@Chris Richardson Sarcasm doesn't seem to suit you very well, but others got it. I am going to conclude that you were part of a chain of command that investigated itself as you seem remarkably defensive about a common observation that the CoC is often corrupted by its self interest rather than impartial justice. Evidently you botched your own investigation of my obvious experience to save your own ass. Ironic.
Cornwallis still looks a lot like this, especially the HQ building, sea cadets use them in the summer now. Same wood panels are still all along the walls. Parade square's gone now with a giant seawood plant on top of it.
Those Cornwallis scenes gave me some real flashbacks. Proudest moment other than graduation is when I knocked MCpl Duffney off the floating bridge run. I thought I was going to get curb-stomped, but he climbed out of the water, told me it was about time I "showed some goddamned self-confidence", and to get the eff out of his face. 😂
I actually had this situation myself. An empty case wedged itself in the velcro pocket in the tac vest, and I only discovered it after the exercise. Put it in the amnesty box.
I'm disappointed that the female private didn't have any charges laid. She was on the range as range safety and knew that he had the round, but failed to report.
love that the video makes it look like she straight up blades everyone else after she's found not guilty hahah... tough place to be though, one of those she didn't screw them, they screwed themselves situations
Women tend to realize early on they aren't believed and get punished for reports and complaints, that's a known problem as long as women were in any kind of military service / employment. I say she is portrayed as doing what she felt she could more than once confronting the offender and lifting the gun barrel once seeing it became loaded and dangerous in one of those confrontations. This training video has some form of honestly embedded in it in exonerating her of firing the gun and not changing or adding to charges once her story was told - even though somehow she was first on trial in the belief or wrongful accusation she did the gun offense of firing it while the offender was seen holding his gun in a gun-holding fashion after the shot. That someone of higher rank came up with the rock-claim to cover up the offense and damage, there's truth embedded there, something people learn early on, and that's truly part of why reports and complaints aren't made, the offence is hidden or covered up, reporting or complaining deflects from that plan and thwarts the goal, which is why reporting and complaining isn't the best methode if it can be dealt with as she did. What if she or anyone made the report before the shot(?) how would that be acted out? In a real situation like this, any soldier doing as she did and endangering one's life in the process, that person needs a medal fitting of the verbal acts short of reporting and in this case it needs to be a medal of bravery for the wrestling of that loaded gun. Short of continuing the video, that may have been acted out if it had of continued with more honesty embedded Being this is a video meant for learning, it's not a real episode, but there is a lot more to consider in it on the military as a whole. Women - all staff need to be heard and no one hide or cover up what happens. That's how peace and honour will take over / change the current "culture" of the military and teach people first not to do an offense. With all the witnesses close by in the video, it is difficult to blame the woman or anyone else who could have been chosen to act out this scene but that's how the military works - so naturally how the video was scripted, there's a lesson there, those colleagues needed to be heard before she stood hatless and worried.
What I find strange is that noone seems to really question why the soldier took the round and then loaded it into his weapon outside of training. I can see him taking it as a souvenir but then why did he load it into his gun in public? I watched Full Metal Jacket recently and something like that raises all kinds of red flags. How would the military handle something like this today?
His actions were quite senseless. What did he hope to achieve by loading a live round in an area where he was not authorized to load it, and where it could have posed a serious safety hazard to his colleagues?
At about 12:05 is reason why Summary Trials are no longer trials but called Summary Hearings and that Service Offences are called Service infractions. If one is convicted of an offence under the NDA then they have a criminal record just as if they were convicted of a criminal offence. For minor offences where one does not go to court martial such as these, the absence of a legally trained judge and legal counsel for the accused facing a criminal record is a violation procedural fairness which is a basic doctrine of Canadian criminal law. Without this, it is doubtful that our system of military justice would ever survive a Charter Challenge. This is why these changes were made with in the advent of Bill C-77.
Is it not a tradition in the Canadian Army to march in the defaulters in double time? In any case Pte Davis saw him took a round away from the range and said nothing and there's no consequences?
This video predates the introduction of the unique Environmental DEUs. At the time, everyone wore Army uniforms, with either the Anchor for Navy (13:03), or Eagle for Air Force (18:16) as the cap badge.
At about 13:14, today the Section 119 is now Section 129 and broken down into two parts. The first is Section 129(1). For this offence the accused is found to have engaged in action any act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline like failing to shave or having a dirty uniform. Section 129(2) is where the act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline contravenes a standing order, written regulations and the sort. This second one is electable meaning the accused can elect to be tried by Court Martial where he or she can prove that the order was not sufficiently published or made known to the members and as such the conduct was not as severe a shock to unit discipline.
K... there's NO WAY that Pte Davis should have been charged. She grabbed the weapon of the member who illegally took and loaded the live round. Since the weapon was NOT hers nor did she ever have care and control of that weapon, her actions did not constitute a weapons offence as she was essentially trying to prevent one. Her only potential wrong doing was failing to report the removal of the round at the time that she saw it being done however without witnesses this would never have gone anywhere. This part of the episode demonstrates WHY pre-trial legal advice pursuant to QR&O 107.03 is necessary. Any legal officer would have put a halt to charges against Pte. Davis upon learning of this matter.
@Chris Richardson "She watched him pocket the round and admitted to that." Reread my comment. I said that. I simply stated that such a charge likely would not have stood up on its own. Since no one saw her doing it she likely would have admitted it in a cautioned statement during the investigation. However given the more serious offence and the timelines involved charging her for failing report that would not be advised. The fact is you have the MCpl with the more serious failing to report charge at hand, a likely suggestion you would have got from the JAG had you received pre-charge advice QR&O 107.03. For her at MOST administrative action like a verbal warning would suffice given how minor that in fraction was and how low in rank she is. "Why are you getting your panties in a knot over a decades old training video anyway?" As I stated in an earlier post, this is not "some old training video", its a significant training video likely put out by JAG back in the day the purpose of which was to training charge layers, and investigators junior officers at the rank of Captain Lieutenant(N) and above and even COs so that they can act as Presiding Officers at Summary Trials. You don't show videos like this to "newbees" in the CAF as the information is extraneous to what they'd be doing. I've seen and given training to "newbees" about military justice in the CAF and its not this video, its usually ad hoc power point lectures. Why am I getting my "panties in a knot?" This is the comments section of the video kid, its what its meant for. That and I wouldn't want current serving members coming across this video to think that its done like this. Just doing my PS for the day!
@Chris Richardson "The sole purpose of this video was to 'put the fear of god' into recruits, nothing else. It wasn't in the least bit significant to anybody, certainly not to those watching it at the time. " Not exactly. I actually spoke to a JAG officer who served as such in the 1980s and who stated that this video WAS used by them as part of their "training" for presiding officers. Maybe some used it for your purpose wherever you were but they DID use it as part (NOT ALL) of their instruction to Presiding Officers as well. I know I have sat through such videos myself and have seen the evolution of them. Cheesy looking Summary Trial videos of 15 minutes or so are always presented. I can also confirm this having been in the Borden JAG office where this video formed part of their library of old videos they had. A video designed ONLY to put the fear of God into troops would not have gone into detail about where and when legal representation was allowed nor issues such as the interests of justice, the nature of the offence and such and when a Presiding Officer (the target audience here) should consider referring a matter up to Court Martial. I've actually given presentations to "educate" new CAF members and I've also Done Presiding Officer training and this video definitely was designed to educate Presiding Officers. I get that this video is old and that you may have had a specific experience with it however its age actually speaks to my point and to the fact that you and yours weren't it's only audience. In 1982 when we repatriated the Constitution, we got with it the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which came into effect in 1985. The Charter applies also to Military Justice, a fact the OJAG had been pushing the Brass to accept prior to this video coming out, Its also a fact that the Supreme Court of Canada stated when it issued R. v. Genereux in 1992.
And the Capt salutes while sitting down... typical... LOL LOL LOL (you see his right hand flashing down, as he is sitting down, returning it to the Adjm (Sgt Major)... LOL
At about 20:00, the accused MCpl should NOT be making this kind of decision on his own. The CO should have given him a toll free number to contact DDCS where a legal defence officer would help him weigh the pros and cons of the impending decision.
"Conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline" was a blanket charge they could use to nail you for virtually any infraction. Especially if they didn't like you, or wanted to send a message on relatively minor infractions. How it would affect your career depended on how serious the infraction was.
Much of what I dropped here i these comments simply didn't exist or at least in the form that I explained, back in 1985. That is what when the complete break down of discipline known as the Somalia Affair happened back in 1993, our system when reeling and even though the Supreme Court of Canada gave us the right to have a justice system separate and apart from Canadian society R. v. Genereux (1992), we still weren't able to properly start dealing with military justice until sometime in the early 2000s. Even then the system had kinks culminating in our deciding to do away with NDs in the mid 2010s but for extremely prejudicial conduct and then the imposition of Bill C-77 about two years ago which has helped Charter proof our system so that we don't lose it to civilian justice.
Tell me I'm not the only person who thinks the Pte and MCpl should both have been kicked to the curb? And how dare the Pte try to lay any of the blame on the Pte who tried to stop him? Disgraceful.
Private Davis is a cutie. But I digress. This video does not accurately represent how things really would have gone down in real life - it's all been toned down. After the rifle went off, the first thing the master corporal would have done is come roaring out of the shack screaming, "WHAT IN THE LIVING FUCK IS GOING ON HERE?! WHO FIRED THAT ROUND?!" A lot of yelling and screaming in the OC's office would have ensued. The company sergeant major would have dressed down Private Cowan for sure. Pte Davis would not and should not have been charged with anything, but only brought in as a witness. She did not cause the negligent discharge, but tried to prevent it. Being responsible for range safety, she should have reported the live round immediately, though. The master corporal would be facing the most serious charge of all - negligent performance of duties. I doubt they would have punished him with only a partial stoppage of pay. They might have sent him to the service detention barracks in Edmonton for 30 days and then temporarily reduced his rank. In any case, it would have been a big black mark in his service record and would have retarded his career progression for a while. In addition, counselling his subordinates to cover up the matter was also a grave offence.
It happens where done properly and the CoC is made aware that ALL of the elements of the offence as charged must be met for a conviction to be made out.
Should I confess my sins was on military exsersise fort Lewis after making my declaration went across the. USA and Canada border. For got that found full pack of blank ammunition in my kit at home that's was in Chilliwack BC 1982
Ah, yes, nothing like the chain of command to investigate itself for a fair and unbiased result.
@Chris Richardson Sarcasm doesn't seem to suit you very well, but others got it. I am going to conclude that you were part of a chain of command that investigated itself as you seem remarkably defensive about a common observation that the CoC is often corrupted by its self interest rather than impartial justice. Evidently you botched your own investigation of my obvious experience to save your own ass. Ironic.
Now the military police have more athority change general s lol
Yea... WE all know what the real reaction of the MCPL would've been....
Foots in asses and troops hanging from their toes.
I started the video and there was a line of people shooting, like a firing squad, and I thought that escalated quickly.
Lmao
Cornwallis still looks a lot like this, especially the HQ building, sea cadets use them in the summer now. Same wood panels are still all along the walls. Parade square's gone now with a giant seawood plant on top of it.
"Rock through the window." Works for me. lol I watched this video in training back in the day.
Haha...same.
Those Cornwallis scenes gave me some real flashbacks. Proudest moment other than graduation is when I knocked MCpl Duffney off the floating bridge run. I thought I was going to get curb-stomped, but he climbed out of the water, told me it was about time I "showed some goddamned self-confidence", and to get the eff out of his face. 😂
What a cliff hanger
I actually had this situation myself. An empty case wedged itself in the velcro pocket in the tac vest, and I only discovered it after the exercise.
Put it in the amnesty box.
Summary trials are not trials. There basically deciding the punishment.
Rather telling that the MCpl is an MP...
I'm disappointed that the female private didn't have any charges laid. She was on the range as range safety and knew that he had the round, but failed to report.
she's the one that grabbed the rifle, she's the first one they showed being charged.
love that the video makes it look like she straight up blades everyone else after she's found not guilty hahah... tough place to be though, one of those she didn't screw them, they screwed themselves situations
Women tend to realize early on they aren't believed and get punished for reports and complaints, that's a known problem as long as women were in any kind of military service / employment.
I say she is portrayed as doing what she felt she could more than once confronting the offender and lifting the gun barrel once seeing it became loaded and dangerous in one of those confrontations.
This training video has some form of honestly embedded in it in exonerating her of firing the gun and not changing or adding to charges once her story was told - even though somehow she was first on trial in the belief or wrongful accusation she did the gun offense of firing it while the offender was seen holding his gun in a gun-holding fashion after the shot.
That someone of higher rank came up with the rock-claim to cover up the offense and damage, there's truth embedded there, something people learn early on, and that's truly part of why reports and complaints aren't made, the offence is hidden or covered up, reporting or complaining deflects from that plan and thwarts the goal, which is why reporting and complaining isn't the best methode if it can be dealt with as she did. What if she or anyone made the report before the shot(?) how would that be acted out?
In a real situation like this, any soldier doing as she did and endangering one's life in the process, that person needs a medal fitting of the verbal acts short of reporting and in this case it needs to be a medal of bravery for the wrestling of that loaded gun. Short of continuing the video, that may have been acted out if it had of continued with more honesty embedded
Being this is a video meant for learning, it's not a real episode, but there is a lot more to consider in it on the military as a whole. Women - all staff need to be heard and no one hide or cover up what happens. That's how peace and honour will take over / change the current "culture" of the military and teach people first not to do an offense.
With all the witnesses close by in the video, it is difficult to blame the woman or anyone else who could have been chosen to act out this scene but that's how the military works - so naturally how the video was scripted, there's a lesson there, those colleagues needed to be heard before she stood hatless and worried.
What I find strange is that noone seems to really question why the soldier took the round and then loaded it into his weapon outside of training. I can see him taking it as a souvenir but then why did he load it into his gun in public? I watched Full Metal Jacket recently and something like that raises all kinds of red flags. How would the military handle something like this today?
It was 1985. Back when we had booze on trainng exercises. Different days.
@@nacholibre1962 🤣😂🤣😂👍🏻
His actions were quite senseless. What did he hope to achieve by loading a live round in an area where he was not authorized to load it, and where it could have posed a serious safety hazard to his colleagues?
At about 12:05 is reason why Summary Trials are no longer trials but called Summary Hearings and that Service Offences are called Service infractions. If one is convicted of an offence under the NDA then they have a criminal record just as if they were convicted of a criminal offence. For minor offences where one does not go to court martial such as these, the absence of a legally trained judge and legal counsel for the accused facing a criminal record is a violation procedural fairness which is a basic doctrine of Canadian criminal law. Without this, it is doubtful that our system of military justice would ever survive a Charter Challenge. This is why these changes were made with in the advent of Bill C-77.
They still call them summary trials
21:20 and you're an MP... you already know all of this, and you know you're about to get hammered!
One of my platoon MCpls from Cornwallis in 85 haha.
Glen are yuo from Chilliwack
@@marcdemmon471 no.
Is it not a tradition in the Canadian Army to march in the defaulters in double time?
In any case Pte Davis saw him took a round away from the range and said nothing and there's no consequences?
What rank is that he's wearing with the anchor? Is that just to differentiate he's Navy in Basic?
Yes
This video predates the introduction of the unique Environmental DEUs. At the time, everyone wore Army uniforms, with either the Anchor for Navy (13:03), or Eagle for Air Force (18:16) as the cap badge.
I swear those are the same mattresses I saw in cold lake on the regular beds
Chief Warrant Officer Northrup. There’s a face I haven’t seen in a lot of years.
Anyone else done the hatless dance?
@@eldutcho3576 same here brother.
Muddy footwear in week 7. $25 fine. 9135 was a good platoon.
Me: Master Corporal you did a pretty good mistake.
**See the CFMP badge on his cap**
Also me: HOW THE BLOODY HELL!?
At about 13:14, today the Section 119 is now Section 129 and broken down into two parts. The first is Section 129(1). For this offence the accused is found to have engaged in action any act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline like failing to shave or having a dirty uniform. Section 129(2) is where the act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline contravenes a standing order, written regulations and the sort. This second one is electable meaning the accused can elect to be tried by Court Martial where he or she can prove that the order was not sufficiently published or made known to the members and as such the conduct was not as severe a shock to unit discipline.
Jeeeze I remember these videos!
The old C1A1
Ahh the memories 7638 and then returned as an Instructor.
K... there's NO WAY that Pte Davis should have been charged. She grabbed the weapon of the member who illegally took and loaded the live round. Since the weapon was NOT hers nor did she ever have care and control of that weapon, her actions did not constitute a weapons offence as she was essentially trying to prevent one. Her only potential wrong doing was failing to report the removal of the round at the time that she saw it being done however without witnesses this would never have gone anywhere. This part of the episode demonstrates WHY pre-trial legal advice pursuant to QR&O 107.03 is necessary. Any legal officer would have put a halt to charges against Pte. Davis upon learning of this matter.
@Chris Richardson "She watched him pocket the round and admitted to that." Reread my comment. I said that. I simply stated that such a charge likely would not have stood up on its own. Since no one saw her doing it she likely would have admitted it in a cautioned statement during the investigation. However given the more serious offence and the timelines involved charging her for failing report that would not be advised. The fact is you have the MCpl with the more serious failing to report charge at hand, a likely suggestion you would have got from the JAG had you received pre-charge advice QR&O 107.03. For her at MOST administrative action like a verbal warning would suffice given how minor that in fraction was and how low in rank she is.
"Why are you getting your panties in a knot over a decades old training video anyway?"
As I stated in an earlier post, this is not "some old training video", its a significant training video likely put out by JAG back in the day the purpose of which was to training charge layers, and investigators junior officers at the rank of Captain Lieutenant(N) and above and even COs so that they can act as Presiding Officers at Summary Trials. You don't show videos like this to "newbees" in the CAF as the information is extraneous to what they'd be doing. I've seen and given training to "newbees" about military justice in the CAF and its not this video, its usually ad hoc power point lectures. Why am I getting my "panties in a knot?" This is the comments section of the video kid, its what its meant for. That and I wouldn't want current serving members coming across this video to think that its done like this. Just doing my PS for the day!
@Chris Richardson "The sole purpose of this video was to 'put the fear of god' into recruits, nothing else. It wasn't in the least bit significant to anybody, certainly not to those watching it at the time. " Not exactly. I actually spoke to a JAG officer who served as such in the 1980s and who stated that this video WAS used by them as part of their "training" for presiding officers. Maybe some used it for your purpose wherever you were but they DID use it as part (NOT ALL) of their instruction to Presiding Officers as well. I know I have sat through such videos myself and have seen the evolution of them. Cheesy looking Summary Trial videos of 15 minutes or so are always presented. I can also confirm this having been in the Borden JAG office where this video formed part of their library of old videos they had. A video designed ONLY to put the fear of God into troops would not have gone into detail about where and when legal representation was allowed nor issues such as the interests of justice, the nature of the offence and such and when a Presiding Officer (the target audience here) should consider referring a matter up to Court Martial. I've actually given presentations to "educate" new CAF members and I've also Done Presiding Officer training and this video definitely was designed to educate Presiding Officers.
I get that this video is old and that you may have had a specific experience with it however its age actually speaks to my point and to the fact that you and yours weren't it's only audience. In 1982 when we repatriated the Constitution, we got with it the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which came into effect in 1985. The Charter applies also to Military Justice, a fact the OJAG had been pushing the Brass to accept prior to this video coming out, Its also a fact that the Supreme Court of Canada stated when it issued R. v. Genereux in 1992.
And the Capt salutes while sitting down... typical... LOL LOL LOL (you see his right hand flashing down, as he is sitting down, returning it to the Adjm (Sgt Major)... LOL
damn, old FN rifles
5:28 If that officer had a spine, he'd be able to sit up straight.
What r range is this one
At about 20:00, the accused MCpl should NOT be making this kind of decision on his own. The CO should have given him a toll free number to contact DDCS where a legal defence officer would help him weigh the pros and cons of the impending decision.
@Chris Richardson Actually this video was also used to train potential presiding officers back in the day which shows how far we've actually come.
alright who grassed
no one kicked the desk on the left turn? :)
Was the drill manual different back at that time? Or is all the drill suppose to be wrong?
The old hatless dance 🙃
Yea, or the officer's response if the trainee requested a Court Martial.
The old shotgun approach for charges . Nice
"Conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline" was a blanket charge they could use to nail you for virtually any infraction. Especially if they didn't like you, or wanted to send a message on relatively minor infractions. How it would affect your career depended on how serious the infraction was.
Course 8522. Seven platoon
Good times
Can they sound more Canadian?
Much of what I dropped here i these comments simply didn't exist or at least in the form that I explained, back in 1985. That is what when the complete break down of discipline known as the Somalia Affair happened back in 1993, our system when reeling and even though the Supreme Court of Canada gave us the right to have a justice system separate and apart from Canadian society R. v. Genereux (1992), we still weren't able to properly start dealing with military justice until sometime in the early 2000s. Even then the system had kinks culminating in our deciding to do away with NDs in the mid 2010s but for extremely prejudicial conduct and then the imposition of Bill C-77 about two years ago which has helped Charter proof our system so that we don't lose it to civilian justice.
Matsimus sent us
Hey, that's Cornwallis!
8645 YEEHAW sure remember Cornwallis
I got there 3 weeks later 8519
He wasn't very smart!!!! The 119 was and maybe still the catch all. I had a few charges and they were always with a 119.
Tell me I'm not the only person who thinks the Pte and MCpl should both have been kicked to the curb? And how dare the Pte try to lay any of the blame on the Pte who tried to stop him? Disgraceful.
Or an excess of $200? Oh my!
I didn't know Canadians used SLRs
@Chris Richardson L1A1
Uh that's a 129. Not 119
119 back then, the catch-all charge.
Private Davis is a cutie. But I digress. This video does not accurately represent how things really would have gone down in real life - it's all been toned down.
After the rifle went off, the first thing the master corporal would have done is come roaring out of the shack screaming, "WHAT IN THE LIVING FUCK IS GOING ON HERE?! WHO FIRED THAT ROUND?!" A lot of yelling and screaming in the OC's office would have ensued. The company sergeant major would have dressed down Private Cowan for sure.
Pte Davis would not and should not have been charged with anything, but only brought in as a witness. She did not cause the negligent discharge, but tried to prevent it. Being responsible for range safety, she should have reported the live round immediately, though.
The master corporal would be facing the most serious charge of all - negligent performance of duties. I doubt they would have punished him with only a partial stoppage of pay. They might have sent him to the service detention barracks in Edmonton for 30 days and then temporarily reduced his rank. In any case, it would have been a big black mark in his service record and would have retarded his career progression for a while.
In addition, counselling his subordinates to cover up the matter was also a grave offence.
Meh, just a 119...
The way he sneaks into the gun just for her to fuck it all up!
Edit: he was being a jerk
Ha, Summary Trial where your found not guilty....never seen that
It happens where done properly and the CoC is made aware that ALL of the elements of the offence as charged must be met for a conviction to be made out.
Should I confess my sins was on military exsersise fort Lewis after making my declaration went across the. USA and Canada border. For got that found full pack of blank ammunition in my kit at home that's was in Chilliwack BC 1982
Man, those uniforms suck…
The uniform was so ugly back then
Aka Kangaroo court :)