OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,350
- Points
- 1,260
We have a presumption of innocence here in Canada….but not for high ranking people.
You can totally have an admin review done leading to someone's release for something that occurred, for which no criminal prosecution happened. Different standards, different thresholds etc can lead to different results.
What are you even talking about? I've done both, and only got in any kind of actual trouble in the military, but neither were really a great idea (despite being right both occasions).Civilian calls boss an idiot: gets fired immediately
Military member does same: "Why is she being put on remedial measures? She hasn't been convicted of insubordination! <insert sounds of misplaced indignation>"
What are you even talking about? I've done both, and only got in any kind of actual trouble in the military, but neither were really a great idea (despite being right both occasions).
You are acting like there is some kind of monolithic standard in the military and every single civilian company has an identical standard that is 180 degree difference. I wish my world was as simple as the one in your mind. I saw a unionized guy in a steel mill almost kill a whole shift twice, cause 10s of millions in damages and shut down the entire plant on both occasions not get fired. That's objectively much worse then these allegations, if you want a totally random, non-sequitor example that, like yours, has nothing to do with the subject.
And because our personal conclusions have no real value, they are worth just that. The criminal justice system and, to a different degree, the administrative 'justice system' has rules. How individuals come to their conclusions do not. When it comes down to impacting someone's freedom, finances, employment, etc., I'll go with the systems that have rules and leave the pitch fork mobs to their own illusions.Neither I, nor anyone else here, is the criminal justice system incarnate, and we're thus free to come to our own conclusions, without relying upon the results of a rather flawed process.
And because our personal conclusions have no real value, they are worth just that. The criminal justice system and, to a different degree, the administrative 'justice system' has rules. How individuals come to their conclusions do not. When it comes down to impacting someone's freedom, finances, employment, etc., I'll go with the systems that have rules and leave the pitch fork mobs to their own illusions.
You mean like trudeau and the grit government?And because our personal conclusions have no real value, they are worth just that. The criminal justice system and, to a different degree, the administrative 'justice system' has rules. How individuals come to their conclusions do not. When it comes down to impacting someone's freedom, finances, employment, etc., I'll go with the systems that have rules and leave the pitch fork mobs to their own illusions.
I debated responding to this for a bit.That's a bit of a strange view. If the evidence isn't admissible then he can't be guilty of anything. The last time I looked our justice system considered everyone innocent until proven guilty based on admissible evidence and not on rumours coming out by leakers. I'll be honest, even the drivel reported in the press left me unimpressed that there could have been a conviction.
It was very clear than LtGen Whelan used his position to have a subordinates rating inflated, the subordinate who he had had an inappropriate relationship with.
I completely understand your position. And its not that I disagree with the concept in a general sense at all. In criminal law "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high standard. Below that is the standard of whether a given situation is more probable than not on a balance of probabilities. Between the two is the grey area where, while its more probable that someone did the thing accused of, the evidence falls short of the point of moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, so that you can attach criminal liability to the act.I debated responding to this for a bit.
Nope; not now, never was.I can't even believe there is an argument occurring about whether or not you can judge a case for yourself and opine on the outcome of a court proceeding in an open justice system in a democratic country - this is peak "I'm in the CAF, I'm a fucking lemming" if I've ever seen it.
There will always be those who think anyone found not guilty of an offence - whether they did it or not - are guilty but got away with it."Not proven" is chickensh!t not very far removed from "We think you did it, but can't prove it" and "Hey there, wear this accusation for the rest of your life! Sucks to be you!". People are free to hold opinions based on publicly available facts, but so much sanctimony gets tied to whatever courts say that it's best to have only "guilty" and "not guilty".
I have had a few cases in my career that were exactly this. I "knew" or "felt" the subject was guilty but the evidence either didn't exist, was unobtainable or was not legally admissible for a variety of reasons. Was I unhappy? Yes. But that's the system we work within and I would hope that, in a similar case where I might be the accused, that I would be given the same consideration."Not proven" is chickensh!t not very far removed from "We think you did it, but can't prove it" and "Hey there, wear this accusation for the rest of your life! Sucks to be you!". People are free to hold opinions based on publicly available facts, but so much sanctimony gets tied to whatever courts say that it's best to have only "guilty" and "not guilty".
I have had a few cases in my career that were exactly this. I "knew" or "felt" the subject was guilty but the evidence either didn't exist, was unobtainable or was not legally admissible for a variety of reasons. Was I unhappy? Yes. But that's the system we work within and I would hope that, in a similar case where I might be the accused, that I would be given the same consideration.
I am not a cop but I do ensure that those who are incarcerated don't get out until they have been lawfully released. Yes there are those dumb enough to not only try to keep getting away with it but adding other offences on to it. Like riding a bicycle on a sidewalk, jaywalking etcI usually found that the subjects in such cases were dumb enough to think they could keep 'getting away with it' and were subsequently formally nailed later on....