Convicted of Assault with a Wpn - Conviction Upheld

[greentoblue]

Quote:  "A Canadian Forces soldier who cocked a loaded rifle and threatened to shoot a buddy in a drunken rage while on duty in Afghanistan has lost a bid to have the charges thrown out ... Court heard Mills was promoted to Master Corporal after the incident. He is still in the military and can be kicked out due to the conviction."
- http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/12/28/12282741-sun.html

I am horrified that he was 1.  drunk in theatre 2.  he got promoted AFTER the incident (I have a hard time believing that his theatre PER would have had "Acceptable" marked for his On/Off Duty Conduct) 3.  he refused to accept responsibility for his actions. 

 

[Franko]

Yeah, I remember this idiot. As for a battlefield, it was December 2005 and we just concluded the move between Kabul to Kandahar and his element/ sub unit was not even part of it.

Regards

 

[PuckChaser]

Its idiots like this that make our tours dry.

 

[Jarnhamar]

More arguments for the awesomeness of PERs I suppose.

 

[armyvern]

More arguments for the awesomeness of PERs I suppose.

Depends upon how you look at it; in this case, the fact that the PER system worked as intended is cited by the JAG as a reason that the MCpls conviction was not thrown out. Remember, even you are innocent until proven guilty - that is the law.

The incident happened in 2005, the charges were laid in 2007 and the conviction occured in 2008. No mention of the charge can be made on the member's PER until he has "been convicted" of a service (or CC) offense - them's the rules and there's nothing wrong with them. Because, just like you and every other Canadian citizen, he is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Now that that has occured,  the conviction will be noted on the PER ... and appropriate action taken by the CF as they see necessary given the nature/severity of the offense.

His theatre PER is moot ... who's to say that it didn't suck? Who's to say that the member wasn't promoted based upon his annual PER recd prior to deployment (which may very well have been 'outstanding') and from that merit board instead of a merit board and/or PER which occured after his deployment?

 

[Tow Tripod]

I'm wondering if any administrative action like C&P was actioned as well? Some people should know that they turn into instant **shole when they add alcohol.

 

[PMedMoe]

Yeah, I remember this idiot. As for a battlefield, it was December 2005 and we just concluded the move between Kabul to Kandahar and his element/ sub unit was not even part of it.

They must have kept it fairly quiet in camp, because I don't remember this that well.  Although, I do recall being more scared of new incoming personnel than rocket attacks.  :

 

[Franko]

They must have kept it fairly quiet in camp, because I don't remember this that well.  Although, I do recall being more scared of new incoming personnel than rocket attacks.  :

Yeah, Roto 1 was special alright, as in wearing a hockey helmet. Troops from that Roto are still making the news.          :

I had a prediction years ago that I had posted....guess what. It came true.

Regards

 

[TheHead]

Yeah, Roto 1 was special alright, as in wearing a hockey helmet. Troops from that Roto are still making the news.          :

I had a prediction years ago that I had posted....guess what. It came true.

Regards

And what was that prediction. I'm a little confused here are you talking about Op Archer Roto 1? 

 

[brihard]

Depends upon how you look at it; in this case, the fact that the PER system worked as intended is cited by the JAG as a reason that the MCpls conviction was not thrown out. Remember, even you are innocent until proven guilty - that is the law.

The incident happened in 2005, the charges were laid in 2007 and the conviction occured in 2008. No mention of the charge can be made on the member's PER until he has "been convicted" of a service (or CC) offense - them's the rules and there's nothing wrong with them. Because, just like you and every other Canadian citizen, he is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Now that that has occured,  the conviction will be noted on the PER ... and appropriate action taken by the CF as they see necessary given the nature/severity of the offense.

His theatre PER is moot ... who's to say that it didn't suck? Who's to say that the member wasn't promoted based upon his annual PER recd prior to deployment (which may very well have been 'outstanding') and from that merit board instead of a merit board and/or PER which occured after his deployment?

Absolutely fair point about the 'innocent until proven guilty' and the PER/promotion issue. I hadn't looked at it that way when I initially read this and shook my head at what I perceived to be sheer stupidity.

 

[Franko]

And what was that prediction. I'm a little confused here are you talking about Op Archer Roto 1?

Let's just say I made one after the 30th ND in 2.5 weeks happened....during the RIP.

Regards

 

[Jarnhamar]

Remember, even you are innocent until proven guilty - that is the law.

Ya but 9 and a half times out of 10 Im guilty