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

Judge blasts acquitted reservists

Status
Not open for further replies.

ex_coelis

Guest
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
10
'Canada deserves better ... you should be ashamed of yourselves,' men told after jury's assault verdict

Feb 26, 2009 04:30 AM
Comments on this story  (3)
Betsy Powell
Courts Bureau


The Canadian military should take a "sober second look" at the continuing affiliation of three "callous" and "cowardly" reservists after they were acquitted yesterday of aggravated assault, a visibly angry judge said after excusing jurors from his courtroom.

"Your behaviour was nothing short of disgraceful," Superior Court Justice Robert Clark thundered.

After retiring Tuesday night, the jury returned late yesterday afternoon and found Ryan Crossman, 23, Ryan Livesey, 23, and Sean Jones, 21, not guilty.

While noting a jury's verdict reigns supreme, Clark said he had also listened as the men testified during the two-week trial.

And what the judge said he heard were accounts showing the three men had little regard for the sanctity of human life because each admitted leaving Hesam Zeinal-Zedeh, 25, lying unconscious on Richmond St. W. with a fractured skull.

Prosecutor Lorna Spencer alleged that the injury was the result of a "vicious three-on-one fight."

But each denied starting the altercation. They blamed Zeinal-Zedeh for being the aggressor because he was miffed that one of them had asked his then-girlfriend, Nasim Mahani, for directions. They testified Zeinal-Zedeh punched Jones in the back of the head, prompting Livesey to swing at him and knock him to the ground.

The defence argued he had fractured his skull when he hit his head on the pavement and not from the kicks to the head the prosecution alleged the men had delivered.

"Canada deserves better ... you should be ashamed of yourselves," Clark told the three as they stood silently in front of him.

Clark said defence lawyer Michael Owoh made a wise decision not to introduce photographs of the men taken earlier in the evening because then the jury would have seen them for what they were, "a gang of drunken louts."

The three naval reservists had just completed basic military training at CFB Borden, north of Toronto, the day before they took in a Blue Jays game and headed to the Entertainment District.

During the trial, Zeinal-Zedeh and Mahani testified they were minding their own business sharing a sandwich when they were approached by three men around 11:30 p.m. on July 14, 2006. Both testified the trio warned the couple they were military personnel.

Clark said he was appalled the three had tried "intimidate" the couple by "boasting" about being in the military.

Zeinal-Zedeh, 25, is a renovator from Richmond Hill. He spent five days recovering in hospital, suffered severe memory loss and for months walked with a cane.

After Clark finished blasting the men, they hugged their parents and shook hands with their lawyers before leaving the court.

http://www.thestar.com/article/593269
 
Interesting how you never hear these comments from judges when they address drug dealers, child molesters or gang members.

Edit: Look at the third comment on the article....a reference to the CAR, that was fast. It's like Goodwin's Law, but replace 'Nazi' with 'Airborne' and you've got the CF's own little version of it whenever violent criminal charges are laied against CF members.
 
While I agree that is a terrible double standard to see judges speak harshly to CF members and not to other criminals I am still deeply disturbed by the events that took place here.  To make matters worse, one of the members is from my unit.  It will be interesting to see what happens now.
 
Piper said:
Interesting how you never hear these comments from judges when they address drug dealers, child molesters or gang members.

First off Judges do like to give lectures to whoever comes in front of them, you just don't hear about it in the media.  You can't exactly report on every trial that is held.  Second, being trained in the disciplined application of force and having taken the oaths we have, I have no issues what-so-ever with being held to a higher standard.
 
Piper said:
Interesting how you never hear these comments from judges when they address drug dealers, child molesters or gang members.

I'm sure the judge makes them, they just aren't as "newsworthy".
rolleyes.gif
 
I agree with one of the comments above. I was sitting in court once (one of my troops was in court) and I listened to the judge jack a few dirt bags up. She came on to one person for having the gall to chew gum in her courtroom and another one she said in round-about way cut the crap and find a lawyer already.

Since these men were members of the forces, thats why they are being scrutinized. The Canadian public has higher expectations of our behaviour than they do of regular joe blow.

 
... gotta remember it hasn't beel all that long ago that some members of the QOR kicked & pummelled to death a homeless person after a night of heavy drinking.
 
geo said:
... gotta remember it hasn't beel all that long ago that some members of the QOR kicked & pummelled to death a homeless person after a night of heavy drinking.

MODERATOR POST- and that subject has been debated and debated over and over again on this site and doesn't
                            require rehashing.
                            Bruce

                         
 
?  Umm... Bruce - my post had nothing to do with wanting to rehash and beat a dead horse but, given that the trial of Brian Deganis, Jeffery Hall and Mountaz Ibrahim happened less than a year ago, I believe that it is pertinent.
 
I don't know what the debate is about. They were found not guilty by a jury of their peers. Personal feelings and bias are moot. It's over, let it go.
 
What frustrates me the most is that they were just newly graduated and in my eyes aren't even "soldiers" yet though they managed to tarnish the reputation of the whole CF.

I would think a non-renewal of contract would be a great idea for these young gentleman.
 
If they were found not guilty by the courts I think it would be kind of hard not sustifiy  not offering them a new contract when their current one expires.
 
... would also be grounds for a grievance that they would win.
 
Bzzliteyr said:
What frustrates me the most is that they were just newly graduated and in my eyes aren't even "soldiers" yet though they managed to tarnish the reputation of the whole CF.

I would think a non-renewal of contract would be a great idea for these young gentleman.

Once again, they are being judged after being found not guilty. Twelve people who heard all the evidence presented by both sides don't agree they desreve to be held culpable. No one here has a right to judge based on scant, biased info gleened from the media. As despicable and atrocious as it sounds they have been exonerated. The Charter and the law on their side. Don't like it? Change the system.

Should this turn into any more of a witch hunt, the thread will be locked.

Milnet.ca Staff
 
geo said:
?  Umm... Bruce - my post had nothing to do with wanting to rehash and beat a dead horse but, given that the trial of Brian Deganis, Jeffery Hall and Mountaz Ibrahim happened less than a year ago, I believe that it is pertinent.

It's "media" pertinent ("soldiers! fighting!"), which is why the Toronto Star, which looooves that sort of thing, keeps re-hashing it. But the cases are fundamentally different. The QOR case was completely inexcusable, whereas the guys in this case were fighting back against someone who punched one of them in the back of the head. I'd be interested to hear what the judge said to him, but of course you'll never be able to find it.

dangerboy said:
If they were found not guilty by the courts I think it would be kind of hard not sustifiy  not offering them a new contract when their current one expires.
As far as I can tell from Outlook, only one of them (the guy who tried to break up the fight) is still in.
 
Two things:

(1) Reservists are generally enrolled for an indefinite period, so there usually isn't a contract renewal per se.

(2) That being said, acquittal at trial does not necessarily mean there will be no repercussions.  Any criminal trial results in a review board, regardless of whether the individuals were found guilty.  Depending on the nature of the findings in court and the review authority, individuals may be released from the CF (generally 2a, "by reason of unsatisfactory civil conduct, or conviction of an offence by a civil court, of a serious nature not related to the performance of his duties but reflecting discredit on the Service;")
 
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/589825
I have read this write up on the testimony from two of the accused.  It is a story that I can relate to & it could / would have happened to me - should I have nudged the young lady and asked for these directions : "where the hot spots are, where should we be?".. The boyfriend woulda interpreted those to be a really, really sad pick up line... and responded accordingly - as only a jealous boyfriend would.
 
hamiltongs said:
As far as I can tell from Outlook, only one of them (the guy who tried to break up the fight) is still in.


Not everyone has an Outlook account.
 
Cleared Hot said:
Second, being trained in the disciplined application of force.....

I'm not sure that three naval reservists, having "just completed basic military training at CFB Borden" should be considered "trained in the disciplined application of force."


I was going to post a pic of "Kung Fu Panda" as a sly reference to the Navy's 'black & whites,' but I restrained myself.  ;D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top