Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, October 30 2010 Volume 14 : Number 156 In this issue: Hunter treed by 8-coyotes Montague Situation Re: Grocer found not guilty Re: Mark's comments on Capt. Semrau case. EDITORIAL: Court gives victory to principle of self-defence We Salute our Heroes TORONTO SUN: Grab your long guns, it's hunting season: Woodcock Re: EDITORIAL: Court gives victory to principle of self-defence RE: Mark's comments on Capt. Semrau case. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:54:56 -0400 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Hunter treed by 8-coyotes Drumbo hunter lives after being cornered by eight coyotes > http://www.easy101.com/news/newsflash.html Coyotes It was one of those "life flashing before your eyes" moments as a hunter was cornered by eight coyotes in Drumbo recently. The dramatic confrontation is recounted by outgoing Blandford-Blenheim Mayor Ken Howling, who says the hunter climbed up a tree to try and escape an looming attack. The hunting used his bow-and-arrow to eliminate one coyote, then the other seven ran off. Howling has become Oxford County's key spokesman on the growing coyote menace in southwestern Ontario, and has fielded calls from Hamilton to Lambton County. He says he's had more calls from Woodstock than he has from his own community. Howling says it's kind of sad Woodstock decided not to join the committee, and it appears many people are getting the runaround from city hall. The future of the county's coyote advisory committee could be in limbo after Howling went down to defeat in Monday's election. (jlw) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:32:18 -0600 From: Edward Hudson Subject: Montague Situation Dear Supporters, October 29, 2010 On October 21, 2010 the Attorney General of Ontario served their application to take the Montagues' home and land, life savings, and costs -- if there's anything left. See http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0410.html The Yukon Territory just refused to pass the type of law that Ontario is using to steal the Montague family home and life savings. Journalist Christopher di Armani has written an article that highlights the outrage and injustice of this action and the supporting legislation. (See full article below) Please write to your local newspaper, and your elected representatives, provincial and federal! Tell your government you won't tolerate it behaving like a third world dictatorship that bullies and pillages its political opponents. Thanks again for your ongoing prayers and support. Yours in Liberty, Donna (and the Case Management Team) P.S. If you can spare it, we can really use your financial support! The government is attempting to steal everything we own. We desperately need your help to save our home from the government's confiscation attempt! Donate Online: http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0006.html#donate Quick Links:Write to the Ontario AG: http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0405.html Write to the Media: http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0420.html Write to Bruce @jail: http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0407.html Legal Proceedings: http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0410.html Featured Article: Yukon Puts Proceeds of Crime Act on Hold Indefinitely by Christopher di Armani Yukon's Justice Minister Marian Horne, during the debate on the budget last week, told the Yukon Assembly the government will not move forward with their proposed Civil Forfeitures Act until the public has been "consulted". It's a shocking move for a government to take, given the optics of "getting tough with criminals" looks so good. Standing up for law and order and all that. But what lies beneath the surface of civil forfeiture laws should make every single citizen, Yukoner or not, shudder with fear. You do not have to be arrested for a crime for the government to take your property. You do not have to be charged with a crime for the government to take your property. You do not have to be convicted of a crime for the government to take your property. All that has to happen is a policeman (or woman) has to make the claim that your property MAY have been obtained through an unnamed criminal act. Period. No arrest. No charges. No trial. No conviction. The government doesn't have to actually PROVE you did anything. It only has to show "on a balance of probabilities" that you COULD have done something. You are left with having to prove a negative, that you're innocent, which in this case is impossible. Can you really prove you never received any money through the proceeds of crime? Remember, it doesn't matter that you've never been charged with anything. That's not relevant. It's a complete end-run around your constitutional rights and freedoms. All the government has to do is sue you for your property. Often, the end result is the same. You've lost everything you own, either by them taking it, or by your having to pay lawyers your life savings to defend against it. Hardly the practice of an honest society with any regard for the Rights and Freedoms of its citizens. That the government of Yukon has actually decided NOT to implement the Civil Forfeitures Act gives me hope for the people of the Yukon Territory, and for the territory itself. It's laudable to say that "criminals should not be allowed to profit from crime". I think we can all agree with that statement. But the sad consequence of these laws is that good, decent people are losing everything because some bureaucrat has decided to make an example out of them. Take the case of Bruce and Donna Montague of Dryden, Ontario. Bruce Montague spent two years traveling across Canada trying to get arrested so he could challenge Canada's Firearms Act in court. Under Canadian law, the only way you have "standing" to challenge a law is to break it. Stupid, but that's the way the system is set up. So Bruce Montague refused to renew his firearms license. He spent the next six years of his life in the court system attempting to win his case. He lost both his constitutional challenge of the Firearms Act, as well as his criminal trial, and was sentenced to 18 months in Prison. The Ontario Attorney General's office is now, under the Ontario Civil Remedies Act, attempting to take everything the Montague family owns: their home, their 160-acre property and all of their personal possessions by claiming they somehow profited by Bruce's defiance of the Firearms Act. They purchased the land with money Donna Montague received from an inheritance when her father passed away. They hand-build their log home from the ground up. They've got the receipts to prove it all. But it doesn't matter. The facts are entirely beside the point. The government doesn't have to PROVE that the Montague family received a dime illegally. All it has to do is show that they might have. Is that really the kind of law Yukoners want? I sure hope not. Yours in Liberty, Christopher di Armani christopher@diArmani.com http://www.diArmani.com Sign up for Katey Montague's Rights and Freedom Bulletin today at http://KateysFirearmsFacts.com _______________________________________________ To learn how to be added to or removed from the ScrapC-68 list visit: http://www.BruceMontague.ca/elist ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:11:24 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: Grocer found not guilty The best part of this is ::IT SETS A PRECEDENT~!!!!!!ed/on - ----- Original Message ----- From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" To: "Firearms Digest" Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 10:04 AM Subject: Grocer found not guilty ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 19:24:08 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Re: Mark's comments on Capt. Semrau case. Mark I suspect that the Prosecuting Attorney in charge could have decided not to prosecute based on either, it not being in the public interest, or on insufficient grounds likely for a conviction. Those are both at their discretion. I'm presuming the same criterion as civilian prosecutors are supposed to use. I think those that have had combat experience or even can imagine themselves in that position have a much different view than lawyer types who have not and who can't. I'd wager that most anyone who can imagine themselves being in the position of the Talib, lying there dying with his legs blown off and his intestines hanging out from an artillery strike, would rather serve under Capt. Semrau than an Ottawa lawyer type of officer, I'd wager. Does this trial even now make those soldiers start to question taking the high risk, knowing that their officers are now more likely to let them a suffer horrendously painful death, as that Talib would have, rather than end their suffering(presuming no morphine shots available)? Does it likewise start to make officers start to avoid the high risk so that the likelihood of them being in Capt. Semrau's situation is reduced? Have not soldiers throughout history made their friends promise to do for them what Capt. Semrau did if they fall under those circumstances? I believe that were he tried under U.S. military law he'd have faced a jury of 12 of his peers as opposed to Canada's four member appointed panel. I wonder if any of the four have served in a combat role? I don't know if the panel are more like judiciary than peers in this case. Here under the Common-Law jury members may choose not to convict if they view to do so would not be in the public interest. Jury Nullification exists, only here jury members are not allowed to know of that right though they may exercise it. (some U.S. states allow juries to be informed and others like Canada do not.) Would you, or other soldiers that you know, object if Capt. Semrau's punishment were set aside and he was re-instated by the Prime Minister? I respect your opinion, and understand that as a serving member you are obliged to guide your life according to the regulations and military law. On 29-Oct-10, at 4:35 PM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 07:29:12 -0700 (PDT) > From: Mark L Horstead > Subject: Re: re-Capt. Semrau > >> From: Larry James Fillo >> Subject: re-Capt. Semrau >> To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca >> Date: Thursday, October 28, 2010, 6:15 PM >> Here is my letter to the Prime >> Minister regarding Capt. Semrau. >> Those who feel likewise should also do so. An actual letter >> in an envelope, no postage required gets the most attention. >> >> ============================================================= >> The Right Honourable Stephen Joseph Harper, P.C., M.P. >> Prime Minister of Canada >> Langevin Building >> 80 Wellington Street >> Ottawa, Ontario; K1A 0A6 >> >> Re Captain Robert Semrau >> >> Dear Mr. Prime Minister: >> >> I am writing to ask that you use your authority, via an >> Order-In-Council, >> to set aside Captains Semrau's sentence and to re-instate >> him into >> the Canadian Armed Forces. > > Actually, 2Lt Semrau now. > >> I think that he never should have been subject to Court >> Martial for >> his actions on the battlefield. > > A trial had to proceed. There was no other choice for the CF. A law > had > allegedly been broken, and this could not have been ignored or it > would > have festered like the Somalia incidents. The alternative would > have been > public, political, and media charges of "cover-up". > >> His sentence is most certainly unfair. > > Is it? If his conviction is legitimate, and the panel had good > reasons for > deciding as it did, then his sentence is considerably lighter than it > could have been. A finding of innocence on all charges was probably > extremely difficult. > >> Officers serving in combat must make decisions involving >> life and >> death under the most trying of circumstances. > > And one of those "most trying of circumstances" is to conduct oneself > morally and within the law. That can be a hard thing to do. 2Lt > (regardless of whether or not I agree with his reduction in rank) knew > the law, and made a conscious choice to disregard it. > > While his action may (or may not) have been morally correct, it was > still > plainly unlawful. > >> Our Canadian military tradition understood this. Captain Semrau acted >> within that honourable tradition, one that also includes mercy. > > Some of us agree with what he did. Some of us do not. Most, if not > all, of > us have a lot of sympathy for his situation and circumstances at > the time. > All of us are thankful that we were not in it, having to face, and > live > with, such a decision and resulting action. Not all of us can > honestly say > for certain that we would have acted any differently had we been in > his > place. > >> This Court Martial endangers those who serve, our missions, >> present and future, and certainly Canadians and our >> allies, for whose benefit they fight. > > No, it does not. > >> Giving officers the responsibility for making decisions >> during combat, we also must allow them the flexibility to >> do so unrestrained by the unrealistic, utopian, legal >> straightjackets so popular among Ottawa bureaucrats. > > There is plenty of flexibility, but the laws and regulations and > Rules of > Engagement (ROEs) with which we live and work are there for good > reason. > In my experience, they strike a pretty reasonable balance. > > All ranks are taught them, and nobody who has acted in accordance > with them > has been charged with any offence. They have not, to the best of my > knowledge, interfered with effectively conducting operations. Allowing > free reign is not desireable for moral, ethical, and operational > reasons. > > ROEs are issued under the authority of the Chief of the Defence > Staff, not > an "Ottawa bureaucrat", and are specifically written for the operation > being conducted. The current and former CDS have both had to work > within > ROEs issued for previous operations through their careers and are > certainly aware of the implications of any that they authorize. > > Note that a Court Martial verdict can be appealed, in which case it > moves > into the civil court system. The choice to appeal or not is up to 2Lt > Semrau. > > This has cost us a fine Officer, with an excellent reputation in two > Armies up until this incident, and that fine Officer his career and > livelihood. He was, however, responsible for his actions at all > times and > he was fully aware of that. The consequences are his to bear. We > are all > aware of our responsibility, extremely aware, and it is not a light > one. > > I believe that he did what he genuinely thought to be right, and for > humane reasons. I hope that he finds peace and fulfilment. > > Mark ------------------------------ Date: Sat, October 30, 2010 8:50 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: EDITORIAL: Court gives victory to principle of self-defence CALGARY HERALD - OCTOBER 30, 2010 EDITORIAL: Three cheers for Chen Court gives victory to principle of self-defence http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/Three+cheers+Chen/3750673/story.html?cid=megadrop_story Our folk hero of the week award goes to David Chen, the Toronto grocer who chased down a thief and locked him in his van until police arrived. For making his citizen's arrest, Chen was charged with assault and forcible confinement. A judge Friday rightfully dismissed the charges against the hard-working shop owner who was fed up with thieves targeting his store and the repeated slow response times of police. The right to defend one's person and property is restricted by the principle of "reasonable force." It would have been unreasonable if Chen had chased down a chronic petty thief with a cocaine addiction and shot him dead on a public street, and it would have been unreasonable for Chen to keep the crook locked in a sweltering van for 10 hours in 35C heat. But we have no issue with what Chen did. In fact, we applaud him. Similarly, the case of a Taber-area man who, earlier this week, used the flat end of an axe to prevent a suspected thief from possibly harming his wife and who allegedly had already ransacked their home, has us cheering for the homeowner. If Joseph Singleton had used the sharp edge of the axe, it might be a different story. But if the circumstances are as the Singleton's lawyer explains, we wonder why the Crown is even proceeding with charges. Singleton is charged with excessive use of force after he and his wife returned home to see a strange car in their driveway. They prevented it from leaving by parking behind it. They went inside and found their house badly ransacked. Singleton returned outside to find a man in the car. The alleged culprit rammed Singleton's vehicle and accelerated toward his wife, Marilyn Singleton, when Singleton swung the axe. Already feeling violated and fearing for the safety of his wife, Singleton should easily qualify for the "heat-of-the-moment" defence, which basically states that someone pumping with fear and adrenalin cannot be expected to pause and determine what is reasonable force under such circumstances. By using the blunt end of the axe, one could argue that Singleton, in fact, showed restraint. Chen's and Singleton's "victims" are fortunate they did not encounter the Red Deer area farmer who caught a man stealing his ATV, ran him off the road, peppered him with buckshot and beat him. It remains to be seen if a court rules that the farmer's force was excessive, but you can bet that there are many people who are saying the thief got what he deserved. Assuming that thieves read newspapers and listen to news reports -- and that's a big "if" -- one can bet that they will be giving wide berth to Chen's grocery store, Singleton's home, and to farms belonging to gun-toting folks in central Alberta. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:27:40 -0700 From: "Jim Pook" Subject: We Salute our Heroes We Salute our Heroes http://wesaluteourheroes.ca/ Jim Pook Vancouver Island-North ------------------------------ Date: Sat, October 30, 2010 9:38 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: TORONTO SUN: Grab your long guns, it's hunting season: Woodcock TORONTO SUN - OCTOBER 30, 2010 Grab your long guns, it's hunting season: Woodcock Our numbers show one thing: The firearms registry has done nothing to Canada's murder rate By CONNIE WOODCOCK, TORONTO SUN http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/connie_woodcock/2010/10/29/15884321.html I dropped by my local butcher's shop the other day in search of something good for dinner, but the door was locked, the lights were out and there was a sign in the window: "Gone moose hunting. Sorry for the inconvenience." Not nearly as sorry as I was, but I should have guessed. It's that time of year again in rural Ontario - hunting season. Not a good time to need a butcher, plumber, electrician or contractor. I wouldn't suggest having a house fire either. The boys - and their long guns - are out in the woods. Coincidentally, Statistics Canada this past week produced its latest study on murder in Canada. It showed the rate of murder by firearms in Canada dropped a whopping 12% in 2009, even though the overall murder rate remained stable. From 2002 to 2008, the rate had been climbing after a long decline beginning in the mid-1970s. Knives were the weapon of choice in 2009. Of the 610 homicides last year, 179 were firearm-related - 112 handguns, 29 rifles or shotguns and 14 sawed-off rifles or shotguns. In the five years between 2005 and 2009, police recovered 253 guns that were used in homicides. Thirty-one per cent were registered - but 69% were not. So what does this tell us? That the murder rate in Canada is so low it's almost laughable next to the U.S., where some cities record almost as many murders as our whole country. Detroit last year had 379 murders and New York City recorded 466. Both cities congratulated themselves on large decreases from 2008. Which doesn't make our rate any less serious. But our numbers show one thing: The firearms registry has done nothing to Canada's murder rate. It has merely caused some murderers to switch weapons. And it means the Conservative federal government was right to try to kill the outrageously expensive long-gun registry since it has little or nothing to do with how many people are murdered. This report goes hand in hand with another one StatsCan released in September which pointed out another chilling truth about our crime rate: That more and more crimes are going unreported, just as the government suggested earlier this year in the acrimonious debates over the long-gun registry's future and on tougher anti-crime legislation. In a survey of more than 19,000 Canadians, StatsCan found only 31% of all crime in eight major categories was reported in 2009 - down significantly from 34% in 2004. In other words, 69% of all crime went unreported. Among violent crimes, only a dismal 29% were reported, a number that has remained stable for years. Almost unbelievable. There are three times as many crimes as are ever reported and yet 93% of Canadians said they were satisfied with their personal safety. I'd like to think these two studies would end the nagging national debate on long guns and their place in society. We all know it won't. But it would be nice if some Canadians would just come to terms with the idea that some other Canadians love to get out in the woods in the cold and the wet and chase after their winter meat supply. They look forward to it the way others of us look forward to a week in the Caribbean. That doesn't make them weird or dangerous. I don't get the whole woods thing either, but I will always defend hunters' right to do it. And no thanks, don't offer me one of your venison steaks. I hate the stuff. connie.woodcock@sunmedia.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:24:41 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: EDITORIAL: Court gives victory to principle of self-defence - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" To: "Firearms Digest" Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 4:50 AM Subject: EDITORIAL: Court gives victory to principle of self-defence > > CALGARY HERALD - OCTOBER 30, 2010 > EDITORIAL: Three cheers for Chen > Court gives victory to principle of self-defence > http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/Three+cheers+Chen/3750673/story.html?cid=megadrop_story > > > Chen's and Singleton's "victims" are fortunate they did not encounter the > Red Deer area farmer who caught a man stealing his ATV, ran him off the > road, peppered him with buckshot and beat him. It remains to be seen if a > court rules that the farmer's force was excessive, but you can bet that > there are many people who are saying the thief got what he deserved. > > Assuming that thieves read newspapers and listen to news reports -- and > that's a big "if" -- one can bet that they will be giving wide berth to > Chen's grocery store, Singleton's home, and to farms belonging to > gun-toting > folks in central Alberta. That doesent stop the problem then . I`m getting fed up with the mollycoddling of criminals both serious and petty. its time to show them that its hard labour they get for their illicit actions . No more club Fed. They just go after weaker targets like old retirees, women, children etc., who dont have the wherewithal ,the mojo, or items or strength to defend themselves. They should betaken off the street until they are too old to cause trouble anymore. Its either that ? or shoot, shovel ,shutup. ed/on ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:27:46 -0600 (CST) From: Mark L Horstead Subject: RE: Mark's comments on Capt. Semrau case. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca > [mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca] On Behalf Of > Larry James Fillo > Sent: 29-Oct-10 9:24 PM > To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca > Subject: Re: Mark's comments on Capt. Semrau case. > I suspect that the Prosecuting Attorney in charge could have > decided not to prosecute based on either, it not being in the > public interest, or on insufficient grounds likely for a conviction. > Those are both at their discretion. I'm presuming the same > criterion as civilian prosecutors are supposed to use. A court martial will not be convened until an investigation into alleged offences has been conducted. If there is sufficient indication that that is the case, there is little to no choice in the matter. A simple dismissal of charges under those circumstances is going to result, eventually, in claims of "cover-up" being levelled against the CF. and justifiably so. Shooting a wounded prisoner is a war crime, regardless of the circumstances. It is, by law, black and white. Anybody involved in a cover-up is also liable to be charged. We are bound by law, as is anybody else. We have no more legal ability to break it than anybody else. Laws exist for reasons. They may, however, be imperfect. > I think those that have had combat experience or even can > imagine themselves in that position have a much different > view than lawyer types who have not and who can't. I do not recall the backgrounds of the panel members. I have spent some time just now - more time than I have available - searching online for their identities, unsuccessfully. I am reasonably confident that none of the panel were lawyers, however. I also could not find the court martial's full verdict, but it should be out there somewhere. I did find the full sentencing document http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-7036039/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5qbWMtY21qLmZvcmNlcy5 nYy5jYS9kZWMvMjAxMC9kb2MvMjAxMGNtNDAxMC1lbmcucGRm It is limited in scope, as it only discusses the reason for the sentence for the charge on which he was convicted, but it does shed some light on the amount of thought that went into the sentencing aspect. Remember that he was found not guilty of far more serious charges by this court martial, which had to carefully negotiate a virtual minefield. It was a very complex case. > I'd wager that most anyone who can imagine themselves being > in the position of the Talib, lying there dying with his legs > blown off and his intestines hanging out from an artillery > strike, would rather serve under Capt. Semrau than an Ottawa > lawyer type of officer, I'd wager. The talib did not have a chance to voice his opinion, however. I would guess that it would be "inshallah", and little more. Minor point: an Attack Helicopter is not artillery. The normal expectation, though, is that a casevac helicopter would be called for any wounded Coalition member, insurgent, or local civilian. It makes no difference who the wounded person is, and none is accorded a higher priority for evacuation or treatment over another. Severity of the wound determines the priority. A wounded ANSF (Army or Police, I canot recall which) member had been evacuated shortly before this particular incident. The particular difficulty facing 2Lt Semrau was that the Afghan company that his team was mentoring was about to leave the area, and the wounded insurgent. 2Lt Semrau had no authority over the Afghan company commander whatsoever, yet relied upon the company for protection of his team. His possible choices, as I understand them, were to stay with the wounded man and offer what care and comfort that he couldand thereby compromise his team's safety, the current mission, and likely his and the CF's standing with at least that company, or leave the man to his fate, or end his suffering. There was no completely "right" choice. As the judge said during the sentencing, his action and following silence put the members of his team in an ethical dilemna - support their boss with their silence, or report him as was their duty - and that was not fair to them. He should have reported his action himself. That was risky, and the outcome may well have been the same (or not), but it would have been far more honourable and ethical. > Does this trial even now make those soldiers start to > question taking the high risk, knowing that their officers > are now more likely to let them a suffer horrendously painful > death, as that Talib would have, rather than end their > suffering(presuming no morphine shots available)? No, because the expectation is care on the spot and rapid evacuation to a first-rate medical facility within minutes. I will not discuss this further due to operational security considerations, but such a scenario is extremely, extremely unlikely. > Does it likewise start to make officers start to avoid the > high risk so that the likelihood of them being in Capt. > Semrau's situation is reduced? No. It would be safe to say that lessons have been learned and passed on. > Have not soldiers throughout history made their friends > promise to do for them what Capt. Semrau did if they fall > under those circumstances? Yes. And I know that this still happens. That does not make it right under the law, however. Perhaps the law is wrong, but different people see that in different ways too. Mercy-killing is still not acceptable under Canadian law, for military personnel or civilians, under any circumstance. Eloquent arguments have been made, and will continue to be made, at great length but I do not see anything changing for a long time to come. > I believe that were he tried under U.S. military law he'd > have faced a jury of 12 of his peers as opposed to Canada's > four member appointed panel. I wonder if any of the four have > served in a combat role? I don't know if the panel are more > like judiciary than peers in this case. Similar cases in the US Armed Forces are discussed in the sentencing decision for which I provided a link above. There is no legal "out". I also suspect that US courts martial operate much like ours. I would also posit that "combat experience" is a red herring. Decisions are to be rendered based upon law, including precident (if any), and evidence. "Combat experience" also varies widely. How close does it have to be? I acted in the capacity of UAV Mission Commander. How's that? Not close enough? Infantry officer? Few of them have ever been OMLT members, though, so should the panel only be limited to former OMLT members? We are all expected (and trained) to make fact-based decisions, regardless of specific profession. > Here under the Common-Law jury members may choose not to > convict if they view to do so would not be in the public > interest. Jury Nullification exists, only here jury members > are not allowed to know of that right though they may > exercise it. (some U.S. states allow juries to be informed > and others like Canada do not.) And the panel chose not to convict on the more serious charges. > Would you, or other soldiers that you know, object if Capt. > Semrau's punishment were set aside and he was re-instated by > the Prime Minister? I would object to this as it would constitute, in my eyes, political interference in a legal matter. I do not think that it will happen anyway, because I see no evidence that there is enough public support for that; certainly there are many who believe that 2Lt Semrau got off too lightly. Also, 2Lt Semrau had the option to appeal his conviction, but to the best of my knowledge, chose not to. That should be his decision. Lastly, his service is compromised. While many support his actions unequivocally, many also do not. Part of the reason for the military justice system is to ensure the effective operation of the CF, and 2Lt Semrau can no longer be completely trusted by all members. Whether or not that loss of trust is sufficient to render him incapable of serving effectively is not my decision to make. The court martial did that, though, and its members' opinions regarding that are, legal standing aside, equally valid. As one friend of mine said, "Legally, he got what he deserved; morally, not so much". There are lots of conflicting opinions among members of the CF, which reflect the complexity of the whole unfortunate case. Robert Semrau has my sympathy and best wishes. I believe that he did the wrong (legally and professionally) thing for the right (morally) reason. Whatever he had done or not done in that place and time could have been harshly judged by someone, and I think that most of us recognize that. Mark ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V14 #156 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator's email: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)