CBSA arming

[dutchie]

There would likely be a pre screening process for the existing Inspectors to assess their ability to be in an armed conflict. 

First off, they are called 'Border Services Officers' (the old Customs Officer'). 'Customs Inspector' is a higher level position.

That will be enough of that.  Unless you are a mid level Customs recruiter and have personal knowledge of what the hiring criteria are, whether you mean to or not, you are being insulting.   

Actually, I am employed in the Fed Gov Service, and as such, am very much aware of how it works. The process is the same for all public service commission postings. There is a statement of qualifications, and the applicant is evaluated against those through written tests, interviews, practical tests, and reference checks. If you pass through the hoops, you make the eligibility list. New hires are taken from that. There is NO requirement for use of deadly force currently in Customs, and as such, having that as part of the Statement of Quals couldn't and doesn't happen. Ability or even willingness to use deadly force is NOT ASSESSED.

Nobody knows how they will react to a fire fight until they are in one. 

Well let's be clear, they will not be put in a fire fight to 'see how they react'. Were you put in one when you joined the CF?

There is nothing magical or heroic about using a tool to protect you or one of your comrades from a lethal threat. 

No one suggested it was. However, few people have the 'jam' to react to 'effective enemy fire' as the natural instinct is to duck and run. Assessing whether someone has the jam is critical to arming them.

I agree that anyone being hired from here on in should be required to have a side arm and then through attrition, they will all end up armed in the end.

Bad idea. Arm all BSO's in the booths, or none at all. Once they are armed, they will be treated by the bad guys as such. If you leave a BSO unarmed sitting in their booth, you put them in serious danger as the bad guy will assume they are armed. Essentially, they will bring a gun to what they believe is a gun fight, not realizing it is a fist fight.

I work with these guys and the few yentas that are still around that are there to grab taxes on the turkeys and cheese are on their way out. 

Well, good for you. A quick look around YVR, Pac Hwy Border crossing or Peace Arch will show you that the ones you know DO exist, but a good number are your run 'o the mill Civil Servant.

 

[J.J]

First off, they are called 'Border Services Officers' (the old Customs Officer'). 'Customs Inspector' is a higher level position.
You are wrong, there is technically no one called a Customs Inspector, all Officers are known as BSO's

Actually, I am employed in the Fed Gov Service, and as such, am very much aware of how it works. The process is the same for all public service commission postings. There is a statement of qualifications, and the applicant is evaluated against those through written tests, interviews, practical tests, and reference checks. If you pass through the hoops, you make the eligibility list. New hires are taken from that. There is NO requirement for use of deadly force currently in Customs, and as such, having that as part of the Statement of Quals couldn't and doesn't happen. Ability or even willingness to use deadly force is NOT ASSESSED

The actual process may be the same, but on statement of qualifications the use of force is addressed and it is indicated that the potential applicant may have to use force in the execution of their duties. The hiring process interview is much differant than a "tax clerk", the interview is to determine the suitability of a Law Enforcement Officer with vast powers and responsibilities.  All present Officer's will have to be assessed and a decision would be made on their suitability to be armed, the job itself will not change, just the tools.

Bad idea. Arm all BSO's in the booths, or none at all. Once they are armed, they will be treated by the bad guys as such. If you leave a BSO unarmed sitting in their booth, you put them in serious danger as the bad guy will assume they are armed. Essentially, they will bring a gun to what they believe is a gun fight, not realizing it is a fist fight.
Presently there are several officer's who decided not to take use of force, officer's with medical conditions etc that do not have any defensive tools, they call for help from fellow officer's when the situation arises. Is it a perfect situation?? NO it is not, but what can you do with some officer's who have 20-30 yrs experience, fire them?? After July 2000 all officer's hired must pass the use of force training and maintain that ability.

Well, good for you. A quick look around YVR, Pac Hwy Border crossing or Peace Arch will show you that the ones you know DO exist, but a good number are your run 'o the mill Civil Servant[/quote]

You seem to have a "hate on" for BSO's...why is that? I have worked and trained with several BSO's from the Pacific region and almost to the person they have been educated, professional and good officer's. I work at the Detroit/Windsor Tunnel and there the " run 'o the mill Civil Servant" deals regularly with the worst the city of Detroit can offer. There the "run 'o the mill Civil Servant" deals with hardcore gang members, murderers, terrorists and every day deviants. Are there Officer's that should not be working there, yes there are more than one, but the majority are professionals. Ask Blackhorse 7 or Zipperheadcop or any other other cop if they work with someone who does not deserve the job and should not have a gun, they exist everywhere

 

[Blackhorse7]

Ask Blackhorse 7 or Zipperheadcop or any other other cop if they work with someone who does not deserve the job and should not have a gun, they exist everywhere

No argument there...

 

[HDE]

It strikes me that while the idea of arming BSOs is may be a good idea, in theory, there are considerable issues to be addressed before it could be done.   

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Actually, I am employed in the Fed Gov Service, and as such, am very much aware of how it works. The process is the same for all public service commission postings. There is a statement of qualifications, and the applicant is evaluated against those through written tests, interviews, practical tests, and reference checks. If you pass through the hoops, you make the eligibility list. New hires are taken from that. There is NO requirement for use of deadly force currently in Customs, and as such, having that as part of the Statement of Quals couldn't and doesn't happen. Ability or even willingness to use deadly force is NOT ASSESSED.

Okay, there Capt. Vague.  Are you talking about being a Reservist, or do you actually work for a branch of the Federal Government?  They kind of have a lot of branches, you know.  Being a quality inspector for bovine semen purity with the Ministry of Agriculture under the Animal Pedigree Act could be quite an adventure, but would hardly qualify one as a Customs expert.
Looks like from WR's post you actually don't know how it works.  If you look into the use of force continuum that we use, Deadly Force is just one zone at the end of it.  It is a force option, which you train for and simply make a decision to use when put in a particular circumstance.  Ability is just a training issue.  Willingness is another issue, and as said they don't force the older CBSA members to use PPT equipment if they are not comfortable with it. 

Well let's be clear, they will not be put in a fire fight to 'see how they react'. Were you put in one when you joined the CF?

Yeah, back then I think we called it "training" and we used these things they called "blanks".

No one suggested it was. However, few people have the 'jam' to react to 'effective enemy fire' as the natural instinct is to duck and run. Assessing whether someone has the jam is critical to arming them.

Police fire fights generally take place within 3 meters.  There isn't really time to get scared, just react.  We can only hope that we react quickly enough to stop the bad guy.  I don't think that is quite the same thing as someone in the middle of a sustained battle with arty and rounds zipping all around being told to go forward.  Then, you have a lot of time to think about getting waxed, and the soldiers that go when they are told to have bigger stones than most of us. 
I agree with WR that you seem to have a bit of a hard on against the CBSA.  Why is that?  What would you rather see, them with their asses in the wind getting shot at with no ability to return fire?  Maybe a bunch of them die when they send down a cold hit suspicious car and some desperado jumps out and starts shooting?  Of course there will be issues with training and aptitude.  They will deal with it. 
Would anyone say that the London Metropolitan Police (Britain) should not be allowed to carry guns because most of them don't right now?
Things change, and our country is getting more dangerous by the hour.  Lets give them the tools they need to go home to their families at the end of their shifts, instead of just crossing our fingers and saying "it won't happen here".

 

[HDE]

Why does the London Metropolitan Police choose not to arm all of their constables?  Just curious!

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Maybe we need to special request Big Bad John pop in for that one.

 

[big bad john]

Why does the London Metropolitan Police choose not to arm all of their constables?  Just curious!

We do not believe in the basic premise of arming all police.  It is a fundamental difference in philosophies.  That is why you can hear the police cry, " stop, Police!", and the criminal  usually runs faster.  But when the cry is "Stop, Armed Police!", they usually stop.  It is changing.  We still have the image of the unarmed Constable in our minds.

 

[TCBF]

You mean the cop has to actually say "Stop, ARMED police"?

What if he says that, and the puke stops, only then they both realize the cop is not in fact armed.  Does the cop have to let the puke walk?

;D

Tom

 

[big bad john]

You mean the cop has to actually say "Stop, ARMED police"?

What if he says that, and the puke stops, only then they both realize the cop is not in fact armed.  Does the cop have to let the puke walk?

;D

Tom

The law is quite clear.  It would not be useful to cry wolf.  But they must identify themselves and the fact that they are armed.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Wow.  That is wild.  No one cares what I yell at them when they run, and I usually save my breath to try to motivate my semi-out-of-shape arse.  Damn you kids!  Get out of that Jello tree!

 

[enfield]

  That is why you can hear the police cry, " stop, Police!", and the criminal  usually runs faster.  But when the cry is "Stop, Armed Police!", they usually stop. 

Why? Is it legal to shoot a person for running?
I am actually curious - the idea a cop needs to identify if they are armed or not is quite outside the North American reference.

I understood that while the patrol constables are not armed, there are a large number of 'tactical' or 'firearms' teams spread around London, on constant standby. So rather than every cop with a pistol, you have a few cops with a lot of guns. True? false? Hearsay? My own experience in the UK showed a lot more guys with MP5's, at various sensitive sites, then I've ever seen in North America.

 

[dutchie]

I applogize for the long post......

You are wrong, there is technically no one called a Customs Inspector, all Officers are known as BSO's

You misunderstood what I said. Let me be more clear - there is no such thing as a Customs Officer, they are BSOs.

The actual process may be the same, but on statement of qualifications the use of force is addressed and it is indicated that the potential applicant may have to use force in the execution of their duties.

Here is a BSO Statement of Quals from May 05:
Classification: PM -03.
Selection Process number: 2005-BSF-CCID-PAC-0003
Position Title: Border Services Officer - Customs
Department / Agency: Canada Border Services Agency , Customs Division.
...
Experience:
Experience in the enforcement of acts and regulations in terms of measuring compliance and imposing penalties or sanctions for violations OR
Experience in gathering information in an investigative setting or pressure situation OR
Experience in obtaining information through the use of interviewing and examination techniques OR

Experience in processing and handling import or export documentation and/or travel documentation.


Abilities / Skills: Ability to Solve Problems Using Reasoning.
The Border Services Officer Test or BSOT (formerly Customs Inspector Test) version 2A will be used to assess. Candidates must achieve a score of 68 out of a possible 117 in order to be considered further in this competition. The BSOT Information Booklet is available online at: http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/careers/cit-e.html or http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/careers/cit-f.html

Personal suitability:

Professionalism

Enforcement Orientation

Dependability
The three personal suitabilities above will be assessed locally. All other personal suitabilities listed below will be assessed in Rigaud, Quebec as detailed in the notes section below.
Analytical Thinking
Decisiveness
Inspection Techniques
Effective Interactive Communication
Information Seeking Skills
Dealing with Difficult Situations
Self-Confidence
Client Service Orientation
Supporting CBSA Values
Legislation, Policies and Procedures
CBSA Business Systems

Conditions of employment:
Successful completion of the Border Services Officer Training and Assessment Program for new recruits at the Border Services Learning Centre in Rigaud, Quebec and additional mode specific training may be required. Details on training and assessment are in the notes section below.

Willingness to work various shifts, on rotation, on flexible hours, weekends as well as statutory holidays.
Willingness to work overtime.
Willingness to accept deployments or a series of work assignments within the District.
Willingness to travel.
Maintaining a valid driver’s license or personal mobility to a degree normally associated with the possession of a driver’s license.
Willingness to operate a government vehicle.
Willingness to wear and maintain a uniform and maintain related job equipment as per CBSA standards.  Obtaining and maintaining Standard First Aid Certification, (according to Canada Labour Code, OSH Regulations, Part II).
Obtaining Canadian Firearms Safety Certification. Approved CBSA Medical/Physical Assessment. 
Obtaining and maintaining Reliability security clearance.
...
Note This process is being conducted to staff positions of various tenures. (Temporary, Permanent, Seasonal, Part-time or Full-time) Job offers will be based on staffing needs during the validity period of this eligibility list and may be in any of the locations stated above. The eligibility list resulting from this competition may be used to staff similar positions.
All qualifications are non-compensatory.

Assessment conducted locally may include written test, interview and reference checks.
...
The CBSA is considering the applicability of physical standards. Applicants should be aware of the possible need to have and to maintain a certain level of fitness in order to perform the duties of a Border Services Officer - Customs.

Training and Assessment for Border Services Officer – Customs

There are significant changes to how CBSA conducts assessment and training for this position. These changes affect rate of pay, benefits and when an offer of employment is made. Applicants are strongly advised to review this poster thoroughly before applying.

Stage One of Assessment – in Region

Assessment conducted in region may include written test, interview and reference checks. Candidates will be required to pay their own expenses for travel related to this competition in the Pacific Region. Candidates will also be required to pay their own expenses related to meeting other conditions of employment (such as certificates and driver’s license) that are not provided as part of the Rigaud training and assessment.

Stage Two of Assessment – in Rigaud, Quebec

Candidates who are successful in stage one assessment conducted in the Pacific Region will be sent to Rigaud, Quebec for stage two which consists of 13-week training and assessment. During this training and assessment phase the following conditions will apply:.....

I have deleted irrelevant info, noted with a '....'

You'll note that Use of Force is not listed, never mind deadly force. I did notice that an FAC is a requirement, probably in anticipation of arming BSOs. I understand that use of Force is now on the Statement of Quals, but it was not there as of May of last year. Of course, my point was that not all CURRENT BSOs have the ability to be armed, and that this ability was not evaluated on THEIR competition.

Is it a perfect situation?? NO it is not, but what can you do with some officer's who have 20-30 yrs experience, fire them??

No, as I said, there should be a grace period to bring yourself up to standard WRT use of (deadly) force. Failure/unwillingness to comply would result in a transfer to another postion within CBSA/Fed Public Service.

You seem to have a "hate on" for BSO's...why is that?

Not at all, I hope to be one some day, when my family situation permits.

I in no way intended to insult you, and regret doing so. However, my only contention was:

1-The vast majority of current BSOs were not evaluated for their ability/willingness to use deadly force, and as such,

2-It is unreasonable to expect that a majority possess that ability/willingness.

3-Many (I said most, which is incorrect) BSOs, due to the Statement of Quals they were hired against, are more in line with your average Civil Servant, and not say, Police Officers.

4-Arming ALL BSOs, regardless of ability is irresponsible.

5-Arming some, but not all, BSOs, would pose a great risk to unarmed BSOs as the 'bad guys' would assume they are armed, and treat any confrontation as such. IE-the bad guys would bring a gun to a fist fight.

Okay, there Capt. Vague.  Are you talking about being a Reservist, or do you actually work for a branch of the Federal Government? 

No. I have a civvie job within the Federal Public Service. I like my anonymity, so I'll leave it there. As a member of the Fed Public Service, I have been through an open PSC competition (to obtain my job), and several closed/internal competitions. This gives me knowledge/experience of the process and general requirements of any PSC hired job in the Fed Gov.

If you look into the use of force continuum that we use, Deadly Force is just one zone at the end of it.  It is a force option, which you train for and simply make a decision to use when put in a particular circumstance.  Ability is just a training issue.  Willingness is another issue, and as said they don't force the older CBSA members to use PPT equipment if they are not comfortable with it. 

No argument here, but willingness to use deadly force is essential to being armed, no matter the procedures for the escalation of force. That willingness/ability was not assessed on most BSOs.

What would you rather see, them with their asses in the wind getting shot at with no ability to return fire? 

I think all BSOs should be armed, but I question the ability/willingness of many of them to be armed. I proposed a solution to that problem, but you chose not to address that. What are your thoughts on it?

Would anyone say that the London Metropolitan Police (Britain) should not be allowed to carry guns because most of them don't right now?

Different country, different society, different job.

Things change, and our country is getting more dangerous by the hour.  Lets give them the tools they need to go home to their families at the end of their shifts, instead of just crossing our fingers and saying "it won't happen here".

I agree. Assess their ability first before arming them.

editted for spelling

 

[tomahawk6]

Heard on the news that Harper supports arming customs officers. We have both armed border and customs agents, seem's like Canada can do the same. Failing that hire more RCMP constables for duty at border crossings. The news reported that Canadian customs officers abandoned their post on hearing that armed murders from California were headed north. It was on the radio and I havent seen a print story confirming that event.

 

[HDE]

Tomahawk

  I think you have the right idea; there are some situations which call for an armed officer and some that don't.  I don't see major issues in creating an armed section of BSO officers to support unarmed members. 

 

[TCBF]

"I think you have the right idea; there are some situations which call for an armed officer and some that don't.  I don't see major issues in creating an armed section of BSO officers to support unarmed members."

- 'On call' is useless at a border post.  Either you have a gun while you work there, or the cop investigating your shooting death does.  I like plan 'A' myself.

Tom 

 

[tomahawk6]

I think you have to have armed officers on site as well as on call as back up. Not everyone on site has to be armed but some should. Unarmed officers should be trained in self defense and equiped with a taser and or pepper spray.

 

[TCBF]

I think mixing armed and unarmed officers would cause a morale issue. 

Numbty: "Hey Tom, you have a gun, you talk to this car."

Tom: " Screw you, get your own bloody gun and earn your keep."

Tom

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Back when the CBSA was starting to change towards enforcement from tax collection, there was a proposal and they were equipped with expandable batons and pepper spray.  At the time there were nay sayers, but I can assure you the borders are not a wailing catastrophe of swinging metal bars and fountains of random OC.  These people are professionals.  It doesn't matter how they were hired.  You can assess someones ability in TRAINING.  I can assure you all that there was never a chummy little sit down at our training branch or at OPC where we all sat around and played "imagine killing a guy".  Then when someone wept, they were stoned and run out of the village. 

THERE IS NOTHING MAGICAL OR COMPLICATED ABOUT SHOOTING SOMEONE! 

It is something you train for. 
Okay.
Go with Caesars assumption that the border are a barely functioning bunch of Barney Fife hammerheads that only get by on God's grace and the magic wishing trolls they all are issued.  So then they get guns.  And one of the barely functioning members is armed and is confronted with an armed threat, fails to react and is shot.  If they didn't have a gun on, they would be no less shot would they?  If you don't HAVE a gun, you can't SHOOT a gun. 
Cripes, what do you think they are going to do, staple a zip lock bag with a holster, three mags, a gun and a box of bullets to their next pay stub and say "please read the enclosed instructions and warranty card"?

It seems like you are being selective in your Customs information, Cesar.  What you posted is a testing criterion to be considered for hiring, which creates a profile of the candidate.  You conveniently forgot the other parts of the site, such as:

Who is responsible
Officers at border crossings and airports, and in Canada, carry out most arrests and detentions. After 48 hours, a member of the Immigration Division reviews detention decisions. The Immigration Division is part of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), which is independent of CBSA. Its members are trained in immigration law.

AND

Arrests: How and why
Officers can arrest foreign nationals and permanent residents who are suspected of breaching the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

While arrests can be made with or without a warrant, officers must have a warrant to arrest a permanent resident or a protected person.

All immigration warrants are posted on the Canada-wide Canadian Police Information Centre. CBSA operates its own Immigration Warrant Response Centre seven days a week, 24 hours a day, to assist its law enforcement partners.

Detentions: How and why
Following a person's arrest, officers can detain that person if:

they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person
will not appear for immigration proceedings such as an examination or an admissibility hearing, or for removal from Canada; or
poses a risk to the public because of past crimes, a history of physical violence, etc.; or
they are not satisfied of the identity of a foreign national.
Cruise the rest at your leisure at:
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/newsroom/factsheets/2004/0311ArrestsDetentions-e.html

If anyone is expected to arrest and detain people, they have to be equipped to deal with the hostile lawless elements that for some reason don't want to get pinched with a brick of coke and a TEC-9  and decide to go out "all Jesse James, yo".  The use of force training that they receive is IDENTICAL to ours, they just stop at the guns part now.  They know what is expected of them.  The people that hired them knew what they would be asking of them. 
And enough with the "gun to a fist fight" analogy.  The bad guys bring their guns regardless.  They just gamble that they won't get caught.  They are not thinking "hmmm, the Canadians don't have guns.  I guess I should leave my 9mm at home today, and bring the coke to the drug deal unarmed". 
As many officers as possible should be armed.  But if there is some old timer that has served the border for 25 odd years, if they want to hang themselves out and not get with the training, then that is their choice.  Again, not a valid reason to not arm everyone else.

Not at all, I hope to be one some day, when my family situation permits.

I have a civvie job within the Federal Public Service. I like my anonymity, so I'll leave it there.

Ahhh, this is a little closer to the mark.  You are a scorned Customs wanna be.  I don't blame you for wanting to be anonymous.  You are probably still holding a torch out to get on, but know that if it gets out what a disloyal disenter you are you would have no chance.  And why do I get the sense that if you did get in, you would be the first to push to the front of the line for firearms training?

 

[HDE]

I'd imagine that an officer, whether armed or unarmed, would be in serious trouble if the guy in the car had the gun ready to fire when he got to the booth.  I was thinking more along the lines of the incident in B.C. where the officers had prior warning that armed felons were approaching and had time to get out of the way.  In that case having armed members available to deal with the matter would be perfectly sensible.  As well there'd probably be some sort of financial incentive available to reward those who undertake the responsibility of being armed.  If we intend to arm all officers, irrespective of the need for them to be armed,  and, quite probably,  pay them a salary along the lines of what we pay a police officer why not simply increase the numbers of Mounties/Police Officers to provide backup?