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

CFB Shilo soldier charged with beastality

  • Thread starter Thread starter jollyjacktar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
FFS, what is with some people.  >:(

Canadian Forces member charged with bestiality
CBC News
Posted: Oct 1, 2012 3:40 PM CT
Last Updated: Oct 1, 2012 4:35 PM CT

A Canadian Forces members from western Manitoba has been charged with bestiality and circulating obscene matter, according to RCMP.

RCMP in Brandon, Man., received a complaint last month that a 31-year-old man, who is a current member of Canadian Forces Base Shilo, had used a dating website to ask a woman to "participate in acts of bestiality," police said in a release Monday.

Military police searched the man's home near Brandon and seized a number of computers on Sept. 28, according to RCMP.  The man was charged with bestiality and procuring and circulating obscene matter.

He has since been released on strict conditions. He will appear in court at a later date.  RCMP did not name the man saying they wanted to protect members of his family, as well as the victim.  Police did not release any further details about the case.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/10/01/mb-bestiality-cfb-shilo-charge.html
 
Not sure but is it normal for MP's to search a home that is in a city with their own police force and RCMP?
 
Not really surprising; probably ran out of things to do. People will resort to weird things when their boredom threshold is reached.
 
Snaketnk said:
Not really surprising; probably ran out of things to do. People will resort to weird things when their boredom threshold is reached.

Seriously?  Then I'm thankful I've never been that bored....  ::)
 
Lone Wolf AT said:
Not sure but is it normal for MP's to search a home that is in a city with their own police force and RCMP?
Depending on the circumstances of the case and who has primary jurisdiction, yes.
 
Brandon is 28 km away in the second largest city of MB.  They don't have jurisdiction not under normal circumstances at least.  I'll go back to my lane now.
 
Lone Wolf AT said:
Brandon is 28 km away in the second largest city of MB.  They don't have jurisdiction not under normal circumstances at least.  I'll go back to my lane now.

It can depend on a number of factors such as where the offence was committed, who it was reported to (it was a cyber crime after all... who has primary jurisdiction on the internet?) Military Police often get called by civilians anytime a service member has committed an offence, regardless of primary jurisdiction. There is a military nexus as the alleged offender is a service member, subject to the NDA 24/7.
 
A reminder....

Under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, "any person charged with an offence has the right .... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal"
 
I think that's pretty remote JesseWZ.  We rarely, if ever, assume jurisdiction based solely on the offender being a member of the CF, unless there are pre-existing agreements for very low level offences.

This particular article does raise a couple of questions that make me wonder if it was, indeed, MP who carried out the search warrant though, not the least of which is the RCMP doing the news release.
 
JesseWZ said:
There is a military nexus as the alleged offender is a service member, subject to the NDA 24/7.

Not all service members are subject to the NDA 24/7.
 
SharkmanSIX said:
This article + your profile picture  :-X
Tell you what pal, when you've had some T.I. here and know me some, then you can take the piss.  Till then...
 
dapaterson said:
Not all service members are subject to the NDA 24/7.

True:
60. (1) The following persons are subject to the Code of Service Discipline:
(a) an officer or non-commissioned member of the regular force;
(b) an officer or non-commissioned member of the special force;
(c) an officer or non-commissioned member of the reserve force when the officer or non-commissioned member is
(i) undergoing drill or training, whether in uniform or not,
(ii) in uniform,
(iii) on duty,
(iv) [Repealed, 1998, c. 35, s. 19]
(v) called out under Part VI in aid of the civil power,
(vi) called out on service,
(vii) placed on active service,
(viii) in or on any vessel, vehicle or aircraft of the Canadian Forces or in or on any defence establishment or work for defence,
(ix) serving with any unit or other element of the regular force or the special force, or
(x) present, whether in uniform or not, at any drill or training of a unit or other element of the Canadian Forces;
(d) subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as the Governor in Council may by regulations prescribe, a person who, pursuant to law or pursuant to an agreement between Canada and the state in whose armed forces the person is serving, is attached or seconded as an officer or non-commissioned member to the Canadian Forces;
(e) a person, not otherwise subject to the Code of Service Discipline, who is serving in the position of an officer or non-commissioned member of any force raised and maintained outside Canada by Her Majesty in right of Canada and commanded by an officer of the Canadian Forces;
(f) a person, not otherwise subject to the Code of Service Discipline, who accompanies any unit or other element of the Canadian Forces that is on service or active service in any place;
(g) subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as the Governor in Council may by regulations prescribe, a person attending an institution established under section 47;
(h) an alleged spy for the enemy;
(i) a person, not otherwise subject to the Code of Service Discipline, who, in respect of any service offence committed or alleged to have been committed by the person, is in civil custody or in service custody; and
(j) a person, not otherwise subject to the Code of Service Discipline, while serving with the Canadian Forces under an engagement with the Minister whereby the person agreed to be subject to that Code.

Assuming that the accused is a member of the regular force, then he or she would be 24/7 subject to the code.


Eeep!  Edit to add source here:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-19.html#h-38NDA
 
milnews.ca said:
A reminder....

Under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, "any person charged with an offence has the right .... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal"

In addition to that just a gentle reminder that this case may attract a lot of attention from the media and public and that usually leads to them showing up here looking for quotes etc. Be very careful of what you post. As of now this thread will be closely moderated. STAFF
 
JesseWZ said:
.... There is a military nexus as the alleged offender is a service member, subject to the NDA 24/7.

I think the 24/7 rule merely means that the member (assuming he's Reg F or a Class B or C reservist) is subject to the Code of Service Discipline. It does not establish a military nexus.

Military nexus is/was a legal doctrine requiring that in order for a military court to have jurisdiction to try an offender the offence had to have a real service connection. The principle has changed over the last four decades as the laws changed. There is a good and fairly recent analysis of the law delivered by Justice Letourneau of the CMAC to Yale in 2011 at this link http://www.law.yale.edu/The_Status_of_the_Military_Nexus_Doctrine_in_Canada.pdf

In short the civilian and military courts have concurrent jurisdiction and the doctrine of military nexus may no longer apply. The court clearly recognized that by being tried by court martial, an accused can lose certain fundamental rights which he would not lose if tried by a civilian court. These are systemic issues and I won't go through them here but Letourneau does a pretty good job of summarizing them in his paper.

I'm not generally a fan of Letourneau. I don't agree with a lot of his judgements but in this case I tend to be on his side when he says "That being said, since military and civilian courts have concurrent jurisdiction over ordinary criminal law offences, how should it be determined which court should exercise it in a given case?  A reasonable observer, well informed, would be justified in asking the following questions.  Why should a soldier charged with a serious ordinary criminal law offence, committed entirely in civilian-like circumstances, be deprived of his constitutional right to a jury trial as well as the substantive and procedural rights given to a civilian before civilian courts?  Merely because he is a soldier?  Since he risks his life for our collective benefit, should he not be entitled to, if not a better, at least an equal treatment before and under the law?  Should not the rule under the Constitution be equal justice for one and for all rather than equal justice for all except for one who is a soldier?"

The news article is light on facts but it appears this individual may have during his off duty time attempted to aid or abet another civilian to commit bestiality (incidentally its bestiality in the CCC not beastality). There may also have been pornographic material on his civilian computer located at his home in Brandon.

In those circumstances (if in fact they are correct) I would think that the more appropriate investigators should be the Brandon Police Service and the local provincial courts should try the case.

By the way I've lived over thirty years in total in Brandon and Shilo and there certainly are other things to do there. On the other hand I left there six years ago because I just couldn't handle the nine months of sub zero snow and icy winds followed by three months of mosquitoes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top