CTC soldier charged with trafficking drugs

[geo]

tweetypie,
When I hear a story that "of 5 charges, 1 was convicted" I am led to believe that:
1 has been tried & the other 4 are still awaiting trial, or
there wasn't enough evidence to go to trial for the other 4, or
4 were found not guilty.....

I'm not ever trying to split hairs & the way this "news" has been reported says loads without saying much...

MsM strikes again.

 

[armyvern]

HUH?
The simple fact that the story says one person, of 5 arrested was found guilty is telling you that the other 4 were not convicted.
You call that leaving out facts?
I think the Canadian public is more interested in soldiers being convicted of drug trafficking than soldiers who are not.
It is, in all likelihood , tax payer that is trading hands here

Like I said, I call that DELIBERATELY MISLEADING -- akin to LYING.

They had no problem running the 5 charges across the nation on Prime Time news and turning it into a story ... why evade the storey's ending? What's the big deal about that? If any other Canadian goes to trial and we read about it in the National MSM, or see it on TV -- their "not guilty" verdicts are also strung across the front page -- why the difference here?

Not like treating a soldier's story in the same manner as they do for anyone else whom they splash across the headlines is going to make the earth shift or anything is it?

Funny that. Apparently you are arguing that a soldier name deemed 'worthy' enough by the MSM to have his name & charge run across the nation is not worthy enough to have that name cleared in same manner. I can almost paint a picture of the thought process here, given that it was your first post upon the site. Oh my.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I can almost paint a picture of the thought process here, given that it was your first post upon the site. Oh my.

...and she appear's to be banned from at least one other site.

 

[X-mo-1979]

Wow.

Good soldier too.
Hope he get's straightened out and soldiers on.

 

[tweetypie]

Like I said, I call that DELIBERATELY MISLEADING -- akin to LYING.

They had no problem running the 5 charges across the nation on Prime Time news and turning it into a story ... why evade the storey's ending? What's the big deal about that? If any other Canadian goes to trial and we read about it in the National MSM, or see it on TV -- their "not guilty" verdicts are also strung across the front page -- why the difference here?

Not like treating a soldier's story in the same manner as they do for anyone else whom they splash across the headlines is going to make the earth shift or anything is it?

Funny that. Apparently you are arguing that a soldier name deemed 'worthy' enough by the MSM to have his name & charge run across the nation is not worthy enough to have that name cleared in same manner. I can almost paint a picture of the thought process here, given that it was your first post upon the site. Oh my.

You are kidding, right? Not treating a soldier the same as someone else?
Any idea how many people across Canada are found not guilty of crimes every day.My god if the papers ran a story about all those people there would be no room for anything else.
And really, the names of the 4 who were not convicted were not splashed across the nation.I mean we are only talking about a drug charge here.In fact the only other name I can find of the five, does not in the slightest try and deny that indeed he is heavily into drugs
You say they are evading the ending.
Well why dont you tell us what the ending was for the other 4
  I said earlier the other 4 have not been convicted.For people on here to say they have been found not guilty is completly mis-leading.Something you seem to be accusing the media as being

I can be certain the vast majority of Canadians never even heard of this story.Or care

Instead of being so defensive of fellow soldiers and somehow trying to blame the press for their problems, maybe you should be a bit critical of your fellow soldiers doing drugs on the battlefield and back in Canada

 

[Loachman]

Instead of being so defensive of fellow soldiers and somehow trying to blame the press for their problems

And who here is doing that?

I will grant that the media are no more at fault in this instance than they are with any other similar civilian instance.

maybe you should be a bit critical of your fellow soldiers doing drugs on the battlefield and back in Canada

We are. There are plenty of other threads around here which will amply display that.

 

[Teeps74]

Funny that. Apparently you are arguing that a soldier name deemed 'worthy' enough by the MSM to have his name & charge run across the nation is not worthy enough to have that name cleared in same manner. I can almost paint a picture of the thought process here, given that it was your first post upon the site. Oh my.

I hate that this is my first post here... But, here it is. If one were to check the cnews forums, it would appear that tweetypie has an axe to grind.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Comment/2007/04/08/3953423.php

My own thoughts? The MSM fails on a regular basis, in that they regularly publish the names of the arrested, and follow up with big news on those that are convicted... But those that are found not guilty, or aquited, are lucky to see their names again in the news. Damage is done, not guilty, however a big price is still paid.

For us, the price is steep. If I thought one of my subordinates was getting stoned or what have you, would I trust him/her with my life on the C6? Not likely.

If the press gives that much weight to arrests and convictions, aquitals and not guilty verdicts should and must be given equal weight to clear the name of the individual.

 

[tweetypie]

And who here is doing that?

I will grant that the media are no more at fault in this instance than they are with any other similar civilian instance.

We are. There are plenty of other threads around here which will amply display that.

Well good.To be clear, I am not anti pot or whatever, but fair is fair, and if drug taking in Aghanistan is hindering other soldiers or causing death, then that is where it is time to draw the line.
Dont blame the MSM is someone found him/her self in a situation that they were charged with a drug offence.
I mean even OJ was found not guilty

 

[Kat Stevens]

Did I miss where this morphed into drug use in a theatre of ops thread?  This was about a POS dealer in Gagetown, wasn't it?

 

[Shamrock]

Well why dont you tell us what the ending was for the other 4 I said earlier the other 4 have not been convicted.

In amplification of this, I'll redirect back to the DND News Room.  Here, the DND releases particulars of those charged, but not the outcomes of those charges.  The results are publicly viewable at the CMJ, but are not necessarily desirable to a casual viewer.  

There is no onus for news media to publish follow-ons -- its obligation to the truth is to the truth at time of publication.  If there is an obligation to publish follow-on information, the CF is just as guilty as the news media in not publishing follow-on information and is equally worthy of scorn.

 

[Teeps74]

In amplification of this, I'll redirect back to the DND News Room.  Here, the DND releases particulars of those charged, but not the outcomes of those charges.  The results are publicly viewable at the CMJ, but are not necessarily desirable to a casual viewer.  

There is no onus for news media to publish follow-ons -- its obligation to the truth is to the truth at time of publication.  If there is an obligation to publish follow-on information, the CF is just as guilty as the news media in not publishing follow-on information and is equally worthy of scorn.

WRT to the CF, I full heartedly agree. Good grief... Last time I tried to read a transcript at CMJ, my head hurt for days. An executive summery would be nice I guess.

Now, who covers for the little guy not in the CF, who say, get's arrested for "drug dealing", gets tried, and later aquited for say, mistaken identity? It would be all over the news that Mr. Joe Bloggins was arrested and tried for drug dealing, and would most likely make it as the first hit on a google search. If the person is found not guilty, the story usually just disappears... All a person rembers then in such a case, and easily finds, is the person was arrested for... The court records are publically available, and the average human being could not be bothered to go looking for them.

I suppose what I am getting at, is it would be nice for the media to show consistancy... If there was enough interest in publishing the arrest, then there should be enough and equal interest in publishing the results regardless of guilty/not guilty.

Of course, it is us the consumer who are more to blame for this. If it bleeds, it leads... I accept my guilt on that part myself.

EDITED for spelling and grammer

 

[Cansky]

If anyone one is interested. Of the 5 originally name trafficking charges, 1 had charges withdrawn 1 was convicted and 3 are still awaiting trials.  This info can be found on the JAG website. http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/military_justice/cmartials_and_appeals/default_e.asp.

 

[armyvern]

Well good.To be clear, I am not anti pot or whatever, but fair is fair, and if drug taking in Aghanistan is hindering other soldiers or causing death, then that is where it is time to draw the line.
Dont blame the MSM is someone found him/her self in a situation that they were charged with a drug offence.
I mean even OJ was found not guilty

Yep, even OJ was found NOT GUILTY ... and because they had his charge plastered all over TV and the front pages --- we also saw his NOT guilty verdict published there as well.

Like I said down below -- They were deemed worthy enough to have their charges plastered all over the front pages of NATIONAL media and TV by the MSM, but not the "not guilty" verdict?? Why the difference? I'm not talking every day crap. If their charge is worthy enough for the NATIONAL media attention that IT garnered --- why isn't their "not guilty" or "dismissal" of that charge? They sure as heck felt that the average Canadian WANTED to HEAR about the charge didn't they? So your writing off of their non-attention to detail regarding outcomes of trials that were avail to them at the time of publication due to the "average Canadian not being interested" was already decided by the MSM as BEING in the average Canadians interest. Or is that only applicable when it suits their spinny story and can be 'overlooked' to enable the CF to be cast in a bad light with those average Canadians?

Oh, and don't confuse me for someone who doesn't pat enough attention to this -- I'd be one of the first to address a charge for drugs etc. I have ZERO problems with charging a member of the CF if that charge is warranted. I'm just tired of the slanted view that the MSM and artists on the left etc manage to pull off and paint for the average Canadian when these things happen. The slanting perpetuates the myths. I deal in facts -- not myths.

I completely agree that not every "not guilty" verdict is strung across national headlines ---- but then again neither is every person CHARGED with trafficing seeing that splashed acrross the front page. When they feel it worthy to splash the charge nationally (ie deeming IT to be in the public interest) ... why not the "Not guilty" or the "dismissal"?

But, the MSM DOES that for CF members ... then fails to follow up with the whole story, like they do for others such as OJ etc, or someone else found not guilty of an offense that was splashed across the headlines.

You're also right in that

There is no onus for news media to publish follow-ons -- its obligation to the truth is to the truth at time of publication.

It IS their job to check their facts, and the ONUS is on them to make that story as accurate as possible. And, the plain and simple FACTS of this matter are that, as per your own statement (and the subject of this thread in the first place!!), shown with MY emphasis added, is that they FAILED to comply with "the truth at the time of publication" -- which was that they only felt it necessary to mention the one found guilty last year (not mentioning the dismissal from last year even though they had that info) -- and as I said -- leaving THAT "truth" out is just as bad as outright lying. It is deliberatly misleading.

But, hey -- that doesn't play well to the spin on the left hand side that some people like to see. Articles meant to cater to the left and which perpetuate the myths. "Rampant drug abuse in the CF and in operational theatres etc etc etc" are perpetuated through exactly this kind of misleading article.

The left loves it -- it justifies their position even though it is factually incorrect.

You know when the MSM WILL print a story about a "not guilty" verdict for a CF member though? When PTSD is brought up as a defence ... and I'll tell you why ... because it then gives the MSM another reason to left-slant their article to query whether or not the CF/VAC is looking after it's pers in the hopes that it gives them some more ammo to use against the ruling party. Funny how that works. They'll damn well print anything discipline related as long as it shows us in a bad light, but be damned following up those stories with the "not guilty" verdicts of this "alleged" bad discipline when the facts come out in the trial or the Court Martial and are proven not to be the case.

Clearly, some people have agendas.

 

[Col.Steiner]

1+ for a DD for the pusher man.

BUT: I can say with some confidence that a majority of people who abuse drugs for the first time, were under the influence of a legal liquid.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.  alcohol and drugs.
[/quoteIt

So you are saying alcohol is kind of like a 'gateway' drug that leads us to harder drugs? We should patent this theory and get our names in textbooks all over the country.

 

[GUNS]

Talk about putting words in someones mouth. "gateway" , "hard drugs".

My point is the fact that alcohol lessens ones ability to make sound decisions about anything, drug abuse included.
I am a volunteer at a Rehab. Center and I have the opportunity to meet all sorts of individuals.
A vast majority of them who " tried soft drugs" for the first time were "having a few drinks" with their friends when someone produces a "joint" . Peer pressure and alcohol did the rest.
Would peer pressure alone be one of the  contributing factors to one trying drugs for the first time, yes. But, in almost all cases, alcohol quickened the individuals decision to bow to peer pressure.

Alcohol is not the "main" reason for drug abuse. Alcohol is one of many contributing factors.

1+ for a DD for the pusher man.

BUT: I can say with some confidence that a majority of people who abuse drugs for the first time, were under the influence of a legal liquid.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.  alcohol and drugs.
[/quoteIt

So you are saying alcohol is kind of like a 'gateway' drug that leads us to harder drugs? We should patent this theory and get our names in textbooks all over the country.

 

[George Wallace]

Let's not confuse the issue.  There is a BIG difference between having a few drinks with friends and USING/TRYING Drugs through PEER PRESURE and being a TRAFFICER/PUSHER. 

 

[geo]

Years and years ago, while I was still in HS & a young reservist, I was standing with with a group of friends when an US exchange student walked up and asked if anyone wanted to go outside for a "toke"....

My buddy, naive little SOB piped in.... Sure, what do you want to "talk" about. 

Priceless!