Should the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Code apply to the CF?
- Thread starter Cloud Cover
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 10,327
- Points
- 1,260
Let's not get off the topic of Charter Rights (Maybe you could split the topic). As well, the "what if's?" are innumberable; I remember constant "what if's" in a ROE class. Bottom line is, nothing can preclude you from defending your life. Any more specific discussion starts to move into the realm of OPSEC.
- Reaction score
- 6,396
- Points
- 1,360
What other assets are available? What is the man doing? ie threatening, close to others,?
- Reaction score
- 10,327
- Points
- 1,260
You wouldn't need to treat soldiers for burns if the threat was eliminated with rifle fire. Civilians would probably get it as the thrower dropped, but that's the price you pay for taking part in a mob attacking a group of armed soldiers.
Needless to say, those fire houses you see used in Crowd Control would not only eliminate the incendiary weapon, but would probably disperse the rioters.
Needless to say, those fire houses you see used in Crowd Control would not only eliminate the incendiary weapon, but would probably disperse the rioters.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
O.K. this conumdrum was put to us in Wainright back in 96 by the AJAG.
He asked the question ,we all said blow him away!
The same question I posted
Wrong!!
His answer was
"He had not commited a threating act even though ithe Moltov was lit!!"
When he said that I stood up and questioned him.
He stated I would be charged under the "CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA" for Murder!!
I told him out right I'd drop him and he told me I'd end up in Klink.
The lecture ended up in one big shouting match as too the Criminal Code of Canada and Q@RO's.
In the end we learned we have right's and we don't.
So there is your answer
He asked the question ,we all said blow him away!
The same question I posted
Wrong!!
His answer was
"He had not commited a threating act even though ithe Moltov was lit!!"
When he said that I stood up and questioned him.
He stated I would be charged under the "CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA" for Murder!!
I told him out right I'd drop him and he told me I'd end up in Klink.
The lecture ended up in one big shouting match as too the Criminal Code of Canada and Q@RO's.
In the end we learned we have right's and we don't.
So there is your answer
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
You';re telling me that if an individual, who is participating in a riot, against Canadian Soldiers, lights a Molotov Cocktail and someone ( a member of the CF) shoots him, that member will be charged with murder?
I do not agree
Under the criminal code you can respond with potentially lethal force if you BELIEVE you or someone else is going to be hurt or killed due to another's actions.
I know that for a fact because we are constantly being forced to review the criminal code at work for those exact things.
Slim
I do not agree
Under the criminal code you can respond with potentially lethal force if you BELIEVE you or someone else is going to be hurt or killed due to another's actions.
I know that for a fact because we are constantly being forced to review the criminal code at work for those exact things.
Slim
- Reaction score
- 10,327
- Points
- 1,260
I wonder if the AJAG knew that would stick. These things are all split second decisions, and I doubt the AJAG was in the position to be making a definitive statement on that very hectic situation from his comfy chair in Ottawa.
To me, waiting for the guy to chuck the thing at me and my fellow soldiers is unacceptable. The AJAG was trying to play Mr Technical, while anyone who's watched Palestinian's light Molotov Cocktails knows that as soon as the things are lit, there flying. My defence was that Force Protection was my primary concern and that the lit molotov cocktail presented a clear threat to the safety of me and the other soldiers and that the ROE's stated that we had every right to protect ourselves. I'd rather be judged by 12 then carried out by 6 (And that's what I'd say to the AJAG).
To me, waiting for the guy to chuck the thing at me and my fellow soldiers is unacceptable. The AJAG was trying to play Mr Technical, while anyone who's watched Palestinian's light Molotov Cocktails knows that as soon as the things are lit, there flying. My defence was that Force Protection was my primary concern and that the lit molotov cocktail presented a clear threat to the safety of me and the other soldiers and that the ROE's stated that we had every right to protect ourselves. I'd rather be judged by 12 then carried out by 6 (And that's what I'd say to the AJAG).
- Reaction score
- 6,396
- Points
- 1,360
Sorry boys, but I have to agree with Spr. Earl, that could have been water and a piece of toilet paper and the "person" just wanted to make a point, which is why I asked about his positioning, threatening manner, cabability, etc.
It sucks, imagine what a cop must go through sometime?
It sucks, imagine what a cop must go through sometime?
- Reaction score
- 10,327
- Points
- 1,260
So Bruce, if someone levels a plastic gun that is identical to a real handgun at a police officer, the officer is criminally liable for murder even if the person levels a toy gun at the officer just for the purpose of "making a point"?
I seem to remember a similar question in my ROE lecture as well and you are on the right track when you state to look at manner, capability, etc. I think the AJAG's question is a loaded one, because anyone who lights a molotov cocktail is going to whip the thing pretty quick.
If he is just holding the thing then he is not a threat, although I would definately respond with appropriate escalation my perhaps leveling my rifle at him so he knows we will defend ourselves (I guess a similar situation would be if a guy was loading an AK with a magazine; nothing threatening, but take the appropriate force protection measures).
I seem to remember a similar question in my ROE lecture as well and you are on the right track when you state to look at manner, capability, etc. I think the AJAG's question is a loaded one, because anyone who lights a molotov cocktail is going to whip the thing pretty quick.
If he is just holding the thing then he is not a threat, although I would definately respond with appropriate escalation my perhaps leveling my rifle at him so he knows we will defend ourselves (I guess a similar situation would be if a guy was loading an AK with a magazine; nothing threatening, but take the appropriate force protection measures).
- Reaction score
- 6,396
- Points
- 1,360
No the officer would be protected[but be put through the wringer by those who wouldn't have the parts to stand there] as he had no means of knowing if the capability to deliver the lethal force was there or not. That is why it is impossible to answer THAT question with the info. provided, what if there was no way he could deliver it? ie. distance That would negate your argument about throwing it real quick, if there was no way it could reach the troops, than what is your shooting of him?
I still firmly believe you had the answer before however, my life or the life of my comrades, or the life of this individual.....?
I still firmly believe you had the answer before however, my life or the life of my comrades, or the life of this individual.....?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Spr Earl: I can certainly understand your perspective on the matter. If someon in a rioutous crowd were about to throw a lethal weapon at me, akin to a grenade or other potentially lethal device, I'd certainly be prepared to back it up with lethal force. The problem is, was he going to throw it? Can you prove it? Was your life actually at risk? What are your ROEs? If he was just standing there in the midst of a peaceful demonstation and happened to have a bottle in his hand that he lit, it's a lot different than if a mob of civilians was bearing down on your position, bent on destruction.
I think the AJAG needs to consider the situation before giving a catch-all response that you would be charged with murder.
I think the AJAG needs to consider the situation before giving a catch-all response that you would be charged with murder.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,634
- Points
- 1,040
I think the JAG's point is that unless you have a ROE which permits you to fire on someone holding a lit molotov cocktail you are limited to self-defence, which requires a "hostile"* act. Simply holding the weapon might not be deemed hostile, the same way someone merely holding a loaded rifle is not committing a hostile act. If the arm is cocked for throwing, or the rifle is levelled/pointed/aimed, the act is assuredly "hostile".
*I can't recall the definition for self-defence purposes...is it "imminent and deadly"?
*I can't recall the definition for self-defence purposes...is it "imminent and deadly"?
- Reaction score
- 10,327
- Points
- 1,260
Obviously, as the three previous posts have pointed out, this specific hypothetical case study is fraught with "what if's" (what if he was cocking his arm, what if the crowd was aggressive). If the AJAG was to present the situation as "guy lighting molotov cocktail" he is either getting sloppy or just trying to scare some troops, as no case is that cut and dry without other circumstances.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
The end of it all was.
Yes it was lit but still not a threat!!
The threat would be if he threw it!!!
Then you could drop him!
That was the JAG's responce.
Ergo,what Rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian Human Rights Code do we have when it comes too performing our Duty even though when we react iinstinctively due to our training?
Yes it was lit but still not a threat!!
The threat would be if he threw it!!!
Then you could drop him!
That was the JAG's responce.
Ergo,what Rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian Human Rights Code do we have when it comes too performing our Duty even though when we react iinstinctively due to our training?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Perhaps our training models and exercises need to reflect more realistic situations.
Training that causes an instinctive 'drop him' response is good in that there is little delay between the need to act, and the action.
However, the instinctive reaction, which I think should be trained into soldiers, is to consider the situation in light of the ROEs and the laws applicable.
As soldiers in the Canadian Forces, we fall under Canadian law wherever we are, as well as any international laws which Canada has agreed to.
~~~
Overall I found this thread quite interesting. When I joined the CF Reserve, I was informed that by becoming a soldier, and taking on the responsibilities thereof I was forgoing certain rights afforded to regular citizens of Canada. These are off set by thing permitted of me in the legitimate performance of my duties, for example there are few civilians who are permitted to even get their hands on automatic weapons, let alone fire them. Under the right circumstances we as soldiers can be required to carry loaded weapons openly in public.
Things like hair cuts and other imposed restrictions exist for a reason -- discipline, without which the smooth functioning of the military would grind to a halt.
Training that causes an instinctive 'drop him' response is good in that there is little delay between the need to act, and the action.
However, the instinctive reaction, which I think should be trained into soldiers, is to consider the situation in light of the ROEs and the laws applicable.
As soldiers in the Canadian Forces, we fall under Canadian law wherever we are, as well as any international laws which Canada has agreed to.
~~~
Overall I found this thread quite interesting. When I joined the CF Reserve, I was informed that by becoming a soldier, and taking on the responsibilities thereof I was forgoing certain rights afforded to regular citizens of Canada. These are off set by thing permitted of me in the legitimate performance of my duties, for example there are few civilians who are permitted to even get their hands on automatic weapons, let alone fire them. Under the right circumstances we as soldiers can be required to carry loaded weapons openly in public.
Things like hair cuts and other imposed restrictions exist for a reason -- discipline, without which the smooth functioning of the military would grind to a halt.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Ok, boys...this is where I stand on the matter:
I agree with the comments that combat_medic has made. You can never know the outcome, until the outcome unfolds before you. I've taken some philosophy in my days...and my general stance lies with a philosopher who believes that you can never really know anything. You may have good reason to believe something is so, but you can never truly "know," until the action/event unfolds.
Now imagine what detectives and policemen go through...they're forced to rely on knowledge and educated guesses in hopes to acheive positive consequences. Pressure.
As far as Military exclusion from the Charter/Human Rights Code...I stand my ground. In taking into consideration all that has been said, along with some of my own research into the area, I've been able to draw the following:
Considering we reside in a reasonably peaceful nation, and are seldomnly called upon in times of war/peace-keeping, I see no reason for full exclusion, or even partial exclusion for that matter, while Canadian soldiers/citizens are free of the atrocities brought about by war. However, in times of war, I believe that it is not possible for the military to abide by the Charter in full. Therefore, I think a decree should be passed by the legislative body, including and excluding the military from specific rights, freedoms and outlaws that are seen/not seen fit with the Canadian Military in times where drastic measures are likely to be taken.
As it stands, I don't see the Charter as interfering with the rights and freedoms of Canadian soldiers...and exluding the military institution from rights and freedoms granted to every Canadian citizen, when it's clearly unnecessary (i.e. when the Canadian military is in no position where they would have to apply force to maintain peace and sovereignty) would upset the equilibrium in our society. In times of war...I agree with a lot of the comments made: it is clear that military conduct comes into direct conflict with the Charter, and ammendments need to be made to the Charter when the situation calls for it. And who's to determine that? I think we may have just found our next topic of discussion...
I agree with the comments that combat_medic has made. You can never know the outcome, until the outcome unfolds before you. I've taken some philosophy in my days...and my general stance lies with a philosopher who believes that you can never really know anything. You may have good reason to believe something is so, but you can never truly "know," until the action/event unfolds.
Now imagine what detectives and policemen go through...they're forced to rely on knowledge and educated guesses in hopes to acheive positive consequences. Pressure.
As far as Military exclusion from the Charter/Human Rights Code...I stand my ground. In taking into consideration all that has been said, along with some of my own research into the area, I've been able to draw the following:
Considering we reside in a reasonably peaceful nation, and are seldomnly called upon in times of war/peace-keeping, I see no reason for full exclusion, or even partial exclusion for that matter, while Canadian soldiers/citizens are free of the atrocities brought about by war. However, in times of war, I believe that it is not possible for the military to abide by the Charter in full. Therefore, I think a decree should be passed by the legislative body, including and excluding the military from specific rights, freedoms and outlaws that are seen/not seen fit with the Canadian Military in times where drastic measures are likely to be taken.
As it stands, I don't see the Charter as interfering with the rights and freedoms of Canadian soldiers...and exluding the military institution from rights and freedoms granted to every Canadian citizen, when it's clearly unnecessary (i.e. when the Canadian military is in no position where they would have to apply force to maintain peace and sovereignty) would upset the equilibrium in our society. In times of war...I agree with a lot of the comments made: it is clear that military conduct comes into direct conflict with the Charter, and ammendments need to be made to the Charter when the situation calls for it. And who's to determine that? I think we may have just found our next topic of discussion...
Similar threads
