Author Topic: MP Response to fire - Split from First infantry regular force female LCol.  (Read 28471 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 222,456
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,991
So there's no harm in MP QL3 students wearing shirts that say "Don't confuse your rank with my authority" then? That doesn't set the groundwork for problems?

I've actually seen that shirt.

This is a mistake on your part.  An Officer has a commission and that means something.  So yes, you should take an Officers word at higher face value than a homeless person. 


Statements like you're responding to do seem to highlight an entrenched us vs them mentality that seems planted in Borden.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,547
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,751
And no, being an officer in the CAF means jack in my eyes

So you place yourself above our Sovereign, then, whose words on my Commissioning Scroll, and LCol Wellwood's, includes:

"WE reposing especial Trust and Confidence in your Loyalty, Courage and Integrity do by these Presents Constitute and Appoint you to be an Officer in our Canadian Armed Forces. You are therefore carefully and diligently to discharge your Duty as such in the Rank of .............. or in such other Rank as We may from time to time hereafter be pleased to promote or appoint you to, and you are in such manner and on such occasions as may be prescribed by us to exercise and well discipline both the Inferior Officers and Non-Commissioned Members serving under you and use your best endeavour to keep them in good Order and Discipline, and We do hereby Command them to Obey you as their Superior Officer, and you to observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall receive from Us, or any other your Superior Officer according to Law, in pursuance of the Trust hereby Reposed in you."

Your relationship to members of the CF is NOT the same as that between civilian police and ordinary citizens.

I've seen more than a few act with less than stellar integrity.

To paraphrase: no, being an MP in the CAF means jack in my eyes as I've seen more than a few act with less than stellar integrity.

That goes both ways. If you want respect, earn it, including by your own words in here. I, for one, am not inclined to help those who are rude, arrogant, unprofessional, or overstep the bounds of common decency and common sense, regardless of their occupation. That previous paragraph aside, however, I have found the vast majority of MPs to be professional and respectful, and I freely return that respect. Balance has to be found, and most seem to be able to find it.

And I appreciate that, as MPs are part of the CF and have additional authority while still carrying rank that may often be less than that of the person(s) with whom they are dealing, it is not always easy.

Both parties to this incident were at fault, but the MPs actions seem far from defensible to me and I believe that he should also have been charged.

Online Bruce Monkhouse

    is still the king of VB.OK, court jester.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 231,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,578
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
This is a mistake on your part.  An Officer has a commission and that means something.  So yes, you should take an Officers word at higher face value than a homeless person. 

BULLSHIT!!!  How freakin' arrogant can one be??  It means you finished some schooling and courses......lots of career criminal assholes have finished school and courses.

That being said, if said officer is found to be lying, acting unethically, etc.... Then the full brunt of the law should be brought down on them.

"Should"........never to be confused with "will be".   We both know better........

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.

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,547
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,751
To paraphrase once more: Frankly, it's attitudes like that of the MPs on this board that have probably caused everybody else to have the attitudes they do.  "I'm an MP and I can go anywhere I want, anytime I want, and do anything I want, to anyone I want because of that" is a terrible attitude and obviously would put ANYBODY on the defensive.[/quote]

99% of you could be perfectly professional, and that may be the actual percentage, but it only takes one thud to put everybody off.

Online Bruce Monkhouse

    is still the king of VB.OK, court jester.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 231,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,578
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Quoting myself from the CP thread.  [yes we are watching this close] :camo:

No one is allowed to 'abuse' any kind of authority XXXXXX.   'Authority' swings both ways and there may be overlap......

It's morons with ego's that cause that overlap to be a problem.
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 MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
It's morons with ego's that cause that overlap to be a problem.
And (just as in discussions of politics) those individuals are always on both sides of the fence.

Online Bruce Monkhouse

    is still the king of VB.OK, court jester.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 231,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,578
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
And (just as in discussions of politics) those individuals are always on both sides of the fence.
Which I should have added......thanks, MCG.
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 Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,924
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,489
BULLSHIT!!!  How freakin' arrogant can one be??  It means you finished some schooling and courses......lots of career criminal assholes have finished school and courses.

"Should"........never to be confused with "will be".   We both know better........

Sorry Bruce but you're wrong this time.

If the commission means nothing, why even bother having Officers?  Why bother having Warrants either? 

That piece of paper means something, whether you like it or not is another argument entirely.

PS

Nobody is stopping anyone here from attending the school and receiving the training.  It's a free country, want the rank and privilege that comes with it?  Then put the time and effort in and you'll have it.

« Last Edit: January 28, 2016, 15:17:22 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline Staff Weenie

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 310
Quick question - where is the balance between enabling an MP to conduct an investigation without interference versus the need to protect OPSEC? For example, if an MP asked/demanded entrance into an area where Secret (or higher) material, crypto, comms eqpt, etc was currently in use, can the OC on the scene refuse for OPSEC purposes?

Online Bruce Monkhouse

    is still the king of VB.OK, court jester.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 231,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,578
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Sorry Bruce but you're wrong this time.
If the commission means nothing, why even bother having Officers?  Why bother having Warrants either? 

Every corporation needs management.......

That piece of paper means something, whether you like it or not is another argument entirely.
PS
Nobody is stopping anyone here from attending the school and receiving the training.  It's a free country, want the rank and privilege that comes with it?  Then put the time and effort in and you'll have it.

And that'll make me ethically superior then I am now???   Arrogance abounds...
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
  • *****
  • 3,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 276
This is a mistake on your part.  An Officer has a commission and that means something.  So yes, you should take an Officers word at higher face value than a homeless person. 

That being said, if said officer is found to be lying, acting unethically, etc.... Then the full brunt of the law should be brought down on them.

Having worked with LCol Wellwood, I can't imagine what would set off such a mild mannered woman?

So let's break down your statement here.

I respond to a domestic disturbance, husband holds a commission wife is an NCM.  Wife says x happened, husband says y happened....because he holds a commission; immediately I'm to take his word as absolute and tell the wife she must be lying due to a lack of that piece of paper?

Or let's try this......I respond to a disturbance at a bar.  Staff say one of either 2Lt bloggins or civilian joe blow broke something.....bloggins says joe blow did it and joe blow says bloggins did it.....I should, according to you, immediately place joe blow under arrest because he doesn't hold a commission scroll?

Frankly your statement is one of the dumbest and most arrogant things I've ever heard in my life, and if that's your true attitude, frankly I feel bad for you lessers...I mean subordinates.

Loachman....I am in no way disagreeing that the MP appeared to have acted like an idiot and have not once defended his personal actions.  What I have defended is that he did, whether anyone wants to accept it or not, act within the parameters of the law.

Frankly, I don't know why he would act the way he did.  I have found in my time on the job that it takes an equal amount of effort to be polite to someone as it does to be rude and I have found the former to be infinitely more effective.

« Last Edit: January 28, 2016, 16:37:50 by ExRCDcpl »

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,924
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,489
Every corporation needs management.......

And that'll make me ethically superior then I am now???   Arrogance abounds...

Has nothing to do with ethical superiority.  In the context of the military, the word of an officer who holds a commission does mean something.

The same way a police officer's word means something because of THE BADGE HE HOLDS.

Doesn't necessarily mean they are gods but given their position, they should carry themselves a certain way and should be given the benefit of the doubt.  Not all Military Officers are good people, heck NOT ALL CORRECTIONS OFFICERS are good people.  There, put that in your pipe and smoke it  :-*

As for the case, I've already stated that both parties made mistakes.  Major Wellwood owned up to her mistakes and was punished for it. 

There is a lot more to this story then what you can take out of a record of decisions from a Court Martial.  I know a certain Detachment Commander (Captain) had a 1 on 1 conversation with 1 Star General over this incident, at the position of attention with beret on.  Heads rolled on both sides of the fence. 

Online Bruce Monkhouse

    is still the king of VB.OK, court jester.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 231,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,578
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Doesn't necessarily mean they are gods but given their position, they should carry themselves a certain way and should be given the benefit of the doubt.  Not all Military Officers are good people, heck NOT ALL CORRECTIONS OFFICERS are good people.  There, put that in your pipe and smoke it  :-*

Way too many CO's aren't good people actually..........it's one of the many hazards of this job.
Spending every working minute with non-ethical scumbags makes it way too easy to desensitize to the real world.

"Meh, not a bad guy, he only does break and enters." 
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 Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,924
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,489
So let's break down your statement here.

I respond to a domestic disturbance, husband holds a commission wife is an NCM.  Wife says x happened, husband says y happened....because he holds a commission; immediately I'm to take his word as absolute and tell the wife she must be lying due to a lack of that piece of paper?

Or let's try this......I respond to a disturbance at a bar.  Staff say one of either 2Lt bloggins or civilian joe blow broke something.....bloggins says joe blow did it and joe blow says bloggins did it.....I should, according to you, immediately place joe blow under arrest because he doesn't hold a commission scroll?

Frankly your statement is one of the dumbest and most arrogant things I've ever heard in my life, and if that's your true attitude, frankly I feel bad for you lessers...I mean subordinates.

Loachman....I am in no way disagreeing that the MP appeared to have acted like an idiot and have not once defended his personal actions.  What I have defended is that he did, whether anyone wants to accept it'll not, act within the parameters of the law.

Frankly, I don't know why he would act the way he did.  I have found in my time on the job that it takes an equal amount of effort to be polite to someone as it does to be rude and I have found the former to be infinitely more effective.

Substitute Officer for Policeman and tell me what you would do?

I feel you're taking things out of context.  In the context of the military, an officer should be given a certain degree of latitude and his word does mean something.   


 
« Last Edit: January 28, 2016, 16:50:34 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline ExRCDcpl

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 276
Substitute Officer for Policeman and tell me what you would do?

I feel you're taking things out of context.  In the context of the military, an officer should be given a certain degree of latitude and his word does mean something.

I'll tell you what I've done when I've responded to other police officers involved in various things.....it's called my job, which is to investigate......but thank you for questioning my integrity. 

Ok let's change it up a bit then...an MP responds to a pmq...one spouse officer, the other NCM.  Now we are talking about two service members on a base....officers word is taken by virtue of his commission?

This MP attempted to do his job and investigate and she felt, by virtue of her rank, that she was going to tell him he couldn't.....seems she was wrong.

He was wrong in the sense that it appears he acted like a complete glue bag.....but...still within the parameters of the law
« Last Edit: January 28, 2016, 16:58:32 by ExRCDcpl »

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,547
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,751
but thank you for questioning my integrity.

As you are doing with ours.

You're welcome.

A domestic disturbance is something completely different, and immediate action may well be required.

The MPs shot and wounded an Arty Officer in Petawawa at the beginning of the eighties, around or just before I was posted there. They were called to his PMQ, and he, at some point, attacked them with his sword. Presuming that the event happened as described to me by several people, this was entirely reasonable and justified.

Although it would have been nice if they'd saluted him before shooting him...

He was wrong in the sense that it appears he acted like a complete glue bag.....but...still within the parameters of the law

Physically pushing a superior Officer falls within the parameters of what law, again? Is that a standard "investigative" technique?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2016, 17:12:33 by Loachman »

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,924
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,489
I'll tell you what I've done when I've responded to other police officers involved in various things.....it's called my job, which is to investigate......but thank you for questioning my integrity. 

Ok let's change it up a bit then...an MP responds to a pmq...one spouse officer, the other NCM.  Now we are talking about two service members on a base....officers word is taken by virtue of his commission?

This MP attempted to do his job and investigate and she felt, by virtue of her rank, that she was going to tell him he couldn't.....seems she was wrong.

He was wrong in the sense that it appears he acted like a complete glue bag.....but...still within the parameters of the law


I am in violent agreement with you on the part in yellow.

They both should have been charged though.  Last time I looked, at least in the Infantry, we charged people under 129 for acting like gluebags. 
« Last Edit: January 28, 2016, 17:17:04 by Humphrey Bogart »

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,547
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,751
They both should have been charged though.

Yes.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 222,456
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,991
..but thank you for questioning my integrity. 

But why should we assume you have integrity?  Weren't you just saying you basically don't trust what anyone says?
Do you not see the irony with your two statements? 
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline ExRCDcpl

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 276

But why should we assume you have integrity?  Weren't you just saying you basically don't trust what anyone says?
Do you not see the irony with your two statements?

When you're right you're right

Offline ExRCDcpl

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 276
I am in violent agreement with you on the part in yellow.

They both should have been charged though.  Last time I looked, at least in the Infantry, we charged people under 129 for acting like gluebags.

I don't disagree...if I was the MPs CoC I'd have some pretty serious questions and if his answers weren't absolutely satisfactory.....enjoy your summary trial.

But you still haven't answered as to whether you feel the commissioned husbands word should be automatically taken over the NCM wife.....

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,506
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,367
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
First of all, this is the special place that MPs hold and that you seem to be complete,y ignoring, which, given your status as an MP, I find troubling.

Responding to a call that requires you to attend to a full on exercise should not and cannot be treated the same as if you were to respond to a domestic situation outside of the work environment.

That is specifically why we have MPs and we don't have RCMP, OPP or whoever handling all of our business all the time.  Even using your Microsoft example is wrong, because you don't work for Microsoft.

Although MPs must remain independent of the CoC when responding to a call during a duty situation, their being military means that they have a responsibility to understand the nuances of the duty day, the requirements to still follow proper protocol (proper check in at the gate, calling an officer sir or ma'am and respecting the authority of an OC who may well be responsible for secure equipment, etc.), and do their best to ensure that all of that is taken into consideration while carrying out their duties to the best of their abilities.

Then, when responding to domestic issues, it is outside of the duty AOR, so to speak, and much more in line with traditional policing.

Of course, I certainly haven't pulled this all from out of my ***.  This is knowledge that was passed on to me by an MP who I happened to live down the hall from for a good 9 months while in Ottawa who happens to be a Colonel.  It was a pretty good discussion over a few beers when the branch was working to gain some independence while still remaining relevant militarily.
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...

Offline ExRCDcpl

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 276
First of all, this is the special place that MPs hold and that you seem to be complete,y ignoring, which, given your status as an MP, I find troubling.

Responding to a call that requires you to attend to a full on exercise should not and cannot be treated the same as if you were to respond to a domestic situation outside of the work environment.

That is specifically why we have MPs and we don't have RCMP, OPP or whoever handling all of our business all the time.  Even using your Microsoft example is wrong, because you don't work for Microsoft.

Although MPs must remain independent of the CoC when responding to a call during a duty situation, their being military means that they have a responsibility to understand the nuances of the duty day, the requirements to still follow proper protocol (proper check in at the gate, calling an officer sir or ma'am and respecting the authority of an OC who may well be responsible for secure equipment, etc.), and do their best to ensure that all of that is taken into consideration while carrying out their duties to the best of their abilities.

Then, when responding to domestic issues, it is outside of the duty AOR, so to speak, and much more in line with traditional policing.

Of course, I certainly haven't pulled this all from out of my ***.  This is knowledge that was passed on to me by an MP who I happened to live down the hall from for a good 9 months while in Ottawa who happens to be a Colonel.  It was a pretty good discussion over a few beers when the branch was working to gain some independence while still remaining relevant militarily.

When did I ever say I was an MP?

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,924
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,489
First of all, this is the special place that MPs hold and that you seem to be complete,y ignoring, which, given your status as an MP, I find troubling.

Responding to a call that requires you to attend to a full on exercise should not and cannot be treated the same as if you were to respond to a domestic situation outside of the work environment.

That is specifically why we have MPs and we don't have RCMP, OPP or whoever handling all of our business all the time.  Even using your Microsoft example is wrong, because you don't work for Microsoft.

Although MPs must remain independent of the CoC when responding to a call during a duty situation, their being military means that they have a responsibility to understand the nuances of the duty day, the requirements to still follow proper protocol (proper check in at the gate, calling an officer sir or ma'am and respecting the authority of an OC who may well be responsible for secure equipment, etc.), and do their best to ensure that all of that is taken into consideration while carrying out their duties to the best of their abilities.

Then, when responding to domestic issues, it is outside of the duty AOR, so to speak, and much more in line with traditional policing.

Of course, I certainly haven't pulled this all from out of my ***.  This is knowledge that was passed on to me by an MP who I happened to live down the hall from for a good 9 months while in Ottawa who happens to be a Colonel.  It was a pretty good discussion over a few beers when the branch was working to gain some independence while still remaining relevant militarily.

The answer to your question is located in the above statement.

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,506
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,367
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
When did I ever say I was an MP?

Sorry.  Just assuming since you seem to be commenting pretty hard on the ins and outs of MPs and their duties as if you were one yourself.

If not, forgive the error.  It's the impression you gave.
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...