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



## Cdn Blackshirt

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The above post was removed initially as it identified the Honour Guard before any details were know as to seriousness of Cpl Cirillo's condition.
> 
> Photos are now appearing all over the media of the days events.  Some even capture the Shooter getting into his car at the War Memorial to drive to Parliament Hill around the corner.



I have a question: I keep seeing this photo showing two soldiers.

I assume the premise is to have more eyes.

What happened to the second soldier?

I don't recall hearing reports of him returning fire.

Please don't tell me that after what happened in Montreal that these guys were carrying unloaded weapons?


Matthew.


----------



## Jed

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I have a question: I keep seeing this photo showing two soldiers.
> 
> I assume the premise is to have more eyes.
> 
> What happened to the second soldier?
> 
> I don't recall hearing reports of him returning fire.
> 
> Please don't tell me that after what happened in Montreal that these guys were carrying unloaded weapons?
> 
> 
> Matthew.



Hey, its the Canadian thing to do.  We sent our troops into Gulf War one with 1 magazine of rounds for their C7. We walk around the Syrian country side without our sidearms (when other countries are armed) Wouldn't want to appear unnecessarily warlike.


----------



## George Wallace

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I have a question: I keep seeing this photo showing two soldiers.
> 
> I assume the premise is to have more eyes.
> 
> What happened to the second soldier?
> 
> I don't recall hearing reports of him returning fire.
> 
> Please don't tell me that after what happened in Montreal that these guys were carrying unloaded weapons?
> 
> 
> Matthew.



This is a ceremonial duty, not an operational or security detail.  Canadian Armed Forces members, unlike the police forces are not permitted to carry loaded weapons at all times while on duty under normal circumstances.  When the Canadian Armed Forces are called out to carry loaded weapons, then you know that shyte has really hit the fan.   Until such time as that happens, then it is the Law Enforcement Agencies, the Police, who are authorized to carry loaded guns.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is a ceremonial duty, not an operational or security detail.  Canadian Armed Forces members, unlike the police forces are not permitted to carry loaded weapons at all times while on duty under normal circumstances.  When the Canadian Armed Forces are called out to carry loaded weapons, then you know that shyte has really hit the fan.   Until such time as that happens, then it is the Law Enforcement Agencies, the Police, who are authorized to carry loaded guns.



I understand that may have been appropriate in previous years, but given today's threat environment and what had already happened in Montreal, this seems like complete negligence which resulted in the loss of life of a good young man and father.  Whomever is responsible for the decision needs to take a trip to Hamilton and explain their logic to his son....because if they can't do that with a straight a face, then it was a pure-BS political optics decision and we as a society need to talk about why it was made and damn-well fix it.

As a civilian, I don't think you guys are obligated to be targets to fifth column terrorists.  On the contrary, I believe we as a civilian body have an obligation to provide you with the authorization to use deadly force if you come under attack on our soil, regardless of the role you happen to be in at that moment.

Bottom Line:  The world has changed and you guys shouldn't be wearing a bullseye on home turf without any means of protecting yourselves....I hope it doesn't take further casualties before a policy change is made.



M.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In all my years I never agreed with the guards being unarmed or without ammunition. It's a mindset thing that needs to be changed. The days of only frontline warfare is over. There are simple procedures to allow a full mag on the weapon without a round in the chamber or at the very least a full mag in a pouch on the belt. The ROE will be very simple: Engage only a direct threat armed with a weapon or similar.

Yes it increases the risks somewhat, but we have seen the price to do otherwise.


----------



## The_Falcon

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is a ceremonial duty, not an operational or security detail.  Canadian Armed Forces members, unlike the police forces are not permitted to carry loaded weapons at all times while on duty under normal circumstances.  When the Canadian Armed Forces are called out to carry loaded weapons, then you know that shyte has really hit the fan.   Until such time as that happens, then it is the Law Enforcement Agencies, the Police, who are authorized to carry loaded guns.



Actually all on duty CAF members can in fact carry and use firearms http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ccaps-spcca/cew-ai/pol-aut-eng.htm 



> Protection of Persons Administering and Enforcing the Law
> 
> Protection of persons acting under authority
> 
> 25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
> 
> as a private person,
> *as a peace officer or public officer*,
> in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
> *by virtue of his office, is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose*.
> 
> PART III - FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS
> 
> Exempted Persons
> 
> Public officers
> 
> 117.07 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, but subject to section 117.1, no public officer is guilty of an offence under this Act or the Firearms Act by reason only that the public officer
> 
> possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance in the course of or for the purpose of the public officer’s duties or employment;
> manufactures or transfers, or offers to manufacture or transfer, a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment;
> exports or imports a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment;
> exports or imports a component or part designed exclusively for use in the manufacture of or assembly into an automatic firearm in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment;
> in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment, alters a firearm so that it is capable of, or manufactures or assembles any firearm with intent to produce a firearm that is capable of, discharging projectiles in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger;
> fails to report the loss, theft or finding of any firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance that occurs in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment or the destruction of any such thing in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment; or
> alters a serial number on a firearm in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment.
> Definition of “public officer”
> 
> *(2) In this section, "public officer" means*
> 
> a peace officer;
> *a member of the Canadian Forces* or of the armed forces of a state other than Canada who is attached or seconded to any of the Canadian Forces;
> an operator of a museum established by the Chief of the Defence Staff or a person employed in any such museum;
> a member of a cadet organization under the control and supervision of the Canadian Forces;
> a person training to become a police officer or a peace officer under the control and supervision of
> (i) a police force, or
> a police academy or similar institution designated by the Attorney General of Canada or the lieutenant governor in council of a province;
> a member of a visiting force, within the meaning of section 2 of the Visiting Forces Act, who is authorized under paragraph 14(a) of that Act to possess and carry explosives, ammunition and firearms;
> a person, or member of a class of persons, employed in the federal public administration or by the government of a province or municipality who is prescribed to be a public officer; or
> the Commissioner of Firearms, the Registrar, a chief firearms officer, any firearms officer and any person designated under section 100 of the Firearms Act.


 emphasis mine.

CAF members have the legal/authority via the Criminal Code and Firearms Act.  It's the Commanders in the CAF and internal policies that prohibit it.


----------



## Remius

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I understand that may have been appropriate in previous years, but given today's threat environment and what had already happened in Montreal, this seems like complete negligence which resulted in the loss of life of a good young man and father.  Whomever is responsible for the decision needs to take a trip to Hamilton and explain their logic to his son....because if they can't do that with a straight a face, then it was a pure-BS political optics decision and we as a society need to talk about why it was made and damn-well fix it.
> 
> As a civilian, I don't think you guys are obligated to be targets to fifth column terrorists.  On the contrary, I believe we as a civilian body have an obligation to provide you with the authorization to use deadly force if you come under attack on our soil, regardless of the role you happen to be in at that moment.
> 
> Bottom Line:  The world has changed and you guys shouldn't be wearing a bullseye on home turf without any means of protecting yourselves....I hope it doesn't take further casualties before a policy change is made.
> 
> 
> 
> M.



With that logic (and I'm not saying it is wrong) then all CAF members while on duty should be armed with live ammo.  WO Vincent was in uniform and was a target.

Ceremonial Sentries be they at the cenotaph or rideau hall, as has been mentioned, are performing a ceremonial role.  for anyone who has done it before, you don't exactly have situational awareness.  You are at attentione or at ease the whole time with the occasional "beat" patrol.  At RH at least you either have a wall or sentry box/gate behind you but at the cenotaph anyone can sneak behind any of them.  Imagine someone coming from behind, grabbing a rifle while standing at ease.  Bad enough without it having a full mag.

Arming them will really achieve very little given their ceremonial duty and weapons either being at the shoulder or at the order.  Reaction, posture etc etc is not very condusive if you are the target of an attack.  As well, firing a C-7 in that kind of public space when defending yourself or others is risky without the approriate training.  

Years ago (they might still be doing it) we had a member in CF order nearby to ensure the sentries were not harrassed etc etc.  Armed with a cell phone.  The more logical solution to current events would be to have an armed guard watching them.  Be it an MP, cop or whoever.  Discreetly out of the way with a pistol.   While it may not prevent someone from doing what they did it might certainly end it sooner.


----------



## cupper

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Actually all on duty CAF members can in fact carry and use firearms http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ccaps-spcca/cew-ai/pol-aut-eng.htm
> emphasis mine.
> 
> CAF members have the legal/authority via the Criminal Code and Firearms Act.  It's the Commanders in the CAF and internal policies that prohibit it.



Not to pick nits, but the cited information is dealing with two separate issues, the use of force, and violations of the firearms section of the CCC and Firearms Act. It does not provide for authorization of members of the CAF to carry firearms in their duties as a member of the CAF.

I have to agree with those who are against arming service members as part of their daily duties, if for the only reason that when we have gotten to that point, the a-holes have won.


----------



## The_Falcon

cupper said:
			
		

> Not to pick nits, but the cited information is dealing with two separate issues, the use of force, and violations of the firearms section of the CCC and Firearms Act. It does not provide for authorization of members of the CAF to carry firearms in their duties as a member of the CAF.



Yes it does, unless CAF members have started to be required to have PALS and ATC in the last two years.  As many gun owner have pointed out, the way the law is written and worded EVERYONE in the country is barred from owning/using/transporting (etc). firearms by default, unless they have the appropriate licence and/or ATC, or they are exempted by law. 

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html

85. (1) *Every person  commits an offence who uses a firearm*, whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person *as a result of using the firearm*

87. (1) *Every person commits an offence * who, without lawful excuse, points a firearm at another person, whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded.

91. (1) Subject to subsection (4), *every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm without being the holder of

(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and

(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.*

95. (1) Subject to subsection (3), *every person commits an offence * who, *in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm*, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, *without being the holder of

(a) an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess the firearm in that place; and

(b) the registration certificate for the firearm.*


(b) the registration certificate for the firearm.

And to reiterate

117.07 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, but subject to section 117.1, *no public officer  is guilty of an offence under this Act * or the Firearms Act by reason only that the public officer

(a) possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance in the course of or for *the purpose of the public officer’s duties or employment;*

2) In this section, *“public officer” means*

(a) a peace officer;

(b) *a member of the Canadian Forces * or of the armed forces of a state other than Canada who is attached or seconded to any of the Canadian Forces;

I omitted several sections and clauses for brevitiy, but as you can see, it's quite simple.  NO ONE in Canada (including CAF members), can do anything in relation to firearms unless they either a) have the requisite licence/authorization b) are exempted from the law, and therefore don't require a licence/authorization  Sec. 117.07 is that exemption and it's pretty black and white.  Like I alluded to, this is the foundation law, DND/CAF policies go off of this, and get into the specifics.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, Cupper is mostly right on this one.

The first provision you cite, HM, is for use of force. While a member of the CF is by definition a public officer under that section, it only applies in situations of enforcement of law, and no CF member, other than the Provost-Marchal branch, have law enforcement as their duty in Canada - unless specifically called out in aid to civil power.

For the second provision to apply (exemption from firearm laws), the CF member must be required (by the CF) to carry the weapons for the purpose of carrying out his/her duty - not for personal use going to and from his place of duty - not for self protection (like actual Law enforcement officer) unless that self protection be required by his duty. That is why in the CF we keep our weapons in armouries and depots and otherwise under lock and key only to be issued when the very task at hand require their use and then retrieve them immediately after. Our own internal rules spell out where and when we can carry them to perform our duties - and then to which extent. And that is the only extent to which the exemption would apply. Anything outside such use would make the CF member subject to application of the law.

That is why, for instance, ceremonial guards can carry weapons to attend, say, a member funeral, but on such occasion will only be issued with the blanks they need for gun salute, while a marching ceremonial guard (to greet a foreign dignitary) will be issued no ammunition of any sort. A Force protection group on the other hand, such as the armed guard we have onboard ships when visiting civilian ports these days, would have both weapons and ammunition and rules of engagement on when to use them.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I thought I heard that the CDS was 'reviewing' the use of the Ceremonial Guard. It is a _public relations_ function - it began, in the 1950s, as a combined project by the City of Ottawa and the (then regular force) Regiment of Canadian Guards ... 







... it was, always, more about PR than about any uniquely Canadian military (or parliamentary) tradition. The custom of mounting guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier did not begin until 2007, some years after the Tomb was dedicated in 2000.

_Personally, I think_ changing the guard on the Hill, the 'nerve centre' of our democracy, is a good tradition; the symbolism is 'right.'  Ditto for mounting guard at both Rideau Hall and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. But I see the CDS' *immediate* dilemma: is he exposing CF members to an unnecessary personal risk for what is, essentially, a PR task?

There are, now and again, calls to mount that guard 24/7 and 365 ... but I wonder if anyone has considered the several 'bills' ~ personnel costs, construction engineering to light and heat the area at 0300 Hrs in mid January, etc. For now, mounting guard from 0900 Hrs to 1700 Hrs from, say, the Victoria Day weekend until 11 Nov, is 'doable,' but, as we have just seen, it is not without potential risk, especially of a _copycat_. The obvious solution is to give the CF legal jurisdiction over the _Confederation Square_ site, allowing armed CF MPs to patrol the area, day and night, year round, but especially when the guard is mounted. There's a bill for that, too.


----------



## Remius

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I thought I heard that the CDS was 'reviewing' the use of the Ceremonial Guard. It is a _public relations_ function - it began, in the 1950s, as a combined project by the City of Ottawa and the (then regular force) Regiment of Canadian Guards ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... it was, always, more about PR than about any uniquely Canadian military (or parliamentary) tradition. The custom of mounting guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier did not begin until 2007, some years after the Tomb was dedicated in 2000.
> 
> _Personally, I think_ changing the guard on the Hill, the 'nerve centre' of our democracy, is a good tradition; the symbolism is 'right.'  Ditto for mounting guard at both Rideau Hall and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. But I see the CDS' *immediate* dilemma: is he exposing CF members to an unnecessary personal risk for what is, essentially, a PR task?
> 
> There are, now and again, calls to mount that guard 24/7 and 365 ... but I wonder if anyone has considered the several 'bills' ~ personnel costs, construction engineering to light and heat the area at 0300 Hrs in mid January, etc. For now, mounting guard from 0900 Hrs to 1700 Hrs from, say, the Victoria Day weekend until 11 Nov, is 'doable,' but, as we have just seen, it is not without potential risk, especially of a _copycat_. The obvious solution is to give the CF legal jurisdiction over the _Confederation Square_ site, allowing armed CF MPs to patrol the area, day and night, year round, but especially when the guard is mounted. There's a bill for that, too.



There are a lot of hands in the pot when t comes to the Tomb and War memorial.  The NCC, Public works, The RCL, Ottawa Police the CAF etc etc.  I remember issues arising from everyone and no one played well together either.


----------



## The_Falcon

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, Cupper is mostly right on this one.
> 
> The first provision you cite, HM, is for use of force. While a member of the CF is by definition a public officer under that section, it only applies in situations of enforcement of law, and no CF member, other than the Provost-Marchal branch, have law enforcement as their duty in Canada - unless specifically called out in aid to civil power.



I am aware of that, what some people are asking/wondering, were they actually "guarding" the property (as opposed to posing for tourist's pictures). And if they were to actually guard the property (ie enforce say the Ontario Trespass to Property Act or Public Works Protection Act, or whatever the suitable federal equivalent is), could they use force, under the CRIMINAL CODE the answer is yes (which I said). It's DND/CAF laws and regulations that restrict those provisions.  If for example the guard vigil is given the authority (however that is achieved)  to enforce the aforementioned acts (Trespass and Public Works) they would be covered.



> For the second provision to apply (exemption from firearm laws), the CF member must be required (by the CF) to carry the weapons for the purpose of carrying out his/her duty - not for personal use going to and from his place of duty - not for self protection (like actual Law enforcement officer) unless that self protection be required by his duty. That is why in the CF we keep our weapons in armouries and depots and otherwise under lock and key only to be issued when the very task at hand require their use and then retrieve them immediately after. Our own internal rules spell out where and when we can carry them to perform our duties - and then to which extent. And that is the only extent to which the exemption would apply. Anything outside such use would make the CF member subject to application of the law.



I never said otherwise, In fact I highlighted the parts that mentioned while on duty/carrying out duty. For the third time, the parts I mentioned give the BROAD FOUNDATION, to allow it, it is DND/CAF (through legislation, rules, policies, orders etc.) that have implaced the restrictions, whether that is done in direct fashion (order explicitly stating no ammo for the guard), or indirect by not having the guard enforce existing (applicable, protection/trespass) laws or not getting the owner of the property, to give their consent for the same.


----------



## The_Falcon

In regards to my last posts, I am surprised this didn't occur to me earlier ( :facepalm  as it is THE most appropriate CC section in this instance. 

34. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

It would still require, a direction that they be armed to protect themselves while on duty, though.

As to the discussion on, any specific authorities/duties, I believe if there weren't explicit authorities for the guards and the only permitted duty was to pose for pictures, then the CAF and those who mounted the guard were setting themselves up for trouble in the form of litigation and criminal charges, if the guard(s) made an intervention, because they have thought it was the right thing to do at the time.


----------



## Remius

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> In regards to my last posts, I am surprised this didn't occur to me earlier ( :facepalm  as it is THE most appropriate CC section in this instance.
> 
> 34. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
> (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
> (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
> (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
> 
> It would still require, a direction that they be armed to protect themselves while on duty, though.
> 
> As to the discussion on, any specific authorities/duties, I believe if there weren't explicit authorities for the guards and the only permitted duty was to pose for pictures, then the CAF and those who mounted the guard were setting themselves up for trouble in the form of litigation and criminal charges, if the guard(s) made an intervention, because they have thought it was the right thing to do at the time.



The Guards always have the authority to defend themselves.


----------



## The_Falcon

Crantor said:
			
		

> The Guards always have the authority to defend themselves.


  

Everyone in the country does actually, I meant the authority to defend themselves with their rifles and ball ammo.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Good discussion of the legal issues around arming the Cenotaph guard - splitting into a separate thread to keep the original thread focussed more on the events.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Fishbone Jones

It sucks that people won't be able to wander the Memorial at will, but I _think_ it's time to start using the barriers that are laying all around it. Better they be put together, than laying in the jumbled mess shown in the photos. 

If you don't want to arm the guards, there should be armed Parks Service or police personnel patrolling the outer perimeter acting on their own or at the direction of the Guard if someone tries to breech the perimeter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bW4bRcEVEk

Just my  :2c:


----------



## bald guy

This is as much a question as a statement.  I am thinking about the guards regiments at Buckingham Palace.  While there role is largely ceremonial aren't they there to protect the royal family as well?  I believe the Special Branch of Scotland Yard has a role as well.


----------



## The_Falcon

bald guy said:
			
		

> This is as much a question as a statement.  I am thinking about the guards regiments at Buckingham Palace.  While there role is largely ceremonial aren't they there to protect the royal family as well?  I believe the Special Branch of Scotland Yard has a role as well.



I believe that there is something within their mandate that gives them permission to be more "active"  There is plenty of incidents one can find on a google search, showing were they went hands on so to speak.


----------



## Gunner98

Are they 'guarding the tomb' or being living adjuncts to the memorial?

If we place a rifle in a soldier's hands in a public place, he should be trained to use it to defend himself and have ammunition to do so.  Therefore, if the task is ceremonial, give them swords.

If the threat level has increased and we wish for them to remain in the ceremonial role, then switch them from DEU to CADPAT with ballistic vest and helmet. When the threat reaches the level that a ceremonial task member requires ammunition then it is time to stand-down on the task.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Symbolism can be just as important as a checkpoint on a road. Pulling the guard now would be seen as a victory for them. By next year do a review and then you can pull it for bureaucratic reasons.


----------



## Remius

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Are they 'guarding the tomb' or being living adjuncts to the memorial?
> 
> If we place a rifle in a soldier's hands in a public place, he should be trained to use it to defend himself and have ammunition to do so.  Therefore, if the task is ceremonial, give them swords.
> 
> If the threat level has increased and we wish for them to remain in the ceremonial role, then switch them from DEU to CADPAT with ballistic vest and helmet. When the threat reaches the level that a ceremonial task member requires ammunition then it is time to stand-down on the task.



There are specific ranks and roles that require swords.  Foot sentries at the tomb are not those types.  Rifles with bayonets fixed.  It is a ceremonial task not a security task.

Again if we are worried about their security then we need a local protection type of thing.  Giving the sentries ammo achieves very little.  You need an MP or a cop nearby with a pistol and arrest powers.  For those that know how busy traffic and people are 360 degrees around the War memorial, the last thing you want is a C7 round flying around out there.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

bald guy said:
			
		

> This is as much a question as a statement.  I am thinking about the guards regiments at Buckingham Palace.  While there role is largely ceremonial aren't they there to protect the royal family as well?  I believe the Special Branch of Scotland Yard has a role as well.



Actually, they seem to have their own troubles at Buckingham Palace : http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/23/police-officer-arrested-ammunition-found-buckingham-palace 

This said, the Guard regiment there (Queen's Foot Guard I think) is part of the security. While a few of them are outside the gate in mainly ceremonial functions, some others are inside the walls at guard posts, in combat uniform and fully loaded. I think, however, that the Brits are quite willing to take a lot of collateral damage to prevent any attempt on  Her Majesty's life to succeed. I understand that this more important involvement of the Guard unit in security harks back to the Troubles, when the Provisory IRA made quite specific threats against Her Majesty (and you may recall successfully attempted on the life of the last Vice-Roy of India - Lord Mountbatten).

Personally, I agree that if you mount something for purely ceremonial or PR reasons, and this may endanger the life of the participants, you should either a) provide proper security from another source or b) can the event/duty. The Cenotaph was left "unguarded" for many years without any problems. You may recall that the idea of having it "guarded", as a manner of ceremonial, came along in 2007 because three drunken Bozo's thought it was a funny place to urinate on and take selfies while doing it - an act that enraged Canadians. It was felt then that having guards resting on arms reversed, while non threatening and ceremonial in appearance, would discourage idiots of that type. Between the risk of more idiots urinating and risking the life of guards, however, I'll take the idiots.


----------



## expwor

Would carrying a loaded rifle saved Cpl Cirillo's life?  Not unless he had it at the ready, knowing he was being targeted
Not to mention the dangers of firing a 5.56mm rifle in a crowded urban environment where most of the people are law abiding citizens
Really if talking about soldiers using weapons for personal self defence they would need to know they are first in an area where their lives are at risk.  If for more self protection wouldn't issuing all Canadian Forces personal body armour 24/7 make more sense
Frankly, just my opinion, but if it comes time to arm ceremonial guards (would that include the GGFG Changing of the Guard in the summer) wouldn't it be better to suspend such activities.
Just thrown out for discussion

Tom


----------



## dapaterson

I think it was a retired military dentist snapping photos of the urinators in question to point out the problem, not people taking selfies.  As well, the guards do not rest on their arms reversed; they stand at ease, and periodically come to attention, shoulder arms, march back and forth, order arms, then stand at ease again.

Other than that, I am inclined to agree about the need for the guard; methinks this is part and parcel of the pips and crowns brigade (well, they're more like a section than a brigade, but Int is often bad at figuring out the size of enemy formations).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Fully agree with you expwor.

BTW, having loaded weapons probably would not have saved Cpl Cirillo. But second guard, instead of having to run for his life, might have ended the whole matter right there and then.

Actually, as I read all the information that is coming out on the assailant, I am beginning to wonder if he did think that the guards, who ostensibly had guns, had in fact loaded ones, and if this whole sordid affair isn't just a different twist on what the cops know as "suicide -by-police". After all, a Win 30-30 pump action gun is not exactly the fastest weapon to use if you wish to cause  a large number of casualties in an environment where you know that there will be armed officers.

Dataperson, thanks for the corrections - I have never been to Ottawa while they are on duty.


----------



## dapaterson

If the guard had been armed, then the attacker would have shot one guard, then found himself with an automatic rifle with 30 rounds to replace his own.  I recollect the pistols sent to the resistance in WW2 - they were intended to be guns good enough to get a better gun.

(EDIT: fixed phrasing)


----------



## Remius

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Fully agree with you expwor.
> 
> BTW, having loaded weapons probably would not have saved Cpl Cirillo. But second guard, instead of having to run for his life, might have ended the whole matter right there and then.
> 
> Actually, as I read all the information that is coming out on the assailant, I am beginning to wonder if he did think that the guards, who ostensibly had guns, had in fact loaded ones, and if this whole sordid affair isn't just a different twist on what the cops know as "suicide -by-police". After all, a Win 30-30 pump action gun is not exactly the fastest weapon to use if you wish to cause  a large number of casualties in an environment where you know that there will be armed officers.
> 
> Dataperson, thanks for the corrections - I have never been to Ottawa while they are on duty.



Or an armed MP or Cop would have seen the guy approach and ended it before it started.  The second guard was shot at but dude missed.  He also briefly (and at great risk)chased him and returned to render aid.  He didn't run for his life.


----------



## brihard

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I think it was a retired military dentist snapping photos of the urinators in question to point out the problem, not people taking selfies.  As well, the guards do not rest on their arms reversed; they stand at ease, and periodically come to attention, shoulder arms, march back and forth, order arms, then stand at ease again.



Yup. Mike Pilon, summer 2006. Mike'a a retired dentist, as you say. I haven't talked to him in a bit- I'll have to drop him a line. See how he's doing through all this.


----------



## Stoker

How is the guard made up? Isn't there a 3rd there to assist the other two? Arm that one with a side arm. I would also go with some unobtrusive barriers to limit the public access, much like Arlington.


----------



## GR66

I agree with those who say that this is best resolved by having armed police officers patrolling the area rather than arming the ceremonial guards.  They would have much wider usefulness (and legal authority) to handle a broad variety of potential law enforcement and security situations as opposed to just a gun battle in a public square.  They would likely have much better situational awareness than a ceremonial guard standing sentry or performing drill.

We've had two incidents in 48-hours in which troubled and radicalized individuals have targeted uniformed members of the CF.  It's wise and responsible to take a good hard look at the security of our uniformed members, civilian staff and families.  However, I think it may be a bit too early to jump to the conclusion that it is now open season on the military here at home.  

Giving ammo to the ceremonial guards is a solution to a very narrow problem.  While copycats certainly are not impossible, I'd suggest it is more likely that a new, different (and possibly unforeseen?) target will be the next tragedy on the news.  We'd be better off looking at broader security solutions that will help protect a variety of vulnerable public spaces.


----------



## brihard

Who's gonna pay for the additional two full time police officers to guard the monument? Police forces are understaffed as it is. The presence of a cop typically won't stop a guy who doesn't care about his life from getting the first shots off. The easy solution on that one is shoot the cop first.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Crantor said:
			
		

> Or an armed MP or Cop would have seen the guy approach and ended it before it started.  The second guard was shot at but dude missed.  He also briefly (and at great risk)chased him and returned to render aid.  He didn't run for his life.



I apologize for misspeaking.

I meant the second guard comment in a general way, just as "running for your life" was a matter of speech meaning without bullets, they have to deal with their own safety first before being able to do anything. I did not wish to impugn the actual actions or the actual second guard, or third, who were there yesterday, whose conduct from what I gather, was exemplary.


----------



## GR66

Brihard said:
			
		

> Who's gonna pay for the additional two full time police officers to guard the monument? Police forces are understaffed as it is. The presence of a cop typically won't stop a guy who doesn't care about his life from getting the first shots off. The easy solution on that one is shoot the cop first.



I'm pretty confident that from this point forward there will be even more law enforcement officers in the immediate vicinity of Parliament Hill regardless of whether the ceremonial guards are armed or not. 

Your comment about taking out the police officer first is equally true for whatever visible security forces you have in place.  However it would likely be more difficult to take out a police officer wearing body armour and wandering around in the crowd than a ceremonial guard standing sentry with eyes straight forward.


----------



## Zoomie

Isn't there a caveat in our system about carrying ball ammunition while transporting weapons?  I recall strapping a 1911 to my hip with a full mag while driving to the local police indoor range - accompanied by 10+ Brownings and the ammunition for the shoot.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ditch said:
			
		

> Isn't there a caveat in our system about carrying ball ammunition while transporting weapons?  I recall strapping a 1911 to my hip with a full mag while driving to the local police indoor range - accompanied by 10+ Brownings and the ammunition for the shoot.



we used to carry for guns and ammo back in the 80's. pistol with 10 rds in a mag but not loaded in the gun.


----------



## Edward Campbell

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?


----------



## cryco

sadly, you are correct. Arming ceremonial guards probably  won't help, but I worry for them because in this era of terror attacks, they seem like good targets.


----------



## George Wallace

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Personally, I agree that if you mount something for purely ceremonial or PR reasons, and this may endanger the life of the participants, you should either a) provide proper security from another source or b) can the event/duty. The Cenotaph was left "unguarded" for many years without any problems. You may recall that the idea of having it "guarded", as a manner of ceremonial, came along in 2007 because three drunken Bozo's thought it was a funny place to urinate on and take selfies while doing it - an act that enraged Canadians. It was felt then that having guards resting on arms reversed, while non threatening and ceremonial in appearance, would discourage idiots of that type. Between the risk of more idiots urinating and risking the life of guards, however, I'll take the idiots.



My wife, who is not as emotionally affected by this as I am, blames the idiots who urinated on the memorial in the first place, inciting the nation to mount an Honour Guard, for Cpl Cirillo's murder.  If they had not urinated on the memorial, the memorial would have been as it was, without an Honour Guard, respected by Canadians, and Cpl Cirillo may be alive today.


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> It sucks that people won't be able to wander the Memorial at will, but I _think_ it's time to start using the barriers that are laying all around it. Better they be put together, than laying in the jumbled mess shown in the photos.
> 
> If you don't want to arm the guards, there should be armed Parks Service or police personnel patrolling the outer perimeter acting on their own or at the direction of the Guard if someone tries to breech the perimeter.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bW4bRcEVEk
> 
> Just my  :2c:



One of the people being interviewed that day was a 'construction worker' who said he got his crew out of the area right away quick.  I think he and his crew were actually working on repairs to the memorial and that is why those barricades that you are talking about are there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

George Wallace said:
			
		

> One of the people being interviewed that day was a 'construction worker' who said he got his crew out of the area right away quick.  I think he and his crew were actually working on repairs to the memorial and that is why those barricades that you are talking about are there.



That well may be George. My point, that I'm trying to get discussion on, is setting up a barrier far enough away that if someone tried to breech or climb it, the authorities, whether police, Park Canada or the Guard themselves, would have some time to try and react. One warning to stand fast and cease, the next to shoot. Signs on the barriers should be explicit. If someone is worried about the cost, let the Military Police do the security detail.


----------



## cupper

HM, I think we were getting balled up Use of Force vice Authorization to carry, and ended up arguing past each other. But your points are well taken none the less.

But it does raise a question in my mind about where the authority to authorize the arming of CF personnel come from? Going through the NDA and other related pieces of law and legislation, the best that I can determine is that the authority rests in the Governor in Council. But is it merely the statement in Part II Section 14 of the NDA



> PART II
> THE CANADIAN FORCES
> 
> Constitution
> 
> Marginal note:Canadian Forces
> 
> 14. *The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada* and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.
> R.S., c. N-4, s. 14.



or is there something more specific?


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> That well may be George. My point, that I'm trying to get discussion on, is setting up a barrier far enough away that if someone tried to breech or climb it, the authorities, whether police, Park Canada or the Guard themselves, would have some time to try and react. One warning to stand fast and cease, the next to shoot. Signs on the barriers should be explicit. If someone is worried about the cost, let the Military Police do the security detail.



I see your point, and similarity to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the US, where a two man Guard is mounted, and third is 'overwatch' and keeps the public at bay behind a barrier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-dBwdeJSGo


----------



## Edward Campbell

recceguy said:
			
		

> That well may be George. My point, that I'm trying to get discussion on, is setting up a barrier far enough away that if someone tried to breech or climb it, the authorities, whether police, Park Canada or the Guard themselves, would have some time to try and react. One warning to stand fast and cease, the next to shoot. Signs on the barriers should be explicit. If someone is worried about the cost, let the Military Police do the security detail.




I would oppose *any* barrier to public access to the cenotaph or the Tomb; barriers defeat the real, important purpose of the place, which is *not* to mount a guard.


----------



## cupper

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> How is the guard made up? Isn't there a 3rd there to assist the other two? Arm that one with a side arm. I would also go with some unobtrusive barriers to limit the public access, much like Arlington.



There isn't much in the way of barriers at the Tomb of the Unknowns, a simple velvet rope like you see at the bank line or movie theatre. At least that was the way things were when I was last there a couple of years ago. (Seems that I was incorrect, based on the Vid that George posted while I was prepping mine) But it is definitely not somewhere where one could get away with jumping the rope, or even arseing about. The Guard will stop and loudly request that you stop, or be silent and respectful. And there are enough signs making this clear enough. (As is quite clearly shown in Georges vid) 

The only time that Arlington is really secure is after hours, when the whole cemetery is closed and locked down.

And the Guard is armed, but in the same way as our Guard is deployed, they are not provided with ammunition. In fact this would be problematic as the sentries undergo a weapons inspection as part of the changing of the guard.


----------



## cupper

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I see your point, and similarity to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the US, where a two man Guard is mounted, and third is 'overwatch' and keeps the public at bay behind a barrier.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-dBwdeJSGo



Just a point of clarification, between changing of the guard ceremonies, there are only two sentries on duty. The additional sentry in the video is part of the sentry pair that will be going on duty, not standing overwatch. The short clip appears to be taken right at the start of the ceremony, where the Guard Commander explains what is about to happen, and requests that the audience stand and remain silent and respectful.

Another interesting point as an aside, the 3rd US Infantry Regiment "The Old Guard" is the only unit in the US military that is allowed to pass on parade with bayonets fixed.


----------



## JS2218

Photo from CBC News

To me, it seems contradictory to be guarding the guards, who don't have ammunition or the ability to defend themselves, with other guards, who do have ammunition.  We definitely need to consider the sentry policy; at the very least, why not arm the Sentry Commander, who is usually a Snr NCO or officer anyway?


----------



## OldSolduer

How about an unobtrusive sentry for the sentries? We have a number of trained close protection personally do we not? Why not employ a few of them there?


----------



## dapaterson

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> How about an unobtrusive sentry for the sentries? We have a number of trained close protection personally do we not? Why not employ a few of them there?



Close Protection are "several on one" - a small group to protect a potential high value target for the enemy (look for photos of the CDS and JAG being moved into an armoured vehicle earlier in the week).  We do not have the numbers or the need to employ them covering sentries, nor would their skills be what is necessary.


----------



## tomahawk6

A police presence should be sufficient to deterr future gunmen.If you look at the Brits armed police are always around parades,barracks,ect.Sentries should have a magazine issued to them.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I agree with dapaterson: the duty is sort of thing for which our own Military Police branch people are adequately qualified. They can also remind other CF members passing by the National War Memorial that it is a saluting zone.


----------



## Pieman

Striking photo of all the flowers around the memorial.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just my opinion again....

1.  There should have been video surveillance along with a minimum team of 4 plain clothes police defending the area to identify the threat and engage it before they were capable of attacking the honour guard.

2.  Once the threat was raised I have enough trust in our soldiers to give them bullets, so that they can participate in 'guarding' the area.  

I don't think building the defensive plan around neutralizing a team of up to 8 attackers is outside what should have been expected.  I think since one untrained whackjob got a unmolested shots off on two unarmed honour guards it's safe to say the plan was significantly less than that.

Again, regardless of what historical norms were, whomever authorized the previous plan needs to be called onto the carpet.


M.


----------



## dapaterson

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?


----------



## George Wallace

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just my opinion again....
> 
> 1.  There should have been video surveillance along with a minimum team of 4 plain clothes police defending the area to identify the threat and engage it before they were capable of attacking the honour guard.
> 
> 2.  Once the threat was raised I have enough trust in our soldiers to give them bullets, so that they can participate in 'guarding' the area.



1.  There is video surveillance of the area.

2.  There are Ottawa City Police constantly in the vicinity.


----------



## Jed

Just my opinion but if I was King for a day this is what I would do:

Give improved training to reservist and regular soldiers (not just MPs) in the use of hand guns: Paying close attention to the applicable LEO Canadian laws and qualify a certain number and maintain their qualification. I would then allow concealed carry and then put it to the CO for command discretion on when this tasking would be authorized.

This would save a lot of rare MP human resources yet provide better security in these strange new times we live in.

This would give a bit better security against Lone Wolf attacks and some of the tasked soldiers would be more comfortable knowing at least someone was around as back up.

They are even giving Fish cops sidearms now so what is the problem? Many people out there just expect you to have a weapon of some sort when you are in a uniform, especially if you are in areas that may be subject to unexpected threats.


----------



## George Wallace

Jed said:
			
		

> Just my opinion but if I was King for a day this is what I would do:
> 
> Give improved training to reservist and regular soldiers (not just MPs) in the use of hand guns: Paying close attention to the applicable LEO Canadian laws and qualify a certain number and maintain their qualification. I would then allow concealed carry and then put it to the CO for command discretion on when this tasking would be authorized.
> 
> This would save a lot of rare MP human resources yet provide better security in these strange new times we live in.
> 
> This would give a bit better security against Lone Wolf attacks and some of the tasked soldiers would be more comfortable knowing at least someone was around as back up.
> 
> They are even giving Fish cops sidearms now so what is the problem? Many people out there just expect you to have a weapon of some sort when you are in a uniform, especially if you are in areas that may be subject to unexpected threats.



The costs of what you propose are prohibitive.  First there are not enough handguns to issue to the Reserves and Reg Force, then follows the costs of ammunition to train them to the standard necessary to carry arms at functions.  Then comes the "Conceal" part of your argument:  Where would one conceal a weapon in their DEU?  Arming military in civilian clothes to protect sites like the National War Memorial would compound the problem with Police not knowing who is who when all the guns come out.  As for saving valuable MP resources, you have only robbed Peter to pay Paul and now other resources have to be tasked; again a huge monetary cost.


----------



## Haggis

Jed said:
			
		

> Give improved training to reservist and regular soldiers (not just MPs) in the use of hand guns: Paying close attention to the applicable LEO Canadian laws and qualify a certain number and maintain their qualification.



To what standard would we train them?  Keep in mind that _mainstream_ CAF pistol training methodology (i.e. non SOF, MP, CP, NBP) is about 30 years behind how LEO are trained.  Marksmanship training is only part of it.  Knowing when to shoot is probably more important than knowing how to shoot.


----------



## expwor

Haggis said:
			
		

> To what standard would we train them?  Keep in mind that _mainstream_ CAF pistol training methodology (i.e. non SOF, MP, CP, NBP) is about 30 years behind how LEO are trained.  Marksmanship training is only part of it.  Knowing when to shoot is probably more important than knowing how to shoot.



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


----------



## Fishbone Jones

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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

Jed said:
			
		

> 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

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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

recceguy said:
			
		

> 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

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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

recceguy said:
			
		

> 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

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> 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

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> 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

expwor said:
			
		

> 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



			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> 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

expwor said:
			
		

> 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

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 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

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Gunner98

JS2218 said:
			
		

> 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.



Is the "public appearances" your wording?  So if a serving member is going to be attending a meeting at non-DND building such as a civilian conference - how would they dress?


----------



## cupper

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Is the "public appearances" your wording?  So if a serving member is going to be attending a meeting at non-DND building such as a civilian conference - how would they dress?



Underwear first, then socks, then shirt. Pants, either one leg at a time, or for the more daring, both at the same time. Belt, tie shoes then finally jacket (if necessary).

 ;D


----------



## Gunner98

cupper said:
			
		

> Underwear first, then socks, then shirt. Pants, either one leg at a time, or for the more daring, both at the same time. Belt, tie shoes then finally jacket (if necessary).
> 
> ;D



As for the top layer - the order of dress would be? Shame, embarrassment?

 ???


----------



## PMedMoe

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> As for the top layer - the order of dress would be? Shame, embarrassment?



Urban camouflage.


----------



## JS2218

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Is the "public appearances" your wording?  So if a serving member is going to be attending a meeting at non-DND building such as a civilian conference - how would they dress?



At this time all "outside of garrison" appearances are to be in civilians:



> To increase awareness, increase vigilance and enhance alertness, CAF members must reconsider their daily routines and adapt behaviour that will reduce personal vulnerability.
> 
> The wearing of military uniforms outside of garrison is suspended until further notice with the exception of transit directly to/from garrison (garrison includes all buildings in the NCR where DND business is conducted) via private or public transport.
> 
> The mode of transport will remain at the discretion of individuals. Stopping in public venues (such as supermarkets, day care facilities and others) is prohibited.


----------



## The Bread Guy

I know it's a whole different jurisdictional "ball of string" being wrestled with in the U.K., and we're talking about guarding a military _base_ instead of a monument on public property, but here's what the Brits are doing to protect at least some ceremonial functions:


> Military sources said the decision to deploy armed guards at the entrance to Horse Guards Parade was made by local commanders following the shooting of Canadian soldier Corporal Nathan Cirillo, 24, in Ottawa last week.
> 
> (....)
> 
> Although popular with tourists, Horse Guards Parade is a working military barracks where soldiers from the Household Cavalry Regiment live and work, with the public having limited access during the day.
> 
> It is also the headquarters of the Army's London District.
> 
> As with other military bases, soldiers are permanently on guard at the entrance but since Monday these troops from the Household Cavalry Regiment have been more prominent.
> 
> Eyewitnesses said the two armed soldiers had stepped onto the street outside the base to check on the more traditional guards on horseback at the gates.
> 
> One asked the tourists to move back so the ceremonial procession could pass by.
> 
> 'The MoD routinely reviews the security arrangements at all of its establishments,' a spokesman at the Ministry of Defence told MailOnline.
> 
> 'Clearly we do not comment publicly on the substance of these.' ....








Caption:  "Vigilent: As with other military bases, soldiers are permanently on guard at the entrance but since Monday these troops from the Household Cavalry Regiment have been more prominent"


----------



## Edward Campbell

And what the Brits are doing make sense. Soldiers on "_public duties_" are putting on a show, they are not, in any military sense, "guarding" (defending) anything. They might as well be armed with swords or halbreds (liken the Swiss Guards at the Vatican) for all the good a loaded weapon would do.

If there is a continuing threat then we have two sensible options:

     1. Remove the _ceremonial_ guard at the National War Memorial; or

      2. Provide _*adequate*_ security at the National War Memorial for visitors and guards alike. (And, NO, I don't know what "_*adequate*_" means - I'm neither a policeman nor a physical security specialist.)

Arming the ceremonial guard - providing loaded weapons - is pointless.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I will respectfully disagree it's not pointless in fact it's rather a pointed statement. Now if you employ a police officer to watch over them, then you are sucking up someone's resources and money and cops likely cost more per hour than soldiers. As for legal issues, it would take little to change the status of the Memorial and it's not that uncommon to have soldiers with loaded or guns with bullets nearby on public property. I would have the guard equipped with rifles with a loaded mag in the weapon but not up the spout and armed soldier acting as overwatch and to prevent interactions. during peak periods security guards can provide a way of managing public interactions while the solider does overwatch. Considering what just happened it would make sense and the majority of people will easily accept it, except of course the chattering class who will accept nothing. In fact most people I speak to are stunned by the fact that the soldiers had no means to protect themselves and no ammo for their guns.


----------



## jollyjacktar

:goodpost:  Spot on.  +300


----------



## Edward Campbell

Colin P said:
			
		

> I will respectfully disagree it's not pointless in fact it's rather a pointed statement. Now if you employ a police officer to watch over them, then you are sucking up someone's resources and money and cops likely cost more per hour than soldiers. As for legal issues, it would take little to change the status of the Memorial and it's not that uncommon to have soldiers with loaded or guns with bullets nearby on public property. I would have the guard equipped with rifles with a loaded mag in the weapon but not up the spout and armed soldier acting as overwatch and to prevent interactions. during peak periods security guards can provide a way of managing public interactions while the solider does overwatch. Considering what just happened it would make sense and the majority of people will easily accept it, except of course the chattering class who will accept nothing. In fact most people I speak to are stunned by the fact that the soldiers had no means to protect themselves and no ammo for their guns.




I agree, I'm hearing the same thing, but ... a loaded rifle, even one with a round up the spout is *useless* to a soldier who is standing stock still, eyes to the front when, as this attacker did, the enemy is creeping up from behind.

I agree that the soldier on "overwatch" should be armed ... but (s)he should be a Military Police officer with all the necessary constabulary power and (I hope) some training in how to kill an attacker when (s)he, the _*enemy*_ attacker, is 'hiding' in a crowd of tourists.

IF we think there is a real threat, and IF we think there is an important_ public *message*_ to be sent by keeping a ceremonial guard on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, then we can, surely, sort out the jurisdictional issues and put the loaded weapons in the hands of the right people ... not the people performing a public spectacle.


----------



## daftandbarmy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I know it's a whole different jurisdictional "ball of string" being wrestled with in the U.K., and we're talking about guarding a military _base_ instead of a monument on public property, but here's what the Brits are doing to protect at least some ceremonial functions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caption:  "Vigilent: As with other military bases, soldiers are permanently on guard at the entrance but since Monday these troops from the Household Cavalry Regiment have been more prominent"



The British always have covert coverage of the ceremonial events in London, especially since 1982 when the IRA took out the Guards' horses, including Sefton, with a nail bomb (as well as a bunch of humans - note the British priorities  ). This coverage can extend to 'overt' presence as required.

The message here is that:

1) The British will continue to conduct themselves as they have always done, unhindered by terrorism; and 2) There IS ALWAYS some kind of cover available, either via police or other assets, because they have learned the hard way that to do otherwise is fatal.

We should now make sure that we do the same, of course.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree, I'm hearing the same thing, but ... a loaded rifle, even one with a round up the spout is *useless* to a soldier who is standing stock still, eyes to the front when, as this attacker did, the enemy is creeping up from behind.
> 
> I agree that the soldier on "overwatch" should be armed ... but (s)he should be a Military Police officer with all the necessary constabulary power and (I hope) some training in how to kill an attacker when (s)he, the _*enemy*_ attacker, is 'hiding' in a crowd of tourists.
> 
> IF we think there is a real threat, and IF we think there is an important_ public *message*_ to be sent by keeping a ceremonial guard on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, then we can, surely, sort out the jurisdictional issues and put the loaded weapons in the hands of the right people ... not the people performing a public spectacle.



This is where I'm modifying my position.

No cost to the public. Duty to be done by Military Police ( I spelled it in full lest someone think Elizabeth May, MP, will be standing guard ). Given full police powers utilizing the Force Continuum http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/The%20Force%20Continuum%20Conundrum.pdf Whatever model is decided on.

Leave the Guard as is but protect them. However, it may be prudent to provide them a full mag, nothing chambered, in case it becomes a real shit hits the fan situation. At least, if their guard becomes incapacitated, it will give them time to charge the weapons, hopefully assess the situation and react.


----------



## Tibbson

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree with dapaterson: the duty is sort of thing for which our own Military Police branch people are adequately qualified. They can also remind other CF members passing by the National War Memorial that it is a saluting zone.



I would not believe the MPs have authorities in this instance at this location.  The monument itself may be argued to be DND "owned" because they fall under the management of the Directory of History and Heritage but the land they are on is not DND property and policing of the area falls to Ottawa police.  If people start to contend that the armed MPs would be there guarding the guards "because they are CAF members" performing an official function then it could be argued that MPs should be required to accompany all CAF members outside of a defence establishment


----------



## Tibbson

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just my opinion again....
> 
> 1.  There should have been video surveillance along with a minimum team of 4 plain clothes police defending the area to identify the threat and engage it before they were capable of attacking the honour guard.
> 
> 2.  Once the threat was raised I have enough trust in our soldiers to give them bullets, so that they can participate in 'guarding' the area.
> 
> I don't think building the defensive plan around neutralizing a team of up to 8 attackers is outside what should have been expected.  I think since one untrained whackjob got a unmolested shots off on two unarmed honour guards it's safe to say the plan was significantly less than that.
> 
> Again, regardless of what historical norms were, whomever authorized the previous plan needs to be called onto the carpet.
> 
> 
> M.



I can't help but wonder what the laws are regarding the arming of soldiers within Canada in situations such as this.  Unless my memory is faulty, even during times of formal aid to civil power requests where CAF members may encounter looters and other miscreants...we don't go armed.  As much as the death of this Cpl was tragic and despicable I just don't see a need to arm a ceremonial sentry or provide 10s of thousands of dollars of police protection.  

One thing I've been wondering about since this entire incident occurred is where were the snipers on the Hill?  I've been there a number of times for both planned events and as a tourist and on every occasion I can recall looking up and seeing 2 or more on the roof of the building keeping overwatch on the lawn and other areas.  One would think that they would have seen the individual approach across the lawn as people fled.  If that couldn't stop someone from attacking Parliament I can't see how an armed guard on a sentry post would make a difference.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I would not believe the MPs have authorities in this instance at this location.  The monument itself may be argued to be DND "owned" because they fall under the management of the Directory of History and Heritage but the land they are on is not DND property and policing of the area falls to Ottawa police.  If people start to contend that the armed MPs would be there guarding the guards "because they are CAF members" performing an official function then it could be argued that MPs should be required to accompany all CAF members outside of a defence establishment


All they would need is a letter of understanding from the powers that be in Ottawa and then they would have the proper jursidiciton.


----------



## Remius

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I can't help but wonder what the laws are regarding the arming of soldiers within Canada in situations such as this.  Unless my memory is faulty, even during times of formal aid to civil power requests where CAF members may encounter looters and other miscreants...we don't go armed.  As much as the death of this Cpl was tragic and despicable I just don't see a need to arm a ceremonial sentry or provide 10s of thousands of dollars of police protection.
> 
> One thing I've been wondering about since this entire incident occurred is where were the snipers on the Hill?  I've been there a number of times for both planned events and as a tourist and on every occasion I can recall looking up and seeing 2 or more on the roof of the building keeping overwatch on the lawn and other areas.  One would think that they would have seen the individual approach across the lawn as people fled.  If that couldn't stop someone from attacking Parliament I can't see how an armed guard on a sentry post would make a difference.



What snipers on the hill?  You likely either saw something you thought were snipers or if they were, were there for a specific reason the day you were there


----------



## quadrapiper

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> All they would need is a letter of understanding from the powers that be in Ottawa and then they would have the proper jursidiciton.


Expect that would be one of the less "exotic" security arrangements in Ottawa - uniformed Canadian-trained LEO hanging about a fixed location with a well-defined and public task.

Seems, conceptually, like a task that could be developed in parallel to the current reserve ceremonial sentries for reserve MPs


----------



## dapaterson

Reserve MPs are not badged. A whole other kettle of fish.


----------



## Robert0288

Might be worth a separate thread, and I apologize for the derail.  But what is a non-badged reserve MP designated as?  Do they have peace officer status?


----------



## Loachman

expwor said:
			
		

> 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



"All" civilians? No. There are many people who should not have guns.

Or cars, or children.

Very few would seek to arm themselves anyway, even if there was a legal ability to do so.

Only a small (single-digit) percentage of US citizens have concealed carry permits, yet even that small number provides a significant deterrence to criminals. Yes, the US murder rate is higher than hours, but that is largely fuelled by gang activity. Many jurisdictions have lower murder rates than similar jurisdictions in Canada, and their overall violent crime rate is lower than ours.

Concealed carry permit holders have lower arrest and conviction rates than police have, shoot more criminals per capita, and fewer innocent bystanders per capita.

Most of them shoot far more frequently than many police members, have a greater incentive to stay out of legal trouble, and are better able to determine who is a justifiable target and who is not.

Handguns are simple machines with few controls. The laws governing self-defence are not complex. This is not rocket surgery.

And a lot of people can be trained and armed for the cost of one military funeral, and even more for the cost of a state funeral.


----------



## expwor

Loachman said:
			
		

> "All" civilians? No. There are many people who should not have guns.
> 
> Or cars, or children.
> 
> Very few would seek to arm themselves anyway, even if there was a legal ability to do so.
> 
> Only a small (single-digit) percentage of US citizens have concealed carry permits, yet even that small number provides a significant deterrence to criminals. Yes, the US murder rate is higher than hours, but that is largely fuelled by gang activity. Many jurisdictions have lower murder rates than similar jurisdictions in Canada, and their overall violent crime rate is lower than ours.
> 
> Concealed carry permit holders have lower arrest and conviction rates than police have, shoot more criminals per capita, and fewer innocent bystanders per capita.
> 
> Most of them shoot far more frequently than many police members, have a greater incentive to stay out of legal trouble, and are better able to determine who is a justifiable target and who is not.
> 
> Handguns are simple machines with few controls. The laws governing self-defence are not complex. This is not rocket surgery.
> 
> And a lot of people can be trained and armed for the cost of one military funeral, and even more for the cost of a state funeral.



First my question was more rhetorical than a suggestion.  And I added the caveat "with the proviso they are properly trained"
JMO but training to use weapons in a legal Use Of Force scenario is more than learning how to aim and shoot.  It is also understanding the legal framework that _deadly force can be used
Not all situations will require deadly force, are sentries, their bodyguards, (even private citizens) going to be trained to use other use of force techniques (physical handling/arrest and control techniques, batons & police billies, tasers, etc) or is a firearm going to be the first last and only option available

Tom_


----------



## cryco

Loachman said:
			
		

> "All" civilians? No. There are many people who should not have guns.
> 
> Or cars, or children.
> 
> Very few would seek to arm themselves anyway, even if there was a legal ability to do so.
> 
> Only a small (single-digit) percentage of US citizens have concealed carry permits, yet even that small number provides a significant deterrence to criminals. Yes, the US murder rate is higher than hours, but that is largely fuelled by gang activity. Many jurisdictions have lower murder rates than similar jurisdictions in Canada, and their overall violent crime rate is lower than ours.
> 
> Concealed carry permit holders have lower arrest and conviction rates than police have, shoot more criminals per capita, and fewer innocent bystanders per capita.
> 
> Most of them shoot far more frequently than many police members, have a greater incentive to stay out of legal trouble, and are better able to determine who is a justifiable target and who is not.
> 
> Handguns are simple machines with few controls. The laws governing self-defense are not complex. This is not rocket surgery.
> 
> And a lot of people can be trained and armed for the cost of one military funeral, and even more for the cost of a state funeral.



I'm curious to know where you came across these stats. I actually looked up the total concealed carry permits issued in all states, and found the total to be surprisingly high - it also corresponds to your low single digit percentage - it comes out to about 9.5 million concealed carry permits that are active, and this doesn't count Vermont, which is completely unrestricted ie anyone can conceal the moment they own a gun. Kinda freaky. 
I'd be all for allowing this in Canada, assuming some pretty strict requirements are met.


----------



## George Wallace

cryco said:
			
		

> I'm curious to know where you came across these stats. I actually looked up the total concealed carry permits issued in all states, and found the total to be surprisingly high - it also corresponds to your low single digit percentage - it comes out to about 9.5 million concealed carry permits that are active, and this doesn't count Vermont, which is completely unrestricted ie anyone can conceal the moment they own a gun. Kinda freaky.
> I'd be all for allowing this in Canada, assuming some pretty strict requirements are met.



You know; when I was a kid way back when, in Saskatchewan, they used to have free Hunter Safety programs.  We learned all the basics about safety and still to this day I am surprised at all the Hunters who have "mishaps", some quite fatal.  Can you imagine how many "mishaps" we will have with enacting concealed carry permits here?


----------



## Jed

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You know; when I was a kid way back when, in Saskatchewan, they used to have free Hunter Safety programs.  We learned all the basics about safety and still to this day I am surprised at all the Hunters who have "mishaps", some quite fatal.  Can you imagine how many "mishaps" we will have with enacting concealed carry permits here?



Would there be an increase in mishaps? No doubt, just like there would be using any relatively new 'tool' on the job. You can't fix stupid no matter how much safety is liberally applied. I doubt it would be extensive though and the net value of allowing CCW would be highly beneficial for personal security and force protection.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You know; when I was a kid way back when, in Saskatchewan, they used to have free Hunter Safety programs.  We learned all the basics about safety and still to this day I am surprised at all the Hunters who have "mishaps", some quite fatal.  Can you imagine how many "mishaps" we will have with enacting concealed carry permits here?



Actually the stats are there and indictment rates for firearm offenses which include everything from exposing the gun, murder, walking into a post office, ND is about 1% of the total permits. That is with minimal or no required training.

The current ATC does require adequate training, however that is not spelled out for the purposes of defense of life. They are afraid to publish a standard as they know people will devise a course and people will pay and take it to meet that standard, removing another barrier to obtaining this mostly illusionary permit.


----------



## 63 Delta

This morning on my way to NDHQ I stopped by the National War Memorial to pay my respects. It was very moving to see the support from the Canadian Public.

But I was also moved by something I wasn't expecting. A retired US Marine was patrolling the War Memorial in his Full Uniform at 0700 this morning. He had his red truck parked to the South of the memorial with Marine on the side, and I can only imagine he was there awhile before I arrived.


----------



## George Wallace

HULK_011 said:
			
		

> This morning on my way to NDHQ I stopped by the National War Memorial to pay my respects. It was very moving to see the support from the Canadian Public.
> 
> But I was also moved by something I wasn't expecting. A retired US Marine was patrolling the War Memorial in his Full Uniform at 0700 this morning. He had his red truck parked to the South of the memorial with Marine on the side, and I can only imagine he was there awhile before I arrived.



Just a little more on the retired US Marine Major:  



> Major R. E. G. Sinke Jr. enlisted in the Marine Corps and fought in Vietnam from 1966-1971, earning five Purple Hearts. He is married, has three children, and owns and operates a horse ranch in Ontario, Canada. He is surrounded by farmers -- “men who are of stalwart character and great integrity and as close as I will ever get to living among Marines again.”



He is the author of a Trilogy on Vietnam: When None Of Their Dreams Were Dead

Global News coverage of his Guard of the Cenotaph on Friday.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

I think the biggest reason not to arm the guards is very simple. 
Anyone who knows me from my army days know I am a lousy drill guy, but I always did my best. But there are things out there you cannot account for and good old murphy law takes control.
 1) super hot day and guard in the hot sun with a fully loaded weapon, passes out.  Anyone here ever seen a guy pass out on parade? It happens. Now down soldier and fully loaded weapon.  Not a good mix. 
2) bad guy comes up and takes weapon away at gun point or by shooting the guard. He now has a  C7A1 or C7A2 with ammo. I do not even think bolts should be issued for guard duty at tourist locations just in case, so no working weapon can fall into wrong hands. I was part of the base security force at CFB Toronto in the early 90s.  We were not far from the rougher neighbourhoods of North York and we had C7s issued as part of the exercises of guarding gates and walk in entrances at the base. Always worried that some one would drive by with a weapon with bullets in it and would want my C7 late at night when on guard duty. I was armed but unarmed at the same time. Even the kids getting on the TTC in the morning at the Bus Stop thought we had fake weapons.
3) Does a guard doing the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier have the chance to look around and see any threats coming his or her way. They are doing the  duties they are assigned. Not suppose to be looking around for threats and whatever.  I was always in trouble for wandering eyes when on parade, looking other than straight ahead. 
4) Soldiers under attack do not do this sort of guard duty.  Armed duties are assigned when there is a threat and they are put on alert.
5) I also hate to say some tourists just get too close and want to pose for pictures, or touch the soldier or what ever, the tourist does not need to be put in danger because of the loaded weapons.
6) Issue the guards some light body armour not bullets. 
7) Remember not every soldier is a sniper or trained marksmen and bullets fly. The Head lines would be huge if an armed soldier on guard duty shot a tourist or a innocent person just who happened to walk into the middle of another attack.


----------



## George Wallace

:goodpost:

Good points and well said.


----------



## Jed

It is the easiest thing in the world to make up scenarios why you don't need a weapon (some sort of firearm with ammunition) available.
This is just like the old supply axiom, if I issued you that pair of socks then I wouldn't have them in stores.
If you need the additional protection of a weapon than make it available with the appropriate precautions. Training, ROE's, whatever.

Have some faith in training, good leadership and good soldiering.


----------



## George Wallace

Jed said:
			
		

> It is the easiest thing in the world to make up scenarios why you don't need a weapon (some sort of firearm with ammunition) available.
> This is just like the old supply axiom, if I issued you that pair of socks then I wouldn't have them in stores.
> If you need the additional protection of a weapon than make it available with the appropriate precautions. Training, ROE's, whatever.
> 
> Have some faith in training, good leadership and good soldiering.



As pointed out, the Guard on duty at the Cenotaphs across our country are not Security Guards monitoring all their surroundings.  They are 'ceremonial' starring straight ahead; not surveying all their surroundings, and looking more often at the ground at their feet.  Easy prey to any attacker.  Giving them a loaded wpn only increases the likelihood that an attacker would now possess a fully automatic wpn with a large capacity mag.   Leave the people responsible for carrying loaded wpns do their job; the Police.


----------



## Jed

OK, I buy that. If there enough police to do the job. For Ottawa and other major centres that works out fine. What happens when you are somewhere and there are no police or (MPs) around?

I think the CAF, properly trained and led, can look after themselves when need be.


----------



## George Wallace

Jed said:
			
		

> OK, I buy that. If there enough police to do the job. For Ottawa and other major centres that works out fine. What happens when you are somewhere and there are no police or (MPs) around?
> 
> I think the CAF, properly trained and led, can look after themselves when need be.



Have you ever seen a military function done in Public, including ceremonies at a any cenotaph, that did not have some sort of police presence?


----------



## Tibbson

Jed said:
			
		

> OK, I buy that. If there enough police to do the job. For Ottawa and other major centres that works out fine. What happens when you are somewhere and there are no police or (MPs) around?
> 
> I think the CAF, properly trained and led, can look after themselves when need be.



And just who is going to pay for this police protection?  In Toronto, for example, movie shoots or sports events that require police presence have the option to hire off duty officers on what is referred to as "paid duties".   The going rate for such duties, when I was posted to the old CFB Toronto, was $140 an hour per officer hired.  Using that as a start point....two officers (because they don't work alone) working 8 hours a day and we are looking at a cost of approx $2240 a day, but that doesn't count any extra costs such as their having a vehicle assigned to them as well.  Multiply that by roughly 7 months and we have an anticipated cost of over $470,000 just for the national war memorial.  Even allowing for a lower daily rate per officer for Ottawa that is still a heck of a lot of money more then DND, the National Capital Commission, Ottawa PD or even Directorate of History and Heritage has at their disposal for such security.  

That just leaves CAF personnel however I can't justify in my own mind having CAF members, armed, on duty in Canada unless they are either performing designated law enforcement duties or are otherwise called out under some formal aid to civil power requirement.  I believe our laws and regulations are actually structured to implement such restrictions for a purpose.  In a civilized country such as Canada we just don't have armed troops among the population.  

One of military events such as Freedom of the City parades and other such public events do normally have a police presence but those are normally one day events that cities support as part of their normal duties. Then again, that police presence may be paid for depending upon the event.  I know that in most cities if an organization wants to hold a parade for example then there is a licensing fee that can be pretty hefty which goes to such increased security and cleaning costs because of the parade or event.  Long standing details such as 7 months of police protection at a National (or even local) War Memorial are a whole other topic.


----------



## Jed

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Have you ever seen a military function done in Public, including ceremonies at a any cenotaph, that did not have some sort of police presence?



Yes, but only in small towns. With a low threat assessment. This does not count times overseas, when security duties were handled by other country's military etc.


----------



## Jed

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> And just who is going to pay for this police protection?  In Toronto, for example, movie shoots or sports events that require police presence have the option to hire off duty officers on what is referred to as "paid duties".   The going rate for such duties, when I was posted to the old CFB Toronto, was $140 an hour per officer hired.  Using that as a start point....two officers (because they don't work alone) working 8 hours a day and we are looking at a cost of approx $2240 a day, but that doesn't count any extra costs such as their having a vehicle assigned to them as well.  Multiply that by roughly 7 months and we have an anticipated cost of over $470,000 just for the national war memorial.  Even allowing for a lower daily rate per officer for Ottawa that is still a heck of a lot of money more then DND, the National Capital Commission, Ottawa PD or even Directorate of History and Heritage has at their disposal for such security.
> 
> That just leaves CAF personnel however I can't justify in my own mind having CAF members, armed, on duty in Canada unless they are either performing designated law enforcement duties or are otherwise called out under some formal aid to civil power requirement.  I believe our laws and regulations are actually structured to implement such restrictions for a purpose.  In a civilized country such as Canada we just don't have armed troops among the population.
> 
> One of military events such as Freedom of the City parades and other such public events do normally have a police presence but those are normally one day events that cities support as part of their normal duties. Then again, that police presence may be paid for depending upon the event.  I know that in most cities if an organization wants to hold a parade for example then there is a licensing fee that can be pretty hefty which goes to such increased security and cleaning costs because of the parade or event.  Long standing details such as 7 months of police protection at a National (or even local) War Memorial are a whole other topic.



The world is changing. I think we are dreaming if we can just stick our head in the sand and not take some actions to protect ourselves in the present day threat environment. We don't have to put all of our faith in the Police Forces and participate in a police state empire building enterprise.

I am a big fan of Canada's Police Forces but I feel that all those type A personalities together tend to place too much self importance on their own organizations. They all want big budgets and tend to suggest that individuals don't need to protect themselves. Even the best Police Force can not be there with 100% reliability.

How strongly do we want to maintain our pride and way of life and not knuckle under to ISIL radicals and other organizations of this ilk?


----------



## Tibbson

Jed said:
			
		

> The world is changing. I think we are dreaming if we can just stick our head in the sand and not take some actions to protect ourselves in the present day threat environment. We don't have to put all of our faith in the Police Forces and participate in a police state empire building enterprise.
> 
> I am a big fan of Canada's Police Forces but I feel that all those type A personalities together tend to place too much self importance on their own organizations. They all want big budgets and tend to suggest that individuals don't need to protect themselves. Even the best Police Force can not be there with 100% reliability.
> 
> How strongly do we want to maintain our pride and way of life and not knuckle under to ISIL radicals and other organizations of this ilk?



I hate to think what life will be like once the police need to not only conduct the policing they do now PLUS the additional policing required by having an armed citizenry.  No, wait, I don't have to envision it.  I only need to look south to see the future with more guns running around.  If you think police are looking for bigger budgets now just wait to see what they need if we ever get concealed or open carry.  

But, anyway, this is getting way off topic.


----------



## mariomike

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> In Toronto, for example, movie shoots or sports events that require police presence have the option to hire off duty officers on what is referred to as "paid duties".   The going rate for such duties, when I was posted to the old CFB Toronto, was $140 an hour per officer hired.



Toronto Police Service
Central Paid Duty Office
The hourly rate of pay as of July 1st, 2014:
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/paidduty/rates.php


----------



## Jed

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I hate to think what life will be like once the police need to not only conduct the policing they do now PLUS the additional policing required by having an armed citizenry.  No, wait, I don't have to envision it.  I only need to look south to see the future with more guns running around.  If you think police are looking for bigger budgets now just wait to see what they need if we ever get concealed or open carry.
> 
> But, anyway, this is getting way off topic.



You just proved my point. Well managed CCW means more GOOD GUYS have guns with no tax payer cost.


----------



## Tibbson

Jed said:
			
		

> You just proved my point. Well managed CCW means more GOOD GUYS have guns with no tax payer cost.



No it doesn't.  It means more pers running around with guns and increased policing costs when someone goes all George Zimmerman or MichI eal David Dunn on people.  Bad guys who otherwise wouldn't use a gun will now get one knowing they will need it and the issue will just continue to spiral.  I lived for 4 years in the States and personally if Canada ever adopted US style gun laws I'd be looking to emigrate.  I just don't believe their way is any better.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Extra police costs have little to do with legal gun ownership and CCW. It has a lot to do with illegal immigration, higher population density, eduction rates, local economics. The US is not uniform in it's crime/violence rates either, some county's have almost no crime, while some have huge amounts. take a look at this table and look at variance by county and this includes New York with very strict gun laws http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/indexcrimes/2012-county-violent-rates.pdf



The illegal immigrant population of the United States in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people, down from 12.5 million people in 2007.[2] Other estimates range from 7 to 30 million.[3][4][5] According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2004, 57% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 24% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America;[6] 9% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe and Canada; and 3% were from Africa and the rest of the world.[6] (wiki)


----------



## Jarnhamar

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I lived for 4 years in the States and personally if Canada ever adopted US style gun laws I'd be looking to emigrate.


You would really leave Canada just for that?


----------



## Loachman

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I hate to think what life will be like once the police need to not only conduct the policing they do now PLUS the additional policing required by having an armed citizenry.



Funny thing - as the firearms ownership rate soars in the US, the national murder rate plummets. The former is at an all-time high, and the latter is at a thirty-year low and still in decline.

Those jurisdictions with the least onerous ownership and carry laws have the lowest murder and other violent crime rates, and those with the greatest impediments to lawful ownership and carry have the highest. The latter include major cities with major gang and drug problems - the real driving force behind US murder rates. Lower rates of ownership among honest citizens serve to encourage gang activity.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> You would really leave Canada just for that?


Hey, all sorts of folks said they're leaving Ontario because Wynne "wonne" again ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

Some of the latest ....


> A month before a soldier was shot dead at the National War Memorial, a series of security incidents prompted an internal investigation into guards’ safety, the Citizen has learned.
> 
> A sentry at the war memorial had his gun grabbed by a member of the public, and “similar incidents” with the Ceremonial Guard at Rideau Hall prompted the Military Police review, a probe that was in its initial stages when the Oct. 22 shooting occurred.
> 
> Defence officials say they can’t specify what the other incidents were, but they say they were not serious. Some sentries at the memorial had reported incidents involving foul language.
> 
> In a Sept. 22 briefing, obtained through access-to-information laws, the Ceremonial Guard division told Military Police it had added a fourth sentry to the War Memorial team; before that, one sentry stood watch for two colleagues who flank the memorial.
> 
> The change was due to “Behaviour of the public at the Tomb (of the Unknown Soldier) with no security or NCC (National Capital Commission) guide,” according to a presentation slide.
> 
> “Now utilizing 2 (two) soldiers on watch/security duty. One member of the public grabbed a soldier’s rifle briefly. Similar incidents have occurred with CG (Ceremonial Guard) at RH (Rideau Hall) and NWM (National War Memorial).”
> 
> Capt. Indira Thackorie from the military’s commemorative events division told the Citizen the gun incident happened on Sept. 2, during frosh week celebrations, when someone touched a guard’s unloaded rifle. She recalled the incident as “not grabbing” the gun.
> 
> “There’s big difference between having somebody, like a student during frosh week, engage a soldier, and an actual security threat, like a life-threatening thing,” Thackorie said. “It’s honestly never been a higher threat than that.”
> 
> “We often get an escalation in people acting like fools on frosh week,” she said, adding that soldiers at the memorial received extra briefings on how to act after the program was extended beyond the summer for the first time last year. “It’s an ongoing issue.”
> 
> She pointed to tourists in London, England, who often try goading the silent Queen’s Guards into talking or flinching. Buckingham Palace and London police moved those guards behind fences last month for the first time since the 1970s IRA bombings, following a series of terrorist threats. Some have since been accompanied by armed police ....


----------



## OldSolduer

Thanks for this update milnews.

Want my opinion? If you are stupid enough to attempt to grab a sentry's weapon then you are subject to two things:

1. A butt stroke. Attempting to grab a weapon from a sentry can be construed as a hostile act;

2. Then you should be arrested and charged and incarcerated for at least 24 hours.


----------



## JS2218

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Some of the latest ....



Sounds like the journalists cast a wide net into DND, likely for an overly broad ATIP on anything related to "negative Ceremonial Guard incidents." These certainly aren't the first times a drunk tourist has pissed on the Memorial or some idiots tried to grab a rifle or harass the Guards. Obviously, they're now trying to build a narrative of "see, you were warned the soldiers at the Memorial were in danger."


----------



## McG

A good argument is made to arm Canadian Armed Forces personnel doing ceremonial guard functions.


> *Just arm the soldiers*
> Matt Gurney
> National Post
> 16 Mar 2015
> 
> On Wednesday, CBC News reported that the Department of National Defence is in negotiations with the Ottawa Police Service. Defence hopes to reach an agreement whereby armed Ottawa police officers will protect the military personnel who stand guard at the National War Memorial and Rideau Hall, the official residence of the Governor-General of Canada. The police officers so assigned would not be drawn from on-duty patrols, but would be so-called "paid duty" officers, working extra shifts with the costs covered by the purchaser of the service. Typical uses of paid duty officers include traffic control around construction sites or keeping an eye on public events, such as sports games or concerts.
> 
> Oh, Lord. How Canadian. Hello, National Defence? Is there perhaps a more obvious solution to this problem than hiring off-duty cops to protect soldiers?
> 
> In the aftermath of the attack on the National War Memorial and Parliament Hill last October, many Canadians were surprised to learn that the C7 automatic rifles carried by Corporal Nathan Cirillo, who was killed, and his colleague at the memorial that day were not just unloaded, but disabled. Removing key mechanical components from the rifles leaves them inert, unable to fire even if you shoved live rounds into them one by one, by hand. This is, the military insisted, entirely consistent with the role of honour guards performing ceremonial duties. The troops are there as symbols of dedication and commitment both to our national institutions and our fallen soldiers. They're not actually guards in the literal sense.
> 
> And that's all well and good, in theory. Canada is a country blessed enough to know the rule of law. Our police forces are generally all we need to maintain order. The military may occasionally be called out to provide "aid to the civil power," but that typically means disaster relief. Shortly after the attacks in Quebec and Ottawa last year, a military official told Global News that Canadian soldiers had not been issued live ammunition while patrolling the streets of home since the October Crisis of 1970. "It is not the role of the Canadian Forces to be armed on the streets of Ottawa," he said.
> 
> On balance, I agree with him. Separating the functions of the military and the police is vital to any healthy, functioning democracy. That's true for legal reasons, for political reasons, for practical reasons and, yes, for symbolic reasons. Canadians don't want armed troops on their streets. Who would?
> 
> But even having granted all the practical realities and the important principles of the role of the armed forces in a free society, surely there's still some wiggle room. Canada is and must remain a free society, where the armed forces perform their very specific duties under well-understood procedures and only when ordered. But, for goodness sake, if we're going to put soldiers in a public place where we have a reasonable belief that they may be shot at, giving them the means to shoot back isn't going to turn our fair dominion into a military junta.
> 
> How reasonable is the belief that the sentries at Rideau Hall and the National War Memorial will be shot at? Who knows? CSIS and the RCMP have probably done threat assessments, but good luck getting that information out of them anytime between now and the 22nd century. The only insight the general public really has into the extent of the danger faced by the honour guards is that Defence takes it seriously enough to be considering signing a contract to have armed police guard the sentries. There may not be any imminent threat, but there is, clearly, concern. And awareness that what happened in October could certainly happen again.
> 
> No one wants that to happen again. And sending Ottawa police to guard the guards was a logical shortterm solution. I recall, several days after the attack, moving photos, such as the one above, of various dignitaries laying wreaths where Cpl. Cirillo fell, while military honour guards stood at their posts and rifle-toting police officers kept their eyes open for any threats. At the time, that made sense.
> 
> But assigning cops to guard soldiers on a full-time basis doesn't. Any member of our Armed Forces ought to be competent and trustworthy enough to carry a loaded weapon at home, else we shouldn't be sending them to represent our country and serve its interests abroad. And the soldiers selected to serve as sentries just aren't any soldiers. They're the best of the best. Where they may face danger, give them the means to protect themselves, just as we ask them to protect us.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

How effective would a soldier be the to close with destroy the enemy after standing still for 3 hours?  Also with the range time we get do we really want troops shooting in potentially unsafe circumstances?


----------



## Remius

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> How effective would a soldier be the to close with destroy the enemy after standing still for 3 hours?  Also with the range time we get do we really want troops shooting in potentially unsafe circumstances?



They only stand for an hour.  I've mentioned this before and I'll say it again, arming the sentries would not have stopped what happened and would have likel just given a loaded weapon to someone.  having done this task more times than i care to admit, you are not in any position to have situattional awareness.  At Rideau Hall you have a gate or a wall behind you but at the cenotaph there is a 270% blind spot plus you are focussed on your task as a sentry.  Your weapon is either at the order (most of the time) or at the shoulder so your reaction time is severly hampered.  and even if you could be effective having 5.56 rounds fired from a C7 in downtown ottawa is a recipe for disaster.  Range time isn't the issue.  (Those soldiers likely have more range time than the cops or at least have the opportunity to do so), it's the type of range time.  Firing C7 to PWT 3 is somewhat different than an escalation of force in a dynamic situation with hundreds of bystanders nearby.  A cop with a pistol is better.  An MP with pistol somewhat less, and a reservist with a pistol (hopefully with the right training) should be a last case.  Armed sentries is the worst possible choice because in the end it won't achieve anything. 

The cenotaph is not millitary property either so legally there's a whole bunch of problems that could arise.


----------



## Haggis

Crantor said:
			
		

> Firing C7 to PWT 3 is somewhat different than an escalation of force in a dynamic situation with hundreds of bystanders nearby.  A cop with a pistol is better.  An MP with pistol somewhat less, and a reservist with a pistol (hopefully with the right training) should be a last case.



It matters not what cap badge or uniform they wear.  What matters is the level of training they receive in the proper use of force for domestic employment.  Standard CAF ROE would not suffice here.  Whomever is providing armed overwatch has to be fully trained to employ the  Incident Management Intervention Model _ including _the use of physical control and less than lethal intervention options.  This is not a job for soldiers, Regular or Reserve, unless they have all the appropriate training and legal authority.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The Military Police have a close protection cell for a reason.  May as well use them.


----------



## Remius

Haggis said:
			
		

> It matters not what cap badge or uniform they wear.  What matters is the level of training they receive in the proper use of force for domestic employment.  Standard CAF ROE would not suffice here.  Whomever is providing armed overwatch has to be fully trained to employ the  Incident Management Intervention Model _ including _the use of physical control and less than lethal intervention options.  This is not a job for soldiers, Regular or Reserve, unless they have all the appropriate training and legal authority.



Completely agree.  Arming sentries won't achieve that.


----------



## MilEME09

Better option, just put a Sniper on a roof top over looking the area, have them in comm's with the guards, see a threat? pretty sure a .338 could solve it.


----------



## Tibbson

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> The Military Police have a close protection cell for a reason.  May as well use them.



Yes but not for this reason.  A task such as this is totally inappropriate for their training and purpose.


----------



## The_Falcon

Split and merged this new round of discussion re: arming into the existing thread about the subject matter.


----------



## Haggis

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> The Military Police have a close protection cell for a reason.  May as well use them.





			
				Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Yes but not for this reason.  A task such as this is totally inappropriate for their training and purpose.



Plus, they'd have to shave and wear uniforms. ;D


----------



## Jed

There is really no good reason not to arm properly trained soldiers for Ceremonial Guard positions other than:

a. possible negative perception by the public;
b. increased administration risk for the chain of command.

The majority of the public assume the soldiers are armed in any case unless informed to the contrary.

The difficulty is determining if  a particular soldier is properly trained and it the particular task risk assessment warrants these measures.


----------



## The Bread Guy

As for this idea ....


			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Better option, just put a Sniper on a roof top over looking the area, have them in comm's with the guards, see a threat? pretty sure a .338 could solve it.


.... in line with this ....


			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> Standard CAF ROE would not suffice here.  Whomever is providing armed overwatch has to be fully trained to employ the  Incident Management Intervention Model _ including _the use of physical control and less than lethal intervention options.  *This is not a job for soldiers, Regular or Reserve, unless they have all the appropriate training and legal authority.*


.... until the government wants to say, "we're at war, so police aren't enough to protect our troops", this is looks to me like a policing job.  In a similar vein, welcome to Ottawa, the Land of Jurisdictions ....


> The chair of Ottawa's Police Services Board said he’s open to the idea of posting armed officers to watch over the ceremonial sentries who stand guard at the National War Memorial as long as the Department of National Defence foots the bill.
> 
> The Department of National Defence is in discussions with the Ottawa Police Service to provide security for its unarmed sentries at the National War Memorial since it falls under the force’s jurisdiction, said Lt. Kirk Sullivan.
> 
> (....)
> 
> The details of a potential agreement are still being negotiated, but Eli El-Chantiry, the chair of Ottawa's Police Services Board, said the officers would have to be on paid duty. They would also have to be working on their off-hours, so the work would be considered overtime, he said.
> 
> "We would expect a full cost recovery, because really we are in no position to offer service without compensation, no matter who the request comes from," El-Chantiry said.
> 
> Any contract between National Defence and the Ottawa Police Service is subject to approval by the board, El-Chantiry said ....


----------



## mariomike

"The details of a potential agreement are still being negotiated, but Eli El-Chantiry, the chair of Ottawa's Police Services Board, said the officers would have to be on paid duty."

Rates:
Constable $79.78/hr
Sergeant $90.46/hr
Staff Sergeant $98.93/hr
Vehicles $45.00/hr
Canine $50 flat rate in addition to the cost of the officer and vehicle
http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/contact-us/hire-police-for-an-event.asp


----------



## OldSolduer

mariomike said:
			
		

> "The details of a potential agreement are still being negotiated, but Eli El-Chantiry, the chair of Ottawa's Police Services Board, said the officers would have to be on paid duty."
> 
> Rates:
> Constable $79.78/hr
> Sergeant $90.46/hr
> Staff Sergeant $98.93/hrm
> Vehicles $45.00/hr
> Canine $50 flat rate in addition to the cost of the officer and vehicle
> http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/contact-us/hire-police-for-an-event.asp



Those rates will pretty much guarantee that little protection will  be afforded to the Cenotaph Guard IMO.


----------



## ballz

Crantor said:
			
		

> They only stand for an hour.  I've mentioned this before and I'll say it again, arming the sentries would not have stopped what happened and would have likel just given a loaded weapon to someone.



I don't want to get into this debate as I think most people are covering my thoughts anyway... but I disagree with this.

If I understand it, there were 4x soldiers there. 2x guards and 2x mbrs "not on guard" talking to people, etc. In this case, Cpl Cirillo was shot and his fire team partner, unarmed and probably 10 feet away from the shooter, fled the immediate scene. The 2x pers who were not on guard duty remained and tried to help Cpl Cirillo.

While the twit that did this may have managed to get the first shot off at Cpl Cirillo and could very well have killed him, I suspect (knowing one of the guys that stayed and tried to help, and knowing many of the troops that were tasked on this [some are my platoon, some are my company]) that if all four were armed he'd have gotten his share of bullets returned his way and would have been unable to run away and continue his plan.


----------



## McG

^ That.

I feel like I am reading the for side of a Liberal attack add.  Soldiers with guns. In our cities. Not in my Canada.   

The suggested domestic scenario is no more complicated/difficult than expectations of restraint and de-escalation that existed in many of our post Cold War theatres where the threat has often been difficult to identify.  As for legal authority, if we can find legal authority for armed US customs officers on Canadian soil, then surely we can find the authority for Canadian service members.


----------



## Remius

MCG said:
			
		

> ^ That.
> 
> I feel like I am reading the for side of a Liberal attack add.  Soldiers with guns. In our cities. Not in my Canada.
> 
> The suggested domestic scenario is no more complicated/difficult than expectations of restraint and de-escalation that existed in many of our post Cold War theatres where the threat has often been difficult to identify.  As for legal authority, if we can find legal authority for armed US customs officers on Canadian soil, then surely we can find the authority for Canadian service members.



Not sure why you would get that impression.  If we can have proper training for said soldiers sure but that won't happen.  And as I've stated, sentries cannot act quickly or effectively in the role they are doing, essentially very specific ceremonial drill, with loaded weapons.  And a c7 round is going to travel a lot farther than a 9mm round in downtown ottawa with 360 degrees of traffic and pedestrians   It's not a question of being a liberal or whatever, it's about effectiveness.  If you want to arm the minders you can but until you train them properly (unlikely) then you pay the price for cops to do what they do.  

Someone with a gun is going to be there to protect them so the end state is achieved.


----------



## McG

We train for environments as complicated as downtown Ottawa.  There are four trained service members on the guard duty and only two are engaged in the ceremonial role.  There is no reason to pay out near $50k a month to park a fire team of Ottawa constables at the monument when we already have the personnel in place.


----------



## Jed

MCG said:
			
		

> We train for environments as complicated as downtown Ottawa.  There are four trained service members on the guard duty and only two are engaged in the ceremonial role.  There is no reason to pay out near $50k a month to park a fire team of Ottawa constables at the monument when we already have the personnel in place.



On the mark.


----------



## Alberta Bound

Just a couple points;

Not sure where the "armed" US Customs people are ? Take a closer look when you walk through that US preclearence at Canadian airports. 

This whole thing is about the will to make it happen. Not far away is a substantial RCMP presence at Parliment. Why not have a member rotate to stand a post at the Memorial. 

Or can you increase the MP contingent in Ottawa to cover this duty? Short term means 4 temp bodies   With radio contact with OPS or the RCMP. 

Or increase the training to the sentries and arm all additionally with pistols and a proper ammunition for the duty.   

There are more efficient ways than paying OPS OT to stand there.


----------



## McG

Alberta Bound said:
			
		

> Not sure where the "armed" US Customs people are ?


It is coming: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-border-deal-canada-customs-agents-could-work-in-u-s-vice-versa-1.2996454


----------



## Robert0288

> It is coming: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-border-deal-canada-customs-agents-could-work-in-u-s-vice-versa-1.2996454


That should be it's own complete thread.


Jed, I see where you are coming from, and I know that I would like to have at least a mag with me in case I need it.  You also put emphasis on properly trained.  And here is where I disagree.  I don't believe that Canadians, Politicians or DND are ready to put soldiers on the street with loaded firearms who are NOT properly trained in dealing with the situations they might come across in Canada that may require the use of force and be able to respond to the same manner as they expect from law enforcement.

To clarify, I'm not worried that they will be unable, I am worried that they will do so incorrectly.  Haggis brought up IMIM, the model for use of force that the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies use. Take a look at it.  Through out the IMIM you have 'Officer Presence, Tactical Repositioning, and communication.  Those 3 things can get you out of a lot of situations.  However as a sentry.  You can't use any of them until it's too late.  


One idea thing I do like, is add an additional person or 2 onto the RCMP detail at parliament, and have that as part of the rotation, like having individuals at the main gates.


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> I feel like I am reading the for side of a Liberal attack add.  Soldiers with guns. In our cities. Not in my Canada.


I have zero problem with trained troops doing their job _anywhere_ in Canada with loaded weapons, including in our streets.  That said ....


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> .... if we can find legal authority for armed US customs officers on Canadian soil, then surely we can find the authority for Canadian service members.


.... if government is reluctant to call this what many see it as, and if they're already talking to police about the work, I don't see an appetite to say out loud, "we, in Canada, are so much in danger and under threat that we must change the rules so that soldiers, not police, need to protect us."


----------



## The_Falcon

Just want to point out to those bringing up using a LE use of force response model, and having that + other defensive tools as reasons why our sentry's can't be armed, well there are probably a couple of thousand armed security (mostly doing armoured transport), and the only tool they get issued with is a pistol. 

Police need additional tools and tactics because they are typically expected to de-escalate situations and arrest people so they can be brought to justice. The reason people want armed guards at the cenotaph is not much different than the reason a Brinks guard is armed, and that is solely to protect their life, due to the job they are doing.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Just want to point out to those bringing up using a LE use of force response model, and having that + other defensive tools as reasons why our sentry's can't be armed, well there are probably a couple of thousand armed security (mostly doing armoured transport), and the only tool they get issued with is a pistol.
> 
> Police need additional tools and tactics because they are typically expected to de-escalate situations and arrest people so they can be brought to justice. The reason people want armed guards at the cenotaph is not much different than the reason a Brinks guard is armed, and that is solely to protect their life, due to the job they are doing.



Those are great points.  I'd like to think a trained soldier is as qualified to carry a pistol as a brinks guard.

Soldiers are very public targets for extremists.   The fact that this Cpl was shot in the back and he couldn't have defended himself in this scenario whether he had live rounds or not isn't relevant.


----------



## Jed

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Those are great points.  I'd like to think a trained soldier is as qualified to carry a pistol as a brinks guard.
> 
> Soldiers are very public targets for extremists.   The fact that this Cpl was shot in the back and he couldn't have defended himself in this scenario whether he had live rounds or not isn't relevant.



I would like to point out that everyone is using 20/20 hindsight on this one particular situation as to what would have happened if the Cenotaph's guards were armed. I guarantee the next event will have different circumstances then this event. Maybe the next time something happens the bad guy will be more obvious before taking the first shot. Maybe if the guards had a concealed carry pistol they would have used them prior to a shot second shot being fired.

One thing for sure is if you have no adequate means of self defence you will continue to remain just as vulnerable to attack.


----------



## Haggis

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Just want to point out to those bringing up using a LE use of force response model, and having that + other defensive tools as reasons why our sentry's can't be armed, well there are probably a couple of thousand armed security (mostly doing armoured transport), and the only tool they get issued with is a pistol.



They also wear body armour, have the freedom to maintain 360 degree awareness while working and have mobile armoured cover available.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Police need additional tools and tactics because they are typically expected to de-escalate situations and arrest people so they can be brought to justice. The reason people want armed guards at the cenotaph is not much different than the reason a Brinks guard is armed, and that is solely to protect their life, due to the job they are doing.



My belief is that, if anyone was to be armed at the NWM,it should be the "guardian angel" who is there to look after the sentries.  S/he should also have the tools to deal with any and all threats from a drunken lout to an obnoxious tourist up to and including an armed extremist. A pistol alone won't do all that.


----------



## Jed

Haggis said:
			
		

> They also wear body armour, have the freedom to maintain 360 degree awareness while working and have mobile armoured cover available.
> 
> My belief is that, if anyone was to be armed at the NWM,it should be the "guardian angel" who is there to look after the sentries.  S/he should also have the tools to deal with any and all threats from a drunken lout to an obnoxious tourist up to and including an armed extremist. A pistol alone won't do all that.



Probably most Canadians, at least civilians, agree with you. A bet the majority of soldiers standing guard duty disagree though.


----------



## Remius

Jed said:
			
		

> Probably most Canadians, at least civilians, agree with you. A bet the majority of soldiers standing guard duty disagree though.



I have done it and I have trained people to do it.  I happen to agree with Haggis.  while the young private or corporal standing there might feel some degree of safety having a mag full of ammo on him, he's much safer with the "guardian angel" concept for a variety of reasons already listed and many that are not.


----------



## Jed

I was pretty sure that was your opinion Crantor. I don't think it is the majority opinion of those soldiers actually standing guard or those likely to do this or a similar task in the future though.

There is a pretty loud and vocal voice for your point of view from the civilians and LEO community in Canada. The other point of view borders on 'Politically Incorrect' for today's society, but that point of view needs to be heard.

I wonder sometimes if opinions from senior soldiers on this matter are often coloured by the need for increased administration risk and responsibility to actually allow troops to be armed in situations like this.


----------



## dapaterson

Jed said:
			
		

> I was pretty sure that was your opinion Crantor. I don't think it is the majority opinion of those soldiers actually standing guard or those likely to do this or a similar task in the future though.



I was not aware that Pte/Cpls were experts in the field of security and threat analysis, nor that they got a vote in military decisionmaking.



> There is a pretty loud and vocal voice for your point of view from the civilians and LEO community in Canada. The other point of view borders on 'Politically Incorrect' for today's society, but that point of view needs to be heard.



When did it become "politically incorrect" to defer to the expert knowledge and experience of LEOs?



> I wonder sometimes if opinions from senior soldiers on this matter are often coloured by the need for increased administration risk and responsibility to actually allow troops to be armed in situations like this.



I wonder if sometimes senior leadership have access to more information and make informed decisions.


----------



## The_Falcon

Haggis said:
			
		

> They also wear body armour, have the freedom to maintain 360 degree awareness while working and have mobile armoured cover available.



The first point yes, the second two, not always. For example when I worked with Brinks, many "runs" involved simply the messenger (person carrying the money/valubles) and the driver. With Brinks drivers never leave the vehicle, which meant the messenger would be by themselves, and depending on the location may be focused on something like opening a safe/atm. Also in the majority of robberies the crews were intercepted and blocked from getting into their trucks, so the ability to use the truck as cover is fairly limited (there are also security features that make getting in quickly rather difficult).


----------



## The_Falcon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> When did it become "politically incorrect" to defer to the expert knowledge and experience of LEOs?



Pretty sure on that point Jed is referring to the fact there is quite a vocal segment of the population that has a very extreme dislike for anyone (including LEOs) to be armed with anything more potent than a wiffle bat.  It would be seen to be unPC by this group to have soldiers performing actual guard duties in public with full use of force equipment.


----------



## Jed

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I was not aware that Pte/Cpls were experts in the field of security and threat analysis, nor that they got a vote in military decisionmaking.
> 
> When did it become "politically incorrect" to defer to the expert knowledge and experience of LEOs?
> 
> I wonder if sometimes senior leadership have access to more information and make informed decisions.



Correct on all points. The opinion still should be heard though, as highlighted by your prompt counter points.  I certainly respect and defer to the LEO community for their knowledge and expertise. The community does have a pretty strong bias though and tend to see themselves as the only people that can provide protection.


----------



## Jed

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Pretty sure on that point Jed is referring to the fact there is quite a vocal segment of the population that has a very extreme dislike for anyone (including LEOs) to be armed with anything more potent than a wiffle bat.  It would be seen to be unPC by this group to have soldiers performing actual guard duties in public with full use of force equipment.



Correct on my thinking.


----------



## Remius

Jed said:
			
		

> I was pretty sure that was your opinion Crantor. I don't think it is the majority opinion of those soldiers actually standing guard or those likely to do this or a similar task in the future though.
> 
> There is a pretty loud and vocal voice for your point of view from the civilians and LEO community in Canada. The other point of view borders on 'Politically Incorrect' for today's society, but that point of view needs to be heard.
> 
> I wonder sometimes if opinions from senior soldiers on this matter are often coloured by the need for increased administration risk and responsibility to actually allow troops to be armed in situations like this.



the thing is that YOUR opinion hasn't explained why having the sentries armed is more effective than having an armed "guardian angel" as it were.  I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.  It has nothing to do with administration or risk it has everything to do with what is more effective.

look at this pic and tell me what's more effective and tell me how those sentries are safer with ammo and without an armed guardian.  The fact is that they are not.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=guard+sentries&safe=active&biw=1680&bih=881&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=RqYJVb3TDKnbsAT3wILwDQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#safe=active&tbm=isch&q=guard+sentries+rideau+hall&imgdii=_&imgrc=p92xiH5elLr9sM%253A%3BhLYl4i9GQqrNuM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi.cbc.ca%252F1.2991645.1426157952!%252FcpImage%252FhttpImage%252Fimage.jpg_gen%252Fderivatives%252F16x9_620%252Fottawa-shooting-20141025.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cbc.ca%252Fnews%252Fcanada%252Fottawa%252Fnational-defence-should-pay-for-sentry-guards-ottawa-police-board-chair-1.2992697%3B620%3B349.  

99% of the shenanigans that go on there and at rideau hall are tourists that get too close, or kids that try and touch the rifle.  People are less likely to do it when a cop is there. I say this because i've experienced it, i've had people behind me beside me and I couldn't tell what was what unless it was far away and in my line of sight and i certainly had less awareness of what my sentry partner was experiencing.  Commissionaires at RH were damned near useless.  If teh House Sgt was nearby he at least could intervene and sometimes teh mounties at the House would to.  At the cenotaph, the guys in 3B would intercept most issues but even then that wasn't always something to discourage people (especially ex and current serving members who were/are the worst offenders)


----------



## GR66

Curious.  What happens if the guards are armed.  Are they armed simply for self defence or do they now have a security tasking?  What happens if they witness a non-terrorist type crime in conducting their duties?  An assault between a pair of drunken university students?  A purse snatching?  A hit and run of a pedestrian crossing the street?  Would there be issues of the member being sufficiently trained to intervene in any of these circumstances?  Would there be an outrage if they didn't intercede in one of these circumstances?


----------



## Jed

Crantor said:
			
		

> the thing is that YOUR opinion hasn't explained why having the sentries armed is more effective than having an armed "guardian angel" as it were.  I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.  It has nothing to do with administration or risk it has everything to do with what is more effective.
> 
> look at this pic and tell me what's more effective and tell me how those sentries are safer with ammo and without an armed guardian.  The fact is that they are not.
> 
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=guard+sentries&safe=active&biw=1680&bih=881&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=RqYJVb3TDKnbsAT3wILwDQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#safe=active&tbm=isch&q=guard+sentries+rideau+hall&imgdii=_&imgrc=p92xiH5elLr9sM%253A%3BhLYl4i9GQqrNuM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi.cbc.ca%252F1.2991645.1426157952!%252FcpImage%252FhttpImage%252Fimage.jpg_gen%252Fderivatives%252F16x9_620%252Fottawa-shooting-20141025.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cbc.ca%252Fnews%252Fcanada%252Fottawa%252Fnational-defence-should-pay-for-sentry-guards-ottawa-police-board-chair-1.2992697%3B620%3B349.
> 
> 99% of the shenanigans that go on there and at rideau hall are tourists that get too close, or kids that try and touch the rifle.  People are less likely to do it when a cop is there. I say this because i've experienced it, i've had people behind me beside me and I couldn't tell what was what unless it was far away and in my line of sight and i certainly had less awareness of what my sentry partner was experiencing.  Commissionaires at RH were damned near useless.  If teh House Sgt was nearby he at least could intervene and sometimes teh mounties at the House would to.  At the cenotaph, the guys in 3B would intercept most issues but even then that wasn't always something to discourage people (especially ex and current serving members who were/are the worst offenders)



I agree with your observations on how things transpire around the Cenotaph.  I make my comments so they will plant the seeds that there are other more economical and expedient ways of providing personal protection for our troops than: 

a. Full LEO visible presence;
b. Troops with full Battle Rattle;
c. Expensive Overwatch by LEO or CAF assets; and
d. Nothing new here, puff your chest out and put on your mean face.


----------



## Jed

A true short story:

Three 3 man survey crews are tasked to survey along the prelim route of the Alaska Highway:

Most everyday the crews are followed by Grizzlies about 100 yards back;

The crew chief asked that at least one member could carry a rifle for possible self protection; Request denied.

The Engineer in charge and party chief were checking the line and were closely followed by 2 grizzlies.

The next day the three crews were allowed to carry one rifle for protection.


Morale of the crews went way up despite the additional weight burden of packing a rifle.

No Grizzlies were harmed in the subsequent months.

I expect some means of self protection would have the same affect for any troops standing guard.


----------



## The_Falcon

GR66 said:
			
		

> Curious.  What happens if the guards are armed.  Are they armed simply for self defence or do they now have a security tasking?  What happens if they witness a non-terrorist type crime in conducting their duties?  An assault between a pair of drunken university students?  A purse snatching?  A hit and run of a pedestrian crossing the street?  Would there be issues of the member being sufficiently trained to intervene in any of these circumstances?  Would there be an outrage if they didn't intercede in one of these circumstances?



Simple they get the same line that Brinks et al get in their training, the firearm is for personal protection (and possible protection of those in the immediate vicinity such as a partner or bank employee) only. Getting involved in anything beyond that liability is on yourself. For example the armed security officer who got involved in altercation in a McDonalds in the East end of Toronto a few weeks ago and is looking at possible manslaughter charges (not sure what the current status is), or the Brinks guard who assisted with the arrest of Patrick Shand, who subsequently died due to positional asphyxiation.  While no one was charged criminally, everyone involved was sued by the family.


----------



## Remius

Jed said:
			
		

> A true short story:
> 
> Three 3 man survey crews are tasked to survey along the prelim route of the Alaska Highway:
> 
> Most everyday the crews are followed by Grizzlies about 100 yards back;
> 
> The crew chief asked that at least one member could carry a rifle for possible self protection; Request denied.
> 
> The Engineer in charge and party chief were checking the line and were closely followed by 2 grizzlies.
> 
> The next day the three crews were allowed to carry one rifle for protection.
> 
> 
> Morale of the crews went way up despite the additional weight burden of packing a rifle.
> 
> No Grizzlies were harmed in the subsequent months.
> 
> I expect some means of self protection would have the same affect for any troops standing guard.



If grizzly bears ever threaten the sentries that could be an option to explore.


----------



## dapaterson

Crantor said:
			
		

> If grizzly bears ever threaten the sentries that could be an option to explore.



I can imagine the TV ad now:  "Grizzlies.  In our streets.  With salmon."


----------



## Jed

Crantor said:
			
		

> If grizzly bears ever threaten the sentries that could be an option to explore.



 ;D It makes my point with respect to troop morale though. If you want to know what I think we should do with respect to what we do at the National Cenotaph, have a look at my 'If I were king for a day' comments at the start of this thread.


----------



## Jed

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I can imagine the TV ad now:  "Grizzlies.  In our streets.  With salmon."



I just spilt my coffee.


----------



## Remius

Jed said:
			
		

> ;D It makes my point with respect to troop morale though. If you want to know what I think we should do with respect to what we do at the National Cenotaph, have a look at my 'If I were king for a day' comments at the start of this thread.



This is assuming there is a morale problem in that regard.  I can assure you that people are lining up to do this task knowing full well they will not have ammo in their mags. 

But it also proves the whole "guardian angel" concept.  2 guys working while one, with the gun, watches for threats.

And yes, grizzlies in the streets with salmons is a recipe for chaos.


----------



## dapaterson

[mandatory Simpsons quote]

We're here!  We're queer! We don't want any more bears!

[/mandatory Simpsons quote]


----------



## Blackadder1916

Crantor said:
			
		

> And yes, grizzlies in the streets with salmons is a recipe for chaos.



http://www.food.com/recipe/grizzly-grilled-salmon-172773


----------



## Jed

Crantor said:
			
		

> This is assuming there is a morale problem in that regard.  I can assure you that people are lining up to do this task knowing full well they will not have ammo in their mags.
> 
> But it also proves the whole "guardian angel" concept.  2 guys working while one, with the gun, watches for threats.
> 
> And yes, grizzlies in the streets with salmons is a recipe for chaos.



No doubt about that. We have the best troops.


----------



## Tibbson

I know my reference may be a bit dated but I did find a CF guide for domestic ops dated from the late 90's https://info.publicintelligence.net/CA-DomesticOperations.pdf which stated:

93. The CF will not develop any capability for which it does not have a mandate. Specifically, training for law enforcement duties such as crowd and riot control shall not be conducted. The CF will not acquire equipment (including ammunition) for specific use in the civil law enforcement context *(such as the required hollow point ammo in MHO)*.  This policy must not be confused with the fact that the CF possesses certain equipment which has been acquired for operational and training reasons.  Such equipment may have application in CF assistance to law enforcement operations.

94. ECSs and other force generators are responsible for conducting use of force training for domestic operations as judged necessary and prudent to meet any anticipated need. Such training will be carried out with standard combat equipment and weapons, and with strict emphasis on the policy and legal limitations which apply to domestic operations. *(Therefore simply handing a Cpl a wpn is not sufficient)
*
The doc also goes on to speak of "The classes of *support* for assistance to provincial/territorial law enforcement agencies" not replacement of law enforcement agencies.  Jurisdictionally this is a matter for OPS, not the CAF and under our policies OPS would have to request support from DND to provide guard services.  Even the MPs don't have an overriding jurisdiction there because while the monument itself "belongs" to, I believe, Directorate of History and Heritage, (which falls under DND) the property itself is administered by the National Capital Commission which takes it out of MP jurisdiction.

As I understand it anyway.


----------



## Haggis

Jed said:
			
		

> I agree with your observations on how things transpire around the Cenotaph.  I make my comments so they will plant the seeds that there are other more economical and expedient ways of providing personal protection for our troops than:
> 
> a. Full LEO visible presence;
> b. Troops with full Battle Rattle;
> c. Expensive Overwatch by LEO or CAF assets; and
> d. Nothing new here, puff your chest out and put on your mean face.



You forgot one option - terminate the sentry task entirely.  That is, by far, the most economical option.


----------



## Jarnhamar

We could always hire brinks guards to protect unarmed soldiers. I'm sure they're a less expensive option than police.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We could always hire brinks guards to protect unarmed soldiers. I'm sure they're a less expensive option than police.



Or, maybe Garda. This took place recently on the Danforth.

Off-duty guard grabbing food kills 2 at McDonald's
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/02/28/2-killed-at-east-end-mcdonalds


----------



## Jarnhamar

I bet Dan Menard from Garda would give his old buddies from the CF a really good rate  ;D


----------



## cupper

McDonalds food is not something worth dying for. :dunno:


----------



## The_Falcon

mariomike said:
			
		

> Or, maybe Garda. This took place recently on the Danforth.
> 
> Off-duty guard grabbing food kills 2 at McDonald's
> http://www.torontosun.com/2015/02/28/2-killed-at-east-end-mcdonalds



That would be the incident I was referring to earlier.


----------



## tomahawk6

Task the RCMP to mount guard.


----------



## Jarnhamar

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Task the RCMP to mount guard.



If the RCMP has been in for over 36 months then we'll have $82'000 a year security guards.


----------



## mariomike

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Task the RCMP to mount guard.



Assuming the officers are on OT, it may not be much cheaper than using city police on Paid Duty.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You could train reg and reserve MP to guard them, that way you increase capacity in the military rather than handing money over to the police. Now if the police get the money from another budget, then fine.


----------



## dapaterson

Colin P said:
			
		

> You could train reg and reserve MP to guard them, that way you increase capacity in the military rather than handing money over to the police. Now if the police get the money from another budget, then fine.



Why does the CAF need a "guard public spaces in Canada" capability?


----------



## mariomike

Colin P said:
			
		

> You could train reg and reserve MP to guard them, that way you increase capacity in the military rather than handing money over to the police. Now if the police get the money from another budget, then fine.



Sounds like turf jurisdiction may be involved.

"As for why DND wouldn’t use military police to guard the sentries, Ottawa Police say it’s because of jurisdiction and protocols within the military."
http://www.923jackfm.com/2015/03/12/ottawa-police-offices-may-guard-the-sentries-at-the-national-war-memorial/


----------



## Jed

Jed said:
			
		

> I agree with your observations on how things transpire around the Cenotaph.  I make my comments so they will plant the seeds that there are other more economical and expedient ways of providing personal protection for our troops than:
> 
> a. Full LEO visible presence;
> b. Troops with full Battle Rattle;
> c. Expensive Overwatch by LEO or CAF assets; and
> d. Nothing new here, puff your chest out and put on your mean face.



Looks like to me we will take the low risk approach (the typical Canadian way) and opt for COA d.


----------



## The Bread Guy

mariomike said:
			
		

> Sounds like turf jurisdiction may be involved.


The magic of federalism:  it seems that it's almost always about who's grass is being cut by whom, isn't it?


----------



## Tibbson

mariomike said:
			
		

> Sounds like turf jurisdiction may be involved.
> 
> "As for why DND wouldn’t use military police to guard the sentries, Ottawa Police say it’s because of jurisdiction and protocols within the military."
> http://www.923jackfm.com/2015/03/12/ottawa-police-offices-may-guard-the-sentries-at-the-national-war-memorial/



Yes, that is exactly what it is.  Policing wise it's Ottawa police jurisdiction, plain and simple.  Even for such functions as Remembrance Day, while there is a limited MP presence, its only because they are paired with Ottawa PD and/or RCMP, at the request of those departments, to augment their own pers.  The protocols within the Military that the article speaks of is that essentially, given the jurisdiction issues, it's not a job for the MPs.  Ultimately it's the government that determines the course of action and it is not their will to have CAF pers providing armed security services like this in Canada.


----------



## Tibbson

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The magic of federalism:  it seems that it's almost always about who's grass is being cut by whom, isn't it?



There are legal arguments to be made as well when one reads the relevant sections of the NDA to see where MPs get their authorities and peace officer status.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I remember reading somewhere a reservist who is off duty (ie not signed in) but on DND property including a bystander in the presence of a DND function such as a parade is subject to the NDA. If that's true it seems weird they would fall under the NDA but a military police officer wouldn't have jurisdiction.

Didn't some kind of new MP head quarters or command group spring into existence?  Tasking MPs with this duty seems like a perfect solution.  I'm sure it's cheaper tasking MPs to do this job than paying cops over time to do it.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I remember reading somewhere a reservist who is off duty (ie not signed in) but on DND property including a bystander in the presence of a DND function such as a parade is subject to the NDA. If that's true it seems weird they would fall under the NDA but a military police officer wouldn't have jurisdiction.



Everybody (military, civilian, citizen, non-citizen, tourist, illegal . . . well, perhaps excluding accredited foreign diplomatic representatives) are subject to the National Defence Act just like any other piece of Canadian legislation.  Whether it has any bearing on them is another matter.  What you may be semi-remembering are the circumstances when reservists are subject to the "Code of Service Discipline", which is only a part of the NDA.

What the law says:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-21.html#h-39


> 60. (1) The following persons are subject to the Code of Service Discipline:
> 
> (c) an officer or non-commissioned member of the reserve force when the officer or non-commissioned member is
> (i) undergoing drill or training, whether in uniform or not,
> (ii) in uniform,
> (iii) on duty,
> (iv) [Repealed, 1998, c. 35, s. 19]
> (v) called out under Part VI in aid of the civil power,
> (vi) called out on service,
> (vii) placed on active service,
> (viii) in or on any vessel, vehicle or aircraft of the Canadian Forces or in or on any defence establishment or work for defence,
> (ix) serving with any unit or other element of the regular force or the special force, or
> (x) present, whether in uniform or not, at any drill or training of a unit or other element of the Canadian Forces;



A simple explanation from a Forces site.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law/code-of-service-discipline.page


> When am I subject to the CSD?
> 
> If you are a member of the Regular Force you are always subject to the CSD, both inside and outside Canada. If you are a member of the Reserve Force, you are subject to the CSD:
> •while undergoing drill or training (whether you are in uniform or not)
> •whenever you are in uniform
> •while on any military duty
> •24 hours a day, 7 days a week during any period of full time service (Class "B" or "C" service)
> •whenever you are present on defence property
> •whenever you are in a vehicle, ship or aircraft of the CF.



The jurisdiction or powers of military police is another matter and may not be exclusively contained in the NDA.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Yes, that is exactly what it is.  Policing wise it's Ottawa police jurisdiction, plain and simple.  Even for such functions as Remembrance Day, while there is a limited MP presence, its only because they are paired with Ottawa PD and/or RCMP, at the request of those departments, to augment their own pers.  The protocols within the Military that the article speaks of is that essentially, given the jurisdiction issues, it's not a job for the MPs.  Ultimately it's the government that determines the course of action and it is not their will to have CAF pers providing armed security services like this in Canada.


An MOU would rectify that would it not if agreed upon should the GoC decide to change tack?


----------



## Tibbson

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I remember reading somewhere a reservist who is off duty (ie not signed in) but on DND property including a bystander in the presence of a DND function such as a parade is subject to the NDA. If that's true it seems weird they would fall under the NDA but a military police officer wouldn't have jurisdiction.
> 
> Didn't some kind of new MP head quarters or command group spring into existence?  Tasking MPs with this duty seems like a perfect solution.  I'm sure it's cheaper tasking MPs to do this job than paying cops over time to do it.



Actually off duty reservists are not strictly subject to the Code and even when on Class B it is all still situationally dependent.  And yes, tasking MPs to do the duty is one option provided civilian authorities request them to do this duty AND the Minister wants to authorize it.  Its not as simple as the CFPM just tasking the Gp to provide the service.


----------



## Tibbson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> An MOU would rectify that would it not if agreed upon should the GoC decide to change tack?



Yes, an MOU would help to address the situation however I don't think there is a need to go that far.  All that needs to be done is for the relevant civilian authorities to request the assistance with the tasking and the CAF needs to agree to carry out that tasking.  

I'm sure our resident JAG could shed more light on the topic but as I see it there would need to be three things line up for there to be an MOU.    There has to be the legal ability for the CAF to be involved and then both parties to the MOU need to agree to it (after it's picked apart by their respective legal advisors).  I'm still not convinced there is a firm legal avenue for the MPs to carry out such a duty and I'm personally positive the last thing the Government wants are armed soldiers watching civilians in a situation where they could be called upon to shoot someone.  It's much more politically palatable to have civpol carry out the duties I'm sure.


----------



## Tibbson

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Everybody (military, civilian, citizen, non-citizen, tourist, illegal . . . well, perhaps excluding accredited foreign diplomatic representatives) are subject to the National Defence Act just like any other piece of Canadian legislation.  Whether it has any bearing on them is another matter.  What you may be semi-remembering are the circumstances when reservists are subject to the "Code of Service Discipline", which is only a part of the NDA.



I really don't see where it says that "everyone" is subject to the NDA.  The section clearly outlines the conditions whereby reserve force members are subject to the CSD.  The only time civilians are subject to the Code is when they are formally accompanying the CAF on an overseas deployment.  For example an RCMP member in or even the PSP pers in KAF were subject to the NDA while some Canadian citizen who is employed by KBR would not be.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I really don't see where it says that "everyone" is subject to the NDA.  The section clearly outlines the conditions whereby reserve force members are subject to the CSD.  The only time civilians are subject to the Code is when they are formally accompanying the CAF on an overseas deployment.  For example an RCMP member in or even the PSP pers in KAF were subject to the NDA while some Canadian citizen who is employed by KBR would not be.



The Code of Service Discipline is but only one part (Part III of 8 parts) of the National Defence Act.  There are elements of the NDA and regulations made under the act that are specifically applicable to non-military persons (i.e civilians) even if they are not subject to the CSD.  I thought my comment about "everyone is subject to the NDA" was clear in separating the specific CSD part of the act from the wider application of the NDA to everyone, just as "everyone in Canada" is subject to the provisions of every piece of Canadian legislation.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Having been involved in regulatory change and have had the Act I regulate fundamental change, this government would make the changes to the NDA in a heartbeat if they felt it served their purpose to have military guard the sentries. It would be an easy sell I suspect as the new section would be specific to the area. The average voter does not give a damm abut jurisdictional squabbles.


----------



## Tibbson

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> The Code of Service Discipline is but only one part (Part III of 8 parts) of the National Defence Act.  There are elements of the NDA and regulations made under the act that are specifically applicable to non-military persons (i.e civilians) even if they are not subject to the CSD.  I thought my comment about "everyone is subject to the NDA" was clear in separating the specific CSD part of the act from the wider application of the NDA to everyone, just as "everyone in Canada" is subject to the provisions of every piece of Canadian legislation.



In the broadest sense pretty much everyone in Canada is subject to every other Act but after quickly reviewing the TOC again I still contend that the NDA specifically refers to the establishment and administration of the CAF and that very little of it is intended to apply to non military members.


----------



## Tibbson

Colin P said:
			
		

> Having been involved in regulatory change and have had the Act I regulate fundamental change, this government would make the changes to the NDA in a heartbeat if they felt it served their purpose to have military guard the sentries. It would be an easy sell I suspect as the new section would be specific to the area. The average voter does not give a damm abut jurisdictional squabbles.



I'm sure we all could name a few other sections we'd get them to change while they were at it but I'm sure it is a big IF.  Its easier to pay for the service then it would be to work through the process to changes to the NDA.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

I just wanted to add my 25 cents to this.

1) ask yourself the following questions

a) if the soldier is fully armed and loaded C7A2  happens to be shot, the " bad guy" now has access to a fully automatic weapon?
b) if you as the soldier on duty do you want to be the soldier trading fire with a "bad guy" and firing into a crowd of on lookers or civilains?
c) if you are the soldier on guard duty, where are your eyes suppose to be? ( i was the worse soldier on parade my eyes were every where but straight to the front like they should be) You cannot do the drill and be scanning the on lookers for the "badguy"
d) Canadian soldiers ( other than MPs ) do not have law enforcement training or allowed to provide law enforcement duties in Canada, or if they are given that  power where does the line of enforcement get drawn at?  Do we then start giving out speeding tickets or parking tickets, chase down purse snatchers down town Ottawa or do we do military duties ?
e) lets say  you have the powers and there is something that  sounds like a gun shot and you start scanning for a target, do you want to be the guy  who engages a friendly tourist who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?  Headlines around the world would read " Canadian Soldier shoots tourist at the Tomb"  

Things we can do to improve the safety of the guards

With or without a police officers on site.

1) issue light body armour that  would fit under the dress uniform and be some level of protection below full combat body armour
2) take away the dress uniforms and stand the watch in full combat dress with body armour
3) take it as the once in a life time  event it should be and change nothing.
4) remove the guard and let it be as it was in the past.

Just my thoughts


----------



## cupper

Just to throw a wrench into the gears, lets look at an alternate scenario.

For arguments sake, lets agree that we've gone through all of the debate, knicker twisting and teeth gnashing and finally agree to arm the sentries, or more realistically an armed member(s) on site to provide protection to the sentries.

Picture what would happen if a similar incident takes place, only this time the perpetrator is spotted before being able to get a shot at the sentry. A fire fight results. Innocent bystanders are injured or killed.

Just imagine the outcry that would result from the general public, regardless of who shot who, about allowing armed troops running all over the place.

You know it's going to be the case. Only those of us who serve and have served would understand how wrong the public perception would be, but unfortunately the brush is wide and well primed with paint.


----------



## Tibbson

And when it comes to decisions like this concerns about the publics perception will always win out


----------



## Jarnhamar

cupper said:
			
		

> Just to throw a wrench into the gears, lets look at an alternate scenario.
> 
> For arguments sake, lets agree that we've gone through all of the debate, knicker twisting and teeth gnashing and finally agree to arm the sentries, or more realistically an armed member(s) on site to provide protection to the sentries.
> 
> Picture what would happen if a similar incident takes place, only this time the perpetrator is spotted before being able to get a shot at the sentry. A fire fight results. Innocent bystanders are injured or killed.
> 
> Just imagine the outcry that would result from the general public, regardless of who shot who, about allowing armed troops running all over the place.
> 
> You know it's going to be the case. Only those of us who serve and have served would understand how wrong the public perception would be, but unfortunately the brush is wide and well primed with paint.



Or picture what will happen if an attacker shoots the police officer guarding the soldiers then shoots and kills soldiers and other bystanders.  People will scream why weren't the soldiers armed.

We arm security guards to defend themselves because they are big targets, or carrying big targets.
Soldiers in the public are now big targets.  We can
1. Not arm soldier with the ability to defend themselves.
2. Arm soldiers so they can defend themselves.
3. Stop public events
4  Pay an already over worked police force a lot of money to follow soldiers around and guard them.


----------



## tomahawk6

The sentinel is guarding a symbol of the sacrifice of men and women who have fallen for their country.Do what must be done to honor their memory.To fall while on Guard for me would be an honor.The sentry that was killed while on guard deserves Canda's highest honor as both a symbol and a lesson for others.


----------



## cupper

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Or picture what will happen if an attacker shoots the police officer guarding the soldiers then shoots and kills soldiers and other bystanders.  People will scream why weren't the soldiers armed.



Which is where we are now. So we are in essentially a Catch-22 situation. Damned if we do, Damned if we don't.


----------



## Tibbson

cupper said:
			
		

> Which is where we are now. So we are in essentially a Catch-22 situation. Damned if we do, Damned if we don't.



Actually, I think we're damned if we do and wise to do not and let the appropriate civilian agency handle it.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest:  it's the cops who'll be guarding the guardians, so to speak ....


> The Canadian Armed Forces and Ottawa police have a signed a contract that will see two uniformed city police officers protect the ceremonial guards at the National War Memorial for the next seven months.
> 
> The military is paying for the entire cost of the paid duty contract, which is pegged at approximately $425,000.
> 
> (....)
> 
> “We remain undeterred in paying tribute to this nation’s fallen and continue, resolutely, to show dignity and respect for this important national site,” wrote National Defence spokeswoman, Ashley Lemire in an email to Metro.
> 
> While the War Memorial and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier will remain accessible to the public, crowd control stanchions will restrict access to the two sentries guarding the tomb.
> 
> “We are confident in the Ottawa Police Service’s ability to protect our personnel and we thank all Canadians for their ongoing support as we continue to pay tribute to the sacrifices made by our nation’s heroes,” wrote Lemire.
> 
> National Defence requested Ottawa police to help guard the site since DND does not have jurisdiction over the site ....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

If we have to arm the guards to protect themselves or pay the exorbitant ransom to the OPD, then it's time to take the guards off task. All this stuff and what ifs are pie in the sky conjecture. No one, no matter what, is going to stop a determined attacker from taking out a guard.

We couldn't do it in Afghanistan where EVERYONE was armed and hyper vigilant, and we won't stop it here. All the rest is fluff and fantasy.

Leave them there and accept the risk they may get killed or dismount the guards from their posts.

There, realistically, in no other options while attempting to keep the guards and public safe.


----------



## McG

Haggis said:
			
		

> [armed security guards] wear body armour, have the freedom to maintain 360 degree awareness while working and have mobile armoured cover available.
> 
> My belief is that, if anyone was to be armed at the NWM,it should be the "guardian angel" who is there to look after the sentries.


I have been a GA, and I have performed work where I have been assigned a GA.  In all cases, the guy doing _the mission_ was armed - he was focused on a job and unable to watch for threats, but he was ready to reinforce the GA the moment shots started.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I just read that the off duty police doing this security duty will be making about $130 an hour.  Not too shabby lol


----------



## George Wallace

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I just read that the off duty police doing this security duty will be making about $130 an hour.  Not too shabby lol



The news I heard this morning is that there will be two officers, with a cruiser, on duty, starting fifteen minutes prior to through to fifteen minutes following the mounted Guard.  They are to conduct security sweeps prior to and after the Guard performs their duties.  This does not sound like "off duty" officers.  DND has announced the sum that they will pay the Ottawa Police for this service at around $425K.

http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/1334857/ottawa-police-ink-425k-deal-to-protect-ceremonial-guards-at-war-memorial/


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I just read that the off duty police doing this security duty will be making about $130 an hour.



These are their advertised rates. 

Rates*
Constable $79.78/hr

Sergeant $90.46/hr

Staff Sergeant $98.93/hr

Vehicles $45.00/hr

Canine $50 flat rate in addition to the cost of the officer and vehicle

*last updated January 2015.
http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/contact-us/hire-police-for-an-event.asp


----------



## George Wallace

Whatever the members of the Ottawa Police who are tasked to perform these duties, whether their are off duty or not, are paid; the budget is there, as is the time frame for which they will give protection.  It will be up to the Ottawa Police to budget their money paid them by DND to meet the demand.


----------



## Jarnhamar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Whatever the members of the Ottawa Police who are tasked to perform these duties, whether their are off duty or not, are paid; the budget is there, as is the time frame for which they will give protection.  It will be up to the Ottawa Police to budget their money paid them by DND to meet the demand.



I just found it an interesting cost difference.

A new private in the reserves working as a Cenotaph guard would make $11.28 an hour


$79 seems a lot less that $130. I guess that number was frm deviding $450'000 into man hours or whatever.


----------



## Haggis

recceguy said:
			
		

> If we have to arm the guards to protect themselves or pay the exorbitant ransom to the OPD, then it's time to take the guards off task.



There are far better uses for $425,000.  Like, maybe, fixing the recruiting system?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

'xactly.

Besides, two local PCs sitting in a car or wandering around the area, will not stop a determined attacker from getting to the CG. They would need two per guard, standing on either side, one facing forward and one facing rear, covering interlocking arcs. Even then there are no guarantees.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Haggis said:
			
		

> There are far better uses for $425,000.  Like, maybe, fixing the recruiting system?



There's your pips n crowns paid for.


----------



## blackberet17

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> There's your pips n crowns paid for.



You had to go there... ;D


----------



## McG

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> There's your pips n crowns paid for.


The British rank investment could have payed for 10 years of armed police security at the cenotaph.


----------



## Jed

MCG said:
			
		

> The British rank investment could have payed for 10 years of armed police security at the cenotaph.



I prefer the pips and crowns.  ;D


----------



## cupper

So who pays when they see a crime on progress across the street unrelated to Cenotaph duty, and proceed to apprehend the perp?


----------



## mariomike

cupper said:
			
		

> So who pays when they see a crime on progress across the street unrelated to Cenotaph duty, and proceed to apprehend the perp?



I did a lot of Paid Duty as a Paramedic. When you respond to an emergency outside of your dedicated standby, they send a another crew out of the car count to backfill. Toronto Police do the same thing, so I assume Ottawa does as well.


----------



## JS2218

I saw the Ottawa Police sentry during the Vimy Ridge remembrance. From what I could see it was one Ottawa police officer (no squad car), one Corporal (overwatch and answering the public's questions), and the two sentries on duty.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

JS2218 said:
			
		

> I saw the Ottawa Police sentry during the Vimy Ridge remembrance. From what I could see it was one Ottawa police officer (no squad car), one Corporal (overwatch and answering the public's questions), and the two sentries on duty.



You can't do both at the same time.


----------



## George Wallace

JS2218 said:
			
		

> I saw the Ottawa Police sentry during the Vimy Ridge remembrance. From what I could see it was one Ottawa police officer (no squad car), one Corporal (overwatch and answering the public's questions), and the two sentries on duty.



Just want to point out that the police are not "sentries".  The fact that you only saw one does not mean there was only one.  Mother Nature does come into play and perhaps they were on a "Bio Break" or just not in you view.


----------



## brihard

I'm just gonna copy and paste my reply to this from elsewhere:

Ignorance abounds in the replies to this. I am a reservist. I have both received and instructed on the majority of training that most reservists working at Ceremonial Guard will ever get. I have three summers myself working at Ceremonial Guard, two of them including working as a sentry. I have a tour overseas where I carried a rifle with ammunition as if it were clothing.

1: The reservists making up the bulk of the guardsmen are by no stretch of the imagination 'highly trained'. Decently, sure, but the training a reservist will get will usually comprise a part time course lasting ten or so weekends, and then two months of full time training, the vast majority of which will be utterly irrelevant to downtown Ottawa. They have nothing even close to the training Ottawa Police officers will have.

2: A sentry will be stuck standing at ease staring straight forward. Cpl Cirillo was shot in the back by someone neither he nor the other sentry laid eyes on before shots were fired. You never, ever give ammunition to someone who can't keep their heads on a swivel and/or are protected by adequate lethal overwatch from another tactical element. Giving two guards who must face eyes front a magazine of rounds just means someone can walk up, pop them in the back of the head and now have two functional C7 rifles with high capacity magazines. No thanks.

3: The vast majority of sentries have no experience in use of force training in a domestic context, and few will have been to war or carried live ammunition in anything but very tightly controlled range settings. The risk of error is frankly significantly greater than the risk inherent in not arming the sentries.

I'll be blunt; I think given the state of our military the entire Ceremonial Guard should be scrapped and the soldiers re-roled into training for their primary job, If we had the luxury of a military that was funded and manned where it needed to be we could afford things like CG and the Snowbirds, but it's not. However if we insist on this wasteful public relations spectacle, then give the troops proper security. On the streets of a Canadian city, that means police officers who have the appropriate training and tools to properly handle the wide variety of situations that may arise. Ottawa Police Service is the force with appropriate jurisdiction, though I'd be equally content with military police if the appropriate memorandums of understanding were in place.

At the end of the day, to argue for giving the sentries ammunition and expecting that to solve the problem merely betrays one's utter ignorance of what they actually do, what their role is, and how a tactical situation actually works.


----------



## Tibbson

:goodpost:

Hear hear!!


----------



## mariomike

JS2218 said:
			
		

> From what I could see it was one Ottawa police officer (no squad car), < snip >



To add to what George mentioned about taking a "Bio Break", one may have been on a meal break. 

"will work the same hours as the ceremonial guards, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday to Friday."


----------



## tomahawk6

Maybe if you remove the Army sentry maybe it would not be a target.Cadets and veterans of the Canadian Legion might take on the role ?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-28637039


----------



## mariomike

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Cadets and veterans of the Canadian Legion might take on the role ?



It has been described as a "tough job".

"They sometimes had to deal with loud drunks, boorish visitors, pushy parents, roving vandals, torrential downpours and sweltering heat, all the while keeping their cool, their calm and their dignity."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sentries-at-national-war-memorial-endured-abuse-disrespect-1.3018109


----------



## tomahawk6

In the US we have a number of memorials that are not formally guarded,except by armed Park Rangers and are brightly lit at night.The Tomb of The Unknown on the other hand is on a military installation which makes security for visitors and the sentinels easier.


----------



## Loachman

Brihard said:
			
		

> high capacity magazines



Standard capacity magazines.

"High capacity" is the language of gun-grabbers.

The rest, I agree with.


----------



## cupper

When did they put up the individual shelters for the guard?

https://www.facebook.com/changingoftheguard/photos/a.892335880810008.1073741901.565156533527946/892337437476519/?type=1&theater


----------



## Weinie

Wednesday morning 22 April. Spoke to one of the Ottawa Police Service guys on duty as I was walking by. Thanked him for their help and asked the same question about the shelters. He said they came in that morning.


----------



## mariomike

cupper said:
			
		

> When did they put up the individual shelters for the guard?



Seen from another angle:
https://postmediaottawacitizen2.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/an-ottawa-police-officer-stands-watch-over-the-ceremonial-gu.jpg?quality=55&strip=all&w=660&h=495&crop=1


----------



## blackberet17

Not a "bad" idea, but looks kinda funny, on the grounds of a national monument. We're not talking Buckingham Palace, after all... Are they going to issue the fuzzy tall hats, too?


----------



## Remius

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> Not a "bad" idea, but looks kinda funny, on the grounds of a national monument. We're not talking Buckingham Palace, after all... Are they going to issue the fuzzy tall hats, too?



Yes.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=ceremonial+guard+at+cenotaph&biw=1680&bih=919&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=zClBVfGjONH3yQTu_YDACg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#imgrc=a2TGC1QEsFNIOM%253A%3BM-X12zCrpUZS0M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi%252Fc8GDl8Idxv0%252Fmaxresdefault.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.youtube.com%252Fwatch%253Fv%253Dc8GDl8Idxv0%3B1920%3B1080


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'll be blunt; I think given the state of our military the entire Ceremonial Guard should be scrapped and the soldiers re-roled into training for their primary job, If we had the luxury of a military that was funded and manned where it needed to be we could afford things like CG and the Snowbirds, but it's not. However if we insist on this wasteful public relations spectacle, then give the troops proper security. On the streets of a Canadian city, that means police officers who have the appropriate training and tools to properly handle the wide variety of situations that may arise. Ottawa Police Service is the force with appropriate jurisdiction, though I'd be equally content with military police if the appropriate memorandums of understanding were in place.



I kind of agree.

I was working in Ottawa the week before the shooting. I know that hindsight is 20-20, but I wandered up to the Cenotaph for a look around and, on noticing the two sentries wayyyyy out there on their lonesome, thought it was pretty odd to have two guys so exposed.

Maslow's Law says that we should be able to pay for boots, mukluks and proper training before we invest in the 'trimmings' like a permanent ceremonial presence like that.


----------



## Gunner98

Are those shelters meant to be sun shades and rain huts or bullet-proof bunkers?  To me they look like they are made out of foam or are part of a Lego set.  Needless to say I'm not a big fan...frankly they remind me of the shelters erected (in Quinte West-Trenton) for the School Crossing Guards.


----------



## geo

Let's be honest. The cenotaph sentry thing is something new and is not a longstanding tradition.
Public duties, changing of the guard and sentries at the governor general's residence are traditions. Not so much at the cenotaph. 
So.... Should we maintain it?


----------



## George Wallace

geo said:
			
		

> Let's be honest. The cenotaph sentry thing is something new and is not a longstanding tradition.
> Public duties, changing of the guard and sentries at the governor general's residence are traditions. Not so much at the cenotaph.
> So.... Should we maintain it?



Even those 'traditions' had a start somewhere; and I doubt that they date back to the original GG.


----------



## geo

Oh nooooo.... Probably back to the time of Canadian Guards.
I only brought up the point because some people will say that it's always been done VS only on Nov 11th + special occasions.
FWIW, I like the idea, though I'm less happy with the need for a civy police escort /sidekick.
Are we soon much at risk of a repeat performance from a dissatisfied nut-ball to absolutely need the nice policemen?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

recceguy said:
			
		

> If we have to arm the guards to protect themselves or pay the exorbitant ransom to the OPD, then it's time to take the guards off task. All this stuff and what ifs are pie in the sky conjecture. No one, no matter what, is going to stop a determined attacker from taking out a guard.
> 
> We couldn't do it in Afghanistan where EVERYONE was armed and hyper vigilant, and we won't stop it here. All the rest is fluff and fantasy.
> 
> Leave them there and accept the risk they may get killed or dismount the guards from their posts.
> 
> There, realistically, in no other options while attempting to keep the guards and public safe.



Still a lot of fluff and feel good being discussed. No one has addressed the only true solution as stated already.

We can't have it both ways ( or many others for that question). The discussion has been pegged. Can we or can't we? If yes, why? if no, why not? This whole discussion boils down to these two points. 

Discuss.


----------



## jollyjacktar

As you put it that way recce, then, no they should not be armed.  Due to the risk to the general public at large of the guards being disarmed by one or more assailants and the C7 being used for further attacks, somewhere.  That, should make it fairly undebatable.


----------



## Haggis

To put this into perspective, the sum being paid to the Ottawa Police would fund one medium-sized Reserve unit for a year.


----------

