Author Topic: MP Response to fire - Split from First infantry regular force female LCol.  (Read 34405 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 238,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,655
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
This is taught in Use of Force training, where tone and words can either escalate or deescalate a situation. The MP had to resort to open hand control (debateable if he had to resort) because he completely failed at Presence and Communication.
So you were there?
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 106,651
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,108
Did the 911 call indicate that the member was located in the CP???

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

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

But this all gets away from the original point... The original point was about the MP applying force where he had no lawful authority do so. She didn't even stop him from coming into the CP. She wasn't detained. So, what exactly did he push her for again? Oh right, "I thought she might tell them not to listen to me."
Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.
- Helen Keller

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 106,651
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,108
Re: Re: First infantry regular force female LCol.
« Reply #102 on: January 28, 2016, 20:06:39 »
Uniformed cops are moonlighting as security (bouncers), with the Departments permission, all over the place.

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

No a person does not need to be detained or under arrest for a police officer to use force.  It's quite common for me to be called to the bar/residence/wherever and forcefully remove an unwanted person.  As soon as they are out the door if they settle down they are normally free to go at that point.
Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.
- Helen Keller

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 259,732
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,956
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Can we tone down the rhetoric and just stick to the facts that are know.

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

---Staff---
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 259,732
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,956
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Re: First infantry regular force female LCol.
« Reply #104 on: January 28, 2016, 20:11:18 »
Yes, I agree, and I think it is so commonplace that most police officers don't even realize that it is not a legitimate use of force, see below for example:

The majority engage just by presence and asking the person to leave. If they don't they're escorted out. If they attack the officer, it's exactly that. Assault on a police officer. If the officers are there with the departments sanction and in uniform, they are on (overtime) duty that is paid to the department by the vendor.
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 238,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,655
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Ballz......you are so out to lunch I don't know where to start.

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

And since trespassing [no longer welcome on private property] is a crime, if ordered and then refused, I'm pretty sure [since I only know my sections of the CC by heart] that they are justified in using force to remove said person.
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline ExRCDcpl

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 308
Did the 911 call indicate that the member was located in the CP???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 433,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,551
  • Crewman
Very first post in this topic:

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


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

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


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


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

There is no reason for a MP to ever treat anyone with disrespect. They will only allege a service offense, a judge or courts martial panel decides guilt, so don't treat the accused like crap. A holier than thou attitude taints any respect CAF members have, and its a vicious cycle creating the large chip on the shoulder for some MPs.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 106,651
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,108
Re: Re: First infantry regular force female LCol.
« Reply #108 on: January 28, 2016, 20:17:43 »
The majority engage just by presence and asking the person to leave. If they don't they're escorted out. If they attack the officer, it's exactly that. Assault on a police officer. If the officers are there with the departments sanction and in uniform, they are on (overtime) duty that is paid to the department by the vendor.

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

So, in this specific case, in what way was pushing the Major a legitimate use of force? He didn't tell her "I'm placing you under arrest for obstruction, please place your hands behind you back" and then have her resist arrest (which would then give him legitimate means to use force).
Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.
- Helen Keller

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 238,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,655
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Bottom line...........IMO, if she had placed herself in front of me in the same situation she would have been "moved away". [take it as you will]

Whether the judge LIKED it or not was obviously immaterial in the FACTS of this case. She was wrong,......he was just a moron,.....a RIGHT moron though.
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline ExRCDcpl

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 308
Re: Re: First infantry regular force female LCol.
« Reply #110 on: January 28, 2016, 20:21:45 »
I think you are missing my point. That is how they conduct the job, yes, but that is not a legit use of force. By the book, officers can't forcefully remove people without telling them they are under arrest for trespassing first, and only then after the person doesn't cooperate.

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

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

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

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 896,235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,636
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
So you were there?

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

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 238,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,655
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Ballz, did you read my post??

He could have gone back and placed her under arrest......hell, she was CONVICTED of it.
His duty at the time was more important obviously....
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 259,732
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,956
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
And before anyone starts....I know there are idiots (I work with a few) who will just kick the door in because they can.....I don't condone or agree with that tactic.

Didn't they all get moved to High River though? ;D ;)
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 238,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,655
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Its common sense based on the decision document. You weren't there either, so stop introducing a red herring.

No red herring,......you stated he didn't need to do what he did.  The judge disagrees with you.....he's not happy, but.....
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 238,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,655
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Didn't they all get moved to High River though? ;D ;)

And a whole detachment wonders why they feel a pain all of a sudden. ;D
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 259,732
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,956
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
.........and we're done. On a humorous note yet.

Bu Bye.

---Staff---
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline No Name

  • Guest
  • *
  • 165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2
COURT MARTIAL APPEAL COURT: 'MP independence trumps Chain of Command'
« Reply #117 on: August 30, 2017, 14:41:43 »
Since the original topic has been locked some time ago. A interesting read regarding the recent results of court martial appeal.

R. v. Wellwood, 2017 CMAC 4

Un-locked - mm



« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 17:25:48 by mariomike »