27 Jul 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Anytime I got extras, I gladly accepted them, without dickering. The alternatives were always worse.



And how do you know they were worse if you did not try to dicker.  In my 30 years I can count the number of people who just took it and did not ask for a better deal, at least the first couple of times.  I even know army guys who have gone to the MIR so that their extras would be lights.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jul 2009)

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> And how do you know they were worse if you did not try to dicker.  In my 30 years I can count the number of people who just took it and did not ask for a better deal, at least the first couple of times.  I even know army guys who have gone to the MIR so that their extras would be lights.



Because in my 40 years I've never been afraid to take responsibility for my actions.


----------



## Harley Sailor (27 Jul 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No.  The lawyer works for the client  The lawyer may make suggestions and provide information, but at the end of the day it is the accused who decides.



Have you been there?  When you are accused you are scared and unsure of what to do.  Your lawyer tells you how he plans to defend you and you except it or find a new lawyer. At the end of the day the accused excepts the lawyers advice because he knows best.  If you are smart enough to tell your lawyer how to defend you then you are smart enough not to get into the problem in the first place.


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2009)

...otherwise you would be being paid $250 an hour.
...unless the Mod thinks otherwise, just my opinion though.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jul 2009)

I think there is a marked difference between trying to get out of doing some extra duties or a  minor charge and getting out of fatally shooting a fellow soldier.

This soldier isn't doing himself any favors in my opinion. Especially when he told a peer that the accident happened while playing quick draw then for reasons known to him and his lawyer, he decides to use some kind of 'I felt threatened' approach.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Jul 2009)

This part has been troubling me:


> He said that he realized *Canadian commanders required him to unload his weapon * after he left his post, and said he had taken the magazine out of his pistol in order to fulfil that order.
> However, he added, he had trouble shoving the magazine into a separate compartment on a leg holster, and instead *jammed the magazine back into the gun*.



He claims to have conducted the unload drill on the pistol, which in essence involes (a) removing the source of ammunition and then (b) ensuring that no ammunition is in the chamber.  He then claims that he re-introduced the source of ammunition into the weapon.  Call me crazy ("You're crazy, Midnight Rambler!") but unless the laws of physics have since changed, ammunition cannot get into the chamber of the service pistol until the action is cocked, thereby readying the weapon.  I don't believe Cpl Wilcox when he asserts that which I have quoted above.  If he unloaded the weapon, then "turning and firing" would result in nothing, because the weapon would not ready itself.  He loaded the weapon (by his own admission), and he readied the weapon (as witnessed by the fact that the weapon discharged).  
The question is: did he *really* unload the weapon?  Or did he simply remove the magazine?  And if so, why was the weapon readied in the first place?  
I believe that he unloaded the weapon (as he has testified), then loaded it (eg: inserted the magazine, as he has testified) and then he readied the weapon.  He has not admitted to this; however, I don't think that his lawyers know the mechanism of the pistol enough to even ask this question.  Well, in the pursuit of the truth, here it is.
"Fire away".

(sorry, was that in bad taste?)  OK, then.

"Shoot".

Whoops


"Carry on".


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Jul 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> ... however, I don't think that his lawyers know the mechanism of the pistol enough to even ask this question.  ...



You are probably correct in this assertion - however; all the lawyers I know are smart enough to get an expert opinion - they (despite our societal bias against them) are smart enough to "know what they don't know".

I'm sure there was a "gun plumber's inspection" done on the weapon immediately following the incident - the report of that inspection would essentially say the same thing you did in your post - and his lawyers are (I'm sure) in possession of that report.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jul 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> ...otherwise you would be being paid $250 an hour.
> ...unless the Mod thinks otherwise, just my opinion though.



Meaning what exactly?



			
				Roy Harding said:
			
		

> You are probably correct in this assertion - however; all the lawyers I know are smart enough to get an expert opinion - they (despite our societal bias against them) are smart enough to "know what they don't know".
> 
> I'm sure there was a "gun plumber's inspection" done on the weapon immediately following the incident - the report of that inspection would essentially say the same thing you did in your post - and his lawyers are (I'm sure) in possession of that report.



If I know one thing from my court time, it's that the lawyer will never ask a question he doesn't already know the answer to, nor will he introduce a piece of evidence he's not familiar with or that can be used against his client.


----------



## dustinm (27 Jul 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Meaning what exactly?
> 
> If I know one thing from my court time, it's that the lawyer will never ask a question he doesn't already know the answer to, nor will he introduce a piece of evidence he's not familiar with or that can be used against his client.



I apologize for my ignorance, but do court-martialed(sp?) Soldiers get a civilian lawyer? I would expect that a Military lawyer might be more likely to question things and gather expert testimony, given the nature of the profession relative to the crime committed.

And as I understand it (please correct if wrong), a lawyer can pick and choose the evidence he uses at a trial, no? It would of course be detrimental to a case if you had to include evidence during "Discovery" that would discredit your own client.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jul 2009)

Neo Cortex said:
			
		

> I apologize for my ignorance, but do court-martialed(sp?) Soldiers get a civilian lawyer?



A Soldier is like any other Canadian Citizen, and entitled under the Law to choose the best Defence/Lawyer (s)he sees fit.  That would include civilian lawyers.



			
				Neo Cortex said:
			
		

> .... I would expect that a Military lawyer might be more likely to question things and gather expert testimony, given the nature of the profession relative to the crime committed.



That is an assumption on your part.  Not necessarily a true one.



			
				Neo Cortex said:
			
		

> And as I understand it (please correct if wrong), a lawyer can pick and choose the evidence he uses at a trial, no? It would of course be detrimental to a case if you had to include evidence during "Discovery" that would discredit your own client.



It is the Prosecution who usually produces evidence.  All parties must have full disclosure.  The Defence is not likely to bring up incriminating facts in their defence of the accused.

This is all something, that is rather rare these days, called common sense.


----------



## dustinm (27 Jul 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A Soldier is like any other Canadian Citizen, and entitled under the Law to choose the best Defence/Lawyer (s)he sees fit.  That would include civilian lawyers.
> 
> That is an assumption on your part.  Not necessarily a true one.
> 
> ...



I see, thank you for the clarification.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jul 2009)

As you go back and read this topic again, you can see where the common sense has been lacking.  Every twist and turn of the Defence is indicating a lack of it on the Accused's part.  There are just too many flaws in the weapon's handling as being depicted in the testimony, that many here are picking up on.

In the end, however, it may boil down to which Lawyer is the best "storyteller".


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Jul 2009)

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_36168.aspx

*Soldier Says 'In Retrospect' Options Existed To Shooting Comrade In Afghanistan*


Monday July 27, 2009
Michael Tutton, The Canadian Press

A soldier accused of manslaughter in the shooting death of his comrade in Afghanistan says "in retrospect" he realizes he had other options to pulling the trigger when he thought he was being threatened.

Cpl. Matthew Wilcox has told a court martial that he was acting in self-defence when he shot Cpl. Kevin Megeney on March 6, 2007, in the tent they shared at Kandahar Airfield.

He testified last week that he heard the sound of a pistol bolt sliding, turned slightly to see a barrel pointed at his back, and "instinctively" pivoted and fired a shot.

On Monday, prosecutor Maj. Jason Samson pressed the 24-year-old reservist on whether a "reasonable" person would shoot, given military training requires soldiers to first assess a threat.

"If they had all of the facts now, yes, sir. But not at the time," replied Wilcox, who is from Glace Bay, N.S.

Samson asked if it was reasonable to assume that Megeney's gun wasn't loaded because military rules at the base in Kandahar require that off-duty soldiers unload their rifles and pistols.

The corporal responded that he didn't know, "one way or another," if the Browning 9-mm pistol of his tentmate was loaded.

"I just know it (Megeney's pistol) was ready," he added.

Wilcox has pleaded not guilty to charges of manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, and negligent performance of duty in the death of Megeney, 25, of Stellarton, N.S.

The prosecution alleges that Wilcox and Megeney - described as close friends in Afghanistan - were playing a game of "quick draw" when the shooting happened, an accusation that Wilcox has denied.

Samson asked whether Megeney might have been checking his pistol to see if there was any ammunition in it.

Wilcox agreed that was possible, but added it was also "speculation."

Wilcox said he realizes now he could also have sprinted out of the tent or ducked behind metal lockers in the same period of time he had to shoot Megeney.

He said he felt threatened, however, and simply "reacted."

Megeney died about 30 minutes after he was shot. Both Wilcox and Megeney were members of 1 Platoon, force protection company, which was responsible for protecting Kandahar Airfield.

The trial is being held before a four-member military panel and a judge, Cmdr. Peter Lamont.

_© 2009 Rogers Broadcasting Limited _


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Jul 2009)

*Soldier who shot bunkmate admits he had other options*

Chris Shannon,  Cape Breton Post 

SYDNEY, N.S. - A Canadian reservist admitted on Monday that he had other options than shooting a fellow Canadian soldier and bunkmate in a tent at Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan.

At his court martial on Monday, Cpl. Matthew Wilcox, 24, said he felt threatened when he heard a cocked pistol and glanced at the barrel of a gun pointed in his direction.

Cpl. Wilcox, from Glace Bay, N.S., has pleaded not guilty to charges of manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death and negligent performance of duty in the March 6, 2007, death of Cpl. Kevin Megeney of Stellarton, N.S.

During his second day of testimony, Cpl. Wilcox said he fell back from a crouched position, pulled his 9-mm pistol from his right leg holster and readied it before pivoting and shooting the person holding the other gun.

"I could see the front of the barrel as the slide moved forward," Cpl. Wilcox said during cross-examination.

Prosecutor Maj. Jason Samson suggested to Cpl. Wilcox that he had other choices, including running out of the tent or darting behind the bunk space of another soldier.

"I suppose I could've, or moved out of his line of view by running to Master Cpl. [Nathan] Crosby's bunk," Cpl. Wilcox said. "I suppose I could have turned around and did nothing, too."

The defence has put forward the theory Cpl. Wilcox acted in self-defence to an unknown threat. Cpl. Wilcox agreed during cross-examination on Friday that he reacted without first assessing the threat.

"At the time I just reacted to a pistol pointed at me. I did not have the time to think through all of the possibilities," he said Monday.

Maj. Samson said the sound of the 9-mm pistol could have been as simple as Cpl. Megeney checking his gun to ensure there were no rounds in the chamber. The prosecutor also suggested Cpl. Megeney could have been cleaning his gun at the time.

"If Kevin didn't see you, maybe he thought he was pointing in a safe direction?" Maj. Samson asked.

"It's possible, sir, but he would normally point a gun toward the ground," Cpl. Wilcox replied.

He said "in retrospect" there were other ways to handle the situation rather than using deadly force. "Sitting here today sir, with the evidence, I don't think there was a threat."

Coming off a 12-hour shift as a member of force protection company, which is in charge of protecting one of the main gates of Kandahar Airfield, Cpl. Wilcox said he wasn't in a fully relaxed state at the tent but he wasn't "at a heightened state of awareness either."

Cpl. Wilcox refused to buy into the prosecution's theory that he had been playing a game of "quick draw" with Cpl. Megeney at the time of the shooting.

That claim made by one of his friends, Master Cpl. Kyle Keigan, during earlier testimony was backed up by a couple other witnesses who believed through rumour and innuendo that to be the case.

There were 35 people watching the court martial from the gallery Monday, by far the largest crowd on hand to view the proceedings to date. Cpl. Megeney's parents, Dexter and Karen, had the support of 11 friends and relatives who sat with them behind the prosecutors' table.

Wilcox had about 10 supporters in court, most of them family members.

The defence closed its case at the close of Cpl. Wilcox's testimony. The trial now proceeds Tuesday with closing arguments.

cshannon@cbpost.com

_© 2009 The National Post Company. All rights reserved. _


----------



## helpup (28 Jul 2009)

A quick touch on the subject of a Lawyer providing the options of defence.  I am not one and outside of being to a few court martials and my own history with dealing with the JAG's and such.  This ( use the term loosely) soldier, made a statement of his case.  I, as stated, find that complete B.S.  Many here do...... and rightly so.  

Here is what has been laid out as I followed the case.  
- the accused came off shift where the 9mm was a side arm that was carried loaded.  ( mag in the pistol, no round in the chamber) I dont know if he was required or did in fact ready the weapon but from what I have read and my own experience the weapon was more and likely readied while on shift)
-Camp policywas to clear your weapons prior to going off shift or entering the camp. ( this was covered by a recent post. 
-It was not clear if he put a empty mag on or even a full mag to allow the  hammer to go forward on a empty chamber, ( a normal process that is often carried out prior to removing the mag one last time)  Some times keeping the mag on after a unload and clearing the wpn is the proper drill but not as I understand it for the camp he was in.
-He would of had his 9mm in his holster the mag should of been off but regardless the  hammer should of been forward 
-He gets into his tent where the sounds of wpns being cocked prior to being cleaned are ( trust me on this) a normal occurance. 
-by his statement he turned around and seen a pistol leveled at him and reacted "in under 2 seconds"
-he would of needed to draw his cleared wpn and if it was properly cleared put a mag in if it was not already inserted. If there was a mag in it then he was doing something VERY WRONG unless his camp changed routine WRT Wpns state.  Regardless he would of needed to now "ready" his action as the hammer should of been forward.  This can be occompished by pulling back on the slide or cocking the hammer itself back.  ( however if there is not round in the chamber and no mag on, the hammer will not go forward unless a sear is pressed. If there is a round in the chamber and there is NO magazine on and the action is cocked. The wpn unless broken ( the sear is broken in such a way to allow the action to go forward with out a magzine in) will not fire. 
- The accused pointed his wpn and fired it, I believe his statement was there was a mag on.  regardless it should not of been readied or even loaded, let alone the hammer cocked. He would of had to "ready" the wpn, his trg would of been to watch his threat while doing this. Even in under two seconds it would give him time to realize it was a Canadian he was aiming at ( big NO NO through any CF TRG)
-Given all that I find it more likely he thought his Wpn was cleared. Had a mag on with the hammer to the rear ( for what ever reason) there was a round in the chamber due to a gross mistake on his part.  He drew and fired thinking it would just go click...........
That I am sorry is against his trg.........
-Even if he was under the assumption he was in threat of his life he should not of had a loaded and readied wpn. He should of had to draw it, load it, ready it, fire it while watching his threat............ I dont buy that he had to do that.... in under two seconds.  And if he did have to do that then he was doing it against camp policy, CF policy and is in the wrong regardless.


Note Mod's I hope I am not going overboard with this one.  If so let me know and I will modify or if it is too much just delete this post. 

Also edited for spelling and clarification ( my spell checker on this computer does not work )


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Jul 2009)

helpup said:
			
		

> Also edited for spelling and clarification ( * my spell checker on this computer does not work *)


That's when a dictionary comes in handy.

Just one clarification in reference to your post.  The accused testified that he "put in a magazine" (read: loaded) his pistol after unloading it.  The inference is that he cleared it properly (eg: removed the magazine, cocked the weapon, thereby removing any ammo from the chamber.  Then he would have checked visually to ensure that the chamber was indeed clear.  Then he would have allowed the action forward, inserted a magazine, and fired the action into a safe area [eg: clearing bay].)  

Some time after this he loaded the weapon.  He hasn't testified when he readied it.


----------



## GAP (28 Jul 2009)

His testimony doesn't square with normal procedures nor with common sense....he needs to take another tact.....


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Jul 2009)

Well, I realize it's the media reporting but in one story, he just turned and fired a shot, indicating that the weapon was, indeed, loaded.  In the other, he states he "readied" the weapon which either involved cocking the action or putting a mag on _and_ cocking the action.  Either way, it's just wrong.


----------



## helpup (29 Jul 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> That's when a dictionary comes in handy.
> 
> Just one clarification in reference to your post.  The accused testified that he "put in a magazine" (read: loaded) his pistol after unloading it.  The inference is that he cleared it properly (eg: removed the magazine, cocked the weapon, thereby removing any ammo from the chamber.  Then he would have checked visually to ensure that the chamber was indeed clear.  Then he would have allowed the action forward, inserted a magazine, and fired the action into a safe area [eg: clearing bay].)
> 
> Some time after this he loaded the weapon.  He hasn't testified when he readied it.



Thanks Rambler but since I do my stuff in the few min time that I have at work. I dont always ( read normally ) the luxury of getting that ole ( not a typo ) dictionary. 

As you said the inference is just that.... and with Wpns you dont infer you do or you dont. Someone earlier did a pretty good job of describing the unload, The Hammer should of been forward at the end of the drill but that is not clear. Nor is the reason he put on his magazine again when the policy for non MP's or duty security people is keep the magazine off.

Further I have watched multiple people over the years make mistakes out of "going through the motions of a unload" these have involved having a round still in the chamber once it is done. Most but not all have wound up firing that round into the firing bay ( a big why we use it) but there have been cases where that was not done either.


----------



## Gunner98 (29 Jul 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Well, I realize it's the media reporting but in one story, he just turned and fired a shot, indicating that the weapon was, indeed, loaded.  In the other, he states he "readied" the weapon which either involved cocking the action or putting a mag on _and_ cocking the action.  Either way, it's just wrong.



I agree Moe - I have not read of any evidence presented that would indicate that Cpl M said, "WTF". IMHO that might indicate that there was no interval or delay that might have allowed the indication of surprise and that the response by Cpl W was either - expected or instantaneous.


----------



## Staff Weenie (29 Jul 2009)

I must confess that I am still rather confused...

Cpl W must have incredible subconscious ninja reflexes such that he can hear the sound of a weapon being cocked, identify it as a clear threat to him and none other (while his back was supposedly turned to the point of the sound's origin), turn his body, draw his own weapon (especially with our holsters - not designed for any sort of quick draw), load a magazine (if not already loaded), cock it (if not already done), and fire, all before his brain can process the visual input that would clearly identify that in fact the 'threat' was only his friend.

If Cpl W's body can act in such a coordinated fashion without any direct conscious control, then he may represent a persistent danger to those around him....

His story may be a crock to cover his butt, but this disgrace dishonours the memory of his friend and himself.

Sadly, it all reminds me of a case long ago in Niagara Falls, where one police officer shot another at the pistol range. If my memory is clear, he claimed he dropped his pistol and it went off, killing his friend. It would have been believed until an examination of the wound showed that the round entered on a near-horizontal trajectory. He ultimately admitted that he and his friend had been joking about the vests they had, and their stopping power...it got taken too far.


----------



## mariomike (29 Jul 2009)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> Sadly, it all reminds me of a case long ago in Niagara Falls, where one police officer shot another at the pistol range. If my memory is clear, he claimed he dropped his pistol and it went off, killing his friend. It would have been believed until an examination of the wound showed that the round entered on a near-horizontal trajectory. He ultimately admitted that he and his friend had been joking about the vests they had, and their stopping power...it got taken too far.



No charges were ever laid and the other officer returned to regular patrol duty. 
The official statement from the victim's father, as reported by the Star: "I can't understand Howard Morton and the SIU's decision in this case." ( Howard Morton was SIU Director at the time. )
Ref: Toronto Star Wednesday, January 19, 1994 page A7.


----------



## helpup (29 Jul 2009)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> Cpl W must have incredible subconscious ninja reflexes such that he can hear the sound of a weapon being cocked, identify it as a clear threat to him and none other (while his back was supposedly turned to the point of the sound's origin), turn his body, draw his own weapon (especially with our holsters - not designed for any sort of quick draw), load a magazine (if not already loaded), **** it (if not already done), and fire, all before his brain can process the visual input that would clearly identify that in fact the 'threat' was only his friend.



the action of turning and firing with in the time ( less then two seconds) can be done. Not always accurately, not often if you are out of practice, AND OR if your Wpn is in the proper state of readiness.  But trust me on this if you have trained, practiced it can be done. A version of this is called Transition drills on the UOI Crse, (Gunfighter)

Pont to note however,  in under 2 seconds was a statement used by the accused.  That is a pretty finite statement for a " adrenaline reaction moment" I would wager he knows it was under 2 seconds as at some point he did or others did the same movement with a stop watch.


----------



## Staff Weenie (29 Jul 2009)

helpup - I believe you may well be right in the '2 second' time given by the defendant resulting from a rehearsal he conducted to bolster his defence. 

I also accept that Gunfighter training can, through repetitive training to the point of creating 'muscle memory', produce a very fast reaction time. But I wonder exactly how much practice would be required to form that skill, and does the CF routinely provide it and maintain it, or did he have some sort of equivalent training from the civilian world? 

I just don’t buy his line though. As part of the Role 3 staff, it wasn’t uncommon for me to hear weapons from all contributing nations being cocked to clear outside of the trauma bay entrance. It never caused me, or anybody around me to jump and draw our pistols (though I was always concerned about the ANA’s and ANP’s legendary weapons ‘mishandling’ skills). And, having had ROE’s beaten into my overly thick skull, and suffering from an ongoing paranoia as to whether my weapon was always safe and secure wherever I went on KAF, I just don’t buy his story.

Since I don't believe there were any direct witnesses, we are left to determine the most probable causes of the event. In this case, outright probability seems to be going against the defendant.


----------



## Fusaki (29 Jul 2009)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> I just don’t buy his line though. As part of the Role 3 staff, it wasn’t uncommon for me to hear weapons from all contributing nations being cocked to clear outside of the trauma bay entrance. It never caused me, or anybody around me to jump and draw our pistols (though I was always concerned about the ANA’s and ANP’s legendary weapons ‘mishandling’ skills). And, having had ROE’s beaten into my overly thick skull, and suffering from an ongoing paranoia as to whether my weapon was always safe and secure wherever I went on KAF, I just don’t buy his story.



This seems to be the biggest hole in the story.

Wilcox would have probably heard the sound of a pistol being cocked 20 times a day:  You put a round in the chamber when you start your shift, clear it when you're done, clear it again before cleaning, then a few more times for the a function test.  Presumably, every army guy around him would be doing the same thing.

But _this_ time it triggers some sort of stress-induced hypervigilant response?  What traumatic event does his subconscious link with the sound of a cocking pistol?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jul 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> But _this_ time it triggers some sort of stress-induced hypervigilant response?  What traumatic event does his subconscious link with the sound of a cocking pistol?



Perhaps that is the defence he's setting up for appeal?


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Jul 2009)

Pretty much what I said four pages back.


----------



## Haggis (29 Jul 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> But _this_ time it triggers some sort of stress-induced hypervigilant response?  What traumatic event does his subconscious link with the sound of a cocking pistol?





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Perhaps that is the defence he's setting up for appeal?



Perhaps his lawyer is lurking on this thread looking for "expert opinion" from our membership to build his case?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jul 2009)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Perhaps his lawyer is lurking on this thread looking for "expert opinion" from our membership to build his case?



Our opinion wouldn't make any difference anyway. If he hasn't got his ducks in a row by now, he's no lawyer. He wouldn't have gone to trial if he hadn't been ready.


----------



## Fusaki (30 Jul 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Wonderbread said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I actually meant that bold part to be taken as a rhetorical question.  I don't think there _is_ a subconscious link with the sound of a cocking pistol.

I'm no psychologist, but I _am_ a Lt. Col. Dave Grossman fan.  I've read both On Killing and On Combat, and I had the privilege of sitting in on his lectures to the 3RCR BG back at Y-101 last year.

I think what Wilcox may be setting up defense based on Combat Stress Reaction by claiming that the shooting was an Exaggerated Startle Response as mentioned in the Diagnostic Criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (DSM-IV, American Psychiatric Assn.)

In On Combat Grossman tells the story of a soldier who's mind and body had been conditioned for combat:  At the sound of gunshots his sympathetic nervous system kicked into high gear.  We're talking about the instant adrenaline rush, the frantic heartrate, distortions of space and time, and most importantly the switch to fight or flight autopilot.  I'm sure there are many on this forum who know exactly what I'm talking about.  In Grossman's story, this survival mechanism that had kept the soldier alive overseas carried over to his life back stateside: While attending a swim meet the starter's pistol shot triggered same fight or flight response.  Despite the fact that rationally the soldier knew he was safe, his subconscious was treating the swimming competition like an ambush.

So how do you go about overcoming these episodes?  Grossman talks about disassociating the stimulus with the emotion.  One way (of many) would be to get back on the rifle range.  The idea is to get used to the sound of gunfire without the threat of someone trying to kill you.  Re-associate the sound of gunshots the training mindset of becoming a better marksman.  Become comfortable on the range again by focusing on your marksmanship principles.  Disassociate the stimulus from the traumatic event.

A personal story:  On post deployment leave from TF 3-06 I happened on Scott Kesterson's YouTube videos of the 1PPCLI guys of TF Orion.  As a LAV Gunner overseas, hearing the distinctive 3 round _Thump, Thump, Thump_ of the LAVs on YouTube had a very distinct effect on me: my heart started racing and I could feel the adrenaline coursing through my body.  I looked over at my buddy and said "Shit man, look at me! the sound brings me right back!" So what did I do?  I had just read On Combat, so I basically just watched the YouTube videos untill they got boring.  Eventually the stimulus (LAVs firing) were disassociated with the response (fight or flight).

I hope that what I've said above will put into context the reason I'm skeptical of Wilcox's story.  The sound of a cocking pistol is just so mundane that I don't see how it could trigger an Exaggerated Startle Response.  Because he would have heard it so often in situations that were not so emotionally charged, I don't see _how_ that sound could have triggered his fight or flight reaction.   Where did he hear a pistol racking that it would have burned such a _deep_ response into his mind?  It would had to have happened very recently, or else the stimulus would have been quickly disassociated by sound in day to day life in KAF.

I don't want to come off as a know it all.  I'm a grunt, not a doctor.  But that's what I got for .02, based on what I've read and a bit of personal experience.


----------



## dangerboy (30 Jul 2009)

Video: Sgt. Nathan Crosby assembles 9-mm pistol 

http://www.capebretonpost.com/index.cfm?main=broadcast&bcid=10628

SYDNEY — The defence in the court martial of Cpl. Matthew Wilcox hammered away at the lack of leadership and credibility of key witnesses during its closing address to the four-member military panel, Tuesday.
Two witnesses in particular, Sgt. Brad Joyce and Sgt. Nathan Crosby, both superiors to Wilcox, were attacked for their “cavalier” attitude toward weapon safety.
Wilcox is charged with manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death and negligent performance of a duty in the shooting death of Cpl. Kevin Megeney in March 2007.
In one video shown to the military panel during testimony early in the trial, Crosby is on camera holding a Browning 9-mm pistol to the head of Joyce while on pre-deployment exercises in Wainwright, Alta. in October 2006. He pulls the pistol’s trigger several times as a voice off-camera is heard saying, “you guys are getting out of hand with these pistols.”
In the second video clip, which was obtained by the Cape Breton Post, Crosby assembles a 9-mm pistol and then points and pulls the trigger at the cameraman. The barrel of the gun is pointed toward Megeney, the person holding the video camera.
It was also recorded while the reservists were on training exercises at CFB Wainwright.
While on the stand earlier this month testifying for the prosecution, Crosby acknowledged his behaviour was out of line with the Canadian military’s standard operating procedures.
“You point the gun directly at the cameraman and you pull the trigger,” defence lawyer Maj. Stephen Turner said to Crosby.
However, Crosby said he did no wrong because he had “proven it safe” by ensuring the pistol’s chamber and magazine were empty

The video is in the article.


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Jul 2009)

How many times have you done a weapons training class and had the instructor in front of the class with weapons aimed at them?

Wilcox's lawyer is just trying to point the blame elsewhere.



> The defence in the court martial of Cpl. Matthew Wilcox hammered away at the *lack of leadership* and credibility of key witnesses


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Jul 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> How many times have you done a weapons training class and had the instructor in front of the class with weapons aimed at them?
> 
> Wilcox's lawyer is just trying to point the blame elsewhere.




Or he is presenting the fact, that weapons handling was lackadaisical, which created an environment to have wilcox keep a round up the spout.  A brilliant build up,to further prove that Wilcox was "Just doing what he trained to do".

As for weapons lectures, had I been present, I would have fired the instructors ass.  When doing weapons lectures, you right off the bat set the safe areas to aim the weapon. Left , right, or to the front.  The instructor then never enters the area in front of the students with their weapons.  He observes from the side or behind. 

It builds a confidence, and respect for the weapon in the troops,a s this is also the method you will be monitored on a range.

Unless the training has changed....

dileas

tess


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Jul 2009)

Tess, I agree about the weapons training.  I could never figure it out, either.


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Jul 2009)

I Hear ya Moe,

But I believe that is what the defence is doing too.  Even if they don't buy the fact that Wilcox fired in self defence, and want to believe it was a game of quick draw,  the defence is not necessarily discrediting the witnesses.  What they are actually doing is placing the blame on them, in that they created the environment, which lead to the exact circumstances.


Again, turning the Accused into a victim, as much as the deceased.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jul 2009)

In this instance, the poor leadership will be introduced as a mitigating factor in sentencing (assuming a guilty verdict).  To me, the videos show some clear failures of leadership which may have been contributory to a climate of lax, unsafe weapons handling.

The follow-on question:  Will the Sgts whose horseplay was caught on camera be facign charges as well - disobeying orders on weapons handling, and the good old fashioned 129?


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Jul 2009)

"Lead by example" has it's limits.  Yes there is some piss poor judgement being exercised, but at the end of the day,  Wilcox made a conscious choice to be an idiot in his handling drills, nobody forced it on him.


----------



## Engineer79 (30 Jul 2009)

I don't understand why everyone is against Wilcox. Lets assume for a minute, that he and his friend were indeed playing a game of "draw". In my opinion, they are both responsible for what happened to the victim. But putting that aside, i am sure, if anyone of you were playing a game of "draw", and your friend accidentally shot you, and you lie by his side dying, what would you say to him "i hope you go to jail" or "just twist the truth because you are a good man and what happened as an accident shouldn't ruin your entire life"?

They were playing a game, things went wrong, should he take a manslaughter blame? Put yourselves in his shoes.


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Jul 2009)

Engineer79 said:
			
		

> They were playing a game, things went wrong, should he take a manslaughter blame?



So, if a "street racer" doing 140 km/h in an 80 zone, hits another car and kills the driver, he shouldn't be charged with manslaughter?  After all, he was just playing a "game" and things went wrong.   :

They were playing a "game" with either loaded or improperly cleared weapons in a very dangerous area where your weapons status is of utmost importance.


----------



## Engineer79 (30 Jul 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> So, if a "street racer" doing 140 km/h in an 80 zone, hits another car and kills the driver, he shouldn't be charged with manslaughter?  After all, he was just playing a "game" and things went wrong.   :
> 
> They were playing a "game" with either loaded or improperly cleared weapons in a very dangerous area where your weapons status is of utmost importance.



Hmm, yea you make a very good point. It still suprizes me that everyone here is putting the blame just on Wilcox. Nevertheless, what you said makes complete sense.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jul 2009)

Engineer79 said:
			
		

> I don't understand why everyone is against Wilcox. Lets assume for a minute, that he and his friend were indeed playing a game of "draw". In my opinion, they are both responsible for what happened to the victim. But putting that aside, i am sure, if anyone of you were playing a game of "draw", and your friend accidentally shot you, and you lie by his side dying, what would you say to him "i hope you go to jail" or "just twist the truth because you are a good man and what happened as an accident shouldn't ruin your entire life"?
> 
> They were playing a game, things went wrong, should he take a manslaughter blame? Put yourselves in his shoes.



Yes.  Manslaughter is "Did something stupid and someone died - and any idiot could have seen it coming".

Pointing a weapon at another solider and pulling the trigger is reckless, foolish and dangerous, regardless of the context.  Remember - someone died because a stupid person did a stupid thing.  Punishment for such an act should deter others from being equally stupid.

The justice system isn't only about finding guilt and punishing the guilty.  Particularly in a military context, it's about putting the fear of G-d into others to keep them from repeating the same mistakes.

(Edit - Spelling)


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Jul 2009)

Engineer79 said:
			
		

> It still suprizes me that everyone here is putting the blame just on Wilcox.



I think what you're seeing is the reaction to the change in his story:  It was a "reaction" vs. We were playing quick draw.

Yes, I'm sure there are others that _share_ in the blame, considering the reckless way weapons were handled by higher ranks, but in the end, it was Cpl Wilcox who pulled the trigger.  As noted by dapaterson, will there be charges for the others?  I certainly hope so.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jul 2009)

Engineer79 said:
			
		

> I don't understand why everyone is against Wilcox. Lets assume for a minute, that he and his friend were indeed playing a game of "draw". In my opinion, they are both responsible for what happened to the victim. But putting that aside, i am sure, if anyone of you were playing a game of "draw", and your friend accidentally shot you, and you lie by his side dying, what would you say to him "i hope you go to jail" or "just twist the truth because you are a good man and what happened as an accident shouldn't ruin your entire life"?
> 
> They were playing a game, things went wrong, should he take a manslaughter blame? Put yourselves in his shoes.



Engineer79

You obviously do not realize the seriousness of this matter and the serious breaches that were made in several different matters, including Security, Wpns handling, Training, Operation Procedures, etc.  This is a very serious matter and one that has to be dealt with.  Your trivialization shows a total lack of knowledge on these matters.

If you do join the CF, you will be educated and become much more aware of how serious this matter is.


----------



## Engineer79 (30 Jul 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If you do join the CF, you will be educated and become much more aware of how serious this matter is.



I'm looking forward to it  thankyou


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jul 2009)

As far as the reaction to stress muscle memory quick draw defense goes- I won't mention the level of gunfighter training force protection gets.
Needless to say I'd put a lot of money that the Grossman style defense would be blown out of the water pretty quick considering the amount of training I believe they got.

Engineer79, Wilcox pulled the trigger.  In the military that's a pretty big deal.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Jul 2009)

If it becomes evident that charges should be laid against "others up the CoC", where will it stop?  The PL WO?  Pl Comd?  CSM?  OC?


----------



## CountDC (30 Jul 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Even when playing around like Rambo with your weapons (everyone's done it at least once),




not everyone.  i was also taught from day one that you do not point a weapon at someone unless you intend to kill them and I have always adhered to that.  Even when playing enemy force with blanks I did not point my fn directly at the other side.  To say everyone has done it gives a slight tint of "it's ok as everyone does it" that I do not believe should be given.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jul 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If it becomes evident that charges should be laid against "others up the CoC", where will it stop?  The PL WO?  Pl Comd?  CSM?  OC?



Whoever has the sign on their desk stating "The Buck Stops Here".  It could go as high in that BG as the "Powers that Be" have the will to go.


----------



## mariomike (30 Jul 2009)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> Sadly, it all reminds me of a case long ago in Niagara Falls, where one police officer shot another at the pistol range. If my memory is clear, he claimed he dropped his pistol and it went off, killing his friend. It would have been believed until an examination of the wound showed that the round entered on a near-horizontal trajectory. He ultimately admitted that he and his friend had been joking about the vests they had, and their stopping power...it got taken too far.



Sorry to nit pick. I would have modified my original post, but it is now too late. I took the time to re-read about the Niagara case in the newspaper archives, as I did not recall mention of a bullet resistant vest/body armour. It was well reported in 14 separate articles in the Star over the course of a year and a half, with no mention of body armour.
I mention this not to derail, or be argumentative, but because, as you say, the two cases do bear an eerie similarity. Also, they were at a range, but the shooting occurred while alone in the canteen area while they were awaiting others - they were both experienced gun handlers and members of the Niagara ETF - to begin the practice. After the incident, the shooter was removed from ETF and put back on regular street patrol.
If this post is irrelevant to the subject, Moderator please remove.


----------



## Staff Weenie (30 Jul 2009)

I looked into it and found the same thing. Maybe it was another incident - I distinctly remember that in an incident the Coroner's Office had noted the trajectory didn't make sense from the story, and upon further questioning, the Officer confessed that they had been joking about the new vests, and their supposed stopping power.

Who knows, at my age my memory is on the steep downhill decline and picking up speed.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (30 Jul 2009)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Even when playing enemy force with blanks I did not point my fn directly at the other side.



I used to offer free 7.62 colonoscopies to people firing blanks right at me close up.  I heard too many blanks can kill stories, BFA detaching stories, etc.  Besides I grew up with guns and pointing one at someone just wasn't right.


----------



## Bass ackwards (30 Jul 2009)

Mariomike and Staff Weenie: PM inbound


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Jul 2009)

Engineer79 said:
			
		

> They were playing a game, things went wrong, should he take a manslaughter blame? Put yourselves in his shoes.



Games?

His shoes?

This soldier must be held accountable for his actions. He can't lie his way out of this one. There is no excuse.

To even bring up the word as "games' as you call it, I find foolish in itself. Its almost as you accept this as a fun/normal practice. 

Discipline by example.

Weapons are not toys, and skylarking with any weapon usually spells disaster and the outcome here, a unnecessary death.

On my tour, ther was no games with weapons PERIOD.

The rotation before us had a pistol death from skylarking ( ya, a regular force member), and all were warned prior to leaving. Any quikcdraws or pointing of weapons at one another would be met with charges and a quick trip home in disgrace.

Stupidity breeds in both components.

OWDU.


----------



## Fusaki (30 Jul 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Needless to say I'd put a lot of money that the Grossman style defense would be blown out of the water pretty quick considering the amount of training I believe they got.



I don't think it's fair to refer to the Combat Stress Reaction thing as a "Grossman style defence".

Lt. Col. Grossman was asked by Timothy McVeigh's defence team to testify that McVeigh's Gulf War experience traumatized him into blowing up that building in Oklahoma City.  In response, Grossman volunteered himself as a witness for the prosecution.  He testified that as a former soldier McVeigh should be held to higher standards of discipline, not lower as the defence would have liked.


----------



## super26 (30 Jul 2009)

Military jury finds soldier guilty in shooting
Updated Thu. Jul. 30 2009 4:15 PM ET

The Canadian Press

SYDNEY, N.S. -- A Canadian reservist has been found guilty of criminal negligence causing death in the shooting of a fellow soldier he shared a tent with in Afghanistan.

Cpl. Matthew Wilcox had pleaded not guilty to charges of manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, and negligent performance of duty in the death of 25-year-old Kevin Megeney of Stellarton, N.S.

He was also found guilty today on the charge of negligent performance of guilty, but the manslaughter charge was stayed by a military jury deliberating on the case in Sydney, N.S.

In his instructions, the military judge, Cmdr. Peter Lamont, told the jurors they should use "common sense" in determining which theory to believe on what happened on March 6, 2007.

The defence has argued that the 24-year-old Wilcox -- who is from Glace Bay, N.S. -- was acting in self-defence, because he believed Megeney pointed his pistol at his back and readied it to fire.

But prosecutors argued Wilcox was playing a game called quick draw when his pistol was fired, basing its accusation on testimony of several friends Wilcox spoke to after the shooting.


----------



## Occam (30 Jul 2009)

N.S. soldier guilty of 2 charges in court martial

Article Link

Not guilty of manslaughter
Last Updated: Thursday, July 30, 2009 | 5:29 PM AT 
CBC News

A military jury has found a Glace Bay, N.S., reservist guilty of criminal negligence causing death and negligent performance of a military duty in the death of another Canadian soldier in Afghanistan.

But Cpl. Matthew Wilcox, 24, was found not guilty of manslaughter.

The jury deliberated for only about two hours before finding Wilcox guilty on the two charges. The criminal negligence charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, while negligent performance of a military duty carries a maximum sentence of two years less a day in jail.

Wilcox had pleaded not guilty to the charges in the death of Cpl. Kevin Megeney of Stellarton.

Megeney died of a gunshot wound to the chest at Kandahar Airfield in 2007.

More later


----------



## chris06 (30 Jul 2009)

Slight Hijack, but it's related....

Does anyone know how they picked the jury?

Does the number of jurors or the rank of jurors depend on the accused?

Is it members of the regular force only? Class B & C reservists?  I'm assuming you can't be selected for jury duty as a Class A reservist.


----------



## mariomike (30 Jul 2009)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Mariomike and Staff Weenie: PM inbound



I think this is the related story we are thinking of Bass ackwards and Staff Weenie:
http://img395.imageshack.us/i/niagarapolice2.pdf/

My apoligies. It looks too small on here. If you wish, I can e-mail the full size to you directly. 

From the inquest: "Paolizzi startled Johnson after the two officers had been doing some quick draw practice in the range's registration room. The pistol discharged in such a way that no first aid effort could save his life."


----------



## helpup (30 Jul 2009)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> But I wonder exactly how much practice would be required to form that skill, and does the CF routinely provide it and maintain it, or did he have some sort of equivalent training from the civilian world?
> 
> I just don’t buy his line though.



SW,  Muscle memory can be started in under 3 repititions. That I have to stress is started.  I can not recall what the exact ammount of practice to turn a motor control skills into a muscle memory but it is something that even if you have the basics of a action you wish to complete.  You only need to practice it enough to instill a muscle memory.  First slow ( ie slow is smooth).  Then fast ( i.e smooth is fast) Those soldiers would of had the range and scope to be able to practice this or these style of draws safely in a form of dry fire and that in itself is a legitiment form of practice.  ( Gunfighter drawing on each other is definately not) 

I liken muscle memory to my troops as driving following a car. When you first learn to drive you need your attention firmly on the car in front and almost half to tell your foot to hit the brake when it slows down.  With experience though you actually start to put on the brake with out thinking about it when his tail lights come on ( and if you have to step too hard on the brakes you were not paying attention to the traffic in front of you)


----------



## Gunner98 (30 Jul 2009)

chris06 said:
			
		

> Slight Hijack, but it's related....
> 
> Does anyone know how they picked the jury?



DND Backgrounder - http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=926

Excerpt: The General Court Martial, like all military tribunals, is a statutory court created by the National Defence Act. It is, therefore, limited to the powers and authority given to it by the National Defence Act. It is composed of 5 members randomly selected from the Canadian Forces Officers List; one of whom is appointed president. The President must be of or above the rank of Colonel. With certain exceptions this panel of officers performs the same function as a civilian jury.

Each General Court Martial also has a Judge Advocate appointed, who is a military trial judge and who performs a function very similar to the civilian court judge sitting with the jury. The Judge Advocate for a General Court Martial is appointed by the Chief Military Trial Judge of the Canadian Forces.

Comment:  If you review the history of the CM you will find that the Defence filed a motion/challenge resulting from the fact that none of the jury was an NCM and therefore, it could not be considered a jury of his peers.  The motion/challenge was over-ruled.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jul 2009)

In addition, there was a challenge based on the exclusion of class A reservists.  The judge's ruling in that case was, in my opinion, flawed, and left ample grounds for appeal on procedural flaw.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (30 Jul 2009)

If he appeals, he's a fool.  He was just handed a gift.  He's going to jail for a while but not a long while.  Appeal the sentence if needed but take the gift.


----------



## 40below (30 Jul 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> If he appeals, he's a fool.  He was just handed a gift.  He's going to jail for a while but not a long while.  Appeal the sentence if needed but take the gift.



A gift? The maximum sentence for this crime is life in prison.


----------



## dangerboy (30 Jul 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> If he appeals, he's a fool.  He was just handed a gift.  He's going to jail for a while but not a long while.  Appeal the sentence if needed but take the gift.


We do not know what he is doing, he has not received his sentence yet.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (30 Jul 2009)

Hi all.
Slightly confused on what he is getting charged with."Stayed" means he is not getting charged right?And he is getting charged for negligent performance of duty, thats it?

I'm wondering what penality that holds.Max min.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jul 2009)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stay



> The act of temporarily stopping a judicial proceeding through the order of a court.
> 
> A stay is a suspension of a case or a suspension of a particular proceeding within a case. A judge may grant a stay on the motion of a party to the case or issue a stay sua sponte, without the request of a party. Courts will grant a stay in a case when it is necessary to secure the rights of a party.
> 
> ...


----------



## X-mo-1979 (30 Jul 2009)

"A court may stay a proceeding for a number of reasons. One common reason is that another action is under way that may affect the case or the rights of the parties in the case. For instance, assume that a defendant faces lawsuits from the same plaintiffs in two separate cases involving closely related facts. One case is filed in federal court, and the other case is filed in state court. In this situation one of the courts may issue a stay in deference to the other court. The stay enables the defendant to concentrate on one case at a time."

Thanks George.So would this mean that there is plans for the manslaughter charge to be held in Civilian courts?And that they charged him with negligent performance of duty, so the civilian court could charge him for the Manslaughter?


----------



## 40below (30 Jul 2009)

The jury was given a choice of what charge to find him guilty of, they chose negligent homicide and not manslaughter. They could not find him guilty of both manslaughter *and* negligent homicide, and Wilcox can never be tried for manslaughter, either in a military or civilian court, because it would be double jeopardy. The manslaughter charge was stayed because he was found neither guilty or innocent of it.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (30 Jul 2009)

40below said:
			
		

> A gift? The maximum sentence for this crime is life in prison.



I take that back.  The minimum sentence for causing death by criminal negligence with a firearm is 4 years. (CC 220a)  The minimum sentence for manslaughter with a firearm is 4 years.  (CC 236a)  Same deal.  Lacking the use of a firearm criminal negligence is a much less serious offence.

Having an occupational use of a firearm is irrelevant according to the Supreme Court:

http://ablawg.ca/2008/03/13/the-death-of-constitutional-exemptions-alberta-rcmp-officer-sentenced-to-mandatory-four-years-for-manslaughter-with-a-firearm/

I don't believe it is stated in the article but apparently it is against RCMP policy to enter a cell with a weapon to prevent what happened in this case.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jul 2009)

In this case, there were really two plus one charges laid.  In essence, under the military justice system, two charges can be laid in alternate to each other - so you can be found guilty of only one of them, not both.

So, here, being found guilty of negligence causing death, the alternate charge to manslaughter, means the other charge is then stayed.


If, on appeal, it were found that there were fundamental errors made in the trial, it would be possible to proceed with a second trial on the same issues - look at the murderer of Reena Virk, for example - she stood trial three times for the same charge.  So "double jeopardy" (a poor movie, might I add) may of may not attach - Canadian law is significantly different from the US in this respect.


----------



## Gunner98 (31 Jul 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> So would this mean that there is plans for the manslaughter charge to be held in Civilian courts?And that they charged him with negligent performance of duty, so the civilian court could charge him for the Manslaughter?



Since the incident took place inside a tent at a NATO Base in Afghanistan, it would not result in Canadian civilian proceedings.

A stay of proceedings is simply a determination that the case will not proceed to a finding of guilty or not guilty.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (31 Jul 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If, on appeal, it were found that there were fundamental errors made in the trial, it would be possible to proceed with a second trial on the same issues - look at the murderer of Reena Virk, for example - she stood trial three times for the same charge.  So "double jeopardy" (a poor movie, might I add) may of may not attach - Canadian law is significantly different from the US in this respect.



A jury acquittal in the US, regardless of errors is pretty much a guarantee against retrial.  Jury acquittals are routinely overturned in Canada for errors.  Henry Morgenthaler was found not guilty by a jury and the appeal court substituted a guilty verdict and he spent a year or two in jail.  The law was then changed so that only a new trial could find a defendant guilty.  Whether Wilcox could be retried for manslaughter would depend on the nature of any potential errors by the judge.  If Wilcox appeals, it is likely that the crown will also.


----------



## Gunner98 (31 Jul 2009)

In an attempt to stay on topic and not wander into the US or Civilian realm prematurely...

*Correction to my earlier post on Jury selection:* http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/justice/structure-eng.asp#Types

Excerpt:
The General Court Martial comprises a military judge and a panel of CF members. The panel of CF members is roughly analogous to a jury in a civilian criminal court and is composed of five members. When the accused is an officer, the court martial panel consists entirely of officers. When the accused is a non-commissioned member, the panel must include two non-commissioned members at or above the rank of warrant officer or petty officer first class. The panel is responsible for the finding on the charges (i.e. guilty or not guilty) and the military judge makes all legal rulings and imposes the sentence.

Correction:  Comment:  If you review the history of the CM you will find that the Defence filed a motion/ Charter challenge resulting from the fact that none of the jury was an NCM a Class A Reservist and therefore, it could not be considered a jury of his peers.  The motion/challenge was over-ruled application was dismissed.

And some new info: http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/justice/structure-eng.asp#Appeal

Appeal of a Court Martial Decision

Generally speaking, decisions made at courts martial may be appealed to the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada (CMAC), a civilian court composed of Federal Court and Provincial Superior Court judges. The CMAC may sit and hear appeals at any place.

Under the NDA, both an accused tried by court martial and the Minister of National Defence may appeal to the CMAC. 
CMAC decisions may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Such appeals may be made on any question of law on which a judge of the CMAC dissents, or on any question of law if leave to appeal is granted by the Supreme Court of Canada.

When a person has delivered a Notice of Appeal under section 230 or 245 of the NDA, he or she may apply to the Appeal Committee to be provided legal counsel at public expense by the DDCS for the appeal. When the Appeal Committee determines that the applicant’s appeal has “professional merit”, the committee is required to approve the provision of legal counsel by the DDCS. As set out in QR&O article 101.21, the professional merit standard is met if there is a reasonable chance that one or more of the issues raised on the appeal could be successful and:

- result in the change of a court martial finding or sentence; or
- be of importance to the administration of military justice.


----------



## Mountie (31 Jul 2009)

I don't believe it is stated in the article but apparently it is against RCMP policy to enter a cell with a weapon to prevent what happened in this case.
[/quote]

Not true at all!  Depends on the size of the detachment you are in.  Very big detachments or any correctional facility yes.  Small detachments where you are often alone, NOT A CHANCE.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (31 Jul 2009)

Mountie said:
			
		

> I don't believe it is stated in the article but apparently it is against RCMP policy to enter a cell with a weapon to prevent what happened in this case.
> 
> 
> Not true at all!  Depends on the size of the detachment you are in.  Very big detachments or any correctional facility yes.  Small detachments where you are often alone, NOT A CHANCE.



Thank you.


----------



## Thompson_JM (31 Jul 2009)

I'm just thankful that justice has been done in this case...

Im not suprised the Manslaughter charge didnt go through, but as far as the Crim Neg Cause Death it was pretty cut and dry... 

Wilcox didnt have a leg to stand on with that charge... he screwed up, pulled the trigger, and as far as Im concerned did a great dishonour to Kevin by trying to backpedal with that pathetic defence..... 

Ive kept quiet on the matter as it was before the courts, but having talked to members of the NS Highlanders who were with the BG when I was out with them in Gorak they said that during training he was more likely to kill one of his own before he killed any taliban....  Tragically, they were right....   

if Wilcox had any sense of Duty and honour he would have manned up and taken his licks... it was his negligence that caused the death of a fellow soldier. No ifs ands or buts.... 


I just hope that the families can move on now.


----------



## Mountie (1 Aug 2009)

Mountie said:
			
		

> I don't believe it is stated in the article but apparently it is against RCMP policy to enter a cell with a weapon to prevent what happened in this case.
> 
> 
> Not true at all!  Depends on the size of the detachment you are in.  Very big detachments or any correctional facility yes.  Small detachments where you are often alone, NOT A CHANCE.



Re-reading my post I don't know if I was too clear.  I meant that in correctional centres where there are several guards/police officers present pistols are left outside, but in small detachments where members are alone they have to keep their pistols with them for safety.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (1 Aug 2009)

Mountie said:
			
		

> Re-reading my post I don't know if I was too clear.  I meant that in correctional centres where there are several guards/police officers present pistols are left outside, but in small detachments where members are alone they have to keep their pistols with them for safety.



Understood.  At the time it was widely reported that it was against RCMP policy but in detachments with only a few officers it is unworkable.  See link:

http://torontostreetnews.com/article.asp?id=9



> While inside a holding cell, Varley was shot twice - in the head and in the stomach. He died later in a Calgary hospital. According to RCMP national gun policy, officers are forbidden from carrying a gun when entering a cell or other secure holding facility.



No intention to get off topic.  I was just showing the the when the legislation says 4 year minimum, the courts will enforce a 4 year minimum.


----------



## gaspasser (1 Aug 2009)

I watched the CTV news last night (no, I don't have the link , I'm not that savvy...savvy?) Accord to thier report, Wilcox was instructing weapons lectures in Aldershot to Reserves after he was formally charged yet waiting court martial.
Is this normal procedure??


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Aug 2009)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> I watched the CTV news last night (no, I don't have the link , I'm not that savvy...savvy?) Accord to thier report, Wilcox was instructing weapons lectures in Aldershot to Reserves after he was formally charged yet waiting court martial.
> Is this normal procedure??



Innocent until proven guilty.  At least it was only lectures and not ranges.


----------



## gaspasser (1 Aug 2009)

Still, I wonder if it was ethically responsible to do so?

Going out on a limb to make an exaggerated example: If it were someone who was charged but awaiting trial for child molestation or the like, would you allow that person to be around children?

Even his platoon mates said he was dangerous.
 :2c:


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (1 Aug 2009)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> I watched the CTV news last night (no, I don't have the link , I'm not that savvy...savvy?) Accord to thier report, Wilcox was instructing weapons lectures in Aldershot to Reserves after he was formally charged yet waiting court martial.
> Is this normal procedure??



Nobody can say the Canadian Forces doesn't have a sense of humour or at least a sense of irony.  I suspect there might be some explaining to be done.  The same report said Wilcox was expected to spend about 7 months in prison.  I believe that if he is suitably contrite he will spend 16 months.  If not suitably contrite it could be 48 months.


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Aug 2009)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> Still, I wonder if it was ethically responsible to do so?



I agree.  Perhaps he was assisting or there was a stipulation that no ammo be involved.


----------



## mariomike (1 Aug 2009)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> I watched the CTV news last night (no, I don't have the link , I'm not that savvy...savvy?) Accord to thier report, Wilcox was instructing weapons lectures in Aldershot to Reserves after he was formally charged yet waiting court martial.
> Is this normal procedure??



http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/soldier-found-guilty/#clip199259


----------



## Gunner98 (1 Aug 2009)

He was not suspended from duty.  Innocent until proven guilty. We don't arraign people prior to a court martial so unless a very high level in the chain of command puts restrictions on employment then it won't happen.  This is a slippery slope.

In the case of Rob Fraser whose charging were later withdrawn and was Reg Force I do not think it is likely that any restrictions were placed either.

Under the provisions of Queens Regulations and Orders (QR&O) 19.75 - Suspension From Duty:
·  *An officer or non-commissioned member may be suspended from duty by the Chief of the Defence Staff, or an officer commanding a command.*
·  These authorities may suspend an officer or non-commissioned member from duty in any circumstance that, in the authorities opinion, render it undesirable in the interests of the Service that the member remain on duty.
PROCESS
·  Each case is carefully assessed, based on its own merits.
·  Determination of suspension is only made after a complete investigation has been conducted by the police.
·  Normally, civilian police charges laid under the Criminal Code of Canada are applied prior to suspension, and the member is arraigned before a judge and a hearing date is set.
·  Determination of suspension is based on the seriousness of the alleged offences, that is, if the nature of the offences brings serious discredit to the Canadian Forces and, if convicted, *will likely result in release*.


----------



## gaspasser (1 Aug 2009)

I wonder, if like Kyle Brown, Wilcox will be charged in civil court too?
Brown served his 2 years less a day at CFMDB then was released then escorted to civie prison.  
I'm sorry if I look crass, but gunplay with your buddies and "accidentally" killing one is not kosher in my books.  Years of weapons discipline and having a right head on my shoulders have taught me that. 
This is the profession of arms and we don't f^&* around with it.  Maybe it's a brotherhood/sisterhood thing.  Just not On.
 :2c:


----------



## Gunner98 (1 Aug 2009)

This discussion is a premature but your facts are inaccurate - Brown did not face civilian charges. On March 16, 1994, exactly one year after the death of Shidane Arone, the court martial panel found Pte Brown guilty of manslaughter and torture. Brown was dismissed with disgrace and was sentenced to five years in prison.  He was released from the military on May 24, 1995 and was transferred to a civilian penitentiary. He was released on parole in November 1995.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (1 Aug 2009)

After reading through the comments on other news agency's one thing keeps popping up.People saying its a poor accident because they were bored.They were not in the dessert in a mod tent!They were in a CITY called Kandahar airfield.If they got bored they could have went to:

-Salsa classes
-Chess Club
-Ran around in normal civilian gear in the marathon club
-Went to the multitude of awesome gyms
-Hung out at burgerking,tim hortons second cup....etc etc
-went for a massage at the multiple massage parlors.
-Went to one of the differnt country ran hang outs (ie canada house NAFFE)
-went to excellent internet facilities.
-Went to the "raves" with DJ Shut yo mouth (seen a poster)
-ball hockey
-soft ball
-football
-Rugby
-large internet gaming trailers hooked together so people can play war games etc against each other
I can continue....

It annoys me that some people think these guys were bored and that's the reason.They were in a war zone and more or less "behind the front lines" for the most part.They had every facility imaginable and boredom in my mind is B/S.
This soldier is going to jail and a young man is dead due to stupidity,unprofessional action,childishness.Plain and simple.

The media is painting a picture of two soldiers sitting in a hot mod in the middle of no where.Which as anyone who has been to or have passed through KAF going out to FOB's and COP's knows differnt. KAF has more facilities than Petawawa,and their living arrangements have A/C.

I'm not sure if these guys were in the modules or the large BAT's. Either way again the media is painting a different picture to the Canadian public.

As for the reserve thing not being trained is B/S.

However after reading another post here about how many medals force protection got made me quite angry.Congrats to those who got recognized and became war heros.But lets face what makes someone get recognized.Your leaderships willingness to take the time to write that stuff up,your leadership believes that it wasnt just "doing their jobs".I have seen plenty people get recognized for stuff that I saw my guys doing, however we believed patching up 12 ANA guys (for one of the many examples )as part of our job and not being fing war heros.The only recognition many got was a pat on the back at the end of a day over a Perrier back inside the FOB.And thats all any of them/we wanted.

So as for the Force protection awards it ranks right up there with the reg reserve argument in my book.

(rant off)


----------



## gaspasser (1 Aug 2009)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> This discussion is a premature but your facts are inaccurate - Brown did not face civilian charges. On March 16, 1994, exactly one year after the death of Shidane Arone, the court martial panel found Pte Brown guilty of manslaughter and torture. Brown was dismissed with disgrace and was sentenced to five years in prison.  He was released from the military on May 24, 1995 and was transferred to a civilian penitentiary. He was released on parole in November 1995.


I stand corrected. Thank FE...but I knew he went to civ prison. As a continuation of his military sentence??  

...blame the sumseimers...


----------



## tech2002 (2 Aug 2009)

what would it happened or how the sentence would play if he admitted that he shot him accidentally,  that they played quick draw, and firearm discharged by accidentally pressing trigger ???..  
would he get lesser sentence ?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (2 Aug 2009)

tech2002 said:
			
		

> what would it happened or how the sentence would play if he admitted that he shot him accidentally,  that they played quick draw, and firearm discharged by accidentally pressing trigger ???..
> would he get lesser sentence ?



I assume that's the scenario the panel bought.  Given the repetitive training to the contrary it would be difficult to call it an accident rather than negligence.  As stated by mariomike a true accident would not have led to criminal charges but maybe administrative punishment.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_219/20090730/en#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_219



> Causing death by criminal negligence
> 
> 220. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
> 
> ...


----------



## Bintheredunthat (2 Aug 2009)

Don't forget that the old AD was replaced with ND a few years back.

Ok not a valid point really - but the military did put a lot of the onus on individuals for their own weapon.  With the amount of trg that "should" be provided, there still would be no excuse for such an accident.

But this is all hypothetical of course, since this isn't what really happened.  The accident part that is.

I dunno.  I was following the story and in my mind (or at least from what the media told me), the story line changed from one day to another.  I'll have to read some facts from a more reliable source I suppose.

Bin


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Aug 2009)

tech2002 said:
			
		

> what would it happened or how the sentence would play if he admitted that he shot him accidentally,  that they played quick draw, and firearm discharged by accidentally pressing trigger ???..
> would he get lesser sentence ?



Wll we really can't speculate on that, but it takes a real man to own up to his own shortcomings on such a tragic event.

To try and wiggle out of this has cost him the respect from complete strangers including myself.

Perhaps the court would have looked at this outcome differently if he just would have admiited the obvious.

My thoughts.

OWDU


----------



## Greymatters (3 Aug 2009)

I think it needs to be recalled that the defendant doesnt always choose the defense tactic - the lawyer often decides what tactic/defence to use, and convinces the client to use it.  

Regarding the accused, fear of jail time, or the impact of having a criminal record on the rest of your life, can make many people adjust their personal ethics to fit the situation...


----------



## helpup (4 Aug 2009)

I know people who have shot thier Friends and did not try to weasel out of it.  It was a tragic misstake that cost a life, and altered another permanently as he did his time and was released from the military.  I thought at the time the sentance was too extreme as there was nothing that the army could do to this man that he wasnt doing to himself for killing a close freind.  He went to the CM and stated the facts. ( he did have a Civi lawyer though,) not once though did he try to deny what had happened or shift blame.  
The Lawyer may be able to work with a defence but that is on the wishes of the accused, and or the consent.


----------



## Gunner98 (4 Aug 2009)

helpup said:
			
		

> The Lawyer may be able to work with a defence but that is on the wishes of the accused, and or the consent.



Please remember that the accused chooses his "plea" - from there it is a team effort to navigate the trial process to prove that plea.  It is the prosecution who has the onus to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the plea of not guilty is incorrect.  Several tactics were introduced as in any case - ricochet, heightened alertness etc, to create that reasonable doubt which is the defence's goal.

As desperate defence may sometimes grasp at straws to manufacture that doubt.

helpup - do tell/qualify your statement, which CM are you referring to?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Aug 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> After reading through the comments on other news agency's one thing keeps popping up.People saying its a poor accident because they were bored.They were not in the dessert in a mod tent!They were in a CITY called Kandahar airfield.
> 
> The media is painting a picture of two soldiers sitting in a hot mod in the middle of no where.Which as anyone who has been to or have passed through KAF going out to FOB's and COP's knows differnt. KAF has more facilities than Petawawa,and their living arrangements have A/C.



When I read your post, my first thought was something I'll call the "Jarhead" defence.  You know, the part in the movie where buddy looses it and starts making the young Pte with the google-glasses repeat "this is my weapon..." with the wpn readied and pointed at him.

Maybe the defence was hoping the CM panel had watched it...

I didn't know Cpl Kevin Megeney.  I did go to his funeral, as I had been part of the 36 CBG for many years.  I've known many mbr's of the PLF, 1 NSH, and 2 NSH.  I was at the Bde HQ when the trg Coy was stood up to select/train the Reservists from the Bde and around some of the...*politics* that such things always seem to bring out.  I have my own opinions on certain things that I won't put up in a public forum.  I wasn't there that fatal day when that round was fired that took his life.

I've read on this thread that people haven't ever pointed their weapon at anyone in trg.  I'll be the first one to say that I HAVE, as the trg was for war, and in war people kill and are killed.  Trg includes, IMO, the mental conditioning to pull the trigger when you have the enemy in your sites.  I did that.  I pointed my wpn at people who were playing POWs.  People who were playing enemy force.  People who were playing The Fantasian Army, or whoever we called them at that particular time, and place.  I also trained those under me, when it was my job, to pull that trigger to.  So, what I am saying is, in trg there ARE times you point your wpn when you are using blanks, or *militia bullets*, at the OPFOR/En Frce/call it what you want.  You do it to train your "battle shot".  While I understand some people will say they have never pointed their wpn at a person in trg, then I wonder if your trg was done correctly, and if you are being 100% honest with yourself.  Yes, we always used and watched for ALL the normal safety issues (wpn's safety, handling drills, safe distances, verification of ammo type, briefing/pyro demo's, trigger finger placement on the trigger guard, etc)

None of what I have written in the above para have any place in the video's I have now seen of certain people trg for TF 1-07, or have any relation to or intend to defend, support, or explain the actions of Cpl Wilcox.  

In the end, I feel for everyone who had a close, special place for Cpl Kevin Megeney in their hearts.  As I write this, I remember the words of his friend and platoon mate, who brought Kevin home, at his funeral.  I remember the look on the face of my friend and Cpl Megeney's Platoon WO that morning in the church, when I walked up front and sat down beside him and said "How you doin' man?", as I had no other words at the time.

It is my personal opinion that Cpl Wilcox gave up his chance to pay one last honour to a friend and fellow soldier he took the life of.  I've read the comments that he was only trying to defend himself from a harsher punishment, etc, and that I can understand from a logical point of view.  The "army guy" in me, however, has somewhat of a more harsh opinion of his actions and words of late.

As a former soldier in 36 CBG for 17 years how has known many good troops, NCOs, WOs and Officers from all the units involved, I doubt I'll ever be convinced that Cpl Wilcox was anything close to a *soldiers soldier*.  That isn't because he was a Reservist, or a poorly trained whatever.  He just never had the right stuff.  If I were him, I wouldn't be able to look at the face in the mirror when I shaved in the morning.  

I'll close with, what I believe, are the most meaningful words I can write to finish this post.




Rest In Peace Cpl Kevin Megeney.    

Rest In Peace


----------



## Gunner98 (4 Aug 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I've read on this thread that people haven't ever pointed their weapon at anyone in trg.  I'll be the first one to say that I HAVE, as the trg was for war, and in war people kill and are killed.  Trg includes, IMO, the mental conditioning to pull the trigger when you have the enemy in your sites.  I did that.  I pointed my wpn at people who were playing POWs.  People who were playing enemy force.  People who were playing The Fantasian Army, or whoever we called them at that particular time, and place.  I also trained those under me, when it was my job, to pull that trigger to.  So, what I am saying is, in trg there ARE times you point your wpn when you are using blanks, or *militia bullets*, at the OPFOR/En Frce/call it what you want.  You do it to train your "battle shot".  While I understand some people will say they have never pointed their wpn at a person in trg, then I wonder if your trg was done correctly, and if you are being 100% honest with yourself.  Yes, we always used and watched for ALL the normal safety issues (wpn's safety, handling drills, safe distances, verification of ammo type, briefing/pyro demo's, trigger finger placement on the trigger guard, etc)



And on all of these occasions you would (I hope) have used a Blank Firing Attachment which would permit you to safely do so.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Aug 2009)

With one exception;  on BMQ/QL2/FELT/whatever BMQ was called over the years.

During the Safety/Pyro briefing and demo, one of the instructors would remove the BFA, and (at a safe distance/direction), fire a single blank round into a (usually) IMP box.  

The box would then be passed around for all the troops to see up close.  The reason for doing so is obvious, IMO.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (4 Aug 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> When I read your post, my first thought was something I'll call the "Jarhead" defence.  You know, the part in the movie where buddy looses it and starts making the young Pte with the google-glasses repeat "this is my weapon..." with the wpn readied and pointed at him.


I'm sorry.I don't know what your trying to say here.Can you explain?I first thought of it as some form of insult,but alas through this media I sometimes find it hard to ascertain peoples point,without emotion etc.

I will reply to the rest of your post.During training we ALWAYS point our weapons and fire at human beings.It instills muscle memory and prepares the soldier for doing a deed of removing a target from the planet.I am really confused on what point your trying to make.I'm guessing your directing the Jarhead comment at the accused? (sorry...late night last night)

As in 37 Brigade, we in 1 bge also train with blanks when we can afford to have it.We also train in common sense.Pointing a weapon at your buddies head shows nothing more than childish and unprofessional soldiers.

I have no idea what transpired that day.Fact is a young man was killed,by another young man who was suppose to be a infanteer.A person who should be comfortable with the usage of all personal firearms.So comfortable they know what they can do.Not to mention to know when the darn this is clear.

The media paints a different picture for the Canadian pubic as per the norm.

I'm sure Mr Wilcox would love to take that day back and change it.However as my father told me when I got my first firearm (at a VERY young age) you can NEVER take a bullet back.That applied to me stopping from taking a poor shot on a animal,and waiting for an opportunity to kill it;not wound it.I also preached it during weapons class,and classes on PID (positive ident of target)in the military.

Guns are not fing toys.Homer put it simply "I just point this at what I want to die".Fact is Homer was right!Never point a weapon and pull the trigger unless you want the thing to die.

Unfortunately there are many people who are not 100% comfortable in the handling of weapons.My favorite was a MP who was ensuring we cleared our weapons properly before getting on the plane.He freaked when  I put my full mag back on my pistol to put the action forward (I have short fingers!).He then began to get into a speech about me almost having a ND...needless to say I snapped and explained the pistol drills to him in detail,and how it works...Until a Snr NCO overheard the problem hauled the MP off to the side.If you don't have weapons drills after how many months of training?years in the army?

This is a perfect professional development scenario for Snr NCO's. I can promise it will be brought up to my young guys as part of weapons classes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Aug 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry.I don't know what your trying to say here.Can you explain?I first thought of it as some form of insult,but alas through this media I sometimes find it hard to ascertain peoples point,without emotion etc.



Not an insult or directed at you at all.  What I meant (and didn't make clear) was the media trying to paint it as "two bored soldiers in a tent".  The Jarhead Defence comment was in reference to the movie, where they have been sitting in the desert for a long time, buddy gets loaded drunk, busted down to Pte and then freaks on his platoon mate with the "spn pointed at his head and ready" making him repeat the "this is my wpn" lines.  

That got me thinking someone in the media saw the movie and thought "hey I wonder if that is sorta what happened"...



> I'm guessing your directing the Jarhead comment at the accused? (sorry...late night last night)



Not really...just the media for trying to make something it wasn't.



> The media paints a different picture for the Canadian pubic as per the norm.



I'd like to say I am surprised, but mama told me not to lie.


----------



## Greymatters (4 Aug 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately there are many people who are not 100% comfortable in the handling of weapons.My favorite was a MP who was ensuring we cleared our weapons properly before getting on the plane.He freaked when  I put my full mag back on my pistol to put the action forward (I have short fingers!).He then began to get into a speech about me almost having a ND...needless to say I snapped and explained the pistol drills to him in detail,and how it works...Until a Snr NCO overheard the problem hauled the MP off to the side.If you don't have weapons drills after how many months of training?years in the army?  This is a perfect professional development scenario for Snr NCO's. I can promise it will be brought up to my young guys as part of weapons classes.



If it doesnt get too far off topic, why did your mag have to go back on the pistol? Its pretty much SOP to keep a mag off of any weapon while on any CF aircraft.  Or is this an example from a deployment?


----------



## helpup (4 Aug 2009)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> helpup - do tell/qualify your statement, which CM are you referring to?



I didnt put the details down for a reason but I will qualify it a bit more.  During Solmolia there was a ND that resulted in death.  I knew both of them but the accused better then the other.  I was also an escort for his CM and partook in the proceeding's.  The accused did not try to wiggle out of what had happened.  It was one of his closest freinds who died. Orriginally I was not a fan of the sentance as there was not much the army could do to this guy that he was not doing to himself.  ( It also helped that he owned up to it)  The Civi lawyer was there in a hope to mitigate some of the fallout affecting this soldier and his family.  It didnt help.

This case though does not relate to the Pistol packer who in my view tried to duck and dodge to the point of doing a diservice to himself and the deceased.  

And I think it was last night that there was mention on the news about the "gun culture" of the military contributing to the incident.  I am not sure if that was mentioned by the defence or just a MSM's opinion on the whole thing.  Still made me shake my head.


----------



## Roy Harding (4 Aug 2009)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> If it doesnt get too far off topic, why did your mag have to go back on the pistol? ...



To move the action forward.

You can do it without a mag - if you have REALLY long fingers - but most of us normal sized folks use a mag.


----------



## Gunner98 (4 Aug 2009)

helpup said:
			
		

> I didnt put the details down for a reason but I will qualify it a bit more.  During Solmolia there was a ND that resulted in death.



I will qualify for you as I knew the individual as well.

www.dnd.ca/somalia/vol1/v1c14e.htm

The Accidental Shooting Death of a Canadian Soldier

MCpl Smith was charged with criminal negligence causing death and negligent performance of duty as a result of accidentally discharging his rifle and fatally wounding Cpl Abel on May 3, 1993 in Somalia. *On April 11, 1994, MCpl Smith pleaded not guilty to criminal negligence causing death and guilty to negligent performance of duty.*

The prosecution called a witness on the issue of the sentence, Capt Yuzichuk, the adjutant for the CAR. He testified on accidental discharges in Somalia and the unit's disciplinary response to these incidents. He stated that there had been numerous accidental discharges during the deployment and that the standard penalty set by LCol Mathieu was a fine of half a month's pay. The witness stated it was his opinion that the accidental discharges were attributable in part to the fact that, unlike other missions, in Somalia they were required to have their loaded weapons with them at all times.

In its submissions on sentence, the prosecution observed that the accused had not accidentally pulled the trigger, he had done it deliberately to "dry fire" the weapon, apparently having forgotten that the magazine was on it and that a round was in the chamber. The defence emphasized that only tragic luck separated this case from the other accidental discharges in Somalia, and asked that MCpl Smith be given a fine and a reprimand.

*MCpl Smith was sentenced to four months' detention, a penalty that included automatic reduction in rank to private. The criminal negligence charge was stayed. On April 10, 1995, the Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the defence's appeal.*

As for the clearing of 9mm prior to boarding a flight - today those drills are supervised by the Flight Engineers/loadies and do not result in a live magazine being put into the pistol after being "cleared.  There is an empty magazine chained to the clearing barrel/pit.  This makes the loadie much more comfortable.


----------



## mariomike (4 Aug 2009)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> The Accidental Shooting Death of a Canadian Soldier



There was a very nice Letter of the Day in the Star regarding the deceased:
http://img406.imageshack.us/i/cplabel.pdf/


----------



## X-mo-1979 (4 Aug 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not an insult or directed at you at all.  What I meant (and didn't make clear) was the media trying to paint it as "two bored soldiers in a tent".  The Jarhead Defence comment was in reference to the movie, where they have been sitting in the desert for a long time, buddy gets loaded drunk, busted down to Pte and then freaks on his platoon mate with the "spn pointed at his head and ready" making him repeat the "this is my wpn" lines.


Ok gotcha.Understand and agree.The media is painting a picture that to the people whom haven't been there.Unfortunately that is gospel in their eyes...as the media told them.And we both know the difference.



			
				Greymatters said:
			
		

> If it doesn't get too far off topic, why did your mag have to go back on the pistol? Its pretty much SOP to keep a mag off of any weapon while on any CF aircraft.  Or is this an example from a deployment?


An example of anywhere a pistol is used.It's an example of proper weapon drill's.After you allow the action forward you can remove the full mag and put it away.I respect my weapon and was in no way putting that rusty dirty empty mag attached to the clearing bay into my sidearm.No way.

Again this shows an example of people not having a full understanding of a weapons system.Problem being some people deployed due to "tradeism" can carry around a pistol so it isnt as ackward to go to timmies,but have zero knowledge of how the weapon system works.

Greymatter just a question I would like for you to answer seriously.have you ever wore a 9mm?Not trying to dogpile,but I would think a snr nco must have had one on at one point?

IMHO all soldiers should have a full understanding of weapons....A infantryman should be a freaking expert. (disclaimer...not that any other soldier should be less professional...but we all know...)


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Aug 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> To move the action forward.
> 
> You can do it without a mag - if you have REALLY long fingers - but most of us normal sized folks use a mag.



Australia removed the mag safety in a force wide mod several years ago, hence ending this problem. The only admin for this was a rewrite of a para in the pam, and a re-teach on handling lectures.


----------



## Roy Harding (4 Aug 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Australia removed the mag safety in a force wide mod several years ago, hence ending this problem. The only admin for this was a rewrite of a para in the pam, and a re-teach on handling lectures.



I don't think I'm following you, Wes.  How does one move the action forward without a mag (or long fingers)?


----------



## Fusaki (4 Aug 2009)

> I don't think I'm following you, Wes.  How does one move the action forward without a mag (or long fingers)?



The Browning Hi-Power has a mag safety: When you pull the trigger without a mag on, the action won't fire.  Because of this, our unload drill requires us to either replace the mag or depress the mag safety manually my sticking our fingers in the magwell in order to fire the action and confirm that the weapon is indeed clear of rounds in the chamber.

Wes is saying that the Australian army has modified the Browning Hi-Powers so that the mag safety has been removed: after removing the mag and inspecting the chamber, you can fire the weapon in a safe direction _without_ having to replace the mag.  The makes the clearing procedure essentially the same as what we do with the C7.


----------



## Roy Harding (4 Aug 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> ...
> Wes is saying that the Australian army has modified the Browning Hi-Powers so that the mag safety has been removed: after removing the mag and inspecting the chamber, you can fire the weapon in a safe direction _without_ having to replace the mag.  The makes the clearing procedure essentially the same as what we do with the C7.



Thank you.  It's clear now.  (Pun intended)


----------



## helpup (4 Aug 2009)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> I will qualify for you as I knew the individual as well.



My own bad for bringing it up, I did not want T's name brought up. What is done is done.  However I didnt say that he pleaded guilty.  He did not however try to lie about what had happened. It was a automatic movement carried out with the Wpn in the improper state.  It shouldnt of happened and it did. The direction of T's barrel should not of been pointing where it was for a releasing the spring, but it was.  This happened despite the fact that our CDO did really well in not having ND's on deployment. 

The actions that T did prior to the wpn firing I have watched others throughout my Career do in a moment of not paying attention to what they are doing and just " going through the motions".  Those I have caught for the most part have been stopped prior to firing.  Those I didnt stop in time were at a clearing bay and did not catch it in time.

Many Clearance bays also use the 9mm Mag ( with-out guts in it) to get the action forward. I cant say I am a fan of them personally but I understand the reasons.  

Elf PM in bound


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Aug 2009)

It was my unfortunate duty to review the investigation for this incident and prepare comments for the DCDS. It was a tragedy, but it also was negligent performance of duty.


----------



## Greymatters (4 Aug 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> After you allow the action forward you can remove the full mag and put it away.



This what I was thinking of but thought the poster meant something else.  I misinterpretted what was said, thinking the safety drills had been done and then the mag put back on prior to getting on the aircraft, and was wondering why...  




			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Greymatter just a question I would like for you to answer seriously.have you ever wore a 9mm?Not trying to dogpile,but I would think a snr nco must have had one on at one point?



Its a valid point - see my PM.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (4 Aug 2009)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> This what I was thinking of but thought the poster meant something else.  I misinterpretted what was said, thinking the safety drills had been done and then the mag put back on prior to getting on the aircraft, and was wondering why...
> 
> 
> Its a valid point - see my PM.



Cheers


----------



## Greymatters (4 Aug 2009)

My question answered, not applicable to this situation...


----------



## helpup (5 Aug 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It was my unfortunate duty to review the investigation for this incident and prepare comments for the DCDS. It was a tragedy, but it also was negligent performance of duty.



No arguments there OS, but I can't stress enough the conduct of the accussed does not compare to the recent events.


----------



## mariomike (17 Aug 2009)

"Soldier needs to be forgiven"
By PETER WORTHINGTON
Toronto Sun: 17th August 2009
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/08/17/10483271-sun.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Aug 2009)

Speaking for myself and only myself, I DO hope Cpl Wilcox does time.  I couldn't disagree more with first paragraph in the article.

So, Cpl Wilcox was found guilty of Criminal negligence causing death.  But Mr Worthington states:



> Anyway you cut it, Cpl. Wilcox is not a criminal.



even though his first line is:



> Although he's been found guilty of "criminal negligence causing death,"



He IS a criminal, he was found guilty, he should do time.

He pulled the trigger that ended a fellow soldiers' life and he did it with his weapon which shouldn't have even been loaded.

Guilty as charged, he should consider himself lucky he only got what he got.

Time for reporters to stop trying to put a twist that doesn't exist on the story.


----------



## old medic (9 Sep 2009)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090909/wilcox_sentencing_090909/20090909?hub=TopStories

Sentencing hearing to begin for Canadian reservist


The Canadian Press


> SYDNEY, N.S. -- A sentencing hearing is expected to begin today in Cape Breton for a young Canadian reservist convicted in the 2007 shooting death of a friend and fellow soldier.
> 
> Cpl. Matthew Wilcox of Glace Bay, N.S., was found guilty in July of criminal negligence causing death in the shooting of Cpl. Kevin Megeney.
> 
> ...


----------



## X-mo-1979 (9 Sep 2009)

Hope he gets life.
Cpl Wilcox is a disgusting excuse of a professional.

For you law experts,how long does sentencing usually take?Is it a drawn out process?

I guess the question would be will I be angry at the light sentence later today or in the future?


----------



## dapaterson (9 Sep 2009)

The short answer is:  it depends.  Both the prosecution and defence will make representations to the court, comparing this case to other precedents and explaining how it differs / why the sentence should be more/less/the same as those prior cases.

The judge then decides based o tnhe submissions - or may request further information.

From the news reports, it appears there may be a joint submission on sentence - and judges rarely deviate from joint submissions, as you're guaranteed an appeal by one or both parties.

The judge can make an immediate decision, but will usually take a day or two to assess the presentations, organize his or her thoughts, and then present a coherent conclusion.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Sep 2009)

There are apparently three days erserved for sentencing arguments:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/09/09/ns-wilcox-megeney-sentencing.html

More info at:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5g5Yxep9bvvQNUKnmubDtO50bh49g


----------



## kratz (10 Sep 2009)

The defense is attempting to argue another constitutional challange due to the lack of sentancing options available to Court Martials.

from The Chronicle Herald



> Qualms about military justice
> Wilcox’s lawyer says lack of sentencing options creates "second-class" system
> By LAURA FRASER Cape Breton Bureau
> Thu. Sep 10 - 4:46 AM
> ...



more at link


----------



## George Wallace (10 Sep 2009)

> "What’s the sense in keeping somebody who’s been (booted) from the military (at) the service prison, marching around in coveralls to a recruit’s level of discipline?" Maj. Stephen Turner said during a sentencing hearing Wednesday at the Sydney garrison.



 ???

Perhaps if I look at it this way it may make sense:

"What’s the sense in keeping somebody who’s been (booted) from his job at Ford (at) Collins Bay prison?" 

Nope!  That doesn't make any more sense.



Talk about trying to prolong the inevitable.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Sep 2009)

> "What’s the sense in keeping somebody who’s been (booted) from the military (at) the service prison, marching around in coveralls to a recruit’s level of discipline?" Maj. Stephen Turner said during a sentencing hearing Wednesday at the Sydney garrison.



Ummm, because he... killed...someone, maybe?


----------



## X-mo-1979 (10 Sep 2009)

"Cpl. Wilcox’s lawyers say the Canadian military justice system must be overhauled so that offending soldiers receive the same range of sentences as civilians who go before the bench."

Comparing soldiers to civilians....not applicable.Civilians don't get trusted to walk around foreign countries and kill people.Civilians are not held to the same standard to ensure discipline for the rough job soldiers are faced with.With responsibility comes consequences. 
He wasnt a responsible soldier.Now he will pay the price....as he made his friend pay.

Thanks DAPATERSON.

I'm betting he gets released.Thats all.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Sep 2009)

This wasn't an industrial accident.  This guy slapped leather, pointed and fired.  What is accidental about that?


----------



## mariomike (10 Sep 2009)

Regarding industrial accidents: I forgot that in 2004 the Criminal Code of Canada was ammended to expand the scope of liability for criminal negligence in the workplace:
http://www.blakes.com/english/view_disc.asp?ID=240


----------



## armyvern (10 Sep 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I'm betting he gets released.Thats all.



I'm betting he does some time in Club Ed prior to that release; we do have a precedent - Somalia. MCpl Tony Smith spent some time there after an ND of his caused the death of his friend and fellow soldier Cpl Mike Abel (and found himself with even _more_ time there added _on_ after the prosecution requested a review of the initial sentence).

The circumstances in this thread's incident seem to be even more negligent (to me) as Cpl Wilcox meant (ie: intended) to point that weapon exactly where it ended up ...


----------



## X-mo-1979 (10 Sep 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm betting he does some time in Club Ed prior to that release; we do have a precedent - Somalia. MCpl Tony Smith spent some time there after an ND of his caused the death of his friend and fellow soldier Cpl Mike Abel (and found himself with even _more_ time there added _on_ after the prosecution requested a review of the initial sentence).
> 
> The circumstances in this thread's incident seem to be even more negligent (to me) as Cpl Wilcox meant (ie: intended) to point that weapon exactly where it ended up ...



I hope your right Vern.I really do.However I still think he's gonna be walking around N.S as a civi free.Call it a lack of trust in justice in the system I guess.


----------



## Harley Sailor (11 Sep 2009)

I remember being told that 2 years was the most you could spend in Club ED.  And that if you get sentenced to more then 2 years you get moved over to Civi cells right away.  This info came about when a west coaster high jacked a ship with a C1 and told the officer of the watch to that the ship to land so he could get off.  He got five years but tried to get his time dropped to 2 years so he could do it in Club ED, other wise he would have to move to civi cells.

Has this changed???


----------



## FastEddy (11 Sep 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I hope your right Vern.I really do.However I still think he's gonna be walking around N.S as a civi free.Call it a lack of trust in justice in the system I guess.




Your just figuring that out now.

Theres certainly a Righteous Bunch of people  around here calling for Wilcox's blood.

I wonder if they have the same attitude when they pour out of the Clubs or Mess's at closing and get into their SUV's for that drive home.

No I don't think Cpl. Wilcox should go free. Of course a prison sentence is in the wind, but the general consensus is, lets throw away the key.

Is it because he's in the Military and a NCO. By that token, a Civilian, 40 yr old, Family Man, Colledge Educated, Businessman is just as responsible and should be held to as higher standard in the eyes of the Law, when he gets pissed to the eyeballs and drives up on the sidewalk killing a Mother out with her Daughter in a stroller.

If your disillusioned about our Courts & System, we just put away a Scum Bag with 19 DUI's who finally killed a Handicap Woman in a Wheelchair. He got life (that's a joke), he'll be up for parole in seven years.


----------



## armyvern (11 Sep 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Your just figuring that out now.
> 
> Theres certainly a Righteous Bunch of people  around here calling for Wilcox's blood.
> 
> I wonder if they have the same attitude when they pour out of the Clubs or Mess's at closing and get into their SUV's for that drive home.



I want to see him do some time in jail. I don't drive drunk. I do drive an SUV.  Pretty righteous blanket statement from yourself stating that we do.



> No I don't think Cpl. Wilcox should go free. Of course a prison sentence is in the wind, but the general consensus is, lets throw away the key.



As pretty much seems to be the consensus here. Ex-Mo doesn't think he'll get any jail time at all, but hopes that he does. You call that "crying for blood"? Pretty righteous statement of you there too.



> Is it because he's in the Military and a NCO. By that token, a Civilian, 40 yr old, Family Man, Colledge Educated, Businessman is just as responsible and should be held to as higher standard in the eyes of the Law, when he gets pissed to the eyeballs and drives up on the sidewalk killing a Mother out with her Daughter in a stroller.
> 
> If your disillusioned about our Courts & System, we just put away a Scum Bag with 19 DUI's who finally killed a Handicap Woman in a Wheelchair. He got life (that's a joke), he'll be up for parole in seven years.



You'll see that most posters in this thread have also made comments (here or other threads) about the absolutely dismal state of Canada's Criminal Justice system and the weak (or none!!) sentences it doles out. Their disillusionment certainly carries over to that system too.

Pretty righteous of you to claim that those wanting to see Wilcox in jail don't care enough about criminals out on civi street either. Read your post again - that's exactly what you've done.

PS: and for the record lest you think "I don't care" either ... I'd have like to see the judge toss on the Dangerous Offender status in your example case; you're disillusioned, yet I am not really. Life for drunk driving ... that is quite the sentence in and of itself and is precedent setting. The system isn't anywhere near to being fixed, you certainly could have come up with a case where drunken driver killed two people and got a mere two years ... (two kids actually, as we walked home from Canex [1982] after having bought our Mother their Mothers Day Cards) if you want to show an example of shitty justice being doled out.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Sep 2009)

I never said I wanted his blood, I said he pointed a weapon at someone and pulled the trigger and should pay for it.  The system is in desperate need of a serious un-fucking when it comes to sentencing.  I get angry any time a human life is taken unnecessarily, and the perpetrator isn't made to pay an appropriate penalty.  His being an NCO, NCM, whatever, is irrelevant to me, especially seeing as I was at the last link in the food chain for 23 years.


----------



## mariomike (11 Sep 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Life for drunk driving ... that is quite the sentence in and of itself and is precedent setting. The system isn't anywhere near to being fixed, you certainly could have come up with a case where drunken driver killed two people and got a mere two years ... (two kids actually, as we walked home from Canex [1982] after having bought our Mother their Mothers Day Cards) if you want to show an example of shitty justice being doled out.



MADD estimates that alcohol related traffic fatalities are down considerably since 1982. I believe that to be true. If I recall correctly, drunk driving in the 1970's was a $50 ticket. I know what they say about statistics, however I think with tougher laws, and collision safety improvements in automobiles these days, that lives are being saved:
http://www.madd.ca/english/research/lives_saved.pdf


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Sep 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> I wonder if they have the same attitude when they pour out of the Clubs or Mess's at closing and get into their SUV's for that drive home.



Sorry,don't drink and drive (actually almost got charged for public drunkenness for ..for being outside waiting for my wife to come get me..ironic eh? ).I also don't treat weapons with a disregard and leave buddies bleeding out to die overseas leaving families without a loved one.However talking about "Righteous Bunch of people"...mirror check.


			
				FastEddy said:
			
		

> Is it because he's in the Military and a NCO NCM.



Yes.As his only job is to be proficient in his job.This person was so unprofessional he killed another NCM.

Nowhere did anyone say they wanted blood....I think Mr.Wilcox spilled enough of that.All I want to see is a lengthy prison term.Which again I don't think he will get.


----------



## FastEddy (11 Sep 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I want to see him do some time in jail. I don't drive drunk. I do drive an SUV.  Pretty righteous blanket statement from yourself stating that we do.
> 
> As pretty much seems to be the consensus here. Ex-Mo doesn't think he'll get any jail time at all, but hopes that he does. You call that "crying for blood"? Pretty righteous statement of you there too.
> 
> ...




Well good for you Vern its nice to know our roads are safe somewhere. You can dissect, misquote, play on words and take out of context all you want. Which some readers do to make a point, which you seem to have down to a art form. But I think you went a bit overboard with the Righteous bit. 

However, I find when some people protest to much, I have a tendency to get suspicious.

As for examples, one is as tragic and important as another.

If the general attitude towards Cpl. Wilcox is not hostel, then I'm reading a diffrent tread and nobody was singled out or named. But if the shoe fits.

Again, DUI and DUI's causing Death or serious injury are two different cases of fish, IMO, one deserves Jail time and one deserves Life.

If you think we don't have our share of Stupid or Silly Asses in the Military that are capable under the right circumstances to do something as bizarre as Cpl. Wilcox, watch your six.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Sep 2009)

This thread is about Cpl Wilcox, who was the idiot who pulled the trigger that killed a fellow Canadian soldier.  I was at the victims funeral.  I saw the family and friends of Cpl Kevin Megeney that day.  Who should we "point the finger at", if not the guilty party and the (probably lenient) legal/justice system in our country?

This point, IMO is NOT one that can be argued:

Cpl Wilcox killed a fellow soldier.

And if some of us on here ARE "out for blood" as you say...so?  So what?  HE KILLED SOMEONE OUT OF HIS OWN STUPIDITY.

That is not even talking about the dishonour he brought into the trial by trying to blame it on the soldier, the young man, that he fatally shot!  Is there anything more low and cowardly he could have done?  Maybe to Canadian society this is acceptable, but, to me, in the "soldiers code" or whatever you want to call it...it sure ain't.  He was innocent until proven guilty, and he's been proven guilty.  I'd like to see him get the max.  He pulled the trigger.  No one else did. 

I can't believe you are arguing your point on here in his defence, or trying to talk about drunk driving.  Relevance?  Anyone?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Sep 2009)

EITS is right about the thread content.

So, FastEddy and the rest can knock off the petty arguments and the drunk driving strawman discussion.

Fin

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## old medic (11 Sep 2009)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090911/Afghan_shooting_090911/20090911?hub=Canada

Mother of convicted Canadian soldier apologizes
The Canadian Press



> SYDNEY, N.S. -- The mother of a Canadian soldier convicted of fatally shooting a fellow reservist in Afghanistan broke down and cried on Friday as she apologized in court to the parents who lost their young son.
> 
> Ann Wilcox, testifying at the court martial of her son, Cpl. Matthew Wilcox, told the parents of Cpl. Kevin Megeney that she and her husband Keith wanted them to know "how sorry we are."
> 
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Sep 2009)

The reason people seem 'out for blood' isn't because he made a mistake. 
It's because he made a grievous mistake and lacked the courage and honour to own up to it.

Almost every single person here saw through his bullshit_ I thought I was under attack[i/] defense.  Had he owned up to his actions I'm willing to bet the attitude of the majority of the posters here would be much different, or at least more subdued._


----------



## danchapps (11 Sep 2009)

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> I remember being told that 2 years was the most you could spend in Club ED.  And that if you get sentenced to more then 2 years you get moved over to Civi cells right away.  This info came about when a west coaster high jacked a ship with a C1 and told the officer of the watch to that the ship to land so he could get off.  He got five years but tried to get his time dropped to 2 years so he could do it in Club ED, other wise he would have to move to civi cells.
> 
> Has this changed???



I heard a story (I can't verify this of course) where someone was sentenced to 7 years. Served 2, was released from Club Ed for a couple of hours or something like that, then taken BACK into custody for another 2 years. This continued for the full 7 years. I really wish I could verify this, however I can't.


Now my 2 cents on the situation. I feel bad for Cpl Wilcox to be honest. I can't imagine the burden he must have now. That being said, he earned some time in Military prison, this much is a given. As for his lawyers claiming "What is the point if he's just being released anyway?" That argument is a load of horse s***. Are we not held to a military standard for 2 years AFTER release? The military justice system may be archaic, however compared to the civilian side there is a higher level of rehabilitation from the military prison. I hate to say, but the civie prisons are too soft, that's just my 2 cents.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2009)

I stand to be corrected, but did Kyle Brown not do two years in DB and then Released from the CF and transferred to a Federal Penitentiary.


----------



## kratz (11 Sep 2009)

I think what happens will Cpl Wilcox will depend on how the sentence is handed down. Both sides are not seeking the maximum sentence. A quick google search brought up this reference of the CFDBSP from the CMP website. 

Note: I highlighted the appropriate area.



> 4.  Imprisonment. Service prisoners and service convicts typically require an intensive programme consisting of both vocational training and rehabilitation to equip them for their return to society following completion of their term of incarceration. Such programmes can only be run effectively and efficiently where the numbers of inmates approach the necessary critical mass. Civilian prisons and penitentiaries are uniquely equipped to provide such opportunities to inmates.* Therefore, to facilitate their reintegration into society, service prisoners and service convicts who are to be released from the CF will usually be transferred to a civilian prison or penitentiary as soon as practical within the first 30 days following the date of sentencing. * The member will ordinarily be released from the CF before such a transfer is effected.


----------



## Franko (11 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I stand to be corrected, but did Kyle Brown not do two years in DB and then Released from the CF and transferred to a Federal Penitentiary.



I believe so. I know for a fact that he did do time in civie prison.

Regards


----------



## mariomike (11 Sep 2009)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> I believe so. I know for a fact that he did do time in civie prison.



Toronto Star Tuesday, December 29, 1998 page A7:
"Private Kyle Brown later served 20 months of a five year sentence"

Friday 17 Nov 1995: page A14:
"Bowden, Alberta: ..........released from prison yesterday...........Kyle Brown eluded reporters after he was let out earlier than expected from Bowden Institution in Central Alberta."
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/facilit/institutprofiles/bowden-eng.shtml


----------



## X-mo-1979 (12 Sep 2009)

Just heard he will be sentenced later this month on CTV news net.


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Sep 2009)

Soldier should get jail time: family 
By Michael Tutton, THE CANADIAN PRESS
*Article Link*

HALIFAX, N.S. - Family members of a corporal who was shot and killed by his tentmate in Afghanistan say they hope a judge will sentence the young soldier to military prison and dismiss him from the army. 

Cpl. Matthew Wilcox was convicted in July of negligent performance of duty and criminal negligence causing the death of Cpl. Kevin Megeney, who was 25, of Stellarton, N.S. 

A charge of manslaughter was stayed, but the 24-year-old soldier from Glace Bay, N.S., could still face a maximum sentence of life in prison, with a least two years served in the military detention centre in Edmonton. 

He is scheduled to be sentenced on Tuesday in Sydney, N.S. 

The prosecutor, Capt. Jason Samson, has argued for six years in jail for Wilcox and dismissal from the Armed Forces. 

George Megeney, the uncle of the dead soldier, said "the family agrees with the prosecutor's submissions to the court." 

He noted that the minimum civilian sentence for criminal justice causing death is four years, and "the family feels that in this case there shouldn't be anything less than that." 

Sherrie Lawand, Kevin's sister, said a sentence lower than the civilian minimum would be unfair to her brother's memory, and fail to recognize that "Kevin is never coming home." 

"He was supposed to be in a safe place (in the tent). ... This is something that shouldn't have happened," she said. 

Megeney said the family continues to be upset that the Defence Department employed Wilcox as a weapons instructor after he returned from Afghanistan in 2007. 

"It was a slap in the face for the family," he said. "Dismissal from the Forces is something that the family hopes the judge will really consider." 

More on link

It was my understanding that Megeney's parents did not want jail time for Wilcox, but apparently, other family members feel differently.


----------



## GAP (29 Sep 2009)

Judge to hand down sentence for convicted soldier
By: CTV.ca News Staff  Tue. Sep. 29 2009 9:38 AM ET
Article Link

A judge is expected to hand down a decision on the future of a young soldier who has been convicted of causing the death of his tentmate in Afghanistan two-and-a-half years ago.

Cpl. Matthew Wilcox was convicted in July of negligent performance of duty and criminal negligence causing the death of Cpl. Kevin Megeney, who died after he was shot in his tent at the Kandahar airfield on March 6, 2007.

Megeney died 30 minutes after being shot by Wilcox.

At his eventual military trial, Wilcox said he shot in self-defence believing that someone was pointing a gun at his back. The prosecution argued that he was involved in a game of "quick draw" when Megeney was fatally shot.

Cmdr. Peter Lamont is expected to decide the punishment of the 24-year-old Wilcox today at a military court in Sydney, N.S. 
More on link


----------



## kratz (29 Sep 2009)

That was fast. It appears the decision will be delayed for one more day.

CTV.ca



> Judge delays sentencing for convicted soldier
> By: CTV.ca News Staff
> Date: Tue. Sep. 29 2009 10:44 AM ET
> 
> ...



More at link


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Sep 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> /... the Defence Department employed Wilcox as a weapons instructor after he returned from Afghanistan in 2007.



 :


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2009)

The CBC is now (1002 Hrs) reporting: 4 years in prison and dismissal from the CF.


----------



## dangerboy (30 Sep 2009)

From CTV news http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090930/soldier_sentence_090930/20090930?hub=Canada

A young soldier has been sentenced to serve four years in prison and will be kicked out of the military for fatally shooting his tentmate while they were serving together in Afghanistan. 

Military judge Cmdr. Peter Lamont handed down the sentence against Cpl. Matthew Wilcox on Wednesday morning, more than two years after his tentmate was killed. 

The 24-year-old Wilcox will also be dismissed from the military and banned from owning a weapon for five years. 

The judge did not specify whether Wilcox will serve that time in a civilian or military prison, CTV's Todd Battis reported by telephone from Sydney, N.S. 

Wilcox did not show much emotion when he was sentenced, Battis said. 

"He remained stoic as he did throughout this process...he did not show any emotion," Battis told CTV News Channel. 

It appears that the defence intends to appeal the judge's sentence, Battis said. 

Wilcox accidentally shot Cpl. Kevin Megeney, a 25-year-old friend and fellow Canadian Forces member, while they were in their tent at the Kandahar airfield on March 6, 2007. 

Megeney died a half-hour after he was shot. 

The prosecution and the victim's family had pushed for Wilcox to be dismissed from the Forces. They also wanted him to serve six years in prison for his actions. 

At his military trial, Wilcox claimed he shot in self-defence believing that someone was pointing a gun at his back. The prosecution argued that he and Megeney were playing a game of "quick draw" when Wilcox fired his weapon. 

In July, Wilcox was convicted of negligent performance of duty and criminal negligence causing the death of Megeney.  

With files from The Canadian Press


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2009)

So, minus any time already spent behind bars awaiting sentencing, he'll most likely be out in 8 months on "supervision".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2009)

In regards to my last.........though if he does have to do his first *cough* 2 years *cough* in SDB I have no idea how/if the military jail awards "good time" [remission] and/or if the Federal Parole rules apply even though the detainee is doing "Fed" time.

Anyone?


----------



## ajp (30 Sep 2009)

If he is released will he serve any time in DB or all in NS?


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Sep 2009)

ajp said:
			
		

> If he is released will he serve any time in DB or all in NS?


If released (meaning, if his appeal fails), he will serve all of his time *whereever*, and then be released following that.  
For info, 2 years less one day I believe is the longest anyone can serve at DB.  So, if the sentence remains at four years, then I believe that the first part would be in DB, and then following that, he would serve the remaining time in a federal institution.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2009)

Since he will most likely just serve 1/6 of his sentence if he is released first and then goes straight to Club Fed I think one can be sure the folks who arrange these kinds of things [and don't like the public to know how pathetic the system is] will want him to do SDB time first...............


----------



## kratz (30 Sep 2009)

[quote author=Bruce Monkhouse] I have no idea how/if the military jail awards "good time" [remission] and/or if the Federal Parole rules apply even though the detainee is doing "Fed" time.
[/quote]

Google is good. The refs I found are current: QR&O 4.26  - Transfers


> On receipt of a warrant ordering the transfer of an inmate to a
> penitentiary or civil prison, the commandant shall arrange for the
> transfer of the inmate under escort. The following documents shall be
> sent with the inmate:
> ...



Based on QR&O 5.05 through 5.07, time for remission does not start accumulating until the date of imposition of the punishment. 8 points per day maximum may be granted.
The sentence was 1460days (4 years). According to the calculation in QR&O 5.09 under perfect conditions (hard to achieve:
-	subtract 14 days for stage 1 
-	1446 days remaining. Find 3/5ths of 1446 to the whole number = 868
-	868 points needed for remission
-	At 8 points max per day it would take about 3.5months and 5 days (+ the first 14days of stage 1) for remission.

Under the above formula, it is conceivable to serve the entire sentence within the CFDBSP and leave under the rules of remission, prior to the two years less a day kicks in.


----------



## Harley Sailor (30 Sep 2009)

Good information.   Now can you find the part that says you can only stay in SDB if your sentence is less then 2 years?  Or the part that says there is NO civie record of you being in jail.  There is only military records of you being in cells, and that is sealed to civies, so any time he did in SDB would not count.


----------



## Thompson_JM (30 Sep 2009)

I can only Assume that this Pump will get a Dishonorable discharge...... 

I can only hope anyways.....  All I've seen him do since that crappy night in Kandahar is try to cover his own ass and minimize what happened...

Wilcox, you ever read this, listen up, the most you can hope for is to suck it up, do your time, and carry on.... You have no place in this mans army if you refuse to openly admit your screw up. There is no excuse for a loaded pistol in the tent lines, and there is no excuse for horseplay with weapons ever. You got what you deserved.... if you suck it up, and deal with it, you could serve your 4-5 years get out, and it'll be forgotten by then.... at least across most of Canada.... you'll be able to live a reasonably productive life doing something.

Kevin will never again have that opportunity.

You are a disgrace to the CF and are surely no brother of mine. 

I say Good riddance to him. we as an organization are now stronger for removing this weak link....

I only hope that Kevin's family will be able to find some closure.... and that his appeal is shot down most ricky tick.

Regards,
      Tommy


----------



## sapper3 (30 Sep 2009)

I don't buy the whole Self Defence Story fear for my life. He was ***king around playing quick draw and killed his friend... due to the fact he failed the proper clear his weapon, pretty sad I believe the military has a ethos that states Honesty and  Integrity. I guess Wilcox missed that when putting on the uniform part time... Well lets just wait and see how may more NDs we have when some one looses there life. You know a soldier is not supposed to die back on camp it was a senseless death. Hurry for the justice system...nice work. Sorry for Cpl Megeney  family was justice served only they know...Rip Cpl Megeney


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Sep 2009)

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> Good information.   Now can you find the part that says you can only stay in SDB if your sentence is less then 2 years?  Or the part that says there is NO civie record of you being in jail.  There is only military records of you being in cells, and that is sealed to civies, so any time he did in SDB would not count.


That's not quite accurate.  If a military member receives a punishment severe enough (over 200 dollar fine for example), then that conviction never automatically is purged from your record.  If said member says later that "he's never been convicted", in spite of the fact that back in BMQ he had to pay a 250 dollar fine, and he never put in for a pardon, he'd be wrong.  Let's not forget that the National Defence Act is a federal act, and transgressions against it are a matter of public record.


----------



## kratz (30 Sep 2009)

Both CTV.ca and CBC.ca  have updated their stories on this. It looks like he will be going to the CFSPDB until the Courts Martial Appeals board hears his application.

from CTV


> His lawyers immediately filed to appeal both the sentence and the conviction that found Wilcox guilty of negligent performance of duty and criminal negligence causing the death of Megeney.
> 
> The judge decided late Wednesday that Wilcox will begin serving his sentence immediately, while he waits on the status of his appeal.



from CBC


> The defence is planning to appeal the conviction and sentence. On Wednesday evening, Wilcox's application for release during the appeal process was denied and he was escorted out of the courtroom.
> 
> He was to spend the night at the Sydney garrison and be transported to the military prison at Canadian Forces Base Edmonton. It's not clear if he will serve his entire sentence there.



Edit to add 

:threat: I should have checked the Chronicel Herald. Their coverage provides the reason's he gave for requesting an appeal. After reading this, I am shaking my head.



> Maj. Turner argued that Cpl. Wilcox should not have to go to prison while he waits for his appeal because there's little risk the soldier would re-offend or harm the public.
> 
> But Maj. Samson, the military prosecutor, said that delaying the sentence reflects poorly on the military justice system because a convicted criminal appears to go unpunished.
> 
> ...


----------



## armyvern (1 Oct 2009)

kratz said:
			
		

> Their coverage provides the reason's he gave for requesting an appeal. After reading this, I am shaking my head.



Can't blame the kid for trying ... there was a very slim chance, after all, that he may have been found not guilty.

The Supreme Court of Canada has previously heard arguements regarding both the authority of the Military tribunal and the speed, frequency and severity of punishment (Thus, I suspect his appeal will not see a decision rendered that the ex-corporal will like):

The Supreme Court of Canada states in the case of R. v. Genereux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259:



> “The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the Armed Forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. The safety and well·being of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation’s security.
> 
> To maintain the Armed Forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently. *Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct.* As a result, the military has its own Code of Discipline to allow it to meet its particular disciplinary needs.”



Regarding the CBC's being unsure of whether or not this ex-corporal will spend "all" of his time in DB; google can be their friend too.

QR&O 114 GENERAL PROVISIONS RESPECTING IMPRISONMENT AND DETENTION 

Begin at 114.05 (this is where the "not greater than 2 years" [ie 2 years less 1 day] is laid out); this chapter also deals with sentences of imprisonment being carried out partially within DB with a subsequent transfer to penitentiary or civil prison.

Just how much time this ex-soldier will do in Club Ed remains to be seen, but I suspect it'll be on the very steep end ... perhaps even just one day shy of that 2 year mark prior to transfer to the pen.

http://www.smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-02/tc-tm-114-eng.asp

http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/justice/index-eng.asp


----------



## BlueJingo (1 Oct 2009)

Tommy said:
			
		

> You are a disgrace to the CF and are surely no brother of mine.



I concur.  :threat:


----------



## Gunner98 (1 Oct 2009)

Once his dishonorable discharge becomes effective he is likely to be transferred to Club Fed as per the precedence like Kyle Brown.


----------



## Harley Sailor (1 Oct 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> That's not quite accurate.  If a military member receives a punishment severe enough (over 200 dollar fine for example), then that conviction never automatically is purged from your record.  If said member says later that "he's never been convicted", in spite of the fact that back in BMQ he had to pay a 250 dollar fine, and he never put in for a pardon, he'd be wrong.  Let's not forget that the National Defence Act is a federal act, and transgressions against it are a matter of public record.



I think you may have miss read what I ment.  "MacDonalds" for example can not look at my military record.  Therefore even if I did two years less a day in SDB, they can not find out I was ever in cells or even charged.


----------



## Harley Sailor (1 Oct 2009)

Thank you ArmyVern for tthe answer I was looking for.  Hard to do now that I have retired.

From QR&O 114.05
"(1) Subsections 220(1) and (2) of the National Defence Act provide:

220. (1) *A service convict whose punishment of imprisonment for life or for two years or more is to be put into execution shall as soon as practicable be committed to a penitentiary to undergo punishment according to law*, except that a committing authority may, in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council, order that a service convict be committed to a service prison to undergo the punishment or any part of the punishment."

How I read this is that he has to be moved to civie penitentiary as soon as posible. Do not go to SDB, do not collect $200.


----------



## Loachman (1 Oct 2009)

sapper3 said:
			
		

> I guess Wilcox missed that when putting on the uniform part time...



He was wearing his uniform _*full time*_ when he committed this act.

What's your point?

Many Regular Force members have committed acts at least as bad as this.

Slagging reservists in general - as you have essentially done - is not on.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Oct 2009)

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> I think you may have miss read what I ment.  "MacDonalds" for example can not look at my military record.  Therefore even if I did two years less a day in SDB, they *can not find out I was ever in cells or even charged.*


Yes they can.  Just as with any "criminal check", they can find out if you were convicted and awarded a punishment.  Trust me on this.

Suppose, for example, that John Doe were charged with AWOL.  Suppose that John Doe were found guilty and his punishment included a fine of $201.  Also suppose that John Doe is now a civilian, ten years after the fact, and that he never applied for a pardon.  Also, John Doe has never been convicted of an offense under the Criminal Code of Canada.  John Doe walks into Swiss Chalet and applies for a job.  In his application, he states that he's never been convicted for a crime for which a pardon had not been received.  John Doe is wrong.  Though his Criminal record is clean, he does still have a conviction showing against the National Defence Act.


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (2 Oct 2009)

Drapeau said the sentence was "severe" in some respects, as Wilcox did not intentionally shoot his friend and he could likely continue to serve his country. 

"He is a young man, he is a reservist...he was remorseful and I think he could continue to serve his country and learn from it," said Drapeau. 

With files from The Canadian Press 


Drapeau=Bonehead


I most certainly would not want my husband or anyone else for that matter in a foxhole next to someone like Cpl Wilcox, no matter how remorseful he is.  It doesn't change the outcome.  Cpl Megeney is still dead.  Hopefully this will bring his family some closure.


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2009)

Folks,

I have said this before, and will state this again.

Let us not all deomonize, Wilcox, and Sanctify Megeney.  The Judge also believes that Both were involved in Horseplay with weapons, doing a game of quick draw.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/09/30/ns-wilcox-prison.html

"I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the shot that killed Corporal Megeney was accidentally discharged in the course of horseplay with guns engaged in consensually, by both the offender and the deceased," said the military judge, Cmdr. Peter Lamont.

Wilcox reasons for creating a story may never be understood, it could be to hid both of their idiocy, helping to maintain a good memory of  Megeney, and himself.

Just keep that in mind while we vilify Wilcox, and embrace Megeney.  Had this been another situation, where they were not Canadian Soldiers, We would have nominated Megeny for a Darwin award and had a chuckle about it.

dileas

tess


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (2 Oct 2009)

Not sure if that comment was directed at me, the 48th regulator....

But, I am not vilifying Cpl Wilcox, just to clarify.  I have no doubt it was an unintentional and he is very remorseful.  But it still doesn't change the outcome.  AND because they are well-trained Canadian soldiers that handle weapons regularly and were in a combat zone they should be held to a higher standard.  And that is why they get so much training, because the outcome can have very  serious consequences.   And had the roles been reversed I would be saying the same about Cpl Megeney.

Everyone has made bad decisions in their life, most of us get anyway without harming anyone, sometimes we don't.  Sometimes good people make bad choices and I think is the case with Cpl Wilcox.  But now he has to live with his bad choice.


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2009)

ENGINEERS WIFE said:
			
		

> Not sure if that comment was directed at me, the 48th regulator....
> 
> But, I am not vilifying Cpl Wilcox, just to clarify.  I have no doubt it was an unintentional and he is very remorseful.  But it still doesn't change the outcome.  AND because they are well-trained Canadian soldiers that handle weapons regularly and were in a combat zone they should be held to a higher standard.  And that is why they get so much training, because the outcome can have very  serious consequences.   And had the roles been reversed I would be saying the same about Cpl Megeney.
> 
> Everyone has made bad decisions in their life, most of us get anyway without harming anyone, sometimes we don't.  Sometimes good people make bad choices and I think is the case with Cpl Wilcox.  But now he has to live with his bad choice.



No at you perse, however what would you say to writing you final sentence as this....

I most certainly would not want my husband or anyone else for that matter in a foxhole next to someone like Cpl Wilcox or Cpl Megeney, no matter how remorseful Wilcox, or Dead Megeny is.  It doesn't change the outcome.  Cpl Megeney is still dead and Cpl. Wilcox is Paying the price alive.  Hopefully this will bring their families some closure.

dileas

tess


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (2 Oct 2009)

While I see the point you are trying to make, I said "And had the roles been reversed I would be saying the same about Cpl Megeney."
While they could very easily be reversed, they are not.  
And I stand by my statement, but you are right in respects that I should of said that I do hope BOTH families find some closure.
It is very sad for all involved.


----------



## the 48th regulator (3 Oct 2009)

ENGINEERS WIFE said:
			
		

> While I see the point you are trying to make, I said "And had the roles been reversed I would be saying the same about Cpl Megeney."
> While they could very easily be reversed, they are not.
> And I stand by my statement, but you are right in respects that I should of said that I do hope BOTH families find some closure.
> It is very sad for all involved.




EW, please do not take it personally, I did not intend to target you.

All I am saying is that two soldiers were bumbling around, and one was killed doing it.

Both should be recognized as being guilty, and not have the unbalanced blame thrown on one, and not the other, based on the outcome.

It burns me up when I see posts about Wilcox being this evil fella, and Megeney being an innocent man.  Megeney was not laying in his bunk listening to Bach and reading War and Peace, as Wilcox walked up to him, drove the pistol in his mouth and fired 53 times.

They faced each other, and played a "game" of quick draw.  Unfortunately, one drew the Ace of Spades....

dileas

tess


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (3 Oct 2009)

No worries 48th   
Not taken personally.  I definitely hear what you are saying.  
Two lives and two families will never be the same.
As grownups there are consequences for our actions, however remorseful we are or however unintentional it was.
Tragedy for all.


----------



## Harley Sailor (3 Oct 2009)

Can we look for the good in all.  Maybe this will stop others from playing the same game. At least remember to unload first.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Oct 2009)

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> Can we look for the good in all.  Maybe this will stop others from playing the same game. *At least remember to unload first.*


*No, No, No!*
Never EVER point a weapon at someone unless you intend to shoot them.  Period.  
"Ooops, forgot to unload".  And the circle of stupidity continues.


----------



## Roy Harding (3 Oct 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> *No, No, No!*
> Never EVER point a weapon at someone unless you intend to shoot them.  Period.
> "Ooops, forgot to unload".  And the circle of stupidity continues.



Say it AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN.

NEVER NEVER NEVER point a weapon at anything you don't intend to shoot.


----------



## medicineman (3 Oct 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Say it AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN.
> 
> NEVER NEVER NEVER point a weapon at anything you don't intend to shoot.



I think the letters D, U, H come to mind, but strange how common sense is being bred out of the gene pool...

MM


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Oct 2009)

I had posted earilier that I was tasked to review and prepare comments on the unit's investigation of the 1993 death of a soldier in 3 Commando in Somalia for the DCDS. A major finding of the summary, for that was the instrument used, was that the published weapons handling drills were incorrect and this led to the negligent discharge. Bear with me, I did this in 1993 so my recollections are not 100% on this. However my assessment that it was a case of negligence and not faulty drills was supported.

I fully support David and Roy in their assessments.


----------



## old medic (4 Oct 2009)

War vet's conviction sparks firearms investigation
By THE CANADIAN PRESS    2nd October 2009



> HALIFAX — The Canadian Forces is investigating whether firearms were misused based on videos entered as evidence at the recent court martial of a soldier convicted of accidentally shooting his tentmate in Afghanistan.
> 
> Col. Tom Stinson, commander of 36 Brigade Group, will do the investigation in the aftermath of Matthew Wilcox’s conviction in the death of Cpl. Kevin Megeney of Stellarton, N.S.
> 
> ...


----------



## helpup (5 Oct 2009)

This should be a wake up call for NCO's there is no tolerance, nor should there be for horseplay with Wpns.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Oct 2009)

helpup said:
			
		

> This should be a wake up call for NCO's there is no tolerance, nor should there be for horseplay with Wpns.



Not just NCO's, all members of the CF.  NCO's do not have a monopoly when it comes to unsafe acts with wpns.  All ranks, all Trades, must be cognisant of their actions.


----------



## ajp (5 Oct 2009)

I am Glad George answered that one.  I had a comment but held my tongue.  I agree....its an ALL PERS issue on Tour or Training.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Oct 2009)

Having worked for/around Col Stinson before, I was glad to see his name in the article.  I am sure some people on here may have worked with him in his Reg Frce days and since his CT to the Reserves.  

I wish the reporters would get the details straight before they publish articles though.


----------



## ajp (6 Oct 2009)

Come in EITS...we know (and read with Sarcastic tone) they are as accurate as can be.  If they were many people would have nothing to Rant about.


----------



## helpup (27 Oct 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not just NCO's, all members of the CF.  NCO's do not have a monopoly when it comes to unsafe acts with wpns.  All ranks, all Trades, must be cognisant of their actions.



Agreed George but NCO's are suppose to be the backstop for ensuring things are done right and safely.  And my referance was to the video where a NCO was present when horseplay was video taped.


----------



## Danjanou (27 Oct 2009)

Yes it is everyone's irregardless of rank to ensure competent, safe and professional weapons drills at all times. 

I think what help up is getting at  is that NCOSare the usual weapons instructors on BMQ  and need to to make this aspect clear from day one. This is a weapon and it has but one purpose as already noted. Failing to use proper drills and treat the weapon with respect has dire consequences.

Were I still serving I would seriously think on incorporating  some aspects  of this sad tale into my lesson plan for safety precautions as a reaosn why we do them.


----------



## helpup (27 Oct 2009)

absolutely right Danjan, we are the first line as instructors but through out anyone career a NCO is the ones expected to enforce proper wpns handling and respect for any and all Wpns systems.  Troops are troops and never underestimate the ability of them to be stupid however one of the reasons we have NCO's it to ensure proper drills and handling proceedures are carried out.  That NCO in the video clearly forgot that and just wanted to be one of the boys.


----------



## bran (8 Nov 2009)

Just wondering, will he serve his 4 years in federal prison? or in a military prison?


----------



## George Wallace (8 Nov 2009)

As this has been answered before, and the details of how much time that a member CAN serve in a Military Detention Barracks has been covered, I might as well point you back to the beginning of this topic and let you read it through again.


----------



## bran (8 Nov 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As this has been answered before, and the details of how much time that a member CAN serve in a Military Detention Barracks has been covered, I might as well point you back to the beginning of this topic and let you read it through again.


 Sorry I read it twice and couldn't find the answer?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (8 Nov 2009)

MDB - 2 yrs less 1 day.


----------



## bran (8 Nov 2009)

Thanks


----------



## mariomike (23 Nov 2009)

"N.S. soldier who shot comrade in Afghanistan seeks release pending appeal: HALIFAX, N.S. - A soldier who fatally shot his close friend in Afghanistan in 2007 has applied to be released from prison pending his appeal before the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada.":
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091123/national/cda_afghan_shooting


----------



## CountDC (24 Nov 2009)

sigh


----------



## danchapps (24 Nov 2009)

So if he appeals this, and is in fact temporarily released, then gets convicted again will he not have to start his sentence from scratch?


----------



## dapaterson (24 Nov 2009)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> So if he appeals this, and is in fact temporarily released, then gets convicted again will he not have to start his sentence from scratch?



Not quite.  If released, then the appeal is successful, then tried again, then sentenced, the defence cousel during sentencing arguments will point out that he has already served XX days; the judge, in his sentencing decision, will indicate that he would have awarded ZZZ as a sentence, but taking into account his prior imprisonment of XX days has reduced the sentence to YYY.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Nov 2009)

The same story from the CTV link



> "The behaviour in question was out of character for the applicant and unlikely to be repeated."


 You think? So as long as a convicted killer promises not to shoot any more of his friends, it's OK? 



> The defence lawyers are also arguing that the court martial should have been held in Afghanistan, so that the military jury could view the scene of the crime.


To what possible end? (Other than increasing the costs and getting the JAG an Afghan gong). Would the jurors, seeing that the tent was actually dusty, change the verdict?


Ambulance-chasing lawyers  :


----------



## Teflon (24 Nov 2009)

> "The applicant was an outstanding soldier, both before and after the incident which resulted in these convictions,"



Yes because "outstanding soldiers" always turn about and blow away a brother-in-arms when they hear weapons cocking in their tent lines in a secure camp. Unlike half-ass soldiers who would waste time  identifying  the threat before firing when reacting to a not out of the norm sound.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Nov 2009)

I'd really like to stomp the guts out of this POS.  What word means "biggest embarassment ever"?  The guys in 2NSH must be happy to have this gutless fagola wearing their uniform on national TV...not to mention the fact that everyone and their dog in the Forces watching this will associate this piece of crap to that Bn for however long...


----------



## Thompson_JM (27 Nov 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd really like to stomp the guts out of this POS.  What word means "biggest embarassment ever"?  The guys in 2NSH must be happy to have this gutless fagola wearing their uniform on national TV...not to mention the fact that everyone and their dog in the Forces watching this will associate this piece of crap to that Bn for however long...



No kidding...

@#$ing  +100 to that one...

EITS you may have to stand in line though... I bet there are alot of us in uniform who would love to have a shot at this Crap-Rat.....

talk about not owning up to what he did... I bet the Delusional prick has been spewing his BS version of the story for so long he is actually starting to belive it....

Wilcox... do us all a favor and go step in front of a Bus.... You are not one of us.....


----------



## Stoker (8 Dec 2009)

N.S. soldier who killed comrade free pending appeal


A soldier who fatally shot his close friend in Afghanistan in 2007 is being released from a Nova Scotia prison pending his appeal before the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada.

Defence lawyer Lt.-Col. Troy Sweet said Matthew Wilcox will leave Springhill penitentiary and begin living with his parents in Glace Bay, N.S., by late Monday or early Tuesday.

Wilcox was sentenced by a military judge to four years in jail and dismissed from the military after he was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death and neglect of military duty in the shooting of Cpl. Kevin Megeney.

Megeney died on an operating table in Kandahar after Wilcox fired a bullet through his chest on March 6, 2007.

Wilcox's lawyers have filed an appeal of his conviction and sentence, arguing that the makeup of the military jury was unfair and that its members should have been permitted to view the scene of the shooting in Kandahar.

However, military judge Cmdr. Peter Lamont ruled during sentencing on Sept. 30 that Wilcox would have to go to prison until the appeal is heard by three Federal Court judges.

But on Monday, those judges ruled Wilcox should be free until they hear the appeal.

Sweet said his client was "pleased by the outcome" after spending 60 days in the military prison in Edmonton and more than a week at the Springhill prison.

Pattern of negligence

Wilcox will have to sign undertakings to remain with his parents, be of good behaviour, report to police when required and attend court when required.

The defence lawyer said the Federal Court judges ruled that the military judge "didn't go into sufficient detail with respect to why it was necessary to keep [Wilcox] in custody at this time."

During the court martial, Lamont said the conduct of the offender was part of a pattern of negligence that began with Wilcox's failure to unload his firearm after he finished his shift. He said Wilcox had "violated the trust" of his colleagues and he referred to the shooting in the tent as being the result of "horseplay" with arms.

However, defence lawyers argue in the notice to appeal that there were numerous legal flaws in the court martial. The appeal document states that the military jury should have had five members, rather than the four who were chosen, and it should have included another non-commissioned officer.

The defence lawyers are also arguing that the court martial should have been held in Afghanistan so the military jury could view the scene of the crime.


----------



## helpup (8 Dec 2009)

I know he is just doing his job but I would really like to argue with the defence lawyer


----------



## Journeyman (8 Dec 2009)

Stoker said:
			
		

> However, defence lawyers argue in the notice to appeal that there were *numerous legal flaws* in the court martial.


So they're not arguing against the substantive points of the case -- Wilcox is still just as guilty today, but their complaints are against convening lawyers. Fine, leave Wilcox in jail and let the lawyers fight out the technicalities (at their own expense), and if found in error, sentence the offending lawyers


----------



## Thompson_JM (16 Dec 2009)

helpup said:
			
		

> I know he is just doing his job but I would really like to argue with the defence lawyer



I'd like to play quick draw with one of his family members and see how willing he is to defend this Crap-Rat after that.....

They are arguing technical details at this point... the Clown is still guilty....... 

Sheesh...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Dec 2009)

See my post  here.


----------



## Occam (20 Oct 2010)

Wilcox wins appeal in Afghan shooting
New court martial ordered for reservist

Original link

By The Canadian Press
Wed, Oct 20 - 4:53 AM

SYDNEY — A Nova Scotia reservist convicted of fatally shooting a fellow soldier in Afghanistan in 2007 has won his appeal of convictions for criminal negligence causing death and negligent performance of a military duty.

In its order issued Monday, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada set aside Cpl. Matthew Wilcox’s guilty verdict and ordered a new general court martial on the two charges.

Wilcox, who’s from Glace Bay, was found not guilty of the most serious charge of manslaughter.

The ruling also states the new trial will be presided over by a judge other than military judge Maj. Peter Lamont, who sentenced Wilcox to four years in prison at the court martial last year.

Wilcox’s lawyers filed an appeal, arguing the makeup of the military jury was unfair and that its members should have been permitted to view the scene of the shooting at Kandahar Airfield.

Cpl. Kevin Megeney, 25, of Stellarton, died on an operating table in Kandahar after Wilcox fired a bullet through his chest March 6, 2007.

Based on several soldiers’ testimony over the course of the trial, Lamont said he was satisfied Wilcox and Megeney "were engaged in a consensual game of quick draw" inside the tent they shared.

During the sentencing hearing, the judge said Wilcox violated the trust of his colleagues with his pattern of "negligent behaviour" in Afghanistan by failing to unload his weapon at the main gate to Kandahar Airfield.

Lawyer David Bright, who represented Wilcox on appeal, said Lamont erred in not placing an alternate member on the military panel hearing the case.

There were supposed to be five panel members — the equivalent to jurors in the civilian court system — to decide Wilcox’s fate. One member of the panel was excused due to a conflict with work commitments and he wasn’t replaced.

"As a consequence it may have affected the fairness of the trial and thus a new trial was warranted," Bright said in an email to the Cape Breton Post.

Wilcox, now 25, was released from the Springhill penitentiary on Dec. 7, 2009, pending appeal. He has been living with his parents in Glace Bay under court-imposed conditions.

By that point Wilcox had already spent 60 days in the military prison in Edmonton and more than a week at the Springhill prison.

Bright said his client is "pleased with the result" but uncertainty remains with a new trial likely to happen.

National Defence spokesman Andrew McKelvey said in an email late Tuesday that a response from the department on the case would likely come today.

Karen Megeney, the slain soldier’s mother, spoke Tuesday in her first media interview since the Wilcox court martial began.

Canadian Forces personnel prevented the media from asking the Megeney family questions during and immediately after the trial and sentencing phase had ended.

Megeney, contacted at her home in Stellarton, told the Post she was unaware Wilcox had won his appeal.

The news of possibly having to relive the evidence in a new trial had made her anxiety rise "a little high," she said.

She said her family was well prepared for the possibility of a successful appeal.

"If somebody does something wrong, then you have to accept your punishment. That’s just the way it is," Megeney said.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Oct 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> "If somebody does something wrong, then you have to accept your punishment. That’s just the way it is," Megeney said.


Apparently, Wilcox's lawyer disagrees.


Edit: coffee hadn't kicked in yet   :-[


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Oct 2010)

News Room
Ex-Corporal Wilcox To Face New General Court Martial
NR-10.132 - October 29, 2010

OTTAWA – Ex-Corporal Matthew Wilcox will face a new General Court Martial in relation to the shooting death of Corporal Kevin Megeney in Afghanistan in March 2007. 

The proceedings in ex-Corporal Wilcox’s first court martial, which were held in Sydney, Nova Scotia, concluded on September 30, 2009.  Following an appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC), the findings of guilt were set aside on October 18, 2010, and the CMAC directed that a new trial be held.  The Director of Military Prosecutions (DMP) subsequently reviewed the case and on October 29, 2010, decided to proceed with, and forwarded to the Court Martial Administrator (“preferred”), the following charges:

one count of Manslaughter, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 236(a) of the Criminal Code; 
one count of Criminal Negligence Causing Death, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 220(a) of the Criminal Code; and 
one count of Negligent Performance of a Military Duty, contrary to Section 124 of the National Defence Act.  
The charges are identical to the charges on which ex-Corporal Wilcox was originally tried.  The first two charges are again laid in the alternative to each other.  

The Court Martial Administrator will convene a General Court Martial, which is composed of a military judge and a panel of five members, at the first available date and at a location to be determined.  

A backgrounder with more information regarding the preferral of these charges against Ex-Corporal Wilcox can be found here: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=3631



News Room
Ex-Corporal Wilcox
BG–10.032 - October 29, 2010

On October 25, 2007, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) charged ex-Corporal Matthew Wilcox, a former 2nd Battalion Nova Scotia Highlanders (Cape Breton) soldier, with manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, and negligent performance of a military duty.  

General Court Martial proceedings began on Monday, November 24, 2008, at the Sydney Garrison, in Sydney, Nova Scotia.  On July 30, 2009, the General Court Martial panel found ex-Corporal Wilcox guilty of criminal negligence causing death and negligent performance of a military duty.  As a result of the conviction on the criminal negligence causing death charge, the alternative charge of manslaughter was ‘stayed’ by the panel.  In accordance with Queen’s Regulations and Orders, where the court finds the accused guilty of one of the alternative charge(s) it must direct that the proceedings be stayed on any other alternative charge(s) if the evidence proved the offence. Such a stay does not have the effect of a finding of not guilty until the alternative charge on which the accused has been found guilty is finally disposed of.  

On September 30, 2009 a sentence of imprisonment for four years and dismissal from Her Majesty’s service was imposed by the presiding Military Judge.  Ex-Corporal Wilcox filed a Notice of Appeal on September 30, 2009 and, on December 7, 2009, the Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC) ordered that he be released from custody pending appeal.

On October 18, 2010, CMAC allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and directed a new trial.  That decision was based upon a review of written submissions from counsel for ex-Corporal Wilcox and for the Director of Military Prosecutions (DMP) and a joint memorandum reflecting the fact that the DMP conceded a ground of appeal.  That ground related to an error of law made at trial regarding the constitution of the court martial panel; an error which had “a potentially substantial effect on the fairness of the trial.”

The DMP, who is appointed by and acts on behalf of the Minister of National Defence (MND), is a key actor in the military justice system.  The DMP’s statutorily prescribed roles and responsibilities under the National Defence Act include: “preferring” all charges to be tried by court martial; the conduct of all prosecutions at courts martial; and acting for the Minister in respect of appeals.  The DMP exercises independent prosecutorial discretion in relation to specific cases on behalf of Her Majesty and the MND.  With respect to an order for a new trial made by the CMAC, DMP is required to review the case to determine whether the charges ought to be proceeded with.


----------



## 57Chevy (29 Oct 2010)

"One member of the panel was excused due to a conflict with work commitments and he wasn’t replaced."

How incompetent can a Court possibly be.
Would that alone not constitute "negligent performance of a military duty" ?
Is it the same Court that would decide if they themselves were negligent ?

Of course none of which would actually make XCpl Wilcox any less guilty.


----------



## dogger1936 (30 Oct 2010)

Way to go legal system. I'm sure they put a lot of thought into the Megeney family trying to get over this. Maybe someone should get sued for undue suffering this may be causing them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Nov 2010)

Unbelievable.


----------



## Captsapper@gmail.com (1 Nov 2010)

Personally, I believe that having a fair trial is paramount in all cases.  I feel bad for the Megeney family having to endure another trial.   My question is, who will be made accountable for letting this situation occur and how will it be prevented from occurring in the future?


----------



## kratz (17 Feb 2011)

The Chronicle Herald reports the date has now been set, 26 April 2011 by military judge alone.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Apr 2011)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jEr392Cw6oTjNS9wlRNUI71ndGYA?docId=6680499



Manslaughter charge thrown out at ex-soldier's second court martial

By Alison Auld, The Canadian Press – 17 minutes ago

HALIFAX — A military judge has dismissed a manslaughter charge against a former soldier charged in the fatal shooting of a fellow reservist in Afghanistan.

In his ruling on Wednesday, Lt.-Col. Louis-Vincent d'Auteuil says the court does not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the charge against Matthew Wilcox of Glace Bay, N.S.

Wilcox is facing a second court martial in the shooting death of Cpl. Kevin Megeney, 25, of Stellarton, N.S., in the tent the two men shared at Kandahar Airfield in 2007.

He has pleaded not guilty to charges of criminal negligence causing death and negligent performance of a military duty.

Wilcox, who was a corporal, was found guilty in July 2009 of criminal negligence and negligent performance of duty at his first trial. The manslaughter charge against him was stayed by a military jury.

However, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada set aside the guilty verdict last year after Wilcox's lawyers argued the makeup of a military jury was unfair. The appeal court ordered a new trial in the death of Megeney, who died on March 6, 2007.

Defence lawyer David Bright argued that the manslaughter charge was put before the original trial as an alternative to the charge of criminal negligence causing death.

At the time, prosecutors said the two charges were considered different versions of manslaughter and carried the same penalty. The military jury was told it had to choose one or the other in its deliberations.

But Bright told d'Auteuil that the appeal court had only directed a retrial on criminal negligence causing death and negligent performance of a military duty, and there were no legal grounds that allow the judge to bring back the manslaughter charge.

Military prosecutor Cmdr. Rob Fetterly said he should still have the choice of prosecuting both manslaughter and criminal negligence, arguing that was the implied intent of the appeal court when it ordered a new trial.

The judge agreed with Bright, saying the appeal court didn't explicitly direct the court to hear the manslaughter charge.

During the original trial, the prosecution put forward the theory that Wilcox and Megeney were playing a game of "quick draw'' in their tent at the Kandahar Airfield base when Wilcox's loaded pistol accidentally fired, hitting Megeney in the chest.

Wilcox said it was a case of self-defence, testifying that he shot "instinctively'' against an unknown threat that was pointing a gun at his back inside the tent he shared with Megeney.

Wilcox was sentenced to four years in prison and kicked out of the military at his first court martial.

_Copyright © 2011 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved. _


----------



## kratz (22 Sep 2011)

shared from the Cape Breton Post

A part of the retrial wraps up this week, and halt until resuming 5 Dec 2011.



> Despite having five weeks set aside for the trial this spring, and due to scheduling conflicts additional time of two days were added in August, as well as the last two weeks, the trial will once again be postponed following court on Friday.
> 
> Tamburro said presiding military judge Lt.-Col. Louis-Vincent d’Auteuil heard the availability of both legal teams on Tuesday.
> 
> ...



more at link


----------



## FlyingDutchman (24 Sep 2011)

I know he has been discharged, but in the case of being found not guilty (which I highly doubt) would that reinstate him since he is no longer guilty?


----------



## Scott (3 Nov 2011)

> November 3, 2011 - 4:25am By MICHAEL MACDONALD The Canadian Press
> 
> A former Canadian reservist charged in the shooting death of a fellow soldier in Afghanistan testified in his own defence Wednesday, saying he fired his weapon instinctively when he thought someone was pointing a gun at his back.
> 
> ...



Article Link: http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/28938-ex-reservist-firing-was-instinctive


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Nov 2011)

In David Bright, he has a good lawyer.  Cpl Megeney, I remember the night you died and the ramp ceremony.   :brit poppy:


----------



## REDinstaller (3 Nov 2011)

I remember hearing of the incident while out in Maywand AMA. RIP


----------



## DoyleG (6 Nov 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> I know he has been discharged, but in the case of being found not guilty (which I highly doubt) would that reinstate him since he is no longer guilty?



Even if he is found not guilty, its likely he was given an administrative release.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Nov 2011)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/11/17/ns-wilcox-guilty-court-martial.html



> A court martial judge has found a former Canadian soldier guilty of two charges in the 2007 shooting death of a fellow reservist in Afghanistan.
> 
> Military spokeswoman Capt. Colette Brake says Matthew Wilcox was found guilty Wednesday of criminal negligence causing death and negligent performance of a military duty.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Nov 2011)

Wilcox gets 4 years in shooting death of fellow soldier
CBC News Posted: Nov 18, 2011 12:28 PM AT Last Updated: Nov 18, 2011 3:04 PM AT 






N.S. soldier guilty of shooting death Former corporal Matthew Wilcox of Glace Bay is escorted at his first court martial on charges of shooting another Nova Scotia soldier. Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press

Matthew Wilcox has been sentenced to four years in jail for the shooting death of a fellow Canadian soldier in Afghanistan. 

Wilcox was found guilty Wednesday at a Halifax court martial of killing 25-year-old Cpl. Kevin Megeney of Stellarton, N.S., in a tent at Kandahar Airfield in 2007.

Louis-Vincent d'Auteuil, the court martial judge, convicted Wilcox of criminal negligence causing death and negligent performance of a military duty.

Prosecutors have described it as a game of quick draw that went wrong.

A lawyer for Wilcox, a 26-year-old reservist from Glace Bay, N.S., had told the court martial trial that his client fired his weapon in self-defence as he reacted to what he thought was a threat.

Prosecution asked for 6-year term
The prosecutor asked for a six-year prison term.

It also wanted Wilcox to provide a DNA sample, and have a lifetime ban on restricted weapons and 10-year ban on conventional firearms.

The judge questioned the need for the DNA order, asking if Wilcox should be tracked for the rest of his life. He also questioned whether what he called the failure of military leadership should mitigate in Wilcox's favour for a shorter sentence.

The defence asked the judge to issue a one-year sentence with credit for the 73 days Wilcox has already served.

It also wanted the judge to suspend the remainder of any sentence.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Nov 2011)

Good News.  Now I hope he can man up and do the time he has sadly earned.  I also hope that this will bring some closure for the Megeney family.  :yellow:


----------



## the 48th regulator (18 Nov 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Good News.  Now I hope he can man up and do the time he has sadly earned.  I also hope that this will bring some closure for the Megeney family.  :yellow:



What closure would that be?  That their son chose to play a stupid game of quick draw, and died, now the other idiot is going to jail for it?

dileas

tess


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Nov 2011)

Well let's see.... they won't have to relive the incident once again in open court as they did this time.  They can get that behind them.  And lastly, yes if they feel justice has been served with the conviction and sentence, they should start to find closure with that as well.

As for the game of QD, one player can't speak for himself and the other sings a different tune.  I'm not convinced that was what was on the menu that night either.


----------



## Old and Tired (18 Nov 2011)

Court is down dismissed. Sentence is 3in years 289 days. This represents the 4 year minimum sentence less pretrial custody plus time served from first trial. Mr Wilcox has been turned over to the Mo's for transport to Springhill Penitence to begin serving his sentence.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Nov 2011)

No time in Club Ed, then release to civvie jail?


----------



## Stoker (18 Nov 2011)

Much as I think he got what he deserved, obviously justice was not swift in this case. I hope Wilcox reflects on what he did and goes on to live a productive life. If he got 4 years, won't he be out early?


----------



## mariomike (18 Nov 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No time in Club Ed, then release to civvie jail?



This may be relevant:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/87905/post-873953.html#msg873953
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/87905/post-879540.html#msg879540


----------



## Old and Tired (18 Nov 2011)

My apologies for the typos in my earlier post.  I still haven't mastered my smartphone and the touch screen with auto correct.

Having sat in the court room on and off since the retrial began in April there are some interesting insights that I've seen and heard.

The Prosecutor asked for 6 years, a lifetime ban on owning or possessing Prohibited or restricted firearms or weapons and a 10 year ban on non-restricted firearms and weapons as well as submitting a DNA sample.  The Judge gave four years detention as described previously, as well as the weapons bans but denied the DNA sample as he said he could not see a valid reason for it.

Mr.Wilcox seemed fairly resigned to is fate and took it fairly well all things considered.  Cpl Megeney's family did not show to much reaction physically but wear I was seated did not afford the best view.

Something the judge said has been sitting with me though.  He looked at Wilcox and said be was to blame for wait happened, but there was also blame to share with the whole of the chain of command for letting such a permissive attitude with regards to weapons safety and handle that such an incident became an inevitable result.

As  sit and consider what the Judge said I think he's correct.  I think all of us in command of leadership positions bear a part of the burden of this.  Have we as a whole, become so inured or complacent about the tools of our trade that we fail to take decisive corrective action when we observe problems?  A point for all of us to ponder, I think.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (18 Nov 2011)

Was there a reason given for the request of a DNA sample?  When I read that it had me scratching my head.


----------



## Old and Tired (18 Nov 2011)

Maj Tamburro simply said given the "gravetly and severity" of the offence.  The judge did not agree,  given the letter from a, I think former, CO and the testimony of Mr Wilcox's former Coy Comd.


----------



## cupper (18 Nov 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> Was there a reason given for the request of a DNA sample?  When I read that it had me scratching my head.



Apparently you were not the only one. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/11/18/ns-wilcox-awaits-sentence.html



> The prosecutor asked for a six-year prison term.
> 
> It also wanted Wilcox to provide a DNA sample, and have a lifetime ban on restricted weapons and 10-year ban on conventional firearms.
> 
> The judge questioned the need for the DNA order, asking if Wilcox should be tracked for the rest of his life.



But I believe that the prosecutor may just be crossing I's and dotting T's to cover the provisions of the DNA Identification Act.  http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/D-3.8/page-1.html

Also, the relevant sections of the CC of C and the NDA.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-216.html#h-149

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-63.html


----------



## bluenoser36 (18 Nov 2011)

The Criminal Code classifies those offences that may be the subject of a DNA warrant or of a post-conviction DNA data bank order as either primary or secondary designated offences. The nature of the crime, the seriousness of the crime and the likelihood of bodily substances being left behind by the perpetrator of the offence at the crime scene or on something related to the commission of the crime were factors in determining whether an offence is included in these lists. With a few exceptions the list of designated offences is limited to violent offences and sexual offences where there is a likelihood of bodily substances being left behind by the perpetrator of the offence. Primary designated offences are the most serious of these offences.

The court is required to make a DNA data bank order where an offender is convicted or discharged of a primary designated offence unless the judge is satisfied that the impact on the offender's privacy and security of the person would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in the protection of society. The burden of proof is on the offender to convince the court not to make the order.

In the case of a secondary designated offence, the order may be granted if the judge is satisfied that it is in the best interests of justice to do so. The burden of proof is on the Crown to convince the court to make the order. In deciding whether to grant the order, the courts are required to consider the following factors:

the criminal record of the person or young person,
the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and
the impact such an order would have on the person's or young person's privacy and security of the person.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Nov 2011)

Old and Tired said:
			
		

> .... Something the judge said has been sitting with me though.  He looked at Wilcox and said be was to blame for wait happened, but there was also blame to share with the whole of the chain of command for letting such a permissive attitude with regards to weapons safety and handle that such an incident became an inevitable result ....


You weren't the only one to pick up on that bit - this from The Canadian Press....


> A military judge says officers in the Canadian military were partly to blame for lax firearms safety in Afghanistan as he sentenced a former reservist Friday to four years in jail for fatally shooting a fellow soldier.
> 
> Lt.-Col. Louis-Vincent d'Auteuil said Matthew Wilcox was well trained and "should have known better" than to point a loaded pistol at his best friend, Cpl. Kevin Megeney, on March 6, 2007.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2011)

I don't agree with making this a failure of leadership. They are trained soldiers, not preschoolers in a daycare centre.

You can't train, or guard, against stupidity or mental capacity.

Reading the biography of the Judge http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/bio/dauteuil-lv-eng.asp other than some obscure positions for a few years as a Reserve Infantry Officer, it seems his military time was served with AJAG. Does anyone know whether he's ever had to carry arms on operations? Just wondering.

We can speculate in ad nauseum, or just wait for his sentence I guess.


----------



## cupper (18 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We can speculate in ad nauseum, or just wait for his sentence I guess.



In case you missed it, it was posted earlier that he essentially got 4 years less time already served and credit for time held pre-trial.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2011)

Seen


----------



## cupper (18 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Seen



No Prob. Thought you may have missed it.


----------



## Old and Tired (19 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't agree with making this a failure of leadership. They are trained soldiers, not preschoolers in a daycare centre.
> 
> You can't train, or guard, against stupidity or mental capacity.
> 
> ...



When members of the C of C are the ones setting the example of what is acceptable behavior, and paying lip service to Orders and not enforcing them in the manner intended it makes one wonder.  I admit that I tended to ignore as much as possible because of the various roles we played in the proceedings, certain things stood out and obviously they did with the Judge as he referred many time to events that occurred during pre-deployment training that, perhaps, should have been dealt with in a more forceful manner.  As well there are events that were presented as evidence early in the deployment, that again cause one to wonder.


----------



## Pieman (19 Nov 2011)

> When members of the C of C are the ones setting the example of what is acceptable behavior, and paying lip service to Orders and not enforcing them in the manner intended it makes one wonder



I recall my Sr. NCO playing the quick draw game constantly in the tents on pre-deployment training. Did not see it overseas. Have to shake my head at a 35 year old Sgt. acting like a 17 year old though. Saw plenty of that.

What happened should not have. It's really sad to see so many lives impacted badly by something so childish and irresponsible.


----------



## Thompson_JM (29 Nov 2011)

Pieman said:
			
		

> I recall my Sr. NCO playing the quick draw game constantly in the tents on pre-deployment training. Did not see it overseas. Have to shake my head at a 35 year old Sgt. acting like a 17 year old though. Saw plenty of that.
> 
> What happened should not have. It's really sad to see so many lives impacted badly by something so childish and irresponsible.



 :+1:

Lousy way to Start my roto....

Good riddance to Wilcox though... Anyone who can claim they were all torn up about killing their "Best Friend" and then claims "Self Defence" is utterly unfit to wear the uniform of a CF Member.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Nov 2011)

Pieman said:
			
		

> I recall my Sr. NCO playing the quick draw game constantly in the tents on pre-deployment training. Did not see it overseas. Have to shake my head at a 35 year old Sgt. acting like a 17 year old though. Saw plenty of that.



He should have been charged, found guilty and reduced in rank to Cpl - as Master Corporal is an appointment.


----------



## kratz (3 Jun 2013)

ref: CBC.ca




> N.S. soldier guilty of shooting death granted parole
> Matthew Wilcox was sentenced to four years in November 2011
> CBC News
> Posted: Jun 3, 2013 4:56 PM AT
> ...



As always, it's not worth reading the comments after these CBC news reports.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jun 2013)

Jesus Christ.  WAY too soon IMO.   :


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Jun 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Jesus Christ.  WAY too soon IMO.   :



Maybe so, but in accordance with the law.

The National Parole Board  paroles all kinds of ne'er do wells. Wilcox is a babe in the woods compared to some.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Jun 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The National Parole Board  paroles all kinds of ne'er do wells.


Sadly   

A friend worked on a parole board for about 6 months before she got fed up having to release scumbags she knew were going to reoffend, but they met the parole-conditions' template.  She took the pay cut and went back to being a guard.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Jun 2013)

> The board said Wilcox displayed a high level of remorse and victim empathy.



Oh ya, I remember that. He said he wasn't playing quick draw and he thought someone infultrated the base and he was defending himself when he put a bullet in his friends stomach.  High level of remorse and empathy for sure.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Jun 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Oh ya, I remember that. He said he wasn't playing quick draw and he thought someone infultrated the base and he was defending himself when he put a bullet in his friends stomach.  High level of remorse and empathy for sure.



Much higher than your average scumbag that they let go.......


----------



## FJAG (4 Jun 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Jesus Christ.  WAY too soon IMO.   :



Been a while since I did crim law but if I remember correctly and they haven't changed the laws on me, full parole is available after having served 1/3 of the full sentence and day parole is available six months before full parole.

Generally an individual like this, who did something stupid, rather than a calculating hardened criminal, usually goes onto parole at the minimum times unless he did other stupid things while in jail. 

He does remain under conditions (set by the board) and if he re-offends or breaks the conditions he could be sent back to serve the remainder of his sentence.


The dates listed here seem in accordance with the law.


----------

