# Police pulling guns on Reservists in BC



## Korporaal (13 Mar 2008)

The Seaforth Highlanders (Vancouver) were supposed to do the BFT last night, but it was cancelled due to an incident last Wednesday whereby the 12 th Service Battalion in Richmond had the police draw there arms on the Reservists.
Apparentley the service battalion guys were doing there BFT when the police stopped them (pointing there pistols at the guys) due to the fact that they were carring there rifles.

I thought we were supposed to be on the same side....

Has anybody heard anything more about this.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Mar 2008)

Any sources for this?


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Mar 2008)

Korporaal said:
			
		

> I thought we were supposed to be on the same side....



If this happened the following question comes to mind: _Did anyone inform the police that the troops would be conducting their march with weapons?_


----------



## medaid (13 Mar 2008)

Haven't heard about this and I am rather close to the armouries.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Mar 2008)

Kinda dumb of the police. Handguns are a poor match for assault rifles, what did they expect to do if they weren't soldiers and those rifles were loaded?


----------



## medaid (13 Mar 2008)

I suggest we lock this till OP can come back with a source. I'll do a little digging on my end.


----------



## Old Ranger (13 Mar 2008)

Not the first time there has been some misscommunication (pissing contest).

Let your higher ups sort it out, they have reference material.

1988, 1989 were a couple of years in Ontario with a local pissing contest. Our dear Lt typed up letter of intent, times and location and training that WAS going to take place. Marched into local Police Detachment and handed the letter to their SGT.
He was told "you can't do this/that"...Yes I can, Federal trumps Region, I'm just being polite and informing you so none of your officers do something stupid. Have a nice day and off we went in search of the armies of Fantasia.

Cheers,
Ben


----------



## marshall sl (13 Mar 2008)

Not the first time for this in BC, It happened in the mid 70's when we trained at the UBC Endowment lands doing map and compass as well as section formations etc,and down on Granville Island long before it was the shopping /tousist destination it is now.


----------



## Korporaal (13 Mar 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Any sources for this?



One of the Senior NCO`s who was organising the BFT told us, so I assume it was accurate.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Mar 2008)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Kinda dumb of the police. Handguns are a poor match for assault rifles, what did they expect to do if they weren't soldiers and those rifles were loaded?



Not that unusual.  I have heard, from my Sig O, a first hand account how some constables drew their service pistols on him and a MCpl as they returned to their Coyote.  Wouldn't you figure that 25mm would trump their service pistols?


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Mar 2008)

Exactly George, poor situational awareness.


----------



## Lumber (13 Mar 2008)

Where can I find, or could you tell me what is, the law that describes the right/lack thereof of the army to handle/carry loaded/not loaded firearms in public? 

Could the RHLIes legally go on a strole through downtown Hamilton, armed with loaded rifles? I mean, obviously they would need a good reason to have loaded weapons, but what does the law say?


----------



## Haggis (13 Mar 2008)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Where can I find, or could you tell me what is, the law that describes the right/lack thereof of the army to handle/carry loaded/not loaded firearms in public?
> 
> Could the RHLIes legally go on a strole through downtown Hamilton, armed with loaded rifles? I mean, obviously they would need a good reason to have loaded weapons, but what does the law say?



Although there are many federal and local prohibitions, above and beyond the Criminal Code and Firearms Acts, Section 3(2) of the Firearms Act reads: "Notwithstanding subsection (1), this Act does not apply in respect of the Canadian Forces."

In short, we can carry loaded weapons, unloaded weapons, bombs, rockets and missiles, anytime and wnywhere.  However we must do it reasonably and in accordance with all extant CF Regulations, Orders and Directives.

It's also VERY important to remain cordial with your local police service.  Someday it will come in handy.


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Mar 2008)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Where can I find, or could you tell me what is, the law that describes the right/lack thereof of the army to handle/carry loaded/not loaded firearms in public?
> 
> Could the RHLIes legally go on a strole through downtown Hamilton, armed with loaded rifles? I mean, obviously they would need a good reason to have loaded weapons, but what does the law say?



Well, you could try relying on this section of the NDA:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/N-5/bo-ga:l_V-gb:s_257//en#anchorbo-ga:l_V-gb:s_257



> Manoeuvres
> 
> Authorization by Minister
> 
> ...



But, para (5) above, in my interpretation, says you can't claim to do such things simply because you are participating in training "mamoeuvres".  And claiming you have the Minister's authority simply because you want to conduct such training may be over-reaching the local chain of command's authority.  If, however, you have demonstrated a clear training requirement to do so, and have clearance from the chain of command as far up as necessary, then, theoretically, you could stroll downtown with loaded weapons.  Good luck with that.

Note also para (2), which, in many cases, is served by making the local LEO aware of your intent to carry weapons for training, even if they will not be loaded at any time.

Be very careful when you want to use your own broad-brush interpretations of any regulations.  "I thought it could mean ..." is a pretty weak defence at a Court Martial.


----------



## scas (13 Mar 2008)

This same thing happened to me about 2 years ago, and I got bit on the buttocks by the police dog, when they came looking for the other half of my section/.


----------



## Danjanou (13 Mar 2008)

marshall sl said:
			
		

> Not the first time for this in BC, It happened in the mid 70's when we trained at the UBC Endowment lands doing map and compass as well as section formations etc,and down on Granville Island long before it was the shopping /tousist destination it is now.



I remember a few of those ahem "impromtu realistic training exercises." ;D

I've seen it happen in TO , BC,  Nfld etc etc . Like Forrest says Dumbshit sometimes happens.


----------



## Old Ranger (13 Mar 2008)

scas said:
			
		

> This same thing happened to me about 2 years ago, and I got bit on the buttocks by the police dog, when they came looking for the other half of my section/.



Did the Dog need to get it's shot's updated? :

And when they pull over the Vehicle transfering Weapons...that's a whole new ball of Fun.


----------



## TN2IC (13 Mar 2008)

I always wanted to see a LEO pull over a MLVW with artillery gun behind it...  ;D


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Mar 2008)

We always try to give TPS a heads up when we go out and about, although there was one time we did an impromptu ruckmarch one weekend (our buses never showed up on the friday night, so we stayed in MPA and did training there.), through Regent Park and about halfway into it a TPS cruiser rolls by, and says I figured it was you guys, apparently a couple of concernced citizens called the police after see a whole bunch of people in green carrying rifles and bazookas (P.C's words).  I guess they (TPS) were able to figure out it was army guys marching around considering our proximity to Regent Park.  

Now that is in sharp contrast to the OPP calling out their tac teams and shuting down the highway, after a motorist passes our bus and freaks when they see people inside with rifles.


----------



## Haggis (13 Mar 2008)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> And when they pull over the Vehicle transfering Weapons...that's a whole new ball of Fun.



I was the armed escort in a LSVW full of individual and crew served weapons coming back from Fort Drum.  All the required notifications had been made on both sides of the border, yet this Canada  Customs Inspector questioned the authority under which I could carry a loaded weapon back into Canada.  I quoted Section 3(2) of the Firearms Act and after he looked it up we were allowed to proceed.



			
				Sgt  Schultz said:
			
		

> I always wanted to see a LEO pull over a MLVW with artillery gun behind it...  ;D



I was pulled over on Highway 417 by Ottawa Police while crew commanding a Grizzly going back to Petawawa.  I popped the rear harch and the cop asks "What IS this???"  So, we gave him the $0.05 tour.


----------



## medaid (13 Mar 2008)

Ah... I never get the public.

They will never EVER EVER in a million years! Associate armed, disciplined, uniformed troops to be what they are. Troops. 

 :


----------



## medicineman (13 Mar 2008)

Sgt  Schultz said:
			
		

> I always wanted to see a LEO pull over a MLVW with artillery gun behind it...  ;D



Not quite that, but funny to see the Customs Officers when we came back from gun camp in Ft Lewis one year.

On another note, we had a gun tractor go into a 6 wheel lockup that caused a 105 to flip and knock the clown that was tailgating him off the Pat Bay Highway one crappy morning (going to aforementioned gun camp).  The article in the Times-Communist, oops, Colonist quoted this dweeb as saying "I thought these people were here to protect us, not attack unarmed civilians...".  Unfortunately for him, the BSM was a Victoria city cop; fortunately for him, Shadow, his ill tempered 4 legged partner, wasn't there.  After that, the drunken Irish kinfolk of Mr Murphy stuck their large noses into what became a not so great ex.

MM


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Mar 2008)

If the unit has the "keys" for the city in question, they are allowed to march through the street with bayonets fixed and colours flying. I wish the Seaforths would do that on a sunny afternoon past the art gallery on Robson St, it would do the girls their good to see some real men...


----------



## noneck (13 Mar 2008)

I think this should be locked until the factual story (and not second and third hand accounts) can be obtained.

I was posted at this Det for 7 years and as long as it's not under investigation and merely miscommunication it's a non-event. Richmond Detachment had enjoyed a long and positive relationship with the Service Bn for many years, so much so that most of our large parades are held there.

More to follow
Noneck


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Mar 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> If the unit has the "keys" for the city in question, they are allowed to march through the street with bayonets fixed and colours flying.



Having been ceremonially granted Freedom of the City doesn't negate requirements to follow regulations and expectations to inform local authorities; it's a ceremonial privilege, not a carte blanche to do as you wish within the city limits.


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Mar 2008)

noneck said:
			
		

> I think this should be locked until the factual story (and not second and third hand accounts) can be obtained.



Since the discussion has primarily been discussing the regulatory background and mentions of other similar instances and not a spiralling diatribe against the originally mentioned LEO, there should be no need to lock this one yet.


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Mar 2008)

> Bar of action
> (5) No action lies by reason only of the execution of manoeuvres authorized under this section.





			
				Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> But, para (5) above, in my interpretation, says you can't claim to do such things simply because you are participating in training "manoeuvres".  And claiming you have the Minister's authority simply because you want to conduct such training may be over-reaching the local chain of command's authority.  If, however, you have demonstrated a clear training requirement to do so, and have clearance from the chain of command as far up as necessary, then, theoretically, you could stroll downtown with loaded weapons.  Good luck with that.



Im not sure about the first part of your interpretation there, Mike. Generally, the sub-heading Bar of action and the words "no action lies" mean that no legal action can be founded on the mere fact that the execution of manoevers occured. [such as a civil lawsuit for nervous shock from seeing armed soldiers on your street.] Just my 0.02.


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Mar 2008)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Im not sure about the first part of your interpretation there, Mike. Generally, the sub-heading Bar of action and the words "no action lies" mean that no legal action can be founded on the mere fact that the execution of manoevers occured. [such as a civil lawsuit for nervous shock from seeing armed soldiers on your street.] Just my 0.02.



Whiskey, thank you, I bow to the expert's interpretation.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Mar 2008)

Korporaal said:
			
		

> The Seaforth Highlanders (Vancouver) were supposed to do the BFT last night, but it was cancelled due to an incident last Wednesday whereby the 12 th Service Battalion in Richmond had the police draw there arms on the Reservists.
> Apparentley the service battalion guys were doing there BFT when the police stopped them (pointing there pistols at the guys) due to the fact that they were carring there rifles.
> 
> I thought we were supposed to be on the same side....
> ...



Their Unit's Ops cell should have notified the police in writing well in advance, so the police working that night would have been briefed by their Shift Supervisor before they started their tours.

If this did happen, it does not take the brains of a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on.

As much as the police were no doubt reacting to a citizen's complaint, of which calibre could have been 'terrorists with machine guns'

The police could have approached it with more common sense IMHO, and did a brief assessment before acting the way they did. I think it was extreme. 

Who's fault?

The Militia Units. For improper notification of the authorities. 

My two quid,


Wes


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Mar 2008)

I suppose the specifics of this single incident matter less than the general realization that local commanders everywhere have to execute their notifications well in advance, and ensure follow-up occurs immediately before the training event.  Really not much different that booking your range and then visiting Range Control on the way out to the range.


----------



## Teeps74 (14 Mar 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> I suppose the specifics of this single incident matter less than the general realization that local commanders everywhere have to execute their notifications well in advance, and ensure follow-up occurs immediately before the training event.  Really not much different that booking your range and then visiting Range Control on the way out to the range.



Having once organized training on public & private land (I even landed helicopters in a farmer's field), I can say that it is not that painful to organise training out and about... It is usually just a formality consisting of a lot of common sense (ie doing the Land Clearances, and informing the locals through news paper ads and public service announcements... I also went door to door on the recce). For marches and what not, just paying a visit to the police in advance should be enough, they have always been open and thankful to the advance notice to me.


----------



## LordOsborne (14 Mar 2008)

A very interesting situation. I had wondered how Freedom of the City would fit into, say, a Wednesday night TV march with weapons, since I have led them in the past. We try to pay our respects to the VPD watch officer via email or phone and keep them informed just in case someone gets nervous and phones it in. Once or twice I have emailed or phoned on the night of, and they've been very accomodating. Usually since we don't venture too far out from the Armouries, the cops just wave as they drive by.


----------



## Meridian (14 Mar 2008)

I'm sure there are many applicable regulations, but doest this all come under the [paraphrased] political science definitions of sovereign government? More specifically, a sovereign government is one that exercises a monopoly on the use of force within its territory?

Given the CF is an instrument of the Government, (and a pretty weighty instrument when it comes to monopoly of force), I don't really get why  there would be any question whatsoever that the army *CAN* (not should) run around wherever it pleases with rifles loaded and 105 ready to fire? 

Put another way - if the NDA did not specifically lay out what is required in order to run around (ie proper notice),  what else constitutionally would forbid or limit the federal government from deploying troops for any reason whatsoever (training or otherwise) anywhere within Canada's territory?


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Mar 2008)

Now add a common sense factor.  If the cops know you're out there training with your weapons, then they know not to react to every panic call from the citizenry with the potential for armed force response.  Informing the public and doing land clearances minimizes the extra work from lawsuits following damages and trespass.  Not to follow basic procedures to inform LEO and public (depending on activity) is simply poor local PR and invites unnecessary follow-up activities and a potential drain on LEO to react just to find out it's military training.

Just because we are nationally constituted does not exempt us from local, regional, and provincial regulations.

That would only result in us being what the radical left wants to accuse us of being.


----------



## medicineman (14 Mar 2008)

Freedom of the City Ceremonies have a rather formalized ritual, which includes the CO of the Unit concerned walking up to the City Hall, knocking and announcing their presence and that of the unit and OBTAINING PERMISSION to march the unit through the city from the Mayor or designate.  Even when granted Keys of the City, they're still supposed to at least let someone know they're out for a walkabout town, especially armed.  Just common courtesy and sense (yes, I know I claim that both are being or have already been bred out of the gene pool, but gotta give people the benefit of the doubt first).   It doesn't have much to do these days with PT, though the Brigade in Calgary had a pretty tacit understanding with the locals and CPS that we would be doing battle PT and BFT's in public and armed.  Never got police bothering me or mates once in 6 years (at least for running around playing soldier )

MM


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Mar 2008)

I would say plus one, ha!

You are exactly correct.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## max flinch (14 Mar 2008)

The lowdown: Weapons drawn but not pointed. Proper notification was given prior to march. Watch commander was not informed during handover to evening shift. Confusion reigns, but it's a police screwup. There is now a more formal procedure to be followed including phoning local police prior to stepping off to confirm with watch commander.

That said, whatever dumbass actually drew is (I hope) still filling out paperwork in triplicate.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Mar 2008)

Max Flinch said:
			
		

> The lowdown: Weapons drawn but not pointed. Proper notification was given prior to march. Watch commander was not informed during handover to evening shift. Confusion reigns, but it's a police screwup. There is now a more formal procedure to be followed including phoning local police prior to stepping off to confirm with watch commander.
> 
> That said, whatever dumbass actually drew is (I hope) still filling out paperwork in triplicate.




Max, can you back up your submission with a reference of some type?

Thanks.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2008)

The simple solution? The BFT requires the weapon to be carried, not slung. We didn't want to alert or offend the civies, so we broke them in half, put them in a garbage bag, and put them in the valise. The local PD was also informed we were out there.

We conformed to the rules and the civies were never aware we had our guns with us. 

Start thinking outside the box.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (14 Mar 2008)

Either way I think it's silly and foolish (especially with all the news coverage the CF has gotten the last few years) that regular people don't immediately recognize us as Canadian Forces and are so quick to assume we are up to no good and possible terrorists or whatnot. WE EXIST TO PROTECT YOU, man, chill out  

Secondly, just a hypothetical question, what kind of cop are you that when responding to a complaint or concern that there are armed men in the streets and coming upon said complaint or concern (as a person that represents the government , law, order and discipline no less) you do NOT IMMEDIATELY recognize these 'suspects' as CF members? Not only do they not realize or make the physical/chemical connection inside their brains that these are Canadian Soldiers and very most likely do not mean any harm whatsoever to the public but they DRAW THEIR WEAPONS ON THEM?

Holy ROE violation  ;D


----------



## medaid (14 Mar 2008)

Mack674 said:
			
		

> Secondly, just a hypothetical question, what kind of cop are you that when responding to a complaint or concern that there are armed men in the streets and coming upon said complaint or concern (as a person that represents the government , law, order and discipline no less) you do NOT IMMEDIATELY recognize these 'suspects' as CF members? Not only do they not realize or make the physical/chemical connection inside their brains that these are Canadian Soldiers and very most likely do not mean any harm whatsoever to the public but they DRAW THEIR WEAPONS ON THEM?
> 
> Holy ROE violation  ;D



You don't know what you're talking about here. i suggest you stay within your lane with regards to LEO UoF.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (14 Mar 2008)

How polite; take a joke dude.

Coming from the guy that doesn't understand what OPSEC is. You stay in YOUR lane.


----------



## medaid (14 Mar 2008)

Mack674 said:
			
		

> How polite; take a joke dude.
> 
> Coming from the guy that doesn't understand what OPSEC is. You stay in YOUR lane.



Uh huh. That thread had no bearing what so ever in this one. Your hypothetical question was not a joke, at least from how I read it. You are questioning the competence of members in a realm that you have no experience with. This isn't over seas. Just because someone is wearing a uniform does not mean anything. You have any idea how easy it is to acquire uniform parts to misrepresent oneself. You want an example? Look at Airsofters, some of them are better equipped equipment wise then most of us in the CF. 

When a member is dispatched to a high risk situation, and unknown other then "group of armed men" is given over dispatch they react as they would to find a group of armed men. The sidearm was NOT aimed, but was drawn which shows the member was trying to ascertain the situation and attempting to identify the situation and establish presence. Until such time as the member is able to be certain that the "group of armed men" are indeed members of the CF, he or she had no way of knowing that they are who they claim to be or the threat is non-existent. 

Many of my partners have been at the low ready in unknown high risk situations.

Did you always get the perfect information when you rolled on to a scene overseas?

I do know what I am talking about. I say again, stay in your lane.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (14 Mar 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Uh huh. That thread had no bearing what so ever in this one. Your hypothetical question was not a joke, at least from how I read it. You are questioning the competence of members in a realm that you have no experience with. This isn't over seas. Just because someone is wearing a uniform does not mean anything. You have any idea how easy it is to acquire uniform parts to misrepresent oneself. You want an example? Look at Airsofters, some of them are better equipped equipment wise then most of us in the CF.
> 
> When a member is dispatched to a high risk situation, and unknown other then "group of armed men" is given over dispatch they react as they would to find a group of armed men. The sidearm was NOT aimed, but was drawn which shows the member was trying to ascertain the situation and attempting to identify the situation and establish presence. Until such time as the member is able to be certain that the "group of armed men" are indeed members of the CF, he or she had no way of knowing that they are who they claim to be or the threat is non-existent.
> 
> ...



I'm not going to dignify your childish antics in the public and further degenerate the thread. PMs inbound


----------



## medaid (14 Mar 2008)

Mack674 said:
			
		

> I'm not going to dignify your childish antics in the public and further degenerate the thread. PMs inbound



Excuse me?! You were the one that brought another thread into your reply which had no bearing here. You asked a hypothetical question to which I found slightly insulting to the member that attended the scene, I then offered a possible explanation to how this could have transpired. Here you are saying that my explanation in my experiences first hand along side LEOs are childish antics? Please...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2008)

OK kiddies, get off this means and beat each other up in PM's.

Nuff said. No more toleration.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## Danjanou (14 Mar 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Having been ceremonially granted Freedom of the City doesn't negate requirements to follow regulations and expectations to inform local authorities; *it's a ceremonial privilege, not a carte blanche to do as you wish within the city limits.*



Obviously Michale has never seen what Seaforths are like after the parade in Gastown, or at least in the bad old days. Eh Colin



			
				Max Flinch said:
			
		

> The lowdown: Weapons drawn but not pointed. Proper notification was given prior to march. Watch commander was not informed during handover to evening shift. Confusion reigns, but it's a police screwup. There is now a more formal procedure to be followed including phoning local police prior to stepping off to confirm with watch commander.
> 
> That said, whatever dumbass actually drew is (I hope) still filling out paperwork in triplicate.



Like I said earlier sometimes dumbshit happens even among professionals. Deal with it, learn and move on.

Ok I think we’re done here and the flame wars have moved to PMs so

“Nothing to see folks move along.”


----------



## fraserdw (14 Mar 2008)

Was this done by local cops or the Federal Bureacrats in Red Serge!


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Mar 2008)

You fellows in BC need to recruit police officers. We have in Winnipeg and its a very handy way of keeping the local police and RCMP informed...its nice when the RSM is a police officer.


----------



## fraserdw (14 Mar 2008)

Never mind, I just went to the city web site.........Federal Bureacrats in red serge.  I can believe it now!  I served as a Reservist in a city with RCMP and a town with local cops.  The latter is preferred as they are often a part of our mess and our units and working with them is great.  The other crowd seems to feel that the CF is just something that competes with them for budget money.


----------



## JBP (14 Mar 2008)

Something liked this happened at my old reserve unit in St. Catharines, ON, Lincoln and Welland regiment...

We tried everything we possibly could to notify citizens and the police but still it turned ugly... I was one of the guys who spent 3 days on the Queen's dime handing out flyers all throughout downtown to houses and businesses and talking to all of them advising them of our "high level training operation" in the area the next week, along with a few other guys. Add that to the fact that many of the higher-ups in the unit ARE cops on the local force and you would think that everyone would know. We even posted it in the local newspaper... 

Then that night came, we were downtown doing our thing and some civilians absolutely lost their minds and ran into buildings and called the police all hysterical which in turn caused the cops to come down where we were with weapons on 1 of our platoons...  :  There was a big write up about it in the newspaper the next day and we were from that point forward banned from active training in the downtown core and had to have approval to even leave our property with weapons of any kind... We once HAD the grace of the city and then we were put on a leash, even after all of that... 

I would have always thought the Canadian Flag on our shoulders would help with people wondering who we were?


----------



## garb811 (14 Mar 2008)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> .........Federal Bureacrats in red serge



Congrats, you've managed to insult a few respected members of this site, not the least of which is one who is not only one of the "Federal Bureacrats in red serge" but who was also one of the driving forces behind the changes in Regulations which now allows those "Bureacrats" to serve in the Primary Reserve, which he is now doing.

Incidents of this type have happened, do happen and will happen again and they have been discussed on this board before (see the thread Military 'Might' not 'Right' for Schoolyard, father says  for a few instances related last year).  The best defence against them is to do what's already been suggested; contact, liaison and education of the local police service.  One other avenue to do this is via your MP Det.  All MP Dets maintain liaison with their civilian counterparts (even in locations with a reserve unit only) and if you run into "issues" doing the notification yourself, they should be more than happy to assist you in ensuring your local police are aware of the legailty of what you are planning to do.

The truth of the matter is, after thinking about it for awhile and having lived in a location where it was the norm, I'm glad that I live in a country where armed troops are enough of an oddity that at least some of the citizenry are concerned enough about the sight of unknown (to them) armed persons on the street that they call the police.


----------



## Scoobs (14 Mar 2008)

garb811,

I agree that we should not be insulting anyone.  That is unnecessary.

However, if the police were properly informed by the local unit and the police failed to brief the incoming shift, then it is a police problem.  I think that an apology to the local unit is not out of the question.  It may have already happened for all that we know.

Having armed troops in public should not illicit such a ridiculous response by Canadian citizens.  During the Ceremonial Guard one year at Carleton U, we were no longer allowed to carry our weapons at the ready, but had to hold them against our shoulders because the citizens were afraid.  One time in my uniform in Toronto, while in a government vehicle with "CANADA" plates at a gas station, I was asked by a citizen, what do you do?  I was so surprised it took me 30 secs to actually recognize that this citizen didn't actually know what I did and what I represented.


----------



## noneck (14 Mar 2008)

I spoke with the Det Trg NCO a little less than 2 hours ago....he has heard nothing about this, nor had it been mentioned in the morning briefing. In his estimation someone is making a mountain out of a molehill. As for all the comments concerning "drawing" on military members stay in your lane unless familiar with our ROE's and IMIM. 

This one takes the cake from fraserdw I take personal offence to his uninformed comments:

"Never mind, I just went to the city web site.........Federal Bureacrats in red serge.  I can believe it now!  I served as a Reservist in a city with RCMP and a town with local cops.  The latter is preferred as they are often a part of our mess and our units and working with them is great.  The other crowd seems to feel that the CF is just something that competes with them for budget money."

These Federal Bureaucrats in red serge are good enough to stand shoulder to shoulder in Afghanistan with CF Troops. This federal bureaucrat wears both Red Serge and CADPAT, out here cops are cops!

Noneck
P.S. Here's some pics of those "federal bureaucrats in red serge" in Afghanistan
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=130584


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2008)

Alright everyone, the point's been made. Let it drop....now.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## slowmode (14 Mar 2008)

I'm sure the police were doing what they thought was right..its not like they intentionally did that. Its not that big of a deal, it happend, its over, its done with. Why not just move on?


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Mar 2008)

Locked.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------

