Two CF members arrested in Petawawa over Cpl Bloggins Facebook page

[Jarnhamar]

I believe, if one actually checked, the other page that went up was called "Master Corporal Bloggins" *thus out-ranking him  , not posing as him ... and had some posts about "anti-bullying, stand up to bullies" etc.  I viewed it once and it resembled nothing as crass and hateful such as the "Corporal Bloggins" page did.

Sadly I don't think thats the case. Someone was pretending to be Cpl Bloggins and posting hateful shit all over the place including memorial pages in order to stir up hate against bloggins.

The people arrested were probably just admins from the page.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As stated....nothing about that page is illegal outside the CF.

Illegal is in the eye of the Crown Attorney

 

[armyvern]

As stated....nothing about that page is illegal outside the CF.

The times they are a changing ...

Sung by a much richer (and talented) individual than I.

Hopefully, in the spring:

New cyberbullying laws should pass this spring, Justice Minister says

And there is this already:  ... scroll down the below link to the "Traditional Offences" section and read the "Intimidation" bit ...

They put this woman's address on their page. They googlemapped her residence and posted a still shot taken from the street of her residence and threatened to put "boots on the ground" there.  They put her wife's name, workplace and trade out there ... walking a pretty fine damn line there with "intimidation" n'est pas?  The section after that is "Criminal Harassment and Threats of all Kind" - give it a read too.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/qc/pub/cybercrime/cybercrime-eng.htm

 

[RCDtpr]

I wasn't aware of the case of them posting the woman's address etc....intimidation might stick however if the boots on the ground statement is the only one made....it's too vague and I doubt a conviction in court would result.

Criminal harassment, I can assure you through personal experience, will not fly.  I've tried laying an information for similar Facebook bullying......Crown wouldn't touch it.

As for the new cyber bullying laws....all well and good....but as of now they aren't law so it's really a moot point.

 

[The Bread Guy]

“The identity of the two CAF members arrested is protected under the Privacy Act.”

My, how things have changed in just over three years.

 

[armyvern]

I wasn't aware of the case of them posting the woman's address etc....intimidation might stick however if the boots on the ground statement is the only one made....it's too vague and I doubt a conviction in court would result.

Criminal harassment, I can assure you through personal experience, will not fly.  I've tried laying charges for similar Facebook bullying......Crown wouldn't touch it.

As recceguy pointed out: Crown wouldn't touch it in your case. As far as I know, this is not your case.

As for the new cyber bullying laws....all well and good....but as of now they aren't law so it's really a moot point.

Ergo the reason for my little ditty of a song and the "Hopefully, in the spring". Sorry it went over your head.

 

[semper]

I wasn't aware of the case of them posting the woman's address etc....intimidation might stick.

They did, thus they deserve to be held accountable for their actions.

Sadly, very similar actions were then perpetrated by their victim when another individual informed her what they'd done.

It's an incredibly vicious cycle and no one's blameless in it.

 

[RCDtpr]

As recceguy pointed out: Crown wouldn't touch it in your case. As far as I know, this is not your case.

Ergo the reason for my little ditty of a song and the "Hopefully, in the spring". Sorry it went over your head.

You're right...this isn't my case.  But I've seen cases where the bullying was far more vicious and personal than this and because the elements of the offence were not met...crown wouldn't touch them.

There's a reason new laws are being put into place...the main one being that the current criminal code doesn't cover cyber bullying or really any kind of cyber crimes such as this.  If the police could actually lay informations and get convictions with what we have now...the new laws wouldn't be necessary.

 

[armyvern]

...

I'm not looking for any kind of argument etc...I've said my piece.....evidently you have much more experience than I do in the criminal justice system and how courts work.....I apologize.

Probably not, but I was subpoenaed at my wedding rehearsal dinner (try explaining that to the grandparents etc).  :blotto:  I've just seen the Crown decide to charge in one instance, but not in another when the circumstances were eerily similar. It just depends sometimes.

I have been on either side of the NDA however; sigh, so now I pose as a grown-up.  ;D

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You're right...this isn't my case.  But I've seen cases where the bullying was far more vicious and personal than this and because the elements of the offence were not met...crown wouldn't touch them.

There's a reason new laws are being put into place...the main one being that the current criminal code doesn't cover cyber bullying or really any kind of cyber crimes such as this.  If the police could actually lay informations and get convictions with what we have now...the new laws wouldn't be necessary.

I'm not looking for any kind of argument etc...I've said my piece.....evidently you have much more experience than I do in the criminal justice system and how courts work.....I apologize.

Your obviously not cognizant of the Crown charging gun owners for things there is no hope of the Crown winning. Drag them though preliminaries, rack up lawyers fees, time, stress, etc. In the end, they make it so onerous most plead out, take a ten year weapons prohibition and have all their firearms confiscated to stop the suffering. Typically, when they fight it up to trial the Crown drops the charges. Doesn't help the poor bastard that's had his life ruined and spent 10's of thousands trying to win against unlawful charges.

The Crown doesn't need to take you to trial to ruin you.

However, I don't mean to sidetrack and will drop this also. No harm, no foul.

 

[RCDtpr]

I'm quite aware things like this can and do happen.  Costs you a pretty penny to defend yourself.

However in this case it would be through the military justice system so he wouldn't be paying for an attorney.  If there's no reasonable prospect of conviction AND he's being represented by a legal officer for free....see where I'm going with this.

I believe these new laws are a good step forward...however, unfortunately for now, we are hamstrung with what can be done on cases such as this.

Also, please don't anyone think I'm looking for an argument or anything of the such...I'm merely trying to share previous experiences with similar events so as to potentially keep wild speculation at a minimum.  Like I said...I'm curious to see how all this plays out.

 

[DAA]

I wasn't aware of the case of them posting the woman's address etc....intimidation might stick however if the boots on the ground statement is the only one made....it's too vague and I doubt a conviction in court would result.

Criminal harassment, I can assure you through personal experience, will not fly.  I've tried laying an information for similar Facebook bullying......Crown wouldn't touch it.

As for the new cyber bullying laws....all well and good....but as of now they aren't law so it's really a moot point.

Something similar to what I am thinking as well.  The only difference, is that this will not find itself in a civilian court.  So the question is, if the CF/Military deals with it, just how will this turn out.  We see members of the CF, charged under the NDA for various offences that would and are scoffed at outside of the service.

If the charges are purely NDA, then that is one thing.  But if they reference the CCC, then I think the standard/burden of proof, may be slightly higher and held to more scrutiny.

Your obviously not cognizant of the Crown charging gun owners for things there is no hope of the Crown winning. Drag them though preliminaries, rack up lawyers fees, time, stress, etc. In the end, they make it so onerous most plead out, take a ten year weapons prohibition and have all their firearms confiscated to stop the suffering. Typically, when they fight it up to trial the Crown drops the charges. Doesn't help the poor ******* that's had his life ruined and spent 10's of thousands trying to win against unlawful charges.
The Crown doesn't need to take you to trial to ruin you.

Sounds like you have been the subject of a Military DI where nothing ever came of it.  Maybe this is nothing more than an exercise in "deterence".  Of course, at no "fiscal" costs to the accused.

 

[McG]

If the charges are purely NDA, then that is one thing.  But if they reference the CCC, then I think the standard/burden of proof, may be slightly higher and held to more scrutiny.

Negative.  Courts Martial have the same high standard of proof as a criminal court.

... And going up a few posts we see charges were laid under NDA, with at least one 130 (which in this case applies a Criminal Code of Canada charge through the NDA).

 

[Lightguns]

He is back up and Armyvern you figure prominently.

 

[Scoobs]

RCD Cpl,

administrative actions are separate from charges.  Charges (or not), under the NDA or CCC or other means, do not preclude admin actions.  If the paperwork is in order, i.e. lots of written warnings, other written docs, he can grieve until his heart's content.  If properly documented, admin action is not very hard to hold up to a grievance.  Without this written (can't emphasize written enough) info, a grievance may or may not be successful, but the odds go up.  So, the member can be found guilty or not, and admin actions can still occur.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sounds like you have been the subject of a Military DI where nothing ever came of it.  Maybe this is nothing more than an exercise in "deterence".  Of course, at no "fiscal" costs to the accused.

More than once 8)

 

[armyvern]

He is back up and Armyvern you figure prominently.

Are you surprised?

I'm a POG/WOG/Girl/good for nothing but sandwich making.  :

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Are you surprised?

I'm a POG/WOG/Girl/good for nothing but sandwich making.  :

I didn't find your sandwiches that good............the pickles were OK. :-X

 

[armyvern]

I didn't find your sandwiches that good............the pickles were OK. :-X

That's because you stole it!

Corporal Bloggins would be disappointed that you are firing me from sandwich making; so would my husband.  ;D

 

[RCDtpr]

RCD Cpl,

administrative actions are separate from charges.  Charges (or not), under the NDA or CCC or other means, do not preclude admin actions.  If the paperwork is in order, i.e. lots of written warnings, other written docs, he can grieve until his heart's content.  If properly documented, admin action is not very hard to hold up to a grievance.  Without this written (can't emphasize written enough) info, a grievance may or may not be successful, but the odds go up.  So, the member can be found guilty or not, and admin actions can still occur.

I understand how the admin system works.  In this case, however, we don't know the troop so for all we know he's a solid guy with no previous problems at his regiment.  If that is the case, and IF he was somehow exonerated in court.....you can't ding someone administratively for creating a page when the court deemed there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in fact him.

A one way conversation...absolutely.  He coincidently seems to draw weekend duties and junk taskings....absolutely.  But full on administrative actions against someone for an infraction the courts determined there was not enough evidence to convict.......slippery slope.