there's the door sonny, don't let it hit you.....




 
--
 
April 5th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 

Topic: there's the door sonny, don't let it hit you.....


Soldier dismissed for indecent assault
05 April 2005

Drunken ramblings through a women's barracks and an indecent assault have led to six months' detention and dismissal from the army for a young soldier.


Private Shannon Haimona Goldsmith, 20, faced a court-martial at Linton Camp yesterday over a series of incidents at Waiouru on June 11, 2004.

Initially, he faced seven charges, but two were withdrawn at the request of prosecutor Captain Matt Harding.

Goldsmith pleaded guilty to one charge of indecent assault, three of failure to comply with written orders (that male personnel stay out of the women's barracks) and one of drunkenness.

Captain Harding read into the court record an agreed statement of fact in which Goldsmith admitted climbing into bed with three sleeping women, one of whom he touched indecently, grabbing her breasts and kissing her "on and in the mouth".

The woman, then aged 18, woke and told him to get out. He stumbled from the room, calling her a "slut", a "skank" and a "ho" before collapsing in the corridor and going to sleep.

The woman used her cellphone to take his photograph to use as evidence. Goldsmith woke the next morning in his own bed, claiming to have little memory of what had happened.

Captain Harding said that, on "payday Thursday", Goldsmith went drinking with friends after dinner and returned to his barracks drunk. In the early hours, he entered the women's barracks, where four soldiers shared each room and committed the offences.

The woman he admitted indecently touching made a victim impact statement in which she said that since the assault her self-confidence had been shattered. She was finding it difficult to relate to people and was seriously considering resigning from the service.

In arguing for a prison sentence, Captain Harding said Goldsmith's actions should not be dismissed as the drunken antics of a young man, or a case of "boys will be boys".

"It is far more serious than that," he said. "He admits he was drunk, but only one person was responsible for that - the person who put the alcohol to his lips. Himself.

"His drunken state was no excuse. It might explain his actions, but it does not condone them."

Goldsmith had gone from one room to another, looking for what he saw as "pussy", Captain Harding said.

He entered rooms where "young soldiers, our soldiers, were sleeping". The women were treated as faceless objects, and Goldsmith had made no secret of the contempt in which he held them, calling them slut, skank or ho.

"There is no longer any place for you in the service in New Zealand," he told the defendant.

Duncan Harvey, representing Goldsmith, said the actions had been completely out of character for his client.

"Whilst alcohol was not a mitigating factor, it does explain what happened," he said.

Goldsmith had not set out stone-cold sober to do what he had done. That would have added an entirely different matter.

Instead, there was evidence that Goldsmith was stumbling about and falling over.

He had got out of the women's beds when asked to do so.

Whatever he did that night, and as frightening as it was to the girls, there was no suggestion of violence, Mr Harvey said.

Dismissal from the service would take away a career from a 20 year old who had performed his military duties well, but had few other qualifications.

Mr Harvey suggested the Army had a degree of responsibility for Goldsmith. It had accepted a young man with a drinking problem that had earned him civilian convictions, and placed him in an environment where alcohol was abundant.

The Judge advocate was John Rowan QC and the president of the military panel was Major Anthony Blythen.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3238377a11,00.html
April 5th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
You guys don't have fireguards? Nobody was on duty in the hallways to the barracks?
April 5th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
You guys don't have fireguards? Nobody was on duty in the hallways to the barracks?

not that i'm aware of. MP's do roving patrols and thats about it. beleive me, alot of the fmale in the NZDF can look after themselves!
--
April 5th, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
not that i'm aware of. MP's do roving patrols and thats about it. beleive me, alot of the fmale in the NZDF can look after themselves!
Nobody is insinuating your female soldiers are weak, it isn't a matter of being able to look out for themselves, it's a matter of not having to. They shouldn't have to be forced to think defensively in their own beds, a sufficient level of security should be provided for them so that they can be confident in the knowledge that nothing is going to happen to them while they sleep.

Anyone else notice the last lines? It's all the army's fault that this yahoo screwed up. Makes sense to me.
April 5th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
not that i'm aware of. MP's do roving patrols and thats about it. beleive me, alot of the females in the NZDF can look after themselves!
Nobody is insinuating your female soldiers are weak, it isn't a matter of being able to look out for themselves, it's a matter of not having to. They shouldn't have to be forced to think defensively in their own beds, a sufficient level of security should be provided for them so that they can be confident in the knowledge that nothing is going to happen to them while they sleep.
i wasn't taking it as a our female troops need to be looked after, what i mean't was that it a brave man that provokes them! lol
but you're right, they shouldn't have to worry about behavour from people like this jerk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
Anyone else notice the last lines? It's all the army's fault that this yahoo screwed up. Makes sense to me.

i take it you're being sarcastic? well the army DID accept thins guy even with a couple of drunk & disorderly convictions...and then proceeded to let him go nuts on the booze. sure it all comes back to personal responsibility but someone should have at least been made aware this guy had a drinking problem... or am i firing high?
April 6th, 2005  
Sooners1
 
 
I cant believe that there was no "firewatch" or duty on. Someone should have been standin duty in that area. Also, most of the time drinkin isnt considered a big no no. What you did as a civi does not come into play unless you tell someone, there is no way of command or anyone else to find out.
April 6th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Hey I remember the Chain Link and Concertina wire fence around the WM barracks at Camp Hansen in the mid 80's complete with a Guard Post and two M16 totin Devil Dawgs. You weren't gettin in that hootch.....not that you'd want too

I know the Grunts and Some of the Cannon Cockers, Tankers and Trackers stood Firewatch in the Barracks. But I know that alot of the Support Units and wing only had the Duty NCO, and A-Duty NCO.
April 6th, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
Anyone else notice the last lines? It's all the army's fault that this yahoo screwed up. Makes sense to me.

i take it you're being sarcastic? well the army DID accept thins guy even with a couple of drunk & disorderly convictions...and then proceeded to let him go nuts on the booze. sure it all comes back to personal responsibility but someone should have at least been made aware this guy had a drinking problem... or am i firing high?
You take it right. Nobody "let" him go nuts on booze, he made the decision himself and performed the actions himself. If no folks were allowed in the military because of misdemeanor convictions in civilian life, you would kind of be taking away from them any ability to turn their lives around and move on (at least as far as the military is concerned) for what is in fact a very minor and very common offense. If he had been convicted previously of violent crimes, drunk or sober, I would fully support his being barred from the military from the get go, but for all his CoC knew (if they even knew this much) he had gotten a little housed a couple times and made a racket, not really a setting-the-world-on-fire problem.
April 6th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Yep, if the New Zealand Army is to be at fault for anything, it's in not having fireguards. That's a basic in the US military and as the name implies, it has much more use than just keeping boozers out of the barracks.

(there fixed it Chewie, hey, it was late night)
April 6th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
i

...and then proceeded to let him go nuts on the booze.

I don't see how the Command "let" him go nuts. He did that on his own. To blame the Military every time a solider has a problem or commits a violation of their own accord removes the responsibilty from the troops.