Charges in Joshua Caleb Baker 2010 death

[OldSolduer]

So what does a severe reprimand mean for an Officer?

In theory he should not progress beyond captain rank.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Prosecutors are seeking a harsher sentence for a veteran Canadian Forces reservist convicted in a deadly Afghanistan training accident.

Darryl Watts was found guilty in December of unlawfully causing bodily harm and negligent performance of military duty, but not guilty of manslaughter. He was demoted two ranks to lieutenant from major and given a severe reprimand.

Watts filed an appeal of both his sentence and conviction last month.

But the director of military prosecutions has filed a cross-appeal in the case. The prosecution had requested jail time for Watts during sentencing arguments as well as his dismissal with disgrace from the Canadian Forces.

"Yes, the Crown will be asking the Court Martial Appeal Court to substitute a greater punishment in lieu of the sentence imposed by the court martial," prosecutor Maj. Tony Tamburro confirmed in an email to The Canadian Press ....

The Canadian Press, 10 Apr 13

 

[McG]

It seems Lt Watts is back in court now on his appeal.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Lawyer+tells+court+martial+Calgary+soldier+Darryl+Watts+conviction+totally+unreasonable/9699864/story.html

 

[Tibbson]

It seems Lt Watts is back in court now on his appeal.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Lawyer+tells+court+martial+Calgary+soldier+Darryl+Watts+conviction+totally+unreasonable/9699864/story.html

As is his right but from what I know of the file I think he got off light as it was.  I also find it telling that the lower ranks involved accepted their part in the matter and their punishment but the officer in charge is the one saying he was hard done by.  He failed at leadership at the time and continues to fail in leadership now IMHO.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

It seems Lt Watts is back in court now on his appeal.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Lawyer+tells+court+martial+Calgary+soldier+Darryl+Watts+conviction+totally+unreasonable/9699864/story.html

:facepalm:

 

[vonGarvin]

I. Hate. Lawyers. I've been overall  responsible for the safety of ranges more complex. So have many in here...

 

[Privateer]

The prosecutor is a lawyer too.

 

[MJP]

Lt. Watts seems to be using the same defense as that Col that got off on an ND by saying he didn't get any training.  I would say I hope it backfires on him but after the Col was found not guilty I can't say I would be surprised if they did the same here.

 

[vonGarvin]

The prosecutor is a lawyer too.

Also a scumbag by association. They are both involved in sophistry, which has bugger all to do with the truth or justice.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It looks like they are saying  the claymore was placed  in the ground backwards.  I wonder if they had ARSOs.

 

[Tibbson]

Also a scumbag by association. They are both involved in sophistry, which has bugger all to do with the truth or justice.

And that is where people who don't understand the process start to have problems with it.  Truth and justice are only two aspects of the process and its always been that way.  If that was all there was to it then people would not get defence lawyers and they would be forced to testify against themselves in court.  As much as I don't like it, a defence lawyer's job is to ensure his/her clients rights are protected as well and to raise reasonable doubt in regards to the prosecutions case.  They have no obligation to prove the innocence of the accused.  No accused has to prove that in any case.  The prosecution says something and the defence has the obligation to question it where questions can be raised.  After that, who ever has the better argument in keeping with the law often wins.  We all know OJ did it but under the law once the prosecution had him try on the gloves, and it was found those gloves no longer fit most likely because they shrunk when they dried, all bets were off and the prosecution lost it's case. 

Like it or not, and I most certainly don't, if his appeal is accepted it will be because it's felt there are compelling legal arguments for it to be accepted.  If there is, I don't have a problem with that although I'm sure its going to be a reason that's not going to sit well with me.  I DO have a problem with an officer (or SNCO for that matter) who is placed in leadership position and who denies responsibility when things go wrong. 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

As you're very aware the C19 does say which side faces the enemy.

It looks like they are saying  the claymore was placed  in the ground backwards.  I wonder if they had also.

 

[Jarnhamar]

As you're very aware the C19 does say which side faces the enemy.

I sure am.

 

[OldSolduer]

It looks like they are saying  the claymore was placed  in the ground backwards.  I wonder if they had ARSOs.

Asking one more time: what were the MCpls and Cpls doing at the time of the range.....


By the look if it videoing for uploading to YouTube later.

 

[Tibbson]

Asking one more time: what were the MCpls and Cpls doing at the time of the range.....


By the look if it videoing for uploading to YouTube later.

Yes, videoing, smoking, laughing, watching.....but most disturbing of all they were waiting for direction and correction from their (gasp!) leadership.  Should they have known better?  Sure they should have but this was also a training opportunity for them.  An opportunity for them to be trained properly on all aspects of the weapon system including correct safety procedures.

 

[OldSolduer]

Yes, videoing, smoking, laughing, watching.....but most disturbing of all they were waiting for direction and correction from their (gasp!) leadership.  Should they have known better?  Sure they should have but this was also a training opportunity for them.  An opportunity for them to be trained properly on all aspects of the weapon system including correct safety procedures.

MCpls are leaders and they should have ordered the troops under hard cover. I am sure the range safety brief would have covered this.

Leadership was absent on all levels.

 

[Tibbson]

I couldn't agree with you more. 

 

[Privateer]

From The Globe and Mail:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/soldier-convicted-in-fatal-training-accident-in-afghanistan-wins-appeal/article20692226/

A Calgary soldier convicted for his part in a fatal training accident in Afghanistan has won his appeal.

The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada has entered a finding of not guilty on Lieutenant Darryl Watts’s conviction for negligent performance of duty.

It also ordered new trials on a conviction of unlawfully causing bodily harm and a second count of negligent performance of duty.

 

[OldSolduer]

From The Globe and Mail:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/soldier-convicted-in-fatal-training-accident-in-afghanistan-wins-appeal/article20692226/

:facepalm: Jesus wept.....

 

[Nfld Sapper]