Arty Sim + Gananoque McDonald's Trash Can = Criminal Charges

[chrisf]

Whether the range dec is given or not has nothing to do with the liability of the individual, it has to do with the liability of the chain of command.

 

[medicineman]

Since when was he posted to Kingston I wonder?? I'm tagging him at a school in Borden by DIN.

Alot of people from a certain school in Borden get TD'd to CFSCE...could also be a local back home on leave.  Fucktard regardless.

MM

 

[OldSolduer]

Whether the range dec is given or not has nothing to do with the liability of the individual, it has to do with the liability of the chain of command.

Excuse me? Are you saying that even if a range dec is given, the CoC is still liable? Clarify this please.

 

[ballz]

Excuse me? Are you saying that even if a range dec is given, the CoC is still liable? Clarify this please.

I think he's saying that the individual is liable no matter what...

But if the CoC did not give the range dec, they may also find themselves liable... where as if they had given it, it would be hard to say they are liable for the individual's actions.

EDIT cause I meant to say this anyway...

I don't even see the point of a range dec... I suppose I just stated it, but really... why would somebody hold the CoC accountable for it even if they didn't give the range dec? The individual would have done it whether they did or did not give the range dec... Perhaps in my infinite inexperience I am just underestimating the whole "due dillegence" thing... but I wouldn't want to go around charging people for not issuing a range dec that wouldn't make a difference to the individual anyway...

Would someone straighten me out?

 

[George Wallace]

WOW!

You guys are really coming up with some doooooooozies.


Where did it come from that he was posted to Kingston?

Where did it say he was a Reservist?

Where did it say he had or didn't have a Range Declaration?

Maybe he was from the Gan?

Maybe he was on leave and wanted to see Bolt Castle?

Perhaps he had a friend in the Gan? 

Perhaps he was a Cadet?

Perhaps it wasn't even him who is responsible.

Why are we throwing out so many statements from left field?

Why did I even bother to post this?

 

[GAP]

Why did I even bother to post this?

;D

 

[chrisf]

Excuse me? Are you saying that even if a range dec is given, the CoC is still liable? Clarify this please.

I think you misread, I was saying the opposite, if the range dec is given, then the range staff is not responsible, as it's not reasonable to assume all your troops are thieves. If they say they don't have anything, that should be enough, it's not as if you can conduct a search of every piece of kit belonging to every troop and every unit after every range without due cause.

As for an individual, if they gave a range dec, then they lied, if they didn't give a range dec, it's still reasonable to assume they knew what they were doing was wrong, and it's still theft (Unless it can be proven that at NO point in their career had they ever been informed it was an offence to remove somthing from a range).

 

[OldSolduer]

Thank you. I think we agree on this point. Mind you, if anyone ever sees I agreed with a Signaller.....

 

[Jammer]

You can talk about us, but you cant talk without us

 

[mike63]

Thank you. I think we agree on this point. Mind you, if anyone ever sees I agreed with a Signaller.....

LoL....now that's funny Jim!

 

[The Bread Guy]

First I've heard about it and I live in Kingston. I find it interesting that it took three weeks for it to hit the news.

According to the news release, the arrest happened Friday, so that would explain the delay.

 

[chrisf]

I don't even see the point of a range dec... I suppose I just stated it, but really... why would somebody hold the CoC accountable for it even if they didn't give the range dec? The individual would have done it whether they did or did not give the range dec... Perhaps in my infinite inexperience I am just underestimating the whole "due dillegence" thing... but I wouldn't want to go around charging people for not issuing a range dec that wouldn't make a difference to the individual anyway...

Because it's required. Plus it ensures troops are given an opportunity to turn in anything they may have had left.

 

[armyvern]

WOW!

You guys are really coming up with some doooooooozies.


Where did it come from that he was posted to Kingston?

Where did it say he was a Reservist?

Where did it say he had or didn't have a Range Declaration?

Maybe he was from the Gan?

Maybe he was on leave and wanted to see Bolt Castle?

Perhaps he had a friend in the Gan?

Perhaps he was a Cadet?

Perhaps it wasn't even him who is responsible.

Why are we throwing out so many statements from left field?

Why did I even bother to post this?

Well, from the original article we know that he is not a cadet, and that he has been arrested, that he is stationned at CFB Borden and that a range declaration is "required" to be given when leaving the range/training area.

Where whoever came up with the "reservist" or "posted to CFB Kingston" bits is beyond me.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/SOMNIA/article1797522/

They quickly discovered it a was a military training device, and traced it first to CFB Suffield, Alberta, home of Canadian Forces research and development, and then to CFB Borden.

Working with military police, officers arrested 18-year-old Private Kevynn Potvin on Tuesday. Pte. Potvin, who joined the Canadian Forces in September, 2009, now faces seven criminal charges, including possession of explosives with intent to damage property and mischief endangering life.

No one was hurt in the explosion, which also damaged a car parked nearby.

Lieutenant Carrie Pluck, public affairs officer for CFB Borden, said Pte. Potvin allegedly used a military artillery simulator, a device employed in training exercises that is more like a firework than a grenade, and is usually made from cardboard or plastic.

If used improperly it could cause “damage to life or limb,” she said.

A military investigation of the incident is still under way to determine how the explosive was removed from the base. Lt. Pluck said it is an offence under the National Defence Act to remove any explosives from a training area and that soldiers are required to declare they are not carrying any explosives every time they leave a range.
“We do take offences like this very, very seriously,” she said.

“We’re always surprised when we hear of incidences like this because we do hold the Canadian Forces up to a certain level of discipline.”

 

[ModlrMike]

Because it's required. Plus it ensures troops are given an opportunity to turn in anything they may have had left.

To add, there are amnesty boxes on most bases that have active ranges. I know I've found a few errant casings after a shoot that made their way to an amnesty box.

 

[ballz]

Plus it ensures troops are given an opportunity to turn in anything they may have had left.

Solid point. I've found a casing doing a last minute check of kit for random pieces while standing in front about to give the dec.

As for the "because it's required," well, the question was "why" but that is another good point along with the liability issue. I am embarassed glad I asked ;D

 

[George Wallace]

To add, there are amnesty boxes on most bases that have active ranges. I know I've found a few errant casings after a shoot that made their way to an amnesty box.

Ever try to fit an Arty Sim into an Amnesty Box?      ;D

I don't think they had much more than small arms ammunition in mind when they made the boxes, as well as keeping the design so that no one could use these boxes as an easy means of acquiring ammo.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Ever try to fit an Arty Sim into an Amnesty Box?      ;D

I don't think they had much more than small arms ammunition in mind when they made the boxes, as well as keeping the design so that no one could use these boxes as an easy means of acquiring ammo.

I remember returning from gun camp in Germany. Three weeks later, on the way to work, there was a 105 HESH round, nose down, on the tube of the amnesty box at the TDM in Lahr. Yup, didn't fit

Seems it got left under the floorboards of the Cent and the guys found it while getting ready for the GOC's inspection.

 

[chrisf]

Ever try to fit an Arty Sim into an Amnesty Box?      ;D

I don't think they had much more than small arms ammunition in mind when they made the boxes, as well as keeping the design so that no one could use these boxes as an easy means of acquiring ammo.

Depends on the box. I've seen a couple that are like mail boxes, with the tilting tray inside, managed to jam a full C9 box into it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Depends on the box. I've seen a couple that are like mail boxes, with the tilting tray inside, managed to jam a full C9 box into it.

The size of mail boxes? Wow. Where are these boxes located? I've never seen one that big and I've been a few places.

 

[chrisf]

The size of mail boxes? Wow. Where are these boxes located? I've never seen one that big and I've been a few places.

Yes. That's exactly what I said. It was as big as a mail box. And not a normal size mailbox. One of those super mail boxes. The sort they have in new subburbs to save money on postal service. And there was a ramp and a garage door so you could drop off up to an MLVW load of ammunition.

Now, go back and read what I wrote, I said it was like a mail box, in that had tilting tray rather than a tube, not in that it was the size of a mail box. It could accomodate stuff as large as a C9 box through the tray. Size wise, it was pretty standard amnesty box size, maybe a foot and a half squared.