# Gagetown soldiers charged with drug trafficking



## 043 (14 Dec 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/12/14/nb-soldierscharged.html

Special thanks should go out to these 5 individuals for tarnishing the military's name.


----------



## spud (14 Dec 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/12/14/nb-soldierscharged.html
> Special thanks should go out to these 5 individuals for tarnishing the military's name.



Or.....well done to those who investigated and brought charges to bear. Taking out the trash is a good thing. 

potato


----------



## Armymedic (14 Dec 2006)

You got to understand 2023's unique sarcastic humour. What he meant to say was:
"These 5 #$@*^%$ *!@@^%$&  tarnish the military's professionalism." 
But he is SHARP trained.

Which unit are the "accused" and were they scheduled to deploy?


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2006)

I know one of these soldiers.  Funny, it does answer some questions.  Too bad that he has a family and kids to worry about.  Too bad for them, I mean.  He allegedely made his decision, and if convicted, then a very very poor one indeed IF CONVICTED.


Good on catching these guys IF CONVICTED.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2006)

St. Micheal's Medical Team said:
			
		

> Which unit are the "accused" and were they scheduled to deploy?


Their names are now common-knowledge, but their unit/units are not.  Until released publically, then no comments should be made.  Let the PAFFO worry about that.


----------



## 043 (14 Dec 2006)

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> I know one of these soldiers.  Funny, it does answer some questions.  Too bad that he has a family and kids to worry about.  Too bad for them, I mean.  He allegedely made his decision, and if convicted, then a very very poor one indeed IF CONVICTED.
> 
> 
> Good on catching these guys IF CONVICTED.



You know what, this individual obviously doesn't care about his family if he chose to do these alleged acts. Mind you, maybe he just thought the policy was a guide...........I feel sorry for his family.............


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2006)

2023: ditto
I feel sorry for his family, but for those guys, IF CONVICTED, face a very serious road indeed:
This from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act:
(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2)

(a) subject to subsection (4), where the subject-matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life;
Cocaine is in Schedule I, so, if convicted, these guys face life imprisonment, which, if I'm not mistaken, actually means "life" in Canada, not a "mere" 25 years.


----------



## spud (14 Dec 2006)

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> 2023: ditto
> I feel sorry for his family, but for those guys, IF CONVICTED, face a very serious road indeed:
> This from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act:
> (3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2)
> ...



Dude, when's the last time somebody got life for drug offences?


----------



## sigtech (14 Dec 2006)

For the love of God

People like this should be sent to Club Ed for 2 years then stoned , then kicked out of the Military , then stoned again

Did I mention they should be stoned ( Have rocks thrown at them not use the products they were selling   :threat


----------



## 043 (14 Dec 2006)

sigtech said:
			
		

> For the love of God
> 
> People like this should be sent to Club Ed for 2 years then stoned , then kicked out of the Military , then stoned again
> 
> Did I mention they should be stoned ( Have rocks thrown at them not use the products they were selling   :threat



Hey there sigtech, you might want to lighten up a bit.........they have already been stoned more than once I am sure! LOL Seriously though, I don't think the death sentence (stoning)is applicable here.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Dec 2006)

sigtech said:
			
		

> For the love of God
> 
> People like this should be sent to Club Ed for 2 years then stoned , then kicked out of the Military , then stoned again
> 
> Did I mention they should be stoned ( Have rocks thrown at them not use the products they were selling   :threat



The norm is pretty much that without the stoning and then transfer to a Federal facility.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2006)

I don't know of any life sentences being awarded for drug trafficking.  In any event, this is a very serious crime with very serious implications for any person convicted of trafficking cocaine.  Sucks to be them, and I feel for their families (the kids), convicted or not, because the rumour mills will cause others to think low of them even if acquitted.


----------



## sigtech (14 Dec 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> Hey there sigtech, you might want to lighten up a bit.........they have already been stoned more than once I am sure! LOL Seriously though, I don't think the death sentence (stoning)is applicable here.



Lighten up, sorry can't I have seen to many good men leave the forces when scum suckers like this stay around and foul up the forces as a whole. 

If you are going to serve , serve with pride and follow the rules

Grumble Grumble #$%#3 munching #@$, @#$@, @#$@^

 >


----------



## fbr2o75 (14 Dec 2006)

Just one question,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Why???????? I'm sure selling drugs isn't what these men initially signed up for, what a waste!!


----------



## derael (14 Dec 2006)

I guess you would have to ask them.


----------



## IrishCanuck (14 Dec 2006)

fbr2o75 said:
			
		

> Just one question,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Why???????? I'm sure selling drugs isn't what these men initially signed up for, what a waste!!



Is it really that hard to figure out? They were greedy.


----------



## Trinity (14 Dec 2006)

IrishCanuck said:
			
		

> Is it really that hard to figure out? They were greedy.



With a healthy mixture of stupid, and a dose of arrogance to think they wouldn't get caught.


----------



## fbr2o75 (14 Dec 2006)

I spent 16 years in the Reserves on various Class B and C service, maybe I was very naive back than, but I really don't remember one service member selling drugs.


----------



## medicineman (14 Dec 2006)

fbr2o75 said:
			
		

> Just one question,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Why???????? I'm sure selling drugs isn't what these men initially signed up for, what a waste!!



My guess is it's a tad more lucrative than soldiering - even in New Brunswick.

MM


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Dec 2006)

fbr2o75 said:
			
		

> I spent 16 years in the Reserves on various Class B and C service, maybe I was very naive back than, but I really don't remember one service member selling drugs.



Over 25 years ago I was _awarding_ lengthy detention sentences for drug possession and even trafficking, on a fairly regular basis - two or three times per year, in a unit with less than 750 all ranks.

We were told, by the RCMP and MPs, that the centre of our problem was CFB Borden - which was borne out by the fact that a disproportionately large share of those caught, tried and convicted had been to Borden in the not too distant past.


Edit: typo


----------



## 043 (14 Dec 2006)

Sure enough though, some of them will play the PTSD card.................crap I say!


----------



## the 48th regulator (14 Dec 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> Sure enough though, some of them will play the PTSD card.................crap I say!



What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Stop perpetuating the myth.  If you have something relevent to say, on either subject, then do it.

dileas

tess


----------



## GUNS (14 Dec 2006)

Caps off to those that nabbed these a-holes. If the investigation had come to fruition earlier, TF-107 would not have been hit so hard ,PR wise.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Dec 2006)

IF these individuals are found guilty they are most likely done consider the fate of those sent home from A Stan.


----------



## caper09 (14 Dec 2006)

Well
I am glad to see there are so many judge, jurors and executioners on this site.  What happened to innocent until proven guilty.  I happen to know one of the individuals and I KNOW he is innocent.  Put yourselves in his place. Accused, reputation tarnished, tour lost, and he did nothing.  Don't be so quick to jump on the accusation bandwagon.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (14 Dec 2006)

2023,

  Please review what you said and take a second to rethink if you want it to be their. Edit it out if your second thought tells you it was not appropriate. I would suggest you edit it out.

 48th is being polite to you.

  Now on to these accused 5, what a shame they did this. They will have tarnished their unit and the public view unfortunately. They will pay and good on the investigators rooting out some more less then acceptable that got past the door.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Dec 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> ...Now on to these accused 5, what a shame they did this. They will have tarnished their unit and the public view unfortunately. They will pay and good on the investigators rooting out some more less then acceptable that got past the door.



Dude, holy shit...look at what you just wrote to 2023 not but two lines ealier!    Get a grip!

G2G


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2006)

caper09 said:
			
		

> Well
> I am glad to see there are so many judge, jurors and executioners on this site.  What happened to innocent until proven guilty.  I happen to know one of the individuals and I KNOW he is innocent.  Put yourselves in his place. Accused, reputation tarnished, tour lost, and he did nothing.  Don't be so quick to jump on the accusation bandwagon.


Please note that I said "IF CONVICTED" in my posts.  

Thank you for using such a narrow brush with which to paint us.


Yours, 
Hauptmann Scharlachrot


----------



## 3rd Horseman (14 Dec 2006)

Caper,

  Good point that is why most of us are using the words accused.

G2G.....WTF are you talking about? I only suggest 2023 re read his post which I don't want to quote so he can edit it....the "edited out four letter word" part. If I quote it then I have to edit it out once he makes the right choice.


----------



## Wookilar (14 Dec 2006)

CFNIS has been (unfortunately) getting a fair bit of practice at this sort of investigation. 

Edmonton, Valcartier, now Gagetown. 

While Captain Scarlet (ummmm sorry What's that in German?) is quite right to say "If Convicted" the track record CFNIS has on these types of investigations speaks for itself. 

I will be withholding my mighty wrath from striking down these individuals until after the trial(s), but the damage to themselves and their units is already done.

Caper09: I applaud you for standing by your bud (Seriously), but keep in mind, the guys in Edmonton did all their business downtown. No one on base knew a thing until the civy cops called.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Dec 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Caper,
> 
> Good point that is why most of us are using the words accused.
> 
> G2G.....WTF are you talking about? I only suggest 2023 re read his post which I don't want to quote so he can edit it....the PTSD part. If I quote it then I have to edit it out once he makes the right choice.



That's exactly my point.  You chastise 2023 for the PTSD comment, then you merrily sail along with "what a shame", "they will have tarnished..." and "they will pay."  HS qualified his comments about "if convicted" at the very beginning of the thread...you didn't.  The contrast between your position towards 2023 and your tone/words immediately following the chastisement is startling, espsecially since it's all in the same post.

G2G


----------



## brihard (14 Dec 2006)

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

I'm going against the grain here but if convicted, two years in club Ed, then kick 'em out of the forces is a suitable punishment in my mind.

Criminal sentencing is supposed to use the minimum restriction necessary to accomplish its goals. Look at the roles and goals of sentencing:
Specific deterrence
General deterrence
Denunciation
Rehabilitation
Punishment
Separation from society

Two years in club Ed and a dishonourable is as good an act of deterrence as anyone in the forces could possibly need to see. Anything beyond that has no value added in deterring others from committing those crimes.

Denunciation of the crime is clearly accomplished throughout the C.F. community through the imprisonment itself as well as the fact that they're deemed unworthy of serving the country. I can eprsonally think of no greater shame for a soldier than that.

Rehabilitation: If Club Ed doesn't rehabilitate and discipline an offender, nothing will.

Punishment: See above.

Separation from society: No, strictly speaking, a necessary factor in this case. Certainly they'll be out of circulation long enough for any drug contacts they have to move on to other dealers or suppliers. Unless there is demonstrable harm to people other than those voluntarily purchasing the drugs supplied, there's no need to deem them a clear and present danger to society and separate them longer than necessary.

Moreover, factor in other rehabilitative factors: At least one, if not several or all of them have families and kids. That's been conclusively shown to be a stabilizing force in criminal reform. It's likely that these guys found themselves in a comfortable pattern of 'safely' offending which has now been rather harshly interrupted. Odds of them slipping back into this lifestyle are rather slim, especially if they have families to look after when they get out.

Now, there may be other aggravating or mitigating factors at play here, but from when I've read this is my take on it.

Out of curiosity, when one is sentenced to, say, 2 years in detention barracks, is there any system of parole?


----------



## observor 69 (14 Dec 2006)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That's exactly my point.  You chastise 2023 for the PTSD comment, then you merrily sail along with "what a shame", "they will have tarnished..." and "they will pay."  HS qualified his comments about "if convicted" at the very beginning of the thread...you didn't.  The contrast between your position towards 2023 and your tone/words immediately following the chastisement is startling, espsecially since it's all in the same post.
> 
> G2G



As the Judge said "March the guilty bastard in."


----------



## George Wallace (14 Dec 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> G2G.....WTF are you talking about? I only suggest 2023 re read his post which I don't want to quote so he can edit it.................. If I quote it then I have to edit it out once he makes the right choice.



 :

I suppose that is why you posted the four letter acronym over once again?

Thoughts not being communicated by motor functions and being lost in translation in the written word?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (14 Dec 2006)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That's exactly my point.  You chastise 2023 for the PTSD comment, then you merrily sail along with "what a shame", "they will have tarnished..." and "they will pay."  HS qualified his comments about "if convicted" at the very beginning of the thread...you didn't.  The contrast between your position towards 2023 and your tone/words immediately following the chastisement is startling, espsecially since it's all in the same post.
> G2G



Actually I said Accused! My issue was was not with his comments other than the reference to "four letter word to remain edited". Only that word is the issue.

I did not want to but you have drawn me into it. Bun fight over.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Dec 2006)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, when one is sentenced to, say, 2 years in detention barracks, is there any system of parole?



Yes.  For good behaviour, the sentence is reduced fractionally.  However, this still does not negate the transfer after Release to a Federal Institution.


----------



## niner domestic (14 Dec 2006)

Caper: Yes, we do have an innocent until proven guilty burden of proof in our criminal justice system and yes, these accused have every reason to believe that the prosecutors will have to bear the onus to prove beyond a doubt that they are guilty.  However, in my decades of lawyering I've only ever seen a handful of examples where the accused was wrongly convicted or they were wrongly accused.  The 18,000 federal inmates and the thousands of provincial bucket inmates pretty much speak to the diligence of investigating agencies and prosecutors that those accused of a crime were in fact guilty of the said crime.  If the prosecutor can not beyond a reasonable doubt led evidence that will in all likelihood afford a finding of guilt, then your buddy will be acquitted and life goes on.  

Now here's another little reality, most first time accused will plead their innocence as, "This is the first time I've ever been in trouble." What that means to those in the legal/law enforcement/incarceraton business is that it's the first time that person as been *caught* carrying on with their criminal behaviour. Very few first time offenders or accused are also new to the life of criminal behaviour and activity.  Actually very few people are completely innocent of any criminal behaviour at any point in their life - from the shop lifting as a kid,  to accepting the cashier's error of overchanging and not returning the money, to the intentional dangerous driving, to trying to sneak home in your own car after a night at the mess and a few drinks that got you slightly over the limit, to giving your 18 year kid a pack of smokes etc.  It's all a matter of time that anyone engaging in that type of behaviour will get *caught.*  and the deer caught in the headlight looks surface and the comment, "this is the first time I've ever been in trouble" are uttered.  

And then this reality, as I mentioned above, there are a few incidents of a person being wrongly accused and worse a few more have fallen through the cracks to be wrongly convicted as well.   However, in light of those very much publicized cases, LEO, and their agencies on the whole, do a careful investigation before information is laid to have the person charged with a crime.  The prosecutor's office is also careful at reviewing the case prior to the formal charges with numerous thresholds to be met.  With the current condition of our judicial system being overstretched in its resources, it is unlikely that much guesswork and judicial fishing trips for guilty persons are going on in the civilian and military courts.  There isn't enough time in the day to deal with all of the what ifs and could bes... there is a very large percentage that your buddy had enough evidence against him to bring about charges which the prosecutor felt that given a fair and impartial trial of his peers which are presented with the evidence would in all likelihood be able to make a finding of guilt and convict.  

The comments so far on this thread have all stated quites clearly, alleged and IF convicted.  I haven't seen anyone as yet, rendering a finding of guilt.  

Now to the numbered person who made the comment on PTSD, any one familiar with defences of drug offences knows that the small "I" insanity defence would only go to mitigate sentencing AFTER conviction. It cannot be offered as a defence to the alleged crime.  As for your implications of PTSD being crap (and please clarify of you meant anything else), can you please post your credentials to which I would hope include either a designation of psychiatry or psychology and your publications and research that discounts the disorder.   

As for the speculation to the actual sentence should a finding of guilt be rendered, unless the accused are now being charged under an act other than the NDA, it all just speculation.


----------



## geo (14 Dec 2006)

fbr2o75 said:
			
		

> I spent 16 years in the Reserves on various Class B and C service, maybe I was very naive back than, but I really don't remember one service member selling drugs.



Was an instance last winter of one Res who went into a College in full Cadpat to do a drug buy.... was turned in by the College security guy - this Pte claimed he was buying - for his friend..... Busted - GUILTY


----------



## Scott (14 Dec 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> As for your implications of PTSD being crap (and please clarify of you meant anything else), can you please post your credentials to which I would hope include either a designation of psychiatry or psychology and your publications and research that discounts the disorder.



The member has been asked to clarify/edit his comments a few times. You opening it up again does nothing but invite further dog piling.

Let the man answer!


----------



## spud (14 Dec 2006)

If any of them weren't dealing but still knowingly in the company of drug users or traffickers, then they are guilty of "serial stupidity". 

No less a crime then trafficking in my book.



potato


----------



## brihard (14 Dec 2006)

Oh, certainly my comments on sentencing were not an effort to predict a sentence- merely my views on what an appropriate one might _be_.

In reality, if convicted, they'll probably do a decent spell in federal prison. It just may not be the most appropriate sentence is all.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2006)

As I've pointed out earlier, a person convicted of trafficking cocaine can face up to life imprisonment.  IF a CF member were to be convicted of a service offense as well as a Drug Control Act (or whatever it's called) offence, then I would assume that they would spend 2 years less a day in DB, then the remainder in a civil institution.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Dec 2006)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Oh, certainly my comments on sentencing were not an effort to predict a sentence- merely my views on what an appropriate one might _be_.
> 
> In reality, if convicted, they'll probably do a decent spell in federal prison. It just may not be the most appropriate sentence is all.



Looking back on the Somalia Affair, you can judge some of your questions on the sentence given Kyle Brown and where and when he served it.


----------



## niner domestic (14 Dec 2006)

Actually spud, it is part of the crime of trafficking as well as being in possession offences if you are knowingly in the company of someone using drugs or trafficking. You can find yourself being charged along side the guy with the drugs.  I used to speak at my kid's HS for their law class and that was something we covered.  If you are at a party, and there are drugs evident, and you know they are drugs, then you either have to leave or face the consequences of being charged if the party is busted.


----------



## brihard (14 Dec 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Looking back on the Somalia Affair, you can judge some of your questions on the sentence given Kyle Brown and where and when he served it.



Huge difference between murder and drug trafficking in my books, sir.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2006)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Huge difference between murder and drug trafficking in my books, sir.


Not to the eyes of the law.  I believe that both have life as their maximum sentence. (for certain drugs, cocaine included)


----------



## George Wallace (14 Dec 2006)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Huge difference between murder and drug trafficking in my books, sir.



Brihard

The comment had nothing to do with the Crime, it had to do with the TIME.


----------



## gaspasser (14 Dec 2006)

Obviously another bunch of "new kids" who are getting thru the meat grinder with their lousy attitudes and making all of us look bad in the eyes of the public when we need that support.  Mind you NOT all of the new recruits have shitty attitudes, just some.  
Remember Viet-Nam.


----------



## niner domestic (14 Dec 2006)

Garvin: There is a difference.  Murder carries a MINIMUM sentence of LIFE and drug trafficking carries a MAXIMUM sentence of LIFE.


----------



## brihard (14 Dec 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Brihard
> 
> The comment had nothing to do with the Crime, it had to do with the TIME.



I understand. I'm simply not going to use the one case to judge the other. _Stare decisis_ only applies between two crimes of a like nature. Justice (or misjustice) in one case has no precedental impact or comparison value to another unrelated crime of a different sort.

Yes, Kyle Brown did get what _I_ would feel is quite a light sentence given his crime. Furthermore, I realize that the law prescribes very harsh penalties for trafficking schedule I substances as in this curent case. I'm simply saying that given the punishing nature of being tossed from the forces, and given that there may be families involved here as well, a stiff sentence beyond two years DB and a dishonourable may not be called for. My argument is based simply on the actual tangible merits of sentencing... Certainly there's no use comparing this case in any fashion to the Somalia affair, even if only to give insight as to the workings of military law.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Dec 2006)

OK

Brihard

You still missed my point on the TIME.  It was an example of where the TIME is done.  In this case, a serious offence and charge put the member in DB and followed by Dishonourable Release.  The Max time that one can serve in DB, as HS has pointed out, is two years and then Dishonourable Release.  For a sentence of over two years, the remainder of the time is served in a Federal Institution (after the Dishonourable Release).


----------



## brihard (14 Dec 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK
> 
> Brihard
> 
> You still missed my point on the TIME.  It was an example of where the TIME is done.  In this case, a serious offence and charge put the member in DB and followed by Dishonourable Release.  The Max time that one can serve in DB, as HS has pointed out, is two years and then Dishonourable Release.  For a sentence of over two years, the remainder of the time is served in a Federal Institution (after the Dishonourable Release).



Sorry for the disconnect.

Yes, I'm well aware that following two years in DB the offender is transferred to a federal pen; 2 years in DB being the max- I was simply assuming that was a given fact known to all on this thread. My apologies for not catching your meaning.

When you said it had to do with the time, I thought you meant the LENGTH of the sentence.

I think we're on the same page now.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Garvin: There is a difference.  Murder carries a MINIMUM sentence of LIFE and drug trafficking carries a MAXIMUM sentence of LIFE.


Good point. Thanks.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2006)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> Obviously another bunch of "new kids" who are getting thru the meat grinder with their lousy attitudes and making all of us look bad in the eyes of the public when we need that support.  Mind you NOT all of the new recruits have shitty attitudes, just some.
> Remember Viet-Nam.


Three of them are corporals.  Even if they were promoted yesterday, that's four years service.  Not at all "new kids"


----------



## niner domestic (14 Dec 2006)

Brihard: Not sure where you are getting your information from.  Stare decisis is precedent from a previous ruling that can either be a) case in point, b) considered c) followed d) referred to e) applied  OR  f) distinguished or heck even overruled, or overturned by the superior court.  It is not about a particular crime but particular legal tenents and jurisprudence.  It is about how law is applied, it is about how evidence, witnesses, testimony and burdens of proof are evenly applied. It is about subordinate and superior legislation and doctrines of paramountcy and sentencing discretion and application.  Stare decisis is only binding on subordinate courts of competent jurisdiction -  never binding on superior courts.  It is never about the crime - the actual crime is the basis for the charge which is the basis for the application of the law which is where the precedent is applied to for a varying number of circumstances as mentioned above.


----------



## brihard (14 Dec 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Brihard: Not sure where you are getting your information from.  Stare decisis is precedent from a previous ruling that can either be a) case in point, b) considered c) followed d) referred to e) applied  OR  f) distinguished or heck even overruled, or overturned by the superior court.  It is not about a particular crime but particular legal tenents and jurisprudence.  It is about how law is applied, it is about how evidence, witnesses, testimony and burdens of proof are evenly applied. It is about subordinate and superior legislation and doctrines of paramountcy and sentencing discretion and application.  Stare decisis is only binding on subordinate courts of competent jurisdiction -  never binding on superior courts.  It is never about the crime - the actual crime is the basis for the charge which is the basis for the application of the law which is where the precedent is applied to for a varying number of circumstances as mentioned above.



Niner- my comment about stare decisis came from Mr. Wallace and I misinterpreting each other. I thought he was trying tot ell me to refer to the Somalia sentencing as a source of potential setencing guidelines in this case being discussed in the thread. I (mis)understood him to be trying to draw a legal precedent from the one to the other. I (mis)understood him to be trying to apply 'like crimes, decided alike' to two unlike crimes.

Given that I was on a different page from him, that particular comment is now null and void.

I certainly understand and grasp everything you just told me- I just goofed the context of what he said to me, and then replied to it with something that makes perfect sense in the context I thought we were discussing. I'll call a 'my bad' on that one.


----------



## cplcaldwell (14 Dec 2006)

Interesting discussion.

So much for maximums and minimums. So much for Club Fed vs. KP. 

What are the kinds of punishment that could be expected? 

Consider, from CBC, "have been charged under military law with trafficking cocaine, ecstasy and marijuana." 

Clearly we have individuals present _here _ who have substantial experience in this area, is it inapropriate for a comment in this regard?

Just to make sure, let me state, I firmly believe, the soldiers in question are innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## 3rd Herd (14 Dec 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Just to make sure, let me state, I firmly believe, the soldiers in question are innocent until proven guilty.



With the involvement of human nature there is and always will be particularly in any professional occupation a thematic outlook based more on the French judicial system of guilty until proven innocent than the traditional Anglo/North American one. As for the differences in sentencing time, there was a very interesting news article (CBC, CTV, Calgary Herald) on the comparison of the United States and Canada. The primary focus was the recent arrest of 3 Canadians (2 from Calgary, 1 from Invermere) who were involved in cross boarder drug shipments. Given the mandatory sentencing in the United States verses the sentencing in Canada, let the Americans have them physically and let us have the seized proceeds from this operation. I imagine there is always a use for a few free helicopters and light aircraft up here.

A second interesting provincial law of interest to this thread is if you have children and are lets say "doing some indoor growing" and the door comes crashing down. First your busted and then Child Services is right behind to grab the kids. Most recently two episodes one in the north east of the city and one in the south east. In addition to the various Federal charges provincial charges of child endangerment were added. Both made the front page of the Herald.


----------



## Combat Sailor (14 Dec 2006)

Just to throw this one out there, but who do you think were their major clients? The trafficking is obviously a huge problem, and so those caught doing it should be severely reprimanded (released). I don't know about you but when I signed up the policy was 0 tolerance WRT drugs. So why are we not pursuing the purchasers (military). The PR guys play down the drug problem to the press, but for a 0 tolerance policy, I would say that a 5% testing positive for drugs during pre-deployment screening is quite disturbing. And I am pretty sure that the numbers would be significantly greater if they did a CF wide test. Our problem is that too many people turn a blind eye, and don't want to 'blade' their buddy. I know it sounds cliche but do you want the hopped up guy/girl covering your back. If we want to do something about this, than WE have to do something. Be proactive, and quit turning a blind eye. Just my 2cents. Cheers


----------



## Sig_Des (14 Dec 2006)

timma said:
			
		

> Drugs destroy lives



Well...That was enlightening.

Drugs do destroy lives, but, if the accused are found guilty, they will have destroyed their own lives in the CF, the stability and respect of their families, and possibly the lives/careers of those that they "serviced".

IMO, there's a difference between people who f'ed up and got addicted, and those that perpetuate. Though I don't have too much respect for those who turn to drugs in the first place. May be harsh, but that's my opinion.

Motivation for pushing? Money...

Bravo Zulu to the investigators.


----------



## gaspasser (14 Dec 2006)

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> Three of them are corporals.  Even if they were promoted yesterday, that's four years service.  Not at all "new kids"


Still, I've been told to take a flying leap by one of these new types.  No Discipline, No Respect for Rank.  Just here to do a job and collect pay.


----------



## GO!!! (14 Dec 2006)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> Obviously another bunch of "new kids" who are getting thru the meat grinder with their lousy attitudes and making all of us look bad in the eyes of the public when we need that support.


*Obviously* another dinosaur with an extra side of crust doing the talking!

Soldiers of *all* ranks have been caught with urine tests, and the better part of a platoon of Vandoos was caught last year - this is not an exclusively "New Guy" phenomenon, and perpetuating the myth that drugs are only used by the Junior Ranks is BS as well.



> Mind you NOT all of the new recruits have shitty attitudes, just some.


I can think of a few 20+ year members with pretty crappy attitudes too - hardly indicative of - anything - is it?



> Remember Viet-Nam.


What, a giant conscript army with no clear tactical goals fighting an unpopular war with no public support? 

Oh, wait, that conflict bears no similarity to our current missions - and it predates the *birth* of most soldiers today.


----------



## brihard (14 Dec 2006)

Combat Sailor said:
			
		

> ...



Be aware of what you post. Some of this info may not necessarily be for public consumption.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Dec 2006)

Scrooge_Des said:
			
		

> Well...That was enlightening.



Well.....That was downright stupid, and that is why I removed it.  

Note to All:

We are policing this topic as much as we can, so keep the comments to facts only.  We know not of their guilt or innocence.  We will not speculate or release Unit names or means of finding Unit names, nor any facts about any family members that these accused may have in the vicinity.  If it is a OPSEC or PERSEC matter, you will be censored and put on Warning should you release that info here before it is Public knowledge.


----------



## 043 (14 Dec 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> 2023,
> 
> Please review what you said and take a second to rethink if you want it to be their. Edit it out if your second thought tells you it was not appropriate. I would suggest you edit it out.
> 
> ...



While it may appear callous and unthoughtful of me, and that I have no regards for someone with PTSD, I won't recant the statement. Having any kind of illness doesn't make using or trafficking drugs legal. As for someone with PTSD, I am sorry if I offended anyone. It just seems to be a "more" common defense platform these days.


----------



## TN2IC (14 Dec 2006)

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> Three of them are corporals.  Even if they were promoted yesterday, that's four years service.  Not at all "new kids"




Not always true in the PRes World. I am not sure what unit they are from, so please excuse me on that matter. We just have to watch the OPSEC and PERSEC factors here. Not meaning to, but I'm echoing what George is stating. Any one here can access these means.

As for PTSD as a playing card. I believe that scapegoat shouldn't be played. I've seen PTSD within my family. But may be I am just misunderstanding what 3rd Horseman is writing. I think we should bury this issue before it spins out of control. 

Cheers,
TN2IC

Edited to Add More Information


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2006)

TN2IC: good point.  My reg force experience has seemed to push aside my reserve force experience.  Heck, even I was a corporal after a year!  
As for info, CBC radio tonight mentioned that three of the suspects were destined to go to Afghanistan, and that they have been taken off of the tour.  The PAFFO didn't say if the charges were related, and that it had nothing to do with the recently publicised urine tests: this was a separate investigation.  No units given.  So, none shall be given on this site, I hope.  As I stated earlier, let the PAFFO worry about releasing info.


----------



## cplcaldwell (14 Dec 2006)

> Heck, even I was a corporal after a year!



Damn, streamers, harrrrumphh.

Seriously,though, isn't CF Drug and Alcohol Policy about the second lecture given to recruits? 

Heck last time I recollect such a scenario they hadn't even been issued their 'poofta green french painters hats' yet....and that was three weeks ago... on a PRes planet.....


----------



## TN2IC (14 Dec 2006)

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> TN2IC: good point.  My reg force experience has seemed to push aside my reserve force experience.  Heck, even I was a corporal after a year!



I "think" that some reservist have a intresting life. They are civilian soldiers. They have lives out side the Militia Life. But one person can only make the right choice on drugs. It is not the CSM, nor the Section Commander... it is the Militia Soldier himself. One man one kit? One man, one body. Treat it right.

When you sign the dotted line, you sign it to serve the Red and White. I believe all Militia soldiers should be tested even on Class A work. I really don't like the idea of Pte Bloggins popping whatever brand of the month, then hitting the range for a PWT 3.


Okay I believe I am done my rant,
Cheers Again Troops,
TN2IC


----------



## 043 (14 Dec 2006)

I just have to wade in here on the Zero Tolerance BS...........why is there a "Zero" Tolerance for Drug use but there isn't for Alcohol? They are both drugs...............if someone has a problem, and they want the help with the problem.....try to fix it first. But of course, mete out the appropriate punishments first if so required. What I get a kick out of is the people who get caught and then boom, right to the addictions counselor, on there own, to get help.......you didnt have a problem when you weren't getting caught did you? I can see it from both angles though as I have lived it and sorted it.

My ramblings,

Chimo!


----------



## cplcaldwell (14 Dec 2006)

2023: _No one_ ever had a problem until they got caught. I respectfully submit the _denial_ is as much a part of the problem as _the problem_.


BTW: I've got the same t-shirt.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Dec 2006)

Well, it looks like we have worn this topic out, as now we are getting right off topic and into Alcohol, PTDS, and t-shirts.

LOCKED


----------



## 043 (14 Dec 2006)

Ah man, come on George, it is a good thread. I'll keep it on topic. I swear!!!!!!! haha


----------



## George Wallace (14 Dec 2006)

Waiting for a Quote from TN2iC .......


----------



## TN2IC (14 Dec 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> What I get a kick out of is the people who get caught and then boom, right to the addictions counselor, on there own, to get help.......you didnt have a problem when you weren't getting caught did you?



They just know how to play the system. I am not promoting it, myself. But that is a way on how some people look at it. It as if they want to give them an extra chance. To stand up and make things right. Then may be afterwards go back to the same routine. Don't we all love it? It is all about lifestyles. Your body. Your Choice.


----------

