Military Officer charged with child pornography

[GIJANE]

Military officer charged with possession of child pornography
   



OTTAWA (CP) - A military officer has been charged with possession of child pornography, following an investigation by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.

Capt. Marc-Antoine Saint-Jacques, who is based in Ottawa, was charged after investigators and Defence computer analysts found a large number of child-porn images on a military laptop and personal computer, the department said in a news release Thursday.

"These charges are a direct result of the investigative efforts of the NIS to prevent and deter this criminal behaviour within the military community," said Col. Dorothy Cooper, the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the military chief of police.

Saint-Jacques is to go before a court martial in Gatineau, Que., starting June 27.



Disgusting pig!

Jane

 

[Gunner]

:gunner:   

Military officer charged with possession of child pornography

 

[mbhabfan]

should be shot to death with a ball of his own s%$t!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ark]

If those allegations are in fact correct, I can only hope he gets a lengthy posting to club Ed.

 

[CallOfDuty]

What a sick f**k.  I just dont understand people like that.  ???

 

[Big Foot]

Absolutely disgraceful. I hope he gets dishonorably discharged and sent to general population in a civvy prison. (If guilty of course)

 

[Bin-Rat]

Just doing some checking, and looked at the Calendar for court martials.. And he is listed but why do they only have he down for 1 charge.. Is it because he is a officer ???? Like his sheet say this...

CHARGE  1. S. 130 NDA, possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4) CCC).

Now somewhere is history there was a private who got charged as well basiclly for the same thing, and this is what his sheet said..

CHARGE 1. (alternate to charge 2) s. 130 NDA, possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4) CCC).
            2. (alternate to charge 1) s. 130 NDA, accessed child pornography (s. 163.1(4.1) CCC).
            3. (alternate to charge 4) s. 130 NDA, possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4) CCC).
            4. (alternate to charge 3) s. 130 NDA, accessed child pornography (s. 163.1(4.1) CCC).

Is Mr Captain not going to get the Accessed one added as well ???????????????????
To Be in Possession you must of accessed it Right...
Hope they don't find a legal loop hole and get this Dweeb off....

 

[Navalsnpr]

I'm still amazed that the majority of pornography offences within the service tend to be officers....

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Point??????

MOD NOTE:
Lets not make this a pissing contest.

 

[kincanucks]

Point??????

MOD NOTE:
Lets not make this a pissing contest.

No please I would enjoy reading the facts to back that one up.

 

[WATCHDOG-81]

"Is Mr Captain not going to get the Accessed one added as well ?
To Be in Possession you must of accessed it Right..."


No, for the purposes of subsection (4.1), a person accesses child pornography who knowingly causes child pornography to be viewed by, or transmitted to, himself or herself.  Also, charges will differ from even similar-fact cases depending on numerous factors including the ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of individual offences.  Accordingly, if the prosecutor does not feel that he/she can achieve that threshold, they cannot, rather, should not, prosecute for that offence.

 

[kincanucks]

Just doing some checking, and looked at the Calendar for court martials.. And he is listed but why do they only have he down for 1 charge.. Is it because he is a officer ???? Like his sheet say this...

CHARGE    1. S. 130 NDA, possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4) CCC).

Now somewhere is history there was a private who got charged as well basiclly for the same thing, and this is what his sheet said..

CHARGE 1. (alternate to charge 2) s. 130 NDA, possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4) CCC).
            2. (alternate to charge 1) s. 130 NDA, accessed child pornography (s. 163.1(4.1) CCC).
            3. (alternate to charge 4) s. 130 NDA, possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4) CCC).
            4. (alternate to charge 3) s. 130 NDA, accessed child pornography (s. 163.1(4.1) CCC).

Is Mr Captain not going to get the Accessed one added as well ???????????????????
To Be in Possession you must of accessed it Right...
Hope they don't find a legal loop hole and get this Dweeb off....

Yes they must be cutting him some slack because he is an officer.

 

[Navalsnpr]

I can see that this is going to be a hot topic....

Hope everyone keeps their stick on the ice!!

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I think you gave the first slash,
Kincanucks asked a reasonable question, do you have any facts to back up that statement?             
...or is it a two-minute penalty?

 

[Navalsnpr]

do you have any facts to back up that statement?
...or is it a two-minute penalty?

In 2002 - 2004 I worked in the IT field during a posting. Any incidents within the CF were brought to our attention. The first example would be of the senior officer out west who couldn't court martial an NCM as he stated he was guilty of the same offence. That was a huge media event. I've not heard any other make the national news media since then.

[Moderator edit:  The example cited is misleadng - it did not involve child pornography]

 

[kincanucks]

If he is convicted then he is a piece of shit that deserves to publicly castrated and branded with a P on his forehead.  It doesn't matter whether he is an officer or NCM.  Unfortunately, he is a member of the CF.

 

[WATCHDOG-81]

I'm still amazed that the majority of pornography offences within the service tend to be officers....

Even if you are statistically correct, you would be referring to pornography offences identified and/or prosecuted, not actual pornography offences committed.  Furthermore, you would also have to look at the reasons why officers would tend to get caught more often.  Could it be that they generally have more access to DND computers than NCMs?  I am not offering excuses or a theory, just food for thought as statistics can be easily manipulated.

Also, just because a RDP has been published with one charge, that does not mean that more charges will not be added.  This happens quite often, especially in a complex or technical investigation where it could take longer to obtain evidence of another included or lesser offence.  Eg. A warrant to obtain connection information from an ISP and processing the data obtained through the warrant...evidence that you would need to prove "accessed pornography".  

 

[the 48th regulator]

This pissing match is just plain perverted.

Who the EFF cares if he was an officer, it makes no difference!  The worm has committed the most Despicable offense to mankind and we are sitting here debating officers vs NCM's.

Give yer heads a bucking shake man.

tess

 

[Navalsnpr]

you would also have to look at the reasons why officers would tend to get caught more often.  Could it be that they generally have more access to DND computers than NCMs?

I do beleive that the majority of the offences were committed using laptops. Most NCM's have a hard time getting issued laptops, whereas Officers have an easier time getting them. That could probably the reason for the higher rate. Additionally, the firewall blocks quite a few sites for us, preventing that type of material to reach our desktops.

On another note, regardless if the person is an Officer or an NCM, they should be charged with the same offense(s) and dealt with harshly.

 

[Infanteer]

Actually, not wanting to stir the shit pot, but I was struck with the same question when I read it.

In his defence, he said "I'm amazed" and not "See, I told you so...".

However, when I thought on it, I figured it was the access to DND IT, which is most likely the reason why.

Now, can we get back to describing the punishment for this pervert?  :threat: