# Military private charged in Nanaimo restaurant heist - 6 Apr 2012



## Occam (6 Apr 2012)

Original link

Military private charged in Nanaimo restaurant heist

Police say one of two privates is facing weapons charges
CBC News
Posted: Apr 6, 2012 2:30 PM PT
Last Updated: Apr 6, 2012 4:30 PM PT

A Canadian Forces private has been charged and a second is accused of breaking into a restaurant in Nanaimo, B.C., last Christmas and making off with a large quantity of cash.

One of the suspects, 20-year-old Pte. Cory Damian Wagner, was arrested on Wednesday in his home in Nanaimo. Wagner has been charged with break and enter, and theft over $5,000, and one count of uttering threats.

Nanaimo RCMP Const. Gary O'Brien said Friday that the charges stem from a break-in at a local fast food restaurant on Dec. 24, in which a "large quantity of money" was taken.

O'Brien said that another 20-year-old man was also taken into custody in relation to the investigation.

The second man has not been formally charged with any crime but O'Brien alleged that when police arrested him on Wednesday, officers found six firearms and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition in his possession.

The second suspect "did possess licences for the firearms, however, several of the firearms were not properly secured and they did not have trigger locks. None of the ammunition was properly secured," O'Brien said in a written statement.

O'Brien said the second man could be facing up to 13 Criminal Code charges, including two counts of careless storage of a firearm, and eight counts of possession of prohibited devices.

He could also face charges relating to the break-in, O'Brien said.

Major Dan Thomas, speaking for the 39 Canadian Brigade Group, said the weapons that police found did not belong to the military.

"Our weapons are very carefully controlled and stored, and issued only for things like exercises and immediately restored," Thomas said.

Thomas said the suspect facing weapons charges is a reservist.

Thomas also said that Wagner — who is not currently facing weapons charges — had recently become a member of the regular forces.

Both suspects are in police custody and are scheduled to appear in Nanaimo provincial court on Tuesday to face the allegations.

None of the money taken from the restaurant on Christmas Eve has yet been recovered.


----------



## lethalLemon (6 Apr 2012)

I understand that reporting crimes and such is a common journalistic pleasure, however, what is the purpose of making sure that it's mentioned that the accused are members of the CF let alone reservists? As if the CF doesn't have enough bad press from the F-35s or Williams murders, Afghanistan conspiracies of torture and civilian-killing... Now more people than before will go around saying: "Oh those military people are nothing but thugs and murderers."

Great journalistic work.


----------



## chrisf (6 Apr 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> None of the ammunition was properly secured," O'Brien said in a written statement.



No comments on the individuals charged, until due process take place, but I'm curious what the constable means by this... there's rules on where you can store firearms in relation to ammunition, but no rules of the storage of ammunition itself... the firearms may have been improperly stored if they were with easily accessible ammunition, however, the ammunition was not improperly stored... while it would be absurdly irresponsible, I can keep crates of it on my front lawn if I like...


----------



## riggermade (6 Apr 2012)

If he was a Tim Hortens employee would they mention that


----------



## chrisf (6 Apr 2012)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> I understand that reporting crimes and such is a common journalistic pleasure, however, what is the purpose of making sure that it's mentioned that the accused are members of the CF let alone reservists?



Stirs up things, makes good filler material in a story... jouranlists love that sort of thing...

Join the forces, quit on day two of basic training, and rob a bank 20 years later, it'll be reported that a "Former member of the Canadian Forces" robbed the bank.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Apr 2012)

Yup.  If the accused had been an employee of _FiFi's Pet Grooming, Ltd_...might not even made the cut.


----------



## dangles (6 Apr 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yup.  If the accused had been an employee of _FiFi's Pet Grooming, Ltd_...might not even made the cut.



Such is the nature of the military - it is always a key focal point in the media. I also think that if this guy was a lawyer, doctor, teacher, [or a variety of other occupations where one should be a respectable person setting examples for others], they would have mentioned his career in the article.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Apr 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yup.  If the accused had been an employee of _FiFi's Pet Grooming, Ltd_...might not even made the cut.



That arguement has been done to death,......it goes back to the general public expects more from certain people, firefighters, police correctional officers, soldiers, etc.

I dread the day if this ever become common enough that it DIDN'T make the news.........


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Apr 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> .....it goes back to the general public expects more from certain people,........



One doesn't have to read this forum long to realize that it's not just the public that expects more from certain people. How often have comments been posted here by members judging that someone doesn't measure up as an potential applicant for self-admitted behavioral or ethical reasons? We can't claim to hold the high ground and not expect it to be pointed out when someone fails to maintain the desired example, no matter how much objective analysis says that a military that "mirrors" the population it is drawn from will necessarily include some who fail to meet such a perception of a higher standard.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Apr 2012)

Funny, there is no mention in this story, from only 2 days ago on the CBC - BC site, of where the accused work or what line of work they do.

Just making a point, not starting an argument.


----------



## Container (7 Apr 2012)

I dont usually expect robbery suspects to be gainfully employed......but its included because it runs contrary to our expectations. Like if a teacher, or a senator was accused. Its a good thing I think.....it doesnt completely take away the stong though. And as a mountie you would think Id be used to it..

My bigger issue is the vague attempt at associating the firearms into the scenario when really its a bunch of firearms administrative charges. Thousands of rounds of ammo? Oh noes! Three bricks of .22 you say? No doubt up to no good..... :-[

A sig op- hes commenting on the state of the ammo- not with regards to the charge. Its just another part of the totality of the situation I think. Just like he mentions there was a license.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (9 Apr 2012)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> No comments on the individuals charged, until due process take place, but I'm curious what the constable means by this... there's rules on where you can store firearms in relation to ammunition, but no rules of the storage of ammunition itself... the firearms may have been improperly stored if they were with easily accessible ammunition, however, the ammunition was not improperly stored... while it would be absurdly irresponsible, I can keep crates of it on my front lawn if I like...


The first thought that came to my mind was that several of the guns were loaded, the second was if the ammunition was put in a place where it hindered the operation of the vehicle, like beneath the break pedal.


----------



## Remius (10 Apr 2012)

Could it be that the ammo was military grade?  It does say that there were 8 charges for prohibited devices as well.  It's not very clear.

Any time a crime is commited and the suspects have a military background, especially those that are currently serving, the media will draw attention to that particular fact.  It's the same thing if it were a police officer or anyone else with a particular type of training in relation to a crime.  When the average joe thinks military they think guns, unarmed combat, etc etc.  So when someone with that training commits a crime, that all comes into play.  Why, because it raises various questions and leads to other questions.

I'm not suprised nor am I offended by that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Apr 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Could it be that the ammo was military grade?  It does say that there were 8 charges for prohibited devices as well.  It's not very clear.
> 
> Any time a crime is commited and the suspects have a military background, especially those that are currently serving, the media will draw attention to that particular fact.  It's the same thing if it were a police officer or anyone else with a particular type of training in relation to a crime.  When the average joe thinks military they think guns, unarmed combat, etc etc.  So when someone with that training commits a crime, that all comes into play.  Why, because it raises various questions and leads to other questions.
> 
> I'm not suprised nor am I offended by that.



Probably (could be) the mags. No self respecting criminal is going to limit themselves to 5 round magazines. :


----------



## Remius (10 Apr 2012)

Just a question.  If he had 8 counts of possesing prohibited devices would that be per device or per type.  If he has 8 prohibited mags, would that be 8 counts or just one?


----------



## Robert0288 (10 Apr 2012)

That would be 8 counts because each mag would count as a 'device'.  Also you can purchase 10 round AR mags that are legal in Canada because their original intent was for use in a pistol.

If the charges are because of mags, If the mags are the 10 rounders (notice lots of ifs).  Then I wouldn't put it past the PR guys to say that the 10 rounders are actually prohibited to throw on extra charges.


----------



## Remius (10 Apr 2012)

Ok.  Thanks for that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Apr 2012)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> That would be 8 counts because each mag would count as a 'device'.  Also you can purchase 10 round AR mags that are legal in Canada because their original intent was for use in a pistol.
> 
> If the charges are because of mags, If the mags are the 10 rounders (notice lots of ifs).  Then I wouldn't put it past the PR guys to say that the 10 rounders are actually prohibited to throw on extra charges.



So, let's say, just for shits and giggles, that I was going to rob a place. Let's say I was going to load up as many mags as possible, 8 is all I've got. Let's say, if I find 5 rounders useless and I'm breaking the law anyway, I'll use bigger capacity. Then why on earth would I want to use 10 rounders, when I could use 30s?

Being able to purchase LAR-10 mags is so immaterial to the story.

Besides, talk of the Crown charging someone for something legal may get you branded as an anti-LEO around here, don'tcha know.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Apr 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Any time a crime is commited and the suspects have a military background, especially those that are currently serving, the media will draw attention to that particular fact.  It's the same thing if it were a police officer or anyone else with a particular type of training in relation to a crime.  When the average joe thinks military they think guns, unarmed combat, etc etc.  So when someone with that training commits a crime, that all comes into play.  Why, because it raises various questions and leads to other questions.
> 
> I'm not suprised nor am I offended by that.



Agree 100%.
The media needs to sell the story, wouldn't expect anything less.  Military backround automatically catches attention and the media runs with it. You can't act surprised when a hungry dog turns over the garbage.

I'm not offended by it either.

Reading the story I DO get the feeling that the robbery is almost an after thought and the big deal is the firearms and ammunition charges.

This may sound callous but when there are mass shootings it always seems the victims are under 2 dozen. Usually less than a dozen.  The "OMG he had thousands of rounds" always seems like a scare tactic of sorts to me. 

Like mentioned, thousands of .22LR rounds isn't a big deal unless you're Mark Wahlberg.


----------



## kkwd (10 Apr 2012)

In coverage from multiple sources it states the prohibited devices are magazines. 

 Article Link


> Verhoeks faces 13 criminal code counts in all, including break and enter, theft over $5,000, careless storage of a firearm, possession of prohibited magazines, and uttering threats.



 Article Link


> He now faces 13 criminal code charges, break and enter, theft over $5,000, two counts of careless storage of a firearm, eight counts of possession of prohibited devices (magazines), and one count of uttering threats.


----------



## Haggis (10 Apr 2012)

Container said:
			
		

> I dont usually expect robbery suspects to be gainfully employed......but its included because it runs contrary to our expectations. Like if a teacher, or *a senator * was accused.



I find it amusing that you think senators are gainfully employed.
 ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Apr 2012)

When you own a gun you are only 1 rivet away from being a criminal. I take firearm charges, police expertise and media reporting with several large bags of salt. Often the 3 form a perfect storm of outright stupidity. Throw CBSA in for good measure...

I got to see some fascinating FOI's from the CBSA and RCMP regarding the Type 97 incident. At least CBSA actually released most of the documents regardless of how embarrassing, I think the RCMP take their ATIP training from CBC though.


----------

