# Sailor who injured another calls assault ‘disgusting’



## Stoker (14 Jan 2007)

Sailor who injured another calls assault ‘disgusting’ 


`It was the worst thing I've ever done in my life'

By CHRIS LAMBIE Staff Reporter

A Halifax sailor who threw a full can of beer that caused severe 
damage to a shipmate's eye told a court martial Friday he feels 
horrible about the deed.

Master Seaman Richard Edward Leblanc, 35, pleaded guilty to 
assaulting Leading Seaman Robin Lindhorst on Nov. 20, 2004, while 
their frigate, HMCS Halifax, was docked in Norfolk, Va. 

The beer can hit the victim in the head, breaking his glasses and 
lodging a piece of glass in his right eye. 

"It was the worst thing I've ever done in my life," Master Seaman 
Leblanc said Friday.

". . . It was just disgusting."

Cmdr. Peter Lamont handed Master Seaman Leblanc a two-week suspended 
sentence for the assault and for fighting with another shipmate that 
same night.

"It is important that the court impose the least-severe punishment 
that will maintain discipline," said the military judge.

Master Seaman Leblanc was a naval electronics sensor operator aboard 
HMCS Halifax at the time of the assault.

He went out with friends on Nov. 19, 2004, returning to the ship 
around 2 a.m. the next day. 

"There is no suggestion that he was intoxicated," said defence lawyer 
David Bright.

Master Seaman Leblanc was in the junior ranks' mess when another 
sailor made a comment to one of the cooks about the quality of food 
on the ship.

Another cook, Master Seaman Donald Martin, took offence to the remark 
and the two started arguing.

"This argument went on for some time and Master Seaman Leblanc 
attempted to stop the confrontation," said Maj. Steve Richards, the 
military prosecutor.

Leading Seaman Lindhorst was sitting next to Master Seaman Martin at 
the time, but he played no role in the argument.

As the dispute continued, Master Seaman Leblanc picked up a full, 
unopened car of beer and threw it in their direction from about two 
metres away. Then he and Master Seaman Martin rushed toward each 
other and began to fight.

Several other sailors pulled them apart after a moment.

The physician's assistant on the ship later removed a piece of glass 
from Leading Seaman Lindhorst's eye. The injured sailor was 
transported by ambulance to a Norfolk hospital, where he underwent 
surgery.

Shortly after that, he was transferred to Halifax, where a surgeon 
removed the lens and cornea from his right eye to reattach the retina 
and to transplant a cornea.

Since the assault, Leading Seaman Lindhorst has not been able to sail 
with his ship for medical reasons. Last month, surgeons performed a 
second cornea transplant on the same eye.

It's still unclear whether he'll be able to return to his former 
duties, Maj. Richards said.

"At the least, it has caused considerable damage, pain and suffering 
to an innocent sailor," the prosecutor said of Master Seaman's 
Leblanc's actions.

At worst, throwing the beer can could end Leading Seaman Lindhorst's 
military career, Maj. Richards said.

"It really goes beyond foolish or ill-advised," he said. "It's 
dangerous and it's reckless."

Several sailors testified Master Seaman Leblanc's actions that night 
were out of character.

"He's always very reliable," said Petty Officer 1st Class Duane 
McNamara. "He's the type of person you can count on."

Master Seaman Leblanc is a "top-notch sailor," said Petty Officer 1st 
Class Edward James.

"He's one of the most honest people that I've come across in my 
career," Petty Officer James said. "His integrity is second to none."

Master Seaman Leblanc threw the beer can at a bulkhead "without 
thinking of the potential circumstances," Mr. Bright said.

"There was clearly no intention to hit Leading Seaman Lindhorst," 
said the defence lawyer.

Master Seaman Leblanc, who holds the Southwest Asia Service Medal and 
the NATO Special Services Medal, is a married father of three who has 
been in the navy for nearly a decade.

He earns $62,232 a year and now works at Stadacona's Canadian Forces 
Naval Operations School.

Master Seaman Martin was fined $500 at an earlier summary trial for 
his role in the November 2004 tussle.


----------



## Jaydub (14 Jan 2007)

Wonderful.  Just another nail in the coffin for alcohol privileges on ship.

It _is_ disgusting.  It's disgusting that grown men can binge drink, and act worse than 16 year-olds at a high school party!

For anyone who has been to a foreign Port, you know that there is always some jerk-off ready to do something stupid and ruin it for everyone!


----------



## Chimo (14 Jan 2007)

Two weeks suspended sentence seems pretty light to me without knowing all the other details, past conduct and performance, provocation extra. Not only is Military Justice used as a means to support discipline but also to act as a deterrent.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jan 2007)

Jaydub said:
			
		

> Wonderful.  Just another nail in the coffin for alcohol privileges on ship.
> 
> It _is_ disgusting.  It's disgusting that grown men can binge drink, and act worse than 16 year-olds at a high school party!
> 
> For anyone who has been to a foreign Port, you know that there is always some jerk-off ready to do something stupid and ruin it for everyone!



You have read a lot between the lines in the press release and made a judgement and a rather broad and damming comment on something that may not have even been.  Seems you are the one condemning these practices unjustly right now.


----------



## GAP (14 Jan 2007)

The story is about one seaman injuring another, but the author has focused on it being a beer can thrown, implying all sorts of garbage. What if it had been a flower vase?....would that have changed the story?


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Jan 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> What if it had been a flower vase?....would that have changed the story?



Yes- it would have been a story about the air farce.


----------



## GO!!! (14 Jan 2007)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Yes- it would have been a story about the air farce.



Don't be silly - the AF can't hit anything!



> It is disgusting.  It's disgusting that grown men can binge drink, and act worse than 16 year-olds at a high school party!
> 
> For anyone who has been to a foreign Port, you know that there is always some jerk-off ready to do something stupid and ruin it for everyone!



I find it a little more disgusting that you are willing to take the word of our biased, leftist agenda pursuing media, which has a long and well documented history of omissions, taking remarks out of context, errors and outright lies when it comes to reporting on the CF.

Why not wait for the final verdict before throwing the rope on the gallows?


----------



## niner domestic (14 Jan 2007)

My heart goes out to the seaman who has been injured and I'm certainly not blaming the victim and I'm certainly not mitigating the injury or damaged caused by throwing a can at someone but...is there a rationale for why a member is wearing rx glasses that apparently aren't shatterproof or safety lenses?  I would hope that in the future, that the lesson learned by this tragic incident is that safety lenses in rx glasses are a must while onboard.


----------



## navymich (14 Jan 2007)

I was wondering the same thing niner.  I didn't think they made the military issue glasses with real glass anymore.

As well, for some of the other comments being made throughout the thread, there is nothing in the article that says he was even drinking.  Not that I am taking any sides here, just being the good old devil's advocate.  It only states that he picked up a full can of beer.  Easy enough to grab a can that someone else has set down.  As well, he threw it in the direction of the guy, and it ended up hitting a wall.  We are only getting the portion of the story that is in the paper, and not the whole background etc.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jan 2007)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> My heart goes out to the seaman who has been injured and I'm certainly not blaming the victim and I'm certainly not mitigating the injury or damaged caused by throwing a can at someone but...is there a rationale for why a member is wearing rx glasses that apparently aren't shatterproof or safety lenses?  I would hope that in the future, that the lesson learned by this tragic incident is that safety lenses in rx glasses are a must while onboard.



This would mean that the sailor was wearing 'Non-Regulation' glasses.  It could have been a cheap pair of 'Re-entry Shields' that he had bought downtown for the LCF in civvies.


----------



## DSB (14 Jan 2007)

Why was is salary included in the article?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Jan 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Why not wait for the final verdict before throwing the rope on the gallows?



Wasn't this the final verdict, as pathetic as it is?



			
				Stoker said:
			
		

> Master Seaman Richard Edward Leblanc, 35, *pleaded guilty  * to assaulting Leading Seaman Robin Lindhorst on *Nov. 20, 2004*, ...
> 
> 
> Cmdr. Peter Lamont handed Master Seaman Leblanc *a two-week suspended sentence* for the assault and for fighting with another shipmate that same night.
> ...



If the details of the report (is there a link? where/when was it published) are correct and complete, in essence he received no punishment.  Administrative action, if there is any to come is not 'punishment' and likely would have been (or should be) the same regardless of the punishment imposed by a court-martial.

And it only took a little more than *two years * to achieve completion.  Swift military justice again ensures that discipline is maintained.

Back in the day (not quite when Jesus was a L/Cpl, he might have been a Snr NCO by then),  an old time soldier once told me that an unwritten guideline that he used for punishments was:

Fighting:
- if it didn't officially come to his attention then the Pl Sgt/CSM sorted out the individuals.
If outside intervention is required:
- first offence and both parties equally at fault, big fine;
- second offence or if one of the parties is solely to blame, 14 days cells;
- if injuries are sustained, 30 days and up;
- if the accused elects courtmartial, and is found guilty usually minimum of 90 days because everyone knows that he is guilty of being a barrack room lawyer and he deserves it for trying to avoid appropriate punishment.


----------



## shadow (14 Jan 2007)

DSB said:
			
		

> Why was is salary included in the article?



I was wondering the same thing.  How much the sailor makes is irrelevant to the story.


----------



## navymich (14 Jan 2007)

shadow said:
			
		

> I was wondering the same thing.  How much the sailor makes is irrelevant to the story.



Think of how it looks to Joe Public though.  They mention at the very end about his $500 fine.  Seeing his yearly salary makes people realize that it is really only pocket change and it changes any view of sympathy that someone might have had for him at having to pay a fine.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jan 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> I was wondering the same thing niner.  I didn't think they made the military issue glasses with real glass anymore.
> 
> As well, for some of the other comments being made throughout the thread, there is nothing in the article that says he was even drinking.  Not that I am taking any sides here, just being the good old devil's advocate.  It only states that he picked up a full can of beer.  Easy enough to grab a can that someone else has set down.  As well, he threw it in the direction of the guy, and it ended up hitting a wall.  We are only getting the portion of the story that is in the paper, and not the whole background etc.



My glasses are made of real glass and they are direct from the company that recieved the navy contract for glasses

As for fighting, well these things happen. The MS is clearly sorry for what he has done and with it being out of character maybe they decide to cut him a break. Its no different then the civillian legal system.


----------



## Sig_Des (14 Jan 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> Think of how it looks to Joe Public though.  They mention at the very end about his $500 fine.  Seeing his yearly salary makes people realize that it is really only pocket change and it changes any view of sympathy that someone might have had for him at having to pay a fine.



The salary is MS Leblanc's, the fine is Martin's.

Still IMO, having the fine is BS.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> My glasses are made of real glass and they are direct from the company that recieved the navy contract for glasses



Are they not 'Hardened Lenses'?  I thought all lenses that the military got were to be 'shatter proof', or was that just my 'OK' on the perscription?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jan 2007)

Well to be honest I am unsure if my glasses or shatter proof or not, but considering the abuse they have gone through they are doing remarkably well lol


----------



## shadow (14 Jan 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> Think of how it looks to Joe Public though.  They mention at the very end about his $500 fine.  Seeing his yearly salary makes people realize that it is really only pocket change and it changes any view of sympathy that someone might have had for him at having to pay a fine.





			
				Sig_Des said:
			
		

> The salary is MS Leblanc's, the fine is Martin's.
> 
> Still IMO, having the fine is BS.



Yeah, I thought it was a little strange to just throw it in there like that.  Especially noting the specific amount as if they knew exactly what incentive and spec pay if any he receives.
Gotta love the media!


----------



## Stoker (14 Jan 2007)

The sailor involved is also getting his ass sued off by the guy he hit.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (14 Jan 2007)

This is this reporter's way of doing business. Whenever he mentions that we shot a missile he'll mention how much the missile costs. Or how much it costs to feed and house sailors while we are out on exercise. He plays on the emotions of his readers here in Halifax who probably make less than that.
It's a lazy man's way of writing a story....and sensationalizes things at the same time.


----------



## Sig_Des (14 Jan 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> This is this reporter's way of doing business. Whenever he mentions that we shot a missile he'll mention how much the missile costs. Or how much it costs to feed and house sailors while we are out on exercise. He plays on the emotions of his readers here in Halifax who probably make less than that.
> It's a lazy man's way of writing a story....and sensationalizes things at the same time.



In that case, everytime he writes an article, he should post how much he makes.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (14 Jan 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> In that case, everytime he writes an article, he should post how much he makes.



No argument here.

I was so P.O.ed when I was in Victoria. Everytime they wrote a story in the Victoria paper that concerned a sailor misbeving in his private life they would print his rank and what ship he was posted to. I wrote a letter to the paper asking why sailors who were charged in civil offences were singled out and whether they would do the same if the guy worked for Canadian Tire. They seemed to get better for a while but I'm not sure things are now.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jan 2007)

What was their reaction/response to your letter?


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (15 Jan 2007)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Yes- it would have been a story about the air farce.



Okay THAT was funny!


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (15 Jan 2007)

I read and re-read the article, and it "appears" that the can of beer was thrown, but not with the intent to hit the guy it did.  I am no lawyer, but, the intent was for MS 1 to punch out MS 2.  LS was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Bah.   :

I don't agree with military courts swinging the way our civilian courts do.  Thats just me.

Regardless of intent, a sailor injured, potentially for life and career-ending in nature,  a subordinate.  So it was out of character.  So?  Doesn't change the fact that it happened.  So he has good integrity.  Buddy's eye is still AFU isn't it?  $500 fine?  For ruining someone's eye?   :.

Soft sentence for the deed IMHO.  

Fact?  A LS has a injured eye, that required 2 operations so far, because someone a higher rank than him threw a can of beer.  He didn't mean to hit him doesn't change the fact that he *did* hit him.  Thats a fact.  The rest?  It can be disputed.  Sounds like a bad episode of Law and Order to me... :


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> What was their reaction/response to your letter?



It was a letter to the editor so it was published but never any official reaction.


----------



## Navalsnpr (22 Jan 2007)

I'm not playing down severity of this issue, however if this happened to an average Joe on civie street, it would not be  getting the current media coverage. The media in Canada actively seeks out and loves to exploit any wrong doing by any member of the service, thus the reason that salaries were thrown into the article. Remember, they (the media) are in the business in selling papers and/or getting ratings, so any additional information that they can add to the article to get the desired effect will be added. 

On another point, if the LS is perusing a civilian lawsuit against the MS, then I hope the glasses in question are tested to ensure that they were properly constructed and issued to the LS in the first place.


----------



## M Feetham (23 Jan 2007)

My big problem with all this is that a MS, who is supposed to be more responsible caused the injury to a subordinate possibly for life. Big no no. Also, the article says that he was out with friends and did not return until 2 a.m. So here is the million dollar question. What were they doing in any part of the ship at 2 o'clock in the morning with beer. All the messes on a ship close at the latest 1 o'clock in the morning if they have an approved extension for the bar. Seems like a lot of people were doing something they probably should not have been. MS can thrower as well. As far as the comment that the whole incident was out of character for the individual, what would have caused him to act this way. I have seen a lot of very level headed people act "out of character" when they have spent upwards of 12 hours throwing booze into their gullets. I have to agree with the nail in the coffin comment. I sailed for 12 years on the east coast and I have seen too many 2 stores parties and late night binge drinking when the bar was supposed to be closed to count.Usually everyone turns a blind eye if nothing gets out of hand, but a few times I have seen guys so drunk that they could not even stand their HQ 1 roundsman watches. Results? Nothing, not even extra duty watches.  I think the courts martial should have at least put the MS in cells for a week or two. He got off real easy, he should be kissing his lawyers feet. That's my bit. 
Thanks, Marc.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (23 Jan 2007)

and he didn't lose his leaf.....usaully a reduction in rank for that kind of foolishness.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jan 2007)

So for one momentarily lack of good sense he should be thrown to the wolves?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (23 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> So for one momentarily lack of good sense he should be thrown to the wolves?



I attended a court martial some years ago where a medical person fudged a document so someone could get a medical pension. It was a momentary lack of good sense and it was an act of compassion to someone who was being released with return of benefits after serving with distinction. 

He was reduced in rank, fined $5000 and severely reprimanded. The Military prosecutor (a Major who was trying to make his name) had recommended release with disgrace from Her Majesty's Service.
That person did not injure anyone but rather only tried to help them and he was fried.
I wasn't suggesting that he lose his rank but I was surprised after some of the cases I've seen that he didn't lose his leaf.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jan 2007)

Big time fine I agree with, paying the LS medical expenses yes, but loss of rank definitely no.


----------



## Stoker (23 Jan 2007)

Sometimes the punishment does not always fit the crime in the CF. I've seen a few cases where persons have gotten off with light punishment for things that they should of got released. A number of years ago on one of the ships a member of the senior command team was falling down drunk(not the first time, he liked to party in every port), he went ashore with a number of his "wingers". A new member on OJT who wasn't drinking happens to go ashore at the same time and asks the drunk senior guy where he could find a bar, SMACK the senior guy kicks the new member square in the guts. Clear cut case of assault Right? Wrong!. Never was charged with assault. This senior person gets a severe reprimand, gets put in a shore draft to finish his employment off and gets sent home. This person is employed at home and now after a few years is right back in the same position and on the same ship as he was before. 
I'm sure this person is sorry and what I have seen he has cleaned up his act, should that person have been released from the forces or suffered some sort of career death? My faith in the military justice system went out the window after that one.


----------



## geo (23 Jan 2007)

The road to hell is paved in good intentions...........
He who has never sinned, throw the 1st stone.......

The individual tried to bump the two who were fighting with that well placed Full can of beer.  Sailor to the side gets the can in the face & is injured for his trouble (of minding his own business).

This could have been a case of someone wading into a fight - to break it up - and some bystander gets creamed with a couple of stray punches....

The actions of the thrower were full of good intentions - and someone got hurt.  Should his career suffer for it? I'm not convinced that it would be for the good of the service to punish him.


----------



## GO!!! (23 Jan 2007)

We all know of "some guy" who got off easy and another who did'nt. 

All of it is BS unless you are familiar with the pers files and conduct sheets of the people involved, and even then it's a stretch.

I agree with Geo - every young man I know has gotten himself into hot water with alcohol at some point in his life, be it major or minor, so I think it is pretty weak for a bunch of soldiers (a traditionally hard drinking bunch)sitting here to criticise the punishment another got.

If this guy was an exemplary sailor, with an impeccable record of conduct and performance, why throw the book at him? We all have off days, this was his. 

Finally, the media coverage of this is crap too. A few years ago, a guy in my unit was slashed in the face with a broken beer bottle, giving him 50 odd stitches and a 26 inch smile. It did'nt even make the paper, but when a "combat veteran" punches out someone who "struck him in the face several times" it's news.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Jan 2007)

....and with that ( who knew i could agree with GO!!!) i think we are done.....

Usual caveat


----------

