Topic: Cpl Wilcox court martial - Sydney NS

[ajp]

I am not looking to get banned, but the training for ALL PERS on that serial was extensive, I was there. 

Within a WEEK of this incident there was another, without rounds that resulted in 5 Courts Martial (by election). THe HORSEPLAY issue is real in many scenarios, and this case truly is for the court to decide.  Even in a forum like this, we should be looking at the present case as it unfolds, not making decisions before they are released.

My thoughts.

[helpup]

I made my mind up based on his own statement of the events and I stand by calling it B.S  the whole horseplay issue is something all CoC need to address and I like to think we do a fairly good job of it. 

[PuckChaser]

I believe the issue here boils down to training in weapons safety. I have always been taught right from day One in the CF, that you only point a weapon at someone you want to kill. The second lesson was always ensure your weapon is unloaded when its not absolutely required to be loaded. Failure to follow both of these important safety points resulted in the death of Cpl. Megeney, and I do believe Cpl Wilcox should be held accountable. Even when playing around like Rambo with your weapons (everyone's done it at least once), training and common sense should be kicking in to ensure they are not loaded and not pointed at someone.

[Harley Sailor]

As not one person is standing up for Cpl Wilcox, let me add my two cents.  I am sure he knows the real story.  Hopefully he feels remorse. In his mind he thinks it was an accident.  As for the lame defence, that belongs to his lawyer.  I was once charged with a major crime and had nothing to do with my type of defence.  The lawyer picks the defence.

Cpl Wilcox is only now doing what most of us would, trusting his lawyer to get him the best result from a bad mistake.  Honestly, how many of you just take the punishment give and not try to get it reduced.  When you get a week of extras do you not try to get out of it.  Well he is doing the same thing.

[Kat Stevens]

Take the extras and smile in my case, 'cause a week of duty and free mess meals is infinitely better than pushing my luck and getting 14 days on defaulters.   

[recceguy]

Anytime I got extras, I gladly accepted them, without dickering. The alternatives were always worse.

[dapaterson]

As for the lame defence, that belongs to his lawyer.  I was once charged with a major crime and had nothing to do with my type of defence.  The lawyer picks the defence.

No.  The lawyer works for the client  The lawyer may make suggestions and provide information, but at the end of the day it is the accused who decides.

[Harley Sailor]

Anytime I got extras, I gladly accepted them, without dickering. The alternatives were always worse.

And how do you know they were worse if you did not try to dicker.  In my 30 years I can count the number of people who just took it and did not ask for a better deal, at least the first couple of times.  I even know army guys who have gone to the MIR so that their extras would be lights.

[recceguy]

And how do you know they were worse if you did not try to dicker.  In my 30 years I can count the number of people who just took it and did not ask for a better deal, at least the first couple of times.  I even know army guys who have gone to the MIR so that their extras would be lights.

Because in my 40 years I've never been afraid to take responsibility for my actions.

[Harley Sailor]

No.  The lawyer works for the client  The lawyer may make suggestions and provide information, but at the end of the day it is the accused who decides.

Have you been there?  When you are accused you are scared and unsure of what to do.  Your lawyer tells you how he plans to defend you and you except it or find a new lawyer. At the end of the day the accused excepts the lawyers advice because he knows best.  If you are smart enough to tell your lawyer how to defend you then you are smart enough not to get into the problem in the first place.

[Jammer]

...otherwise you would be being paid $250 an hour.
...unless the Mod thinks otherwise, just my opinion though.

[ObedientiaZelum]

I think there is a marked difference between trying to get out of doing some extra duties or a  minor charge and getting out of fatally shooting a fellow soldier.

This soldier isn't doing himself any favors in my opinion. Especially when he told a peer that the accident happened while playing quick draw then for reasons known to him and his lawyer, he decides to use some kind of 'I felt threatened' approach.

[Technoviking]

This part has been troubling me:

He said that he realized Canadian commanders required him to unload his weapon after he left his post, and said he had taken the magazine out of his pistol in order to fulfil that order.
However, he added, he had trouble shoving the magazine into a separate compartment on a leg holster, and instead jammed the magazine back into the gun.

He claims to have conducted the unload drill on the pistol, which in essence involes (a) removing the source of ammunition and then (b) ensuring that no ammunition is in the chamber.  He then claims that he re-introduced the source of ammunition into the weapon.  Call me crazy ("You're crazy, Midnight Rambler!") but unless the laws of physics have since changed, ammunition cannot get into the chamber of the service pistol until the action is cocked, thereby readying the weapon.  I don't believe Cpl Wilcox when he asserts that which I have quoted above.  If he unloaded the weapon, then "turning and firing" would result in nothing, because the weapon would not ready itself.  He loaded the weapon (by his own admission), and he readied the weapon (as witnessed by the fact that the weapon discharged). 
The question is: did he *really* unload the weapon?  Or did he simply remove the magazine?  And if so, why was the weapon readied in the first place? 
I believe that he unloaded the weapon (as he has testified), then loaded it (eg: inserted the magazine, as he has testified) and then he readied the weapon.  He has not admitted to this; however, I don't think that his lawyers know the mechanism of the pistol enough to even ask this question.  Well, in the pursuit of the truth, here it is.
"Fire away".

(sorry, was that in bad taste?)  OK, then.

"Shoot".

Whoops


"Carry on".

[Roy Harding]

... however, I don't think that his lawyers know the mechanism of the pistol enough to even ask this question.  ...

You are probably correct in this assertion - however; all the lawyers I know are smart enough to get an expert opinion - they (despite our societal bias against them) are smart enough to "know what they don't know".

I'm sure there was a "gun plumber's inspection" done on the weapon immediately following the incident - the report of that inspection would essentially say the same thing you did in your post - and his lawyers are (I'm sure) in possession of that report.

[recceguy]

...otherwise you would be being paid $250 an hour.
...unless the Mod thinks otherwise, just my opinion though.

Meaning what exactly?

You are probably correct in this assertion - however; all the lawyers I know are smart enough to get an expert opinion - they (despite our societal bias against them) are smart enough to "know what they don't know".

I'm sure there was a "gun plumber's inspection" done on the weapon immediately following the incident - the report of that inspection would essentially say the same thing you did in your post - and his lawyers are (I'm sure) in possession of that report.

If I know one thing from my court time, it's that the lawyer will never ask a question he doesn't already know the answer to, nor will he introduce a piece of evidence he's not familiar with or that can be used against his client.

[Neo Cortex]

Meaning what exactly?

If I know one thing from my court time, it's that the lawyer will never ask a question he doesn't already know the answer to, nor will he introduce a piece of evidence he's not familiar with or that can be used against his client.

I apologize for my ignorance, but do court-martialed(sp?) Soldiers get a civilian lawyer? I would expect that a Military lawyer might be more likely to question things and gather expert testimony, given the nature of the profession relative to the crime committed.

And as I understand it (please correct if wrong), a lawyer can pick and choose the evidence he uses at a trial, no? It would of course be detrimental to a case if you had to include evidence during "Discovery" that would discredit your own client.

[George Wallace]

I apologize for my ignorance, but do court-martialed(sp?) Soldiers get a civilian lawyer?

A Soldier is like any other Canadian Citizen, and entitled under the Law to choose the best Defence/Lawyer (s)he sees fit.  That would include civilian lawyers.

.... I would expect that a Military lawyer might be more likely to question things and gather expert testimony, given the nature of the profession relative to the crime committed.

That is an assumption on your part.  Not necessarily a true one.

And as I understand it (please correct if wrong), a lawyer can pick and choose the evidence he uses at a trial, no? It would of course be detrimental to a case if you had to include evidence during "Discovery" that would discredit your own client.

It is the Prosecution who usually produces evidence.  All parties must have full disclosure.  The Defence is not likely to bring up incriminating facts in their defence of the accused.

This is all something, that is rather rare these days, called common sense.

[Neo Cortex]

A Soldier is like any other Canadian Citizen, and entitled under the Law to choose the best Defence/Lawyer (s)he sees fit.  That would include civilian lawyers.

That is an assumption on your part.  Not necessarily a true one.

It is the Prosecution who usually produces evidence.  All parties must have full disclosure.  The Defence is not likely to bring up incriminating facts in their defence of the accused.

This is all something, that is rather rare these days, called common sense.

I see, thank you for the clarification.

[George Wallace]

As you go back and read this topic again, you can see where the common sense has been lacking.  Every twist and turn of the Defence is indicating a lack of it on the Accused's part.  There are just too many flaws in the weapon's handling as being depicted in the testimony, that many here are picking up on.

In the end, however, it may boil down to which Lawyer is the best "storyteller".

[the 48th regulator]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_36168.aspx

Soldier Says 'In Retrospect' Options Existed To Shooting Comrade In Afghanistan


Monday July 27, 2009
Michael Tutton, The Canadian Press

A soldier accused of manslaughter in the shooting death of his comrade in Afghanistan says "in retrospect" he realizes he had other options to pulling the trigger when he thought he was being threatened.

Cpl. Matthew Wilcox has told a court martial that he was acting in self-defence when he shot Cpl. Kevin Megeney on March 6, 2007, in the tent they shared at Kandahar Airfield.

He testified last week that he heard the sound of a pistol bolt sliding, turned slightly to see a barrel pointed at his back, and "instinctively" pivoted and fired a shot.

On Monday, prosecutor Maj. Jason Samson pressed the 24-year-old reservist on whether a "reasonable" person would shoot, given military training requires soldiers to first assess a threat.

"If they had all of the facts now, yes, sir. But not at the time," replied Wilcox, who is from Glace Bay, N.S.

Samson asked if it was reasonable to assume that Megeney's gun wasn't loaded because military rules at the base in Kandahar require that off-duty soldiers unload their rifles and pistols.

The corporal responded that he didn't know, "one way or another," if the Browning 9-mm pistol of his tentmate was loaded.

"I just know it (Megeney's pistol) was ready," he added.

Wilcox has pleaded not guilty to charges of manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, and negligent performance of duty in the death of Megeney, 25, of Stellarton, N.S.

The prosecution alleges that Wilcox and Megeney - described as close friends in Afghanistan - were playing a game of "quick draw" when the shooting happened, an accusation that Wilcox has denied.

Samson asked whether Megeney might have been checking his pistol to see if there was any ammunition in it.

Wilcox agreed that was possible, but added it was also "speculation."

Wilcox said he realizes now he could also have sprinted out of the tent or ducked behind metal lockers in the same period of time he had to shoot Megeney.

He said he felt threatened, however, and simply "reacted."

Megeney died about 30 minutes after he was shot. Both Wilcox and Megeney were members of 1 Platoon, force protection company, which was responsible for protecting Kandahar Airfield.

The trial is being held before a four-member military panel and a judge, Cmdr. Peter Lamont.

© 2009 Rogers Broadcasting Limited
 

[the 48th regulator]

Soldier who shot bunkmate admits he had other options

Chris Shannon,  Cape Breton Post

SYDNEY, N.S. - A Canadian reservist admitted on Monday that he had other options than shooting a fellow Canadian soldier and bunkmate in a tent at Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan.

At his court martial on Monday, Cpl. Matthew Wilcox, 24, said he felt threatened when he heard a cocked pistol and glanced at the barrel of a gun pointed in his direction.

Cpl. Wilcox, from Glace Bay, N.S., has pleaded not guilty to charges of manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death and negligent performance of duty in the March 6, 2007, death of Cpl. Kevin Megeney of Stellarton, N.S.

During his second day of testimony, Cpl. Wilcox said he fell back from a crouched position, pulled his 9-mm pistol from his right leg holster and readied it before pivoting and shooting the person holding the other gun.

"I could see the front of the barrel as the slide moved forward," Cpl. Wilcox said during cross-examination.

Prosecutor Maj. Jason Samson suggested to Cpl. Wilcox that he had other choices, including running out of the tent or darting behind the bunk space of another soldier.

"I suppose I could've, or moved out of his line of view by running to Master Cpl. [Nathan] Crosby's bunk," Cpl. Wilcox said. "I suppose I could have turned around and did nothing, too."

The defence has put forward the theory Cpl. Wilcox acted in self-defence to an unknown threat. Cpl. Wilcox agreed during cross-examination on Friday that he reacted without first assessing the threat.

"At the time I just reacted to a pistol pointed at me. I did not have the time to think through all of the possibilities," he said Monday.

Maj. Samson said the sound of the 9-mm pistol could have been as simple as Cpl. Megeney checking his gun to ensure there were no rounds in the chamber. The prosecutor also suggested Cpl. Megeney could have been cleaning his gun at the time.

"If Kevin didn't see you, maybe he thought he was pointing in a safe direction?" Maj. Samson asked.

"It's possible, sir, but he would normally point a gun toward the ground," Cpl. Wilcox replied.

He said "in retrospect" there were other ways to handle the situation rather than using deadly force. "Sitting here today sir, with the evidence, I don't think there was a threat."

Coming off a 12-hour shift as a member of force protection company, which is in charge of protecting one of the main gates of Kandahar Airfield, Cpl. Wilcox said he wasn't in a fully relaxed state at the tent but he wasn't "at a heightened state of awareness either."

Cpl. Wilcox refused to buy into the prosecution's theory that he had been playing a game of "quick draw" with Cpl. Megeney at the time of the shooting.

That claim made by one of his friends, Master Cpl. Kyle Keigan, during earlier testimony was backed up by a couple other witnesses who believed through rumour and innuendo that to be the case.

There were 35 people watching the court martial from the gallery Monday, by far the largest crowd on hand to view the proceedings to date. Cpl. Megeney's parents, Dexter and Karen, had the support of 11 friends and relatives who sat with them behind the prosecutors' table.

Wilcox had about 10 supporters in court, most of them family members.

The defence closed its case at the close of Cpl. Wilcox's testimony. The trial now proceeds Tuesday with closing arguments.

cshannon@cbpost.com

© 2009 The National Post Company. All rights reserved.

[helpup]

A quick touch on the subject of a Lawyer providing the options of defence.  I am not one and outside of being to a few court martials and my own history with dealing with the JAG's and such.  This ( use the term loosely) soldier, made a statement of his case.  I, as stated, find that complete B.S.  Many here do...... and rightly so. 

Here is what has been laid out as I followed the case. 
- the accused came off shift where the 9mm was a side arm that was carried loaded.  ( mag in the pistol, no round in the chamber) I dont know if he was required or did in fact ready the weapon but from what I have read and my own experience the weapon was more and likely readied while on shift)
-Camp policywas to clear your weapons prior to going off shift or entering the camp. ( this was covered by a recent post.
-It was not clear if he put a empty mag on or even a full mag to allow the  hammer to go forward on a empty chamber, ( a normal process that is often carried out prior to removing the mag one last time)  Some times keeping the mag on after a unload and clearing the wpn is the proper drill but not as I understand it for the camp he was in.
-He would of had his 9mm in his holster the mag should of been off but regardless the  hammer should of been forward
-He gets into his tent where the sounds of wpns being cocked prior to being cleaned are ( trust me on this) a normal occurance.
-by his statement he turned around and seen a pistol leveled at him and reacted "in under 2 seconds"
-he would of needed to draw his cleared wpn and if it was properly cleared put a mag in if it was not already inserted. If there was a mag in it then he was doing something VERY WRONG unless his camp changed routine WRT Wpns state.  Regardless he would of needed to now "ready" his action as the hammer should of been forward.  This can be occompished by pulling back on the slide or cocking the hammer itself back.  ( however if there is not round in the chamber and no mag on, the hammer will not go forward unless a sear is pressed. If there is a round in the chamber and there is NO magazine on and the action is cocked. The wpn unless broken ( the sear is broken in such a way to allow the action to go forward with out a magzine in) will not fire.
- The accused pointed his wpn and fired it, I believe his statement was there was a mag on.  regardless it should not of been readied or even loaded, let alone the hammer cocked. He would of had to "ready" the wpn, his trg would of been to watch his threat while doing this. Even in under two seconds it would give him time to realize it was a Canadian he was aiming at ( big NO NO through any CF TRG)
-Given all that I find it more likely he thought his Wpn was cleared. Had a mag on with the hammer to the rear ( for what ever reason) there was a round in the chamber due to a gross mistake on his part.  He drew and fired thinking it would just go click...........
That I am sorry is against his trg.........
-Even if he was under the assumption he was in threat of his life he should not of had a loaded and readied wpn. He should of had to draw it, load it, ready it, fire it while watching his threat............ I dont buy that he had to do that.... in under two seconds.  And if he did have to do that then he was doing it against camp policy, CF policy and is in the wrong regardless.


Note Mod's I hope I am not going overboard with this one.  If so let me know and I will modify or if it is too much just delete this post.

Also edited for spelling and clarification ( my spell checker on this computer does not work )

[Technoviking]

Also edited for spelling and clarification ( my spell checker on this computer does not work )

That's when a dictionary comes in handy.

Just one clarification in reference to your post.  The accused testified that he "put in a magazine" (read: loaded) his pistol after unloading it.  The inference is that he cleared it properly (eg: removed the magazine, cocked the weapon, thereby removing any ammo from the chamber.  Then he would have checked visually to ensure that the chamber was indeed clear.  Then he would have allowed the action forward, inserted a magazine, and fired the action into a safe area [eg: clearing bay].) 

Some time after this he loaded the weapon.  He hasn't testified when he readied it.

[GAP]

His testimony doesn't square with normal procedures nor with common sense....he needs to take another tact.....

[PMedMoe]

Well, I realize it's the media reporting but in one story, he just turned and fired a shot, indicating that the weapon was, indeed, loaded.  In the other, he states he "readied" the weapon which either involved cocking the action or putting a mag on and cocking the action.  Either way, it's just wrong.