(SGT?) Franck Gervais (split from Walts, posers)

[Alberta Bound]

In a case such as this they in fact do not know the vehicle is stolen.  It could have simply been lent to the person driving it.  Until they speak with the owner, IF they event take the opportunity to speak to the registered owner, the vehicle is not consider stolen if nobody complains about it.

Generally, in the course of a traffic stop the investigation can take many directions. On some occasions police obtain reasonable suspicion that the vehicle is stolen (or taken without consent). I was not discussing cases where vehicles were lent to someone, but that could be one of the paths you end up at. Another path is the driver is using another means to start the car other than the manufacturers keys, the driver is unable to provide correct details of the registered owner and/or under questioning roadside the occupants admit that the vehicle is stolen. Once you gain reasonable and probable grounds you can arrest, charter, warn, etc. even if the RO doesn't answer their phone right then to confirm. I once stopped a gentleman for a common traffic offence. After listening to his version of events and noting how he asserted that he personally owned the pickup and had a licence from another province but no ID on him. I arrested him and pointed out that the screw driver in the ignition was not a key and that the pickup was owned by the Province of Alberta. Something he didn't know. After some discussion, he admitted the theft. Yes a vehicle is stolen simply once it is stolen. Not once someone complains. I have also had to release a couple people roadside (after confirming ID) when I suspected the vehicle was stolen but hadn't got the RPGs through my investigation for an arrest till long after they were gone. In those cases I then laid the Information, got a PI warrant and made efforts to find them.

I call BS on that one.  Yes, police may find someone they suspect breaking into a location and in such case the person is under investigative detention until the matter can be cleared up.  I have also never heard of anyone pleading guilty at first appearance and then being convicted and sentenced immediately.  Also, without a complainant to speak to the illegality of the act the Crown would not be able to make a case.  Sure, the police may catch Bubba breaking into my house and a check of Bubba's ID shows that he lives 50 miles away but that is hardly grounds to convict even if he pleads guilty.

Call BS all you want. But you are incorrect. Again investigative detention can be used but once you get RPGs, then arrest, charter, etc. You find two 15 years old's in the local judges house and the back door smashed and you know he is away on holidays. You conduct an investigation and in this case both gentlemen were close to their first appearance date before the judge came home and saw our cards sitting on his kitchen counter with the request to call for a statement.

I don't know if your police experience was in a large metropolitan police service or some special investigative body. But in small town rural policing. I have arrested people early in the am, taken them back to the detachment, after their lawyer call and doing up an Information, Prosecutors Information Sheet and a copy of the accused criminal record taken them directly to court as a fresh arrest had them do their first appearance before the local judge, seen them plead guilty, get sentenced and taken them to cells to await transport later in the week to the correctional centre.

It's all a little different depending on where you police. I am guessing that you also haven't arrested people and had to transport them back on your snowmobile or ATV. Or prosecuted your own summary conviction offences while acting as court security also. Possibly never had to pick up the court party (Judge, clerk, Crown and Defence) from the airstrip and drive them to the community hall for trials. Or done the first appearance date in the Detachment lobby as the weather was too bad for the plane to land.
Oh, and our local media likes us. They have even sent us scene photos and other things when they thought it would be helpful. Like when I forgot the camera at the office one time.

Anyways that's enough as this has really derailed the main part of this topic. If you ever want to see another style of policing and will be in Alberta feel free to drop me a line.

 

[Haggis]

A bit more on the accused and his past brushes with the law, shared with the usual disclaimer.

 

[Remius]

Despite everything, I am impressed with the way his employer is handling the situation.

 

[Haggis]

Despite everything, I am impressed with the way his employer is handling the situation.

Agreed. 

However, if he played the "veteran" card or used falsified military qualifications to get hired then the employer may reconsider his support for the accused.

 

[Cloud Cover]

His lawyer will play the mental illness card, and the concurrent duty to accommodate in employment. Lets be clear, a person who has acted in this manner, with such deliberation and lack of conscience, is probably not a mentally intact individual. He will be let go "without cause", and receive generous severance with provisions to obtain the medical help that he needs, simply because that will be cheaper for his employer than the certainty of a monumental legal bill trying to defend firing him with cause. 

Putting that aside but not throwing it away, he has arranged for himself a boatload of legal problems in the criminal legal system. He should and will be convicted but we are all better than simply seeing the man be further pushed to the edge of civilization. The question I pose is how to take this situation and use it as an example to demonstrate public revulsion for such acts. I am no bleeding heart lefty, but I would like to see a more positive outcome in addition to a conviction with fines and jail time. [ie a public apology, community service, consent to participate in a public education campaign, other genuine acts of remorse].             

 

[Shamrock]

His lawyer will play the mental illness card...

There is no DSM entry for "idiocy."

 

[Cloud Cover]

There is no DSM entry for "idiocy."

That exact word just translates to lack of mental capacity, a pseudo legal parlance.  Science doesn't matter where employment law is concerned ....

 

[Remius]

The fact that he's known to local police and was involved in a "person in distress" situation demonstrates that there might be a bit nmore to this than meets the eye.  Which is why the employer is taking the right position on this rather than put him out due to media and/or public pressure.  For all we know this fantasy world kept him grounded and his family let him indulge in it, perhaps not aware of the legal ramifications.

At any rate the public outrage, national media coverage and facing a possible conviction all have sent a clear message to all Canadians (and all prospective posers be they ill or just jerks) not to effin do this.

I think, and this is my opinion only, that at least in a non-litteral sense that justice has be served.  We will have to wait and see if it will be served litterally or not.  Either way I think that lessons have been learned. 

 

[Pieman]

The fact that he's known to local police and was involved in a "person in distress" situation demonstrates that there might be a bit more to this than meets the eye

Does not necessarily indicate criminal activity either. Possibly became suicidal or similar incident requiring him to be taken to hospital against his will,  etc. As indicated by the article I sited, this behavior is strongly linked to depression, which is strongly linked to suicidal tendencies. I am happy to hear his employers are being supportive rather than cast someone out, especially after working for them for so long.

 

[WPJ]

Unfortunately though, when it comes to the matter at hand the courts have not acted with the same degree of outrage that we all feel.  Funny, but I get the feeling that if someone was being tried in court for impersonating a Judge or a Lawyer they would certainly get more of a sentence then someone would for impersonating a soldier.

Or if he was impersonating a police or RCMP officer.

 

[RedcapCrusader]

Or if he was impersonating a police or RCMP officer.

The question will be whether or not he gained any money, benefits, or possessions from his waltery. Personal gain (other than ego) will call for more severe punishment.

 

[WPJ]

The question will be whether or not he gained any money, benefits, or possessions from his waltery. Personal gain (other than ego) will call for more severe punishment.

Very true. 

I still have a hard time understanding why someone you lie about service, its one of the greatest forms of ignorance and disrespect someone can do.  I guess it goes to the who mental side which baffles me.  I understand its for self indulgence etch but it just doesn't register why...

 

[The Bread Guy]

The question will be whether or not he gained any money, benefits, or possessions from his waltery. Personal gain (other than ego) will call for more severe punishment.

I'm also guessing other charges might be laid, like fraud, if money or some other tangible benefit is concerned.

 

[mike63]

Just got a question a bit off of topic but, has anyone applied to be apart of the 'Stolen Valour' organization?  I applied on-line on 12 Nov but haven't heard anything back yet.  I know they have a statement on their site about it taking some time before you hear back from them (back ground check) but, I'm just wondering how long that might be.  I would very much like to be a part of Stolen Valour but even the webmaster hasn't answered back my email enquiry.  Should I just wait out?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

These things take awhile. Wait it out.

 

[mike63]

Wilco buddy, and thanks.  I thought it was just me.

 

[old medic]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/franck-gervais-charged-with-impersonating-soldier-in-court-jan-6-1.2865528

A man charged with impersonating a decorated soldier, after he identified himself as a Canadian Forces officer at the National War Memorial in Ottawa during Remembrance Day last month, had his case put over to January when his lawyer appeared on his behalf.

Franck Gervais, 32, of Cantley, Que., was expected in court Tuesday but Claude Levesque represented him instead.

A new court date was scheduled for Jan. 6.

"He is taking the matter very seriously, and for now is reflecting and will take the time to review the accusation and evidence against him," said Levesque.

Gervais faces two charges of impersonating a public officer, one charge of unlawful use of military uniforms and one charge of unlawful use of military decoration.  ........................

continues at link.

 

[ueo]

Did anyone watch the CBC Airfarce program last night? Our RCR walt made the F Bomb segment. Now if the real judiciary does a similar legal dump.

 

[reccecrewman]

48 hours to go! Be interesting to hear what comes of this on Tuesday.

 

[X Royal]

Was not Franck Gervais due in court yesterday?
Anyone hear the outcome?