Two CF members arrested in Petawawa over Cpl Bloggins Facebook page

[George Wallace]

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.

I don't think "solid troops" create a site where other "disgruntled" troops can post their poisonous diatribes. 

As for evidence, anyone who thinks that they can remain anonymous on the internet is a fool.  You may want to be reminded of all those who are currently being charged with internet porn, and how they are tracked and evidence collected.  Why would anyone think this would be in anyway different?  Once anything is posted to the internet, it is there for eternity and with the right search engines can be retrieved.  Same can be said for your Hard Drive; with the exception of destruction, ghost files will remain on Hard Drives.  There are dozens of Recovery programs available to retrieve files from damaged or corrupted Hard Drives.

 

[RCDtpr]

I don't think "solid troops" create a site where other "disgruntled" troops can post their poisonous diatribes. 

As for evidence, anyone who thinks that they can remain anonymous on the internet is a fool.  You may want to be reminded of all those who are currently being charged with internet porn, and how they are tracked and evidence collected.  Why would anyone think this would be in anyway different?  Once anything is posted to the internet, it is there for eternity and with the right search engines can be retrieved.  Same can be said for your Hard Drive; with the exception of destruction, ghost files will remain on Hard Drives.  There are dozens of Recovery programs available to retrieve files from damaged or corrupted Hard Drives.

Yes I understand but what I've been trying to get at is that it's not as easy to prove as one thinks. 

Take your post for instance.  On the surface it's clear to all of us reading that George did in fact post what he did.  If you were to pull ISP records and we found the post came from your ISP at your home or on your data plan again it appears you posted it.  However, what defence would argue is that none of us physically saw you in front of the computer.  So, in theory, for all we know someone has your login and password and made the post while in your home.  Is someone currently posting as George?  Highly doubtful....but it is possible and a defence will play that angle.

Like I said....I'm not saying he will get off...nor do I think he should.  I'm merely pointing out that I don't believe this is the slam dunk case everyone thinks it is on face value.

That said, for all we know he could have admitted to it in an interview and this whole (while interesting) discussion is pointless.

 

[Journeyman]

So, in theory, for all we know someone has your login and password and made the post while in your home. 

Holy freakin' OJ's attorney. That's an amazing stretch.

I'm guessing you're dismissing "legal precedent." As someone mentioned internet porn convictions, it's doubtful these pornographers took pics of themselves at their computers.....uh, pornography-ing 

 

[McG]

...you can't ding someone administratively ... when the court deemed there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in fact him.

Courts require proof beyond reasonable doubt.  Administrative measures are based on balance of probabilities.  I have kicked out guys who were let off by the court for the precipitating incident.  I have also kicked-out guys based on single incidents because the problem was so egregious.  I have also seen DMCA punt individuals that I only recommended for C&P because they do not take a light stand on behaviour they see as consciously colluding to go against the chain of command.  Cpls Blogginses may find they are in more trouble than you suspect.

 

[DAA]

Courts require proof beyond reasonable doubt.  Administrative measures are based on balance of probabilities. 

:goodpost:

And herein, lies the difference between the two!

 

[RCDtpr]

Holy freakin' OJ's attorney. That's an amazing stretch.

I'm guessing you're dismissing "legal precedent." As someone mentioned internet porn convictions, it's doubtful these pornographers took pics of themselves at their computers.....uh, pornography-ing

Stretching to raise reasonable doubt is what lawyers do...

As for say kiddie porn...the offence is possession.  I don't need to prove you physically downloaded.....just that you have it.  Can't compare the two.

As for the post from Mcg....I appreciate that post.  I was not aware administrative stuff could stick even if one is let off by the courts.  Good to know.

 

[Occam]

.....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.

I believe the CF's stance on that would be  - "Just watch me."

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.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/90764/post-915072#msg915072

"Even if a military member murders another military member in the middle of a garrison (in Canada) we can't take jurisdiction," said Lt.-Col. Bruce MacGregor, director of military justice and policy for the Canadian Forces.

He said he could not comment on specific cases before the court.

Speaking generally, MacGregor said, a sexual assault charge laid in Canada could be tried in the military system. But he added if that charge is linked to a more serious one in a civilian court a prosecutor is unlikely to separate them for different trials.

Military staff charged with such crimes as murder by civilian police can also face employment- related penalties such as loss of command, rank and employment after administrative review.

The military has a justice system parallel to the civilian system, but prosecution of some cases on Canadian soil is handled entirely by civilian authorities.

"If a person is found guilty then they go through the punishment as any Canadian citizen would," said MacGregor.

"If they're a military person and they're found guilty, we do not have the ability to charge them on the same type of offence on the same circumstances," he said.

Even if the person is acquitted, he said, he or she can't be courtmartialled based on the same facts since "that would be double jeopardy."

Administrative reviews are conducted by senior officers. They can, for example, be held by the accused's commanding officer or a career review board.

Unlike the criminal system, the reviews do not require a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence can come from a variety of sources, from an interview of the accused to a summary military investigation.

Administrative action can still occur if someone is acquitted on a technicality, but "on the balance of probabilities, the accusation is very clear that it took place," he said.

 

[winks2872]

Here's the thing though.  The page that was put up on FB was an open page.  So, with that, how many of these people making the rude comments and posting some very insulting memes would show these to their mothers?

I try using that as a general rule of thumb (especially since my mom is on my friends list).  If I don't think my mom would want to see it or read it I won't post it, certainly not on an open site.  A closed group is a different beast altogether and, if these people wanted to beak off, then that's where it should have been done.

I hear where you're coming from but closed or open seems irrelevant to me. There is a certain behavior that is expected of all members at all times. Its one thing to make a left sided joke in the right place and at the right time as long as there is not intent to cause harm. It is clear to most that there was clear intent to cause harm here and further to propagate hate and discrimination which are not acceptable values of any CF member. Reflecting our common ethos is not a part time job that ends when a member goes home at night. Just my opinion.

 

[winks2872]

The fact of the matter is if people don't want their pictures used in any manner, don't post them on Facebook.

As for buddy being arrested, I highly doubt he will learn much of a lesson.  His arrest probably consisted of nothing more than being told he's under arrest, searched, and then (since it appears they would have no grounds to hold the person) released on the spot after being told their CoC would receive the report recommending charges.

The elements of the offence for criminal harassment are not really met from the Facebook page alone so (unless there's a lot more to this) he's  probably looking at nothing more than a 129.

Everyone giving the page this much attention is actually worse than the page itself.  The guy wants/wanted attention...and he succeeded.

I think you're out in left field. To meet the test for Section 264 of the Criminal Code one must only exhibit fear for their personal safety and take and an action to protect themselves. You however are assuming that Criminal Harassment is the only violation here and you are also assuming that this will remain in the military as a CSD issue. For example there are now cyberbullying laws provincially, civil liabilities to consider, Hate crimes, Libel / Slander depending on the medium. And then you have all the potential military violations. I'm no expert, not pretending to be such but one thing I am sure of is that this guy or guys are in for much more hurt then a 129. Again, just my opinion.

 

[ModlrMike]

Yes I understand but what I've been trying to get at is that it's not as easy to prove as one thinks.

I think you're overlooking that one's Facebook posts are linked to their personal accounts. While it's possible to spoof someone's account, it's not as easy as one thinks.

 

[Shamrock]

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...

Conduct off duty is also a relevant factor.

 

[OldSolduer]

I have resisted commenting on this but I can not any longer.

"Cpl Bloggins" needs to learn a few things - respect for others among them.

Unfortunately "Bloggins" creates another problem - "The Man is picking on me" syndrome in which the media picks this story up and runs with it, painting "Bloggins" as a poor soldier being picked on by The Man.
The CAF has difficulty defending itself in these cases, as if it is before the courts comments by the CoC are not appropriate.

Let's hope the media reports the true story.

 

[OldSolduer]

Are you surprised?

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

Didn't know you made sammiches......


There is a Corp Bloggins on FB. I believe he is former 2 VP and no mention of Vern anywhere.

This particular Bloggins had a DEU name tag - Bloggins- and he wore it on his DEU. it was spotted - by me - and I said has anyone noticed this. I then told him to keep wearing it til he's told to take it off.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... On the surface it's clear to all of us reading that George did in fact post what he did.  If you were to pull ISP records and we found the post came from your ISP at your home or on your data plan again it appears you posted it.  However, what defence would argue is that none of us physically saw you in front of the computer.  So, in theory, for all we know someone has your login and password and made the post while in your home ....

And if that's the case, defence counsel better be prepared to show evidence that the defendant was either 1)  not home AND not on someone else's computer, or 2)  was at home but NOT logged into his system.

I have to go with Journeyman's assessment on this one .....

Holy freakin' OJ's attorney. That's an amazing stretch.

 

[RCDtpr]

And if that's the case, defence counsel better be prepared to show evidence that the defendant was either 1)  not home AND not on someone else's computer, or 2)  was at home but NOT logged into his system.

I have to go with Journeyman's assessment on this one .....

In Canada the defence doesn't have to prove that.  The crown has to prove that he WAS in fact in front of the computer.

It's fine everyone.....clearly you all have watched more law and order than I...I'll bow out of this one as we are going in circles.

 

[RCDtpr]

I think you're out in left field. To meet the test for Section 264 of the Criminal Code one must only exhibit fear for their personal safety and take and an action to protect themselves. You however are assuming that Criminal Harassment is the only violation here and you are also assuming that this will remain in the military as a CSD issue. For example there are now cyberbullying laws provincially, civil liabilities to consider, Hate crimes, Libel / Slander depending on the medium. And then you have all the potential military violations. I'm no expert, not pretending to be such but one thing I am sure of is that this guy or guys are in for much more hurt then a 129. Again, just my opinion.

Although I just said I'm bowing out of this thread I feel I need to answer this one before I go.

Go read S. 264 and read the entire section properly......elements of the offence are not met by cyber bullying unless there is a repeat pattern of bullying the same person.

As for these provincial laws you speak of...I won't say they don't exist..but here in Ontario where I work we get almost daily complaints of cyber bullying and there's not much we can do about it.  Nobody here has ever heard of any provincial laws about cyber bullying...one would assume if it existed someone here would know about it.  If you are aware of one...by all means please reference the Act say well as section.

As for assuming it's going CSD it has to as he's a service member.  All service members are charged through the CSD unless it's an impaired or a domestic.  S 130 of the NDA allows CCC offences to be laid contrary to the NDA.  An example would be say assault, the wording would simply be that the service member is charged with Assault contrary to S 266 of the CCC pursuant to S 130 of the NDA.

Hope this helps.

 

[George Wallace]

In Canada the defence doesn't have to prove that.  The crown has to prove that he WAS in fact in front of the computer.

Ummmm?  Yes, the Crown has to prove that he was.  That would probably be why he would have been charged in the first place.  The Defence is then obliged by their client to prove otherwise. 

 

[RCDtpr]

Ummmm?  Yes, the Crown has to prove that he was.  That would probably be why he would have been charged in the first place.  The Defence is then obliged by their client to prove otherwise.

In Canada you are innocent until proven guilty.  In the courts system the onus is on the Crown to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  So in reality all the defence has to do is plant a seed of doubt....they don't have to actually prove anything.

 

[Teager]

I'm assuming this but to get away from the argument of proving he was at his computer I would also assume he has accessed FB from his phone as most people do these days. Would it then be easier to prove providing the authority's had access or a warrant to his phone?

 

[MAJONES]

I just can't see this guy being in the actual military, especially not the combat arms.  The type of guy that hides behind an anonymous FB page just wouldn't have the cojones to make it in the CF.