• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian soldier charged with feeding cannabis cupcakes to artillery unit during live-fire exercise

Navy_Pete said:
Sure, but that's not what they are arguing. I'm not even sure if they are arguing the other wrappers should be excluded, just that someone allegedly messed up so the case should be dismissed.

Sounds like a bit of a crap argument, vice just questioning the chain of evidence, getting it thrown out, then asking for dismissal (assuming the crown didn't drop charges at that point).
Click to expand...

Yes I agree it is a crap argument with pretty much no chance of success. Cases are thrown out for lost or destroyed evidence only "in the clearest of cases" where it would be abusive to continue ... such as if police purposely destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence. I also think that tactically it is a mistake to bring such questionable applications -- I think it's a waste of client funds, and negatively impacts the strength of the good arguments. I agree they should focus on the issues we've discussed.

Navy_Pete said:
I thought that she already admitted to actually making the cupcakes and getting the batches mixed up or something, so this seems like an attempt to dodge consequences via a technicality. At least this came to no serious harm; examples like Bill Cosby, the admitted serial rapist, getting his conviction quashed reinforce the separation between the legal system and the justice system.
Click to expand...

Good example of why I tell all my clients never say anything to police -- it will never help you. She handed them their case if she admitted that, I don't think the "getting the batches mixed up" will save her. It might raise a reasonable doubt on administer noxious substance since she didn't intend to administer it at that time ... but I'm sure she'd be cooked on some other charges.

As for Bill Cosby, his quashed conviction was no mere technicality. The Prosecutors acted in bad faith and it was a very serious abuse of process. The did a bait-and-switch saying the would not prosecute so that he would lose 5th amendment protection. Then, without 5th amendment protection he had no choice but to testify in civil court, then they used the civil testimony to get him. In Canada, s. 13 of the Charter is not dependent on the risk of prosecution and his statements in civil court would have never been admitted thus he likely wouldn't have been convicted in the first place. Whether Cosby was guilty or not, that was a proper decision. The state cannot be allowed to play such dirty tricks it is grossly unfair.
 
LittleBlackDevil said:
Yes I agree it is a crap argument with pretty much no chance of success. Cases are thrown out for lost or destroyed evidence only "in the clearest of cases" where it would be abusive to continue ... such as if police purposely destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence. I also think that tactically it is a mistake to bring such questionable applications -- I think it's a waste of client funds, and negatively impacts the strength of the good arguments. I agree they should focus on the issues we've discussed.



Good example of why I tell all my clients never say anything to police -- it will never help you. She handed them their case if she admitted that, I don't think the "getting the batches mixed up" will save her. It might raise a reasonable doubt on administer noxious substance since she didn't intend to administer it at that time ... but I'm sure she'd be cooked on some other charges.

As for Bill Cosby, his quashed conviction was no mere technicality. The Prosecutors acted in bad faith and it was a very serious abuse of process. The did a bait-and-switch saying the would not prosecute so that he would lose 5th amendment protection. Then, without 5th amendment protection he had no choice but to testify in civil court, then they used the civil testimony to get him. In Canada, s. 13 of the Charter is not dependent on the risk of prosecution and his statements in civil court would have never been admitted thus he likely wouldn't have been convicted in the first place. Whether Cosby was guilty or not, that was a proper decision. The state cannot be allowed to play such dirty tricks it is grossly unfair.
Click to expand...
I was always raised to cooperate with the police fully. They ask you questions? Answer. It’s yes sir, yes ma’am. Don’t break the damn law, and if the police ever call the house because of something I did? The legal system was a distant second to my concerns. Mom and dad were rectifying this IMMEDIATELY.

I had also always thought, while doing my diploma in criminal justice & then changing directions and finishing up my degree in forensic sciences - only people who had something to hide don’t cooperate. Only people who had something to hide wouldn’t answer questions.

After all, if you didn’t commit a crime or do what they are asking you about - why not answer their questions as helpfully as possible?


And now…agreed (mostly). Good idea not to talk to the police, and have a lawyer do it for you. Not because you are trying to be a jerk or disrespectful. But because even with the best of intentions, it may very well come back to haunt you. Forever.

Which does suck. Most officers I know are awesome people and down to earth. But the system works the way it does.
 
CBH99 said:
I was always raised to cooperate with the police fully ...

And now…agreed (mostly). Good idea not to talk to the police, and have a lawyer do it for you. Not because you are trying to be a jerk or disrespectful. But because even with the best of intentions, it may very well come back to haunt you. Forever.

Which does suck. Most officers I know are awesome people and down to earth. But the system works the way it does.
Click to expand...

I hear you, and I was raised the same way, and it always feels a bit bad for me to give the advice I do, but I have seen enough good people screwed over my speaking to police when they shouldn't have and inadvertently getting themselves into a world of hurt that could have otherwise been avoided.

Most officers are great people, but they also have a job to do, and if they're talking to you they usually have heard another story from someone else and are treating that story as true.

I am perhaps a but overly cynical/jaded based on my experiences as a criminal lawyer.

I still tell my children (and clients) to always be very respectful to police but to politely decline to answer questions/discuss a situation if you are under investigation. In my experience, if police are investigating you, there is no talking your way out of the situation. If you are not a suspect then it is a bit of a different situation.

Or if you've done wrong and have no intention of fighting the charge, then own up to it. The two times I've been pulled over for speeding that's what I did. One time got a warning, other time got a reduced ticket.
 
LittleBlackDevil said:
Good example of why I tell all my clients never say anything to police -- it will never help you. She handed them their case if she admitted that, I don't think the "getting the batches mixed up" will save her. It might raise a reasonable doubt on administer noxious substance since she didn't intend to administer it at that time ... but I'm sure she'd be cooked on some other charges.

As for Bill Cosby, his quashed conviction was no mere technicality. The Prosecutors acted in bad faith and it was a very serious abuse of process. The did a bait-and-switch saying the would not prosecute so that he would lose 5th amendment protection. Then, without 5th amendment protection he had no choice but to testify in civil court, then they used the civil testimony to get him. In Canada, s. 13 of the Charter is not dependent on the risk of prosecution and his statements in civil court would have never been admitted thus he likely wouldn't have been convicted in the first place. Whether Cosby was guilty or not, that was a proper decision. The state cannot be allowed to play such dirty tricks it is grossly unfair.
Click to expand...
I could be totally wrong, don't see it in the existing coverage. (edit to add; the admission that it was an accidental switch of batches)

For admitted serial rapist Bill Cosby, agree that it was an abuse of process and that it was probably the right thing to do, but after there were over 60 complainants with a long history of doing it, and him actually admitting to it... he's still an admitted serial rapist, regardless of whether or not his conviction stands. Hence legal vice justice system. All these people that are celebrating his release like he's innocent are deluded. Anyway, don't want to derail the thread to go on about admitted serial rapist Bill Cosby, so will just drop it.

Even if they find not enough evidence to meet the legal threshold to find her guilty, suspect the AR threshold of 'balance of probabilities' is pretty easy in this case. Understand they have to wait until the case is settled, but not feeling good about her chances.
 
Navy_Pete said:
Even if they find not enough evidence to meet the legal threshold to find her guilty, suspect the AR threshold of 'balance of probabilities' is pretty easy in this case. Understand they have to wait until the case is settled, but not feeling good about her chances.
Click to expand...

Agreed, from what is reported balance of probabilities seems to be there.
 
Mills Bomb said:
This is an incredible story. This happened two years ago and this member is still serving? I suppose it's not surprising given the CAF's reputation of retaining basically anyone, but still pretty shocking none the less.

I'm glad nobody was hurt. Hopefully the medical staff had a wide array of munchies available during the "recovery" period.
Click to expand...
:D
 
Mills Bomb said:
This reminds of the guy who ran over a kindergarten teacher in the Ottawa river with his ski-doo, fled the scene, and still kept his job.

It makes you wonder how many people have released because they realized these bad soldiers essentially get to stay in forever and you're stuck being around them.

Who would possibly want to work with someone who almost got people killed feeding an entire battery drug cupcakes?

Some of these incidents are not minor mistakes. At what point do we start releasing some of these soldiers that have embarrassed the entire CAF? This will surely make international military news.
Click to expand...
Hi MB

Reminds me of 2 related type of incidents. The first one with 2VP Winnipeg - one company was at St. Charles Range and were bivouacked there. One of the Master jacks going round the area noticed a cigarette glare being passed back and forth inside a tent. Marijuana. I can remember how pissed he was marching them into the guardroom (I was RP). However, I don't remember the ending (facepalm)

The second incident happened at Camp Pleso, Zagreb (I think 1994). I had a couple of good buddies in the USMC MP stationed there. One of them, Lorne, told me one day that his buddies were always stealing his goodies from the care pkge his girlfriend sends. He later asked her to lace the cookies with Exlax. You know what happened next.

During the investigation, it was found Lorne was the owner of the treats. He was sent back stateside a couple of days later. I cant remember any of the charges but it was fast.
 
LittleBlackDevil said:
Yes I agree it is a crap argument with pretty much no chance of success. Cases are thrown out for lost or destroyed evidence only "in the clearest of cases" where it would be abusive to continue ... such as if police purposely destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence. I also think that tactically it is a mistake to bring such questionable applications -- I think it's a waste of client funds, and negatively impacts the strength of the good arguments. I agree they should focus on the issues we've discussed.



Good example of why I tell all my clients never say anything to police -- it will never help you. She handed them their case if she admitted that, I don't think the "getting the batches mixed up" will save her. It might raise a reasonable doubt on administer noxious substance since she didn't intend to administer it at that time ... but I'm sure she'd be cooked on some other charges.

As for Bill Cosby, his quashed conviction was no mere technicality. The Prosecutors acted in bad faith and it was a very serious abuse of process. The did a bait-and-switch saying the would not prosecute so that he would lose 5th amendment protection. Then, without 5th amendment protection he had no choice but to testify in civil court, then they used the civil testimony to get him. In Canada, s. 13 of the Charter is not dependent on the risk of prosecution and his statements in civil court would have never been admitted thus he likely wouldn't have been convicted in the first place. Whether Cosby was guilty or not, that was a proper decision. The state cannot be allowed to play such dirty tricks it is grossly unfair.
Click to expand...
The other thing to remember is that there is a statue of limitations on the cases that occured in the states, meaning that they couldn't be prosecuted. That wouldn't have been the case in Canada.

Also, I know one of the complaints occured in Canada, but I haven't heard of him being charged here.
 
She was operating a mobile canteen during Exercise Common Gunner
Click to expand...

$170 a day to sell pop and chips.

Is this really a job for trained soldiers to be doing?
 
MilEME09 said:
It used to be a way to keep people in PAT busy between courses, I feel it is a task that could be off loaded to civi's
Click to expand...
Ah, but civis cost SWE which is in short supply. Plus then you then have to buy from CANEX (Mind you, you are supposed to give them first right of refusal anyhow, but I've seen that rule broken) or the civies will rat you out. Civies will likely only have hours of work 0800-1600 so what happens after that? etc..... :-)
 
Jarnhamar said:
$170 a day to sell pop and chips.

Is this really a job for trained soldiers to be doing?
Click to expand...
Yes. Nothing new, out of the ordinary or contrary to regulations.

A-PS-110-001/AG-002 Morale and Welfare Programs in the Canadian Forces
Volume 1 Public Support for Morale and Welfare Programs and Non Public Property

Casual or Part-Time Employment for Operations or Exercises

17. Formation Commanders may authorize part-time employment of CF members in on-the-job training for Mess or CANEX operations in preparation for deployments or major exercises to a maximum of:
a. twenty hours per week for six weeks for each CF member; and
b. four CF members for each MW activity to be operated on deployment or exercise.

18. A CO of a unit participating in field exercises may authorize the part-time use of CF members in support of Messes, mobile canteens or equivalent CANEX activities for the duration of the exercise.

Full-Time Employment at Bases, Wings and Units

19. The full-time employment of a CF member, DND Public Service employee or person in a Publicly Reimbursed position in a Non-Public MW Position may be authorized, subject to the following:
a. by a CO for up to six weeks;
b. by a Formation Commander for up to six months; and
c. by a Level 1 Advisor for over six months.

20. Subject to paragraph 19 above, the employment of CF members in Non-Public MW positions may be authorized when they are:
a. temporarily medically unfit and there is no practical Public function available to them;
b. surplus to requirement; or
c. require NPP experience as part of training.

21. Subject to paragraph 19 above, when there is no incumbent in a Public MW Position, or the incumbent is not available for more than six weeks, a CO may authorize a CF member, DND Public Service employee, or person in a Publicly Reimbursed Position to fill that position.
Click to expand...
 
Harris said:
Ah, but civis cost SWE which is in short supply. Plus then you then have to buy from CANEX (Mind you, you are supposed to give them first right of refusal anyhow, but I've seen that rule broken) or the civies will rat you out. Civies will likely only have hours of work 0800-1600 so what happens after that? etc..... :)
Click to expand...
It could be a private contractor as well, lots of bases do that for their canteen areas and in high density areas like Carling there are even commercial vendors like Tim's and Starbucks.

The real issue outside of those high density areas is getting someone to take that chance, plus the work to manage the relationship and contract to use an area. Some places it is easy because there is still a steady flow, others not so much.

Jarnhamar said:
$170 a day to sell pop and chips.

Is this really a job for trained soldiers to be doing?
Click to expand...
I think of all the folks some of the various regiments have running kit shops, pioneer shops, unit canteens full time and doing other non-core military duties (PPCLI Regt HQ for example). Some of it good as they are tasks that would need to be done anyway except they would be secondary duties, others need a long hard look.

At one time in an unnamed PPCLI Bn the canteen was bigger than the gym and had a staff of 4-6 including a Sgt
 
MJP said:
It could be a private contractor as well, lots of bases do that for their canteen areas and in high density areas like Carling there are even commercial vendors like Tim's and Starbucks.

The real issue outside of those high density areas is getting someone to take that chance, plus the work to manage the relationship and contract to use an area. Some places it is easy because there is still a steady flow, others not so much.


I think of all the folks some of the various regiments have running kit shops, pioneer shops, unit canteens full time and doing other non-core military duties (PPCLI Regt HQ for example). Some of it good as they are tasks that would need to be done anyway except they would be secondary duties, others need a long hard look.

At one time in an unnamed PPCLI Bn the canteen was bigger than the gym and had a staff of 4-6 including a Sgt
Click to expand...

Dafuq? At the flying squadrons I was a part of, the "kit shop" was in a storage cabinet and you had to track the manager down because half the time, they were flying or deployed, and may or may not have a deputy.

The "unit canteen" was literally an honour system check-off sheet on a fridge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
Talisman Sabre 2023
Replies
5
Views
7K
SeaKingTacco
SeaKingTacco
Blackadder1916
    • Like
    • Insightful
What will medicine on the battlefield look like?
Replies
9
Views
775
KevinB
KevinB
daftandbarmy
    • Sad
Soldier died on exercise after flawed Army safety planning
Replies
0
Views
4K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
Kirkhill
    • Like
The Arctic
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
56K
Colin Parkinson
Colin Parkinson
Kirkhill
    • Like
Canadian History
Replies
5
Views
4K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Back
Top