Time to Arm Cenotaph Guard? (split from Domestic Terrorism)

[Fishbone Jones]

Video surveillance: Assuming you want it actively monitored and not just recording (which, as the RCMP revealed, is currently done) means probably a staff of four to provide 7 days a week 8 hours a day coverage.

Plainclothes: Again, assuming 4 per day covering 7 days a week 8 hours a day means a staff of eight to provide coverage.

Conservatively estimating $100K/year per person for pay and benefits, that's $1.2M a year additional you want to spend for this function that only started recently.  I suspect the RCMP, Ottawa Police or the CAF have better things to do with that sort of funding.


Soldiers doing "sentry" such as what is done at the War Memorial are not maintaining all around SA.  They are either standing at ease, eyes front, weapon at the order arm position, or at the position of attention, doing a little marching back and forth, weapon at the shoulder.  Have you stood at ease for any length of time with your weapon at the order arm?  Could someone come behind you and grab it?  If so, and your weapon is loaded, instead of carrying a seven shot lever action 30-30, the attacker now has a 30 round automatic rifle.  Similarly, if they attack from behind (as some reports indicate happened here) they have now upgraded their weapon.


Have you ever been to the site in question?  Have you reviewed the sight lines, traffic patterns, approaches etc?  Do you have up to date intelligence information?  Or are you just another internet armchair quarterback?

There is no reason the military couldn't mount the surveillance and (MP) protection detail. Heaven knows, we probably piss more away on unneeded office chairs every year.

 

[Jed]

To George: The only way this becomes cost prohibitive is if you turn it into a typical 'Big Army' process. Don't do that.

To Haggis: What training is given to 'Fish Cops' Saskatchewan Game Wardens for example? There is no need to train to SF, CP, MP standards.

The most important aspect is the personal attitude and capability of the individual given the duty and responsibility to carry and to the ROE he is assigned.

That is why it would be up to the Command, CO, to pick the individual and the task where and when this task was warranted.

Even a very limited number of individuals in uniform with this capability across Canada would improve Force Protection and morale of the troops. Probably would improve recruiting as well.

 

[George Wallace]

To George: The only way this becomes cost prohibitive is if you turn it into a typical 'Big Army' process. Don't do that.

To Haggis: What training is given to 'Fish Cops' Saskatchewan Game Wardens for example? There is no need to train to SF, CP, MP standards.

Sorry, but it will become cost prohibitive.  Purchase of a large number of handguns and ammunition is a great expense.  Training personal to the standards necessary is both long and expensive.

Arming 'Fish Cops' Saskatchewan Game Wardens who will be patrolling remote areas and not dealing with situations where large numbers of innocent bystanders of the general public would be present compared to arming members of the military to be in positions where there are large numbers of the general public, is an "apples and oranges" argument.  Two completely different situations, one requiring a much less need for training and the other needing a high degree of training to prevent collateral damage.  Please do not confuse the two.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sorry, but it will become cost prohibitive.  Purchase of a large number of handguns and ammunition is a great expense.  Training personal to the standards necessary is both long and expensive.

Arming 'Fish Cops' Saskatchewan Game Wardens who will be patrolling remote areas and not dealing with situations where large numbers of innocent bystanders of the general public would be present compared to arming members of the military to be in positions where there are large numbers of the general public, is an "apples and oranges" argument.  Two completely different situations, one requiring a much less need for training and the other needing a high degree of training to prevent collateral damage.  Please do not confuse the two.

George,

The arming of Conservation Officers is not so they can defend themselves against an angry deer, it was put in place so the Officer could defend himself against armed people breaking conservation laws. They are trained to a national\ provincial standard and qualify yearly as a condition of employment. They are, in fact, Law Enforcement Officers, with all the high level training required.

There is no confusion.

 

[George Wallace]

George,

The arming of Conservation Officers is not so they can defend themselves against an angry deer, it was put in place so the Officer could defend himself against armed people breaking conservation laws. They are trained to a national\ provincial standard and qualify yearly as a condition of employment. They are, in fact, Law Enforcement Officers, with all the high level training required.

There is no confusion.

Yes there is confusion.  Both cases will involved armed individuals.  Both cases WILL NOT involve large numbers of innocent bystanders.  Two widely different scenarios.  Just because a person can accurately shoot their target does not mean that they can make the decision to shoot or not shoot the target and someone behind the target.  Hand guns are not long guns and their accuracy at longer ranges requires a lot of training and practice, and even then it can be questionable.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yes there is confusion.  Both cases will involved armed individuals.  Both cases WILL NOT involve large numbers of innocent bystanders.  Two widely different scenarios.  Just because a person can accurately shoot their target does not mean that they can make the decision to shoot or not shoot the target and someone behind the target.  Hand guns are not long guns and their accuracy at longer ranges requires a lot of training and practice, and even then it can be questionable.

COs are as well trained in the use of force and marksmanship as any other LEO. Are you saying the Ottawa Police, had they been available, were not capable of shooting the perpetrator, in that spot, at that time, with a pistol, because they may fear collateral damage?

It appears the confusion lays with yourself.

 

[George Wallace]

COs are as well trained in the use of force and marksmanship as any other LEO. Are you saying the Ottawa Police, had they been available, were not capable of shooting the perpetrator, in that spot, at that time, with a pistol, because they may fear collateral damage?

It appears the confusion lays with yourself.

OK.  Have it your way.  Looking at the bullet holes in the walls of the Hall of Honour, fired by a dozen or so LEOs that missed their target, and comparing this to Conservation officers missing their targets and shooting up trees as opposed to dozens of armed soldiers and LEOs missing their targets and shooting up grannies, wives and girlfriends in a public place are I guess the same thing.  I'll leave it at that.

 

[Wolseleydog]

To all those advocating "more training" for soldiers so that they could assume armed guard duties in public: I'll not get into a debate about whether the costs would or would not be prohibitive, but rather point out another factor -- combat vs civilian policing training standards.

Weapons training for soldiers is currently focused upon combat (which in my opinion is the correct focus; we could debate how effective it is in that focus, but at least its trying to aim that way).  In order to prepare for this new role that you are proposing of "armed guard in Canadian public places" would require *extensive* training with that non-combat focus.  (our MPs do currently receive such trg) 

So quite aside from the (significant) resource implications -- is such a shift in focus away from training for war what you want?

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm fine with soldiers on guard duty carrying ammo.  Tell the soldier it's to defend themselves with. If they do something stupid then they're accountable.

Treat them like a brinks guard.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Have you ever been to the site in question?  Have you reviewed the sight lines, traffic patterns, approaches etc?  Do you have up to date intelligence information?  Or are you just another internet armchair quarterback?

Yep armchair quarterback who's smart enough to recognize that the pro's who had done all the things you had mentioned had put in place a system that allowed one of our soldiers to executed my a homegrown jihadi.  So yes, I'm apparently the bad guy and the one who is out of line in this whole discussion as opposed to seasoned pro's who are directly responsible for Cpl Cirillo's death.


M.

 

[tomahawk6]

Withdrawn

 

[Jarnhamar]

By the way the sentry that left his post during the attack,will he be facing charges ?

For sure! We're also charging Cpl Cirillo posthumously for the damaged DEU tunic.
:facepalm:

 

[expwor]

Since some here want to put a cost to basic security try this.Cost to replace a soldier killed in the line of duty.Cost for medical care for those wounded or injured.Cost for the general public when a terrorist event occurs ? Spend whatever it take to secure the area.

Just playing devil's advocate here.  The politicians and media will then say is it worth the cost, both in training and in risk to soldiers' safety to man the cenotaph, put on Remembrance Day parades, have the changing of the guard on Parliament Hill etc.  All soldiers, sailors and airmen/women would be at risk for what would be perceived as ceremonial functions.  Should the military be placed in harms way for what is a ceremonial function (BTW I am just playing devil's advocate here)
One other thing that needs to be considered.  How will politicians, the media and the public at large respond to an armed military presence (granted not everywhere) in Canada.  Reaction now might be supportive, but what about in six months time.  Or a year.  Will the support still remain
A final point.  What if the target had been a civilian and not a member of the Canadian Forces.  And it appeared extremists were targeting civilians only.  Would there be support in arming all civilians, with the proviso they are properly trained with sidearms so they could also defend themselves from possible future extremist attacks in much the same way as we want CF members protected
Just a couple more thoughts

Tom

 

[The_Falcon]

Not only that, with use of force you are to use the least amount of force needed.  Are sentries who get armed also going to get pepper spray, tasers, batons, as well as handcuffs...well you see my point (I hope) If only armed with a loaded rifle, you guarantee deadly force will be used on a suspect (yes suspect, guilt is proved in court)  But the suspect may not have escalated to the point deadly force is needed.  Also consider other spin offs, a gunman may grab a civilian and use him/her as hostage/human shield.  Are sentries trained to deal with that.  What if a sentry shoots and a round ricochets off a building and injuries /kills a civilian
Use of Force is more than just knowing how to use a weapon.  It is also knowing the legal framework for Use of Force, and the various options available to a Peace Officer (firearms, pepper spray, taser, baton etc) when force is required.  The training is extensive. Is the CF willing to spend the money on training sentries to legally be qualified in Use of Force
Just thinking outloud

Tom

OZ took the words out of my mouth

I'm fine with soldiers on guard duty carrying ammo.  Tell the soldier it's to defend themselves with. If they do something stupid then they're accountable.

Treat them like a brinks guard.

Armed couriers (Brinks, Garda, etc) only have 1 count em 1 use of force option, a firearm.  It's sole purpose is to protect themselves, (not the money, the money is insured).  LEO have multiple tools, because they are usually expected to bring people into custody...alive.  The concept that, an individual would need additional tools or that being in a crowed public place makes arming non-viable are red herrings.  Armed couriers, only have firearms, and they ROUTINELY go into crowded public areas DAILY.  I also guarantee that the companies employing them, only conduct (that is pay for) the minimum amount of training that the provincial CFO's mandate.

So the fact is in Canada, there are ALREADY HUNDREDS of people who are armed solely for self-protection, with only 1 use of force option, AND they are frequently in very public spaces full of MANY bystanders.

 

[The_Falcon]

A final point.  What if the target had been a civilian and not a member of the Canadian Forces.  And it appeared extremists were targeting civilians only.  Would there be support in arming all civilians, with the proviso they are properly trained with sidearms so they could also defend themselves from possible future extremist attacks in much the same way as we want CF members protected
Just a couple more thoughts

Tom

I would support it, and know many others who would as well. The fact is CCW is allowed in Canada (ATC Type 3) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-207/FullText.html

2. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where
(a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;
(b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and
(c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.

The issue is provincial CFO's are the gatekeepers to ATC's and have a very very strict interpretation of the above.  The Cons introduced new legislation to amend the firearms act, with one of those amendments directed at curtailing CFO's powers.  If/When the legislation is fully enacted perhaps, that strict interpretation is one of those powers that they target.

 

[dapaterson]

Significant difference between carrying a pistol and a rifle, in terms of range & penetration.  Or are we going to have the sentries carrying pistols instead of rifles?  Pistols as well as rifles?

 

[Gunner98]

Can we agree that a loaded weapon is of little value to a soldier doing guard mount? (Because his 'performance' is not conducive to 'guarding' anything, in reality. It is, indeed, a performance ... something to impress the tourists.)

Is there good cause to fear a copycat attack on our CF members doing "public duties?" I don't know, but I'll wager the CDS, amongst others, has been briefed on that threat ... if it exists.

It appears, that for the moment, at least, we have decided that remounting the guard is important for the moral of the soldiers and the nation. My guess is that, as others have suggested, security will be tight on Parliament Hill and at the National War Memorial until after 11 Nov.

Should we mount a ceremonial guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier? At what cost?

When I first heard that we were going to mount a guard after drunks were found urinating on the National War Memorial, I was reminded of the Russian Guardsmen at the Soviet War Memorial in Berlin pre-1989.  Years later I witnessed the changing of the guard and wreath laying at Arlington Cemetery.  In the Soviet and U.S. examples the personnel were not tasked to keep urinators and graffiti artists away but to show honour to the fallen.  Therefore, I think people need to ask themselves why the guard or (IMHO) more accurately the sentries, are posted at the National War Memorial. Cost should only be calculated if we are doing a cost/risk/benefit or business case analysis.  There are lots of useless tasks that soldiers are asked to perform that would not pass a cost/benefit analysis and are less inspiring than this one. If we are going to look at the cost of the memorial task; then we really need to assess the cost of the entire Ceremonial Guard concept.

We currently have soldiers standing at gates at many Bases across Canada and long lines of traffic waiting for people to get to work.  In both cases we are wasting time and money as a result of a knee-jerk reaction without a direct threat link to military installations.

I concede the Guard should not be given ammunition. I still submit that if they are vulnerable to point of needing police or armed protection, they should return to the Armoury.

I can't understand how the CDS can order CF personnel to travel to and from work in civilian clothes at the same time as we are returning two soldiers to a very busy, visible and vulnerable section of the nation's capital. Is there a phone booth nearby where they get dressed?

 

[tomahawk6]

IMO the CDS should be fired for telling members of the CF to not wear their uniforms.To do so sends the wrong message to the public and the Forces.

 

[The_Falcon]

Significant difference between carrying a pistol and a rifle, in terms of range & penetration.  Or are we going to have the sentries carrying pistols instead of rifles?  Pistols as well as rifles?

Really I wasn't aware of that  :  A pistol fired in a mall though, (like say the Eaton Centre), or a crowded main thoroughfare (like say Yonge St. on boxing day) can still do significant collateral damage damage (and yes I am fully aware these events were perpetrated by criminals, but the fact remains, they missed their intended targets and shot others), and yet, Brinks et al. are still armed, and still go to these places when they are full of people. 

 

[JS2218]

IMO the CDS should be fired for telling members of the CF to not wear their uniforms.To do so sends the wrong message to the public and the Forces.

To be fair, that order has since been clarified to allow for direct travel in uniform to and from work. It's only public appearances and detours (coffee shops, getting groceries, going to the bank) that remain prohibited.