- Reaction score
- 2,917
- Points
- 940
Then why did you choose to delete it?jcan said:
A
aesop081
Guest
jcan said:
I never said you lacked integrity.....I implied you lacked credibility.
Because I believed we lost touch with what the actual question was all about, and if by deleting my 4 advice points would steer us back on course, than it was worth discarding. I just would like to underline that in no way or form was I ever offensive to anyone, and unless you can show otherwise, then I would retract the use of that word.
Container said:
I'll second that.
If, as an aspirant officer, your advice to an individual is to dissimulate, delay, and challenge the system rather than take accountability for his own actions, then I sincerely hope that you are unsuccessful in your application until such time as you've given your head a shake and adjusted your value set. Joining the military isn't 'winning the game', it's proving that you are the sort of person that I as a junior leader either want working for me or want to work for, and that I as a taxpayer and citizen would want representing our collective values in the service of our country. I think both you and the original poster have some significant adjustments to make before you're fit for the job.
Again, if that is what you read then Iam truly sorry. However, what I did write and what I meant is that it would be a good idea for him to take responsibility first by enrolling into a AA counseling group and 2) to go back to school to show that he is committed to his future and that a criminal record would impede his success. To undertake this after a charge is not misrepresentation, but rather reflection on the seriousness of his actions and the road blocks that a record creates to a life of productivity and success. That is what I wrote and if you feel that is misrepresenting oneself, than to each is own, no? Bottom line is...take responsibility and demonstrate it to the court by doing the above and much more.
delay, and challenge the system? Damn right u challenge the system and delay to get your life back on track before you face a judge. I am not going to speculate, but if you were ever in a position that your entire life would change for the negative, you would do everything in your power to challenge things. I am damn proud to say that I live in a country where I can challenge evidence and I can delay so I can get back on track. You can have your opinion on me and how some navigate our legal system, but I would not condone a person for challenging evidence or allegations made against them or for delaying things so he can deliver a good defense. We tend to discredit other countries that immediately impose sentence on an individual without the chance for the accuse to challenge evidence or mount a good defense, and correct me if I am wrong, but I am certain we have lost hundreds of good men/women in bringing those liberties to others, and yet you imply you are less of a Canadian/soldier/person if you do exercise those rights? You are no less of a person if you do mount a strong challenge and a strong tactic in clearing your name. And to think that my stance on this would make me a bad officer is just petty.
delay, and challenge the system? Damn right u challenge the system and delay to get your life back on track before you face a judge. I am not going to speculate, but if you were ever in a position that your entire life would change for the negative, you would do everything in your power to challenge things. I am damn proud to say that I live in a country where I can challenge evidence and I can delay so I can get back on track. You can have your opinion on me and how some navigate our legal system, but I would not condone a person for challenging evidence or allegations made against them or for delaying things so he can deliver a good defense. We tend to discredit other countries that immediately impose sentence on an individual without the chance for the accuse to challenge evidence or mount a good defense, and correct me if I am wrong, but I am certain we have lost hundreds of good men/women in bringing those liberties to others, and yet you imply you are less of a Canadian/soldier/person if you do exercise those rights? You are no less of a person if you do mount a strong challenge and a strong tactic in clearing your name. And to think that my stance on this would make me a bad officer is just petty.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 223
- Points
- 710
jcan said:
jcan/jaycan
It now appears that you really are not an honest participant in these threads. You have completely removed a post that has been replied to several times, and now this whole thread is disjointed and convoluted due to your actions. Your credibility has suffered much by your actions. If we have to rely on quoting you with every reply we make, so as to maintain the flow of the discussion for future readers, we may have to consider you a TROLL. I hope that this has been a single incident and not to become a common practice of yours.
- Reaction score
- 2,917
- Points
- 940
Allow me to explain the meaning of "offensive":jcan said:
Based on the responses your post received, I'd suggest your explanation was perceived as displeasing, irritating and repugnant to the moral sense.
Now perhaps that's because we are from different communities; those who posted their annoyance and questioned your credibility and integrity are actually serving CF members -- personal integrity is valued.
You however, are a civie whose profile misrepresents you as a Naval Cadet and you posted information on how to utilize legal technicalities and foot-dragging techniques to "beat the system" -- no integrity has been demonstrated, and your post has been deemed to be offensive to this community's standards.
Ergo, no retraction of the word "offensive" is required.
Edit: typo, not to change what I've said so as to change the meaning of my posts once called on it.
I don't necessarily agree with your use of offensive in relation to what I have posted, but if you feel that it is used appropriately then I will respect your opinion and hope you can respect my disagreement. I do hope we can find comon ground on an issue soon enough.
- Reaction score
- 2,917
- Points
- 940
Even with continually changing your posts you can't get it right: "condemn"jcan said:
Again, the people making said judgement are serving CF members, whose experience qualifies them to hold such opinions. It's not your lack of military experience, however, that has a growing number of forum members calling your judgement into question.
As for finding "common ground," it's appearing that all but one have found common ground; yet that one expects the others to "respect" him being the only one in step. I guess that's just another "military thing" -- that respect is earned.
So for me, I'm done here. :brickwall: gets tiresome.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 223
- Points
- 710
jcan said:
Perhaps you may not feel that what you posted is offensive, but the manner in which you posted is. You have completely deleted your five or six points to the OP, with your "father's Legal advice" and changed the whole usefulness of this thread. You have edited out facts after replies were made to them and you felt threatened. Your credibility and integrity have been brought into question, and yet you still continue. Yes, people here may, and have the right to, feel offended by you.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 330
*IF* you get onto a BMOQ... you are going to quickly find out that your instructors will not share your "delay, and challenge the system? Damn right u challenge the system and delay to get your life back on track" mentality.
I would like to be there the first time you are handed consequences for your actions.
I would like to be there the first time you are handed consequences for your actions.
Obviously, BMOQ is not a court of law nor does it have the power to criminally convict you...a burden you carry for a very long time. Making a comparison like that is a weak argument and so is suggesting that my opinion to vigorously defend yourself and challenge evidence/allegations in front of any tribunal would make me 'unfit,' to be an officer is again, a weak argument. My opinions are ‘mine,’ and I’m glad to have had the opportunity to read and comment on others opinions, but in no way would I paint a picture of who you are or your suitability to be a CF officer based on your opinions expressed here. I believe actions speak louder than words, and judging a person on what he thinks is not and never has been the way to lead or cement friendships. In my very humble opinion, we need to separate how I would defend myself in court to BMOQ, they are two vastly different things with two vastly different outcomes. WHEN I am at BMOQ, I will of course conduct myself in a way that reflects the integrity and purpose of BMOQ, and will accept the consequences for my actions as a learning opportunity and a way to better myself and those I lead. There is a ‘time and place’ for everything, and I do know the difference. I hope I am there the first time you are handed consequences for your actions, because with any luck I’ll learn something from it, and vise-versa.
jcan said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and humbly suggest that not one of us is too concerned about 'cementing friendships' with one who misrepresents himself as a 'naval cadet' and who offers advice on how to cheat the legal system so as to sneak into the C.F. with a DUI. Moreover, you are certainly not in any position, experientially or academically, to offer any credible advice on the ability of serving members to judge the suitability of someone who aspires to be an officer. Nor, frankly, have you any place questioning the manner in which we lead- most of us being leaders in actuality.
In the C.F., words ARE actions in their own right, and offer insight into someone's character and integrity. You may profess 'a vigorous defense' all you want, but that flies flat in the face of 'adjourn, adjourn, adjourn and hope they complete the background check before you're convicted'. Not having seen any of your actions, your words are all we have to go on. Frankly I'm not impressed.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 330
jcan said:
Forgive me if I am reading too much between the lines, but where you say WHEN you are on BMOQ you will conduct yourself with integrity, does that also mean that when you are not being hard assessed, or in uniform, or on a course that you will instead demonstrate a lack of integrity?
*IF* you join the CF, you are a soldier, sailor or air-person ALL the time. There are no individual times for which to demonstrate integrity, and which to not. I don't pretend to be a perfect person, and when I was on BMOQ, I did screw up from time to time, and I was handed consequences from time to time. You say that there is a time and a place for everything, but with integrity, it is all the time, and every place.
I wanted to figure out a way to work this quote into my response, but since I couldn't, I'm just going to put it at the bottom. ;D
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands,
hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
DUI's are a serious issue. I remember seeing an Officer force someone off the road and into the ditch after a particularly rowdy mess dinner. I was standing beside a Capt. and I got the license number. I was told in no uncertain terms that pursuing this would be a BIG mistake. I was an unhooked Pvt at the time.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
If you blew over, and unless there are some serious extenuating circumstances, or the arresting officer fouled up the paperwork, or there is some other technical glitch you won't beat the impaired. All you are going to do is waste thousand of dollars to some already overpaid shyster. There is nothing a lawyer can do.
My advice is to take your lumps, save you money - or more likely Mom and Dad's money and move on. As a point of interest I have had more than a handfull of impaired in my time....so been there, done that............
My advice is to take your lumps, save you money - or more likely Mom and Dad's money and move on. As a point of interest I have had more than a handfull of impaired in my time....so been there, done that............
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
jcan said:
The individual admits he was drinking and driving, and ended up blowing over the legal limit. This isn't as if it were a framing job by the police or there was some sort of malpractice by the police in investigating and catching the individual. He knows he did something wrong, why challenge and delay it?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
ARMY_101 said:
It's usually done to avoid losing ones vehicle or licence, generally due to work requirements, i.e. the need to get to it, or you drive for a living. Most truck related companies will release employee's upon conviction.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Larry Strong said:
Very true, but the comment to which I was responding was suggesting that the person stall the case simply because we live in a country where that can be done. Stalling a case shouldn't happen, especially when the person knows what they've done (they admitted to it). If there were legitimate grounds for the challenge like I said above (e.g. the police were abusive or doing something illegal to force him to blow over the legal limit) then sure, challenging the case is totally acceptable. But to just stall for the sake of stalling just makes a mockery out of the situation and prolongs the inevitable conviction anyways.
Similar threads
