# Canadian police need more armour & firepower.  The CF should not be needed to support.



## Wizard of OZ (4 Mar 2005)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> ...
> Although I must say that the involvement of the military (or in this case the potential involvement) bothers me, a lot. I am of the firm belief that the military should NOT be used for civil police actions, it's not their job. The way I see it the military is there to protect society from foreign dangers (and an argument can be made in the case for insurrection) as opposed civil policing matters (such as executing warrants, et cetera).
> I also don't like the idea of regular beat officers being given high powered weapons that should be left to the ETF/ERT teams. Perhaps there should be more of them.
> I also don't believe the presence of a C8 or C9 in this case would have made a difference, the media reports make it sound like they were ambushed



Sheerin 

I think you tread water in dangerous grounds, with that post.   Calling on the military to potential save the lives of the downed officers? how is that bad.   they wanted the AFV to act as cover so they could get their men.   In my personal opinion, the army(military) is there to protect and assist all Canadians from threats foreign and domestic.   I will rant no more on this as this is not the post for it.

God be with those who server and make the ultimate sacrifice.   BOTB


----------



## Sheerin (4 Mar 2005)

I'm not suggesting that we just leave those officers, rather I'm suggesting that the military is not the right tool for the job.  I suggest that if we want to disucss this we do it in another thread to avoid this one from being closed.


----------



## MikeM (4 Mar 2005)

Why should "regular beat Officers" as you call them be restricted to non-high powered weaponry? (ex. Service pistol & shotgun). All officers should be trained in the use of these weapons, and become proficient. They need any weapon necessary to get the job done in the absence of an ERT, if they have these weapons at their disposal before the ERT is there, then I see no reason why they should not be able to use these weapons. 

Regular beat officers are not any less of an officer simply because of what they do. All police officers are HIGHLY trained as far as I'm concerned, some have just chosen to be specialized and enhance their skills further.


----------



## big bad john (4 Mar 2005)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I'm not suggesting that we just leave those officers, rather I'm suggesting that the military is not the right tool for the job.   I suggest that if we want to disucss this we do it in another thread to avoid this one from being closed.



What about "Aid to the civil power"?  Isn't that a military tasking in Canada?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Mar 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> What about "Aid to the civil power"?   Isn't that a military tasking in Canada?



Yes, it is.


----------



## McG (4 Mar 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> What about "Aid to the civil power"? Isn't that a military tasking in Canada?


Exactly.   There is nothing wrong with the CF being called when a situation is beyond the means of civilian law enforcement.   It should not be a common occurrence, but I don't see evidence the frequency should be expected to change much any time soon.

If we start to believe that police will need this capability on a frequent basis, then we should look at giving them a more integral capability.   One option would be to give old grizzly's (turret removed) to police tactical teams.   If we start to draw on grizzlies still in service, those vehicles could be replaced in the Army by new LAV III.

Better body armour and weapons for the average police officer?   Sure.   If they are capable of being police, then they should be capable of being trained to use an assault carbine or SMG.


----------



## big bad john (4 Mar 2005)

This is much different than the UK.  There armed PCs are trained in all the weapons that they might use.  You see Police at Heathrow and other airports armed with MP5s doing CT security patrols.  I haven't seen this in Canada yet.  The operative word being "yet".


----------



## CBH99 (4 Mar 2005)

You have to remember, in the UK their "regular beat police officers",  aka "bobbies" aren't armed at all.  It is only certain officers, in certain positions and taskings, that are armed - their regular officer is not.


----------



## big bad john (4 Mar 2005)

That is true.  The London Met has SO19 as their armed elite unit.


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Mar 2005)

MikeM said:
			
		

> Why should "regular beat Officers" as you call them be restricted to non-high powered weaponry? (ex. Service pistol & shotgun). All officers should be trained in the use of these weapons, and become proficient. They need any weapon necessary to get the job done in the absence of an ERT, if they have these weapons at their disposal before the ERT is there, then I see no reason why they should not be able to use these weapons.
> 
> Regular beat officers are not any less of an officer simply because of what they do. All police officers are HIGHLY trained as far as I'm concerned, some have just chosen to be specialized and enhance their skills further.



Sorry Sheerin,

I don't agree with anything you say PERIOD. In short we can agree to disagree. Complete foolishness. You were NOT there to evaluate the situation, so lets NOT speculate.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Sheerin (4 Mar 2005)

I personally feel that the use of the military for civilian policing matters sets a dangerous precedent - the good old slippery slope argument. 
As for police beat officers being given high powered weapons, they don't need them, and I seriously suspect that the training would be insufficient.  This is based on anecdotal evidence* from a friend who is a cop in Durham region, he said that they only get on the range once a year to practice, that seems woefully inadequate for a 9mm, and if they were using Military weapons then well that lack of regular training would be criminal.  
I have nothing against better body armour or the use of highly trained ETF officers; I just don't believe EVERY cop should be given high powered, automatic weapons.  

If they had a C8, do you honestly think that those officers would still be alive?  I don't know, but I have my doubts for the simple reason that there were only a handful of officers involved - was it even a raid?  My bet is if they suspect this individual being truly dangerous, the RCMP's ERT would be been involved from the get go.  If that is the case then chances are if they officers had C8s, they'd most likely be sitting in the trunks of their cars.  Unless of course you guys are suggesting that the officers carry the C8s with them all the time?  I don't think Canadians want to see their police walking around with C8 carbines all the time; this is Canada after all and not Israel or Saudi Arabia. 

Oh one other thing, do we have anything similar to the US' Posse Comitatus Act?  

* Please feel free to take my anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt, I can assure you I'm not making that one up but I have no way to confirming it and you have no way of knowing if I'm lying or not, for the record I hate using anecdotal evidence.


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Mar 2005)

Out of repsect for these four         slain RCMP Constables, maybe we should keep the politics out of this tragedy til at least after their funerals. Personally I find it in VERY bad taste.


----------



## Big Foot (4 Mar 2005)

Amen to that, Wes. Politics can wait in this situation.


----------



## McG (4 Mar 2005)

Using this tragedy in a bubble is not a good basis for arguments for or against better police armament & tactics.   It would be similarly inappropriate to the army basing all its equipment & doctrine on the last war.



			
				Sheerin said:
			
		

> was it even a raid?


The raid was complete and the police were on site to secure it from the criminals returning during the night.   Go back and read the original thread or any news article printed today.


----------



## Sheerin (4 Mar 2005)

I've read a good number of articles thanks to google news and 2 hours between lectures today - http://news.google.ca/nwshp?hl=en&gl=ca&ncl=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109965332153_61/%3Fhub%3DCanada

What i had read was that they were orginally there for stolen property when they found evidence of an illegal grow op, then returned on thursday; I've also read conflicting reports.

This is a discussion that Canadians as a whole should have - not whether or not police should be better armed, rather should the military be used as an agent of the police.  That was my original point for discussion. 

If you feel we should wait a few days, then fine, we shall pick this up later.  You can start off by explaining why you feel its okay for the military to be used in police roles.


----------



## McG (4 Mar 2005)

The military does not become an "agent of the police."  Military support is requested by the Soliciter General, but the military retains full operational control of its pers that are deployed to support.


----------



## Southby (4 Mar 2005)

Just on a side note about Police having or not having access to C8's...

I live in Edmonton, a few minutes drive from the disaster that triggered this post, 
*and the Edmonton Police Service do have C8's in some vehicles instead of shotguns. *


My opinion is that it's a good idea to have the extra tools and equipment. 
I dont have all the details of the incident as of yet, or know the full intent of how the military were going to be involved, but so far I agree that the RCMP should be better equipped, (enough man power for surveillance might have helped for instance) but I also agree that if things do get out of hand or dont go as planned, there shouldn't be a problem asking the military for help.

We in the CAF should know what its like to be under equipped and under staffed, why would we not help out another federal force if we could?

My 2 cents.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Mar 2005)

I think the RCMP needs to have regional SWAT units to perform high risk raids and hostage rescue. The Army should have no role in civilian policing.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Mar 2005)

We have some abilities they don't and as such I don't see a problem providing those specialties on a small basis.  We were there in BC for the G8 summit, the Olympics, FLQ, Oka not to mention all the natural disasters we have been a part of.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Mar 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I think the RCMP needs to have regional SWAT units to perform high risk raids and hostage rescue. The Army should have no role in civilian policing.



The RCMP does have regional ERTs, problem is Canada is a very spread out country.   And as was said before the military can act in aid to civil power when requested (Remember Oka).   Even if the ERT was able to respond to the incident swiftly, they might ran in to the same problems.   Not all ERT/SWAT/TRU teams have armoured vehicles at their disposal.   This incident just happened to be close to military base, that were the civil authorities could ask for armoured vehicles.


----------



## old medic (4 Mar 2005)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> If you feel we should wait a few days, then fine, we shall pick this up later.  You can start off by explaining why you feel its okay for the military to be used in police roles.



As has been pointed out here a few times already,  It wasn't a raid, and it's not SOP.
The army sent an ambulance, some men, and two pieces of armour, probably on specific request,
and probably for an attempt to enter the property and locate / rescue the missing officers.

I too would appreciate it if all the new "experts" created by watching  A Channel and Global would
hold off the commentary until after the funerals.


----------



## QORvanweert (4 Mar 2005)

The National Post said that the Mounties requested 20 personnel and an armoured vehicle. From their perspective I think this was a prudent thing to do. The only real information they had was that four officers were not answering their radios, presumably dead. Usually it takes more then 1 guy with a rifle to kill 4 policemen. And it should be noted that in Norway (or Finland I forget which) the Hells Angels were using rocket launchers against rival clubs. Police are there to protect the citizens and no one should be expected to take a 9mm pistol and secure a possibly reinforced farm with potential opposition of military level weapons. Even though it turned out to be a lone rifleman their thought process was correct. There is no such thing as over-kill.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (4 Mar 2005)

Ok I didn't really start this post i think MCG did but now i can rant on.

Aid to civil power, hell ya.

Enemy forgein and domestic

Emergancy at home or in a different country.

Things the army is for.  Any arguments.  (we do alot more but that is the jist of it)

How is calling out the Army to provide support and get (at the time suspected injured) men out of harms way.  Using the military to police the state.  We provide a lot of support to police as we should.  That is 1 good training for the guys involved, 2, show caseing our abilities, and helping out other national/provincial/local  agencies that need the help cause they can not do it on their own. 

I could understand fears if they asked say 3 vp to start doing raids on local traffic violators houses. Or declaring marital law and having LAV role through the streets of WHATEVER TOWN Can.  But this is not what is or will ever happen.  They were asked to do a specific task and provide a specific service, period.

IMOO the military should back up police when they do raids on large grow ops before the fact not called in after.  You know how freakin intimidating a 25 mm chain gun pointed at your house would be.  How many pot shots would be taken then.  ( I know extreme) but alot safer that way.  Some of these "grow ops" are booby trapped and alot of them are run and manned by OMG or affilites.

I can understand concern of a policed state but I think we are a far ways away from that, and the government would never ever allow it unless, Like the FLQ crisis it was warranted and requested by the government.

MOO


----------



## Blackhorse7 (4 Mar 2005)

I can't believe there is even anyone questioning military involvement in a matter like this.   You can bet your ass if one of YOU went down, and I was around, I would be there.   The only difference in us is that my uniform is blue and yours is green.   The military was called in for support, not a Police action.   And when I was in, I would not have thought twice about taking my AFV or rifle in to get downed officers.   

What I don't think anyone realizes is that it takes time to mobilize an ERT team.   They don't work 24/7, they are on call.   And for that very reason, members SHOULD be issued with, and train regularly with tactical weapons.   The shotgun may not always be an appropriate choice for the situation.   We have been arguing this point for years.   Most US Police agencies have three gun availability.   Pistol, shotgun, and a carbine or rifle of some sort.   And even if they were in the trunk, their mere presence might have made the difference.   There has been many a discussion about Active Shooter Teams, small groups of members who would be given basic tactical entry and search techniques, and the tools to do it, maybe now is a good time for it.   Coming from a guy who has been on both sides of the green/blue uniform, I am here to tell you it takes just one rifle to be in a house and WE ARE OUTGUNNED!      

I'm sorry if this reply comes off as aggressive, but I just lost four co-workers.   Before you get all worked up about my comments, think back to how YOU felt, when you lost four brother's in arms over an errant bomb.


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (4 Mar 2005)

This is coming from a voice of experience, Blackhorse 7 knows what he's talking about.


----------



## big bad john (4 Mar 2005)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> I can't believe there is even anyone questioning military involvement in a matter like this.   You can bet your ass if one of YOU went down, and I was around, I would be there.   The only difference in us is that my uniform is blue and yours is green.   The military was called in for support, not a Police action.   And when I was in, I would not have thought twice about taking my AFV or rifle in to get downed officers.
> 
> What I don't think anyone realizes is that it takes time to mobilize an ERT team.   They don't work 24/7, they are on call.   And for that very reason, members SHOULD be issued with, and train regularly with tactical weapons.   The shotgun may not always be an appropriate choice for the situation.   We have been arguing this point for years.   Most US Police agencies have three gun availability.   Pistol, shotgun, and a carbine or rifle of some sort.   And even if they were in the trunk, their mere presence might have made the difference.   There has been many a discussion about Active Shooter Teams, small groups of members who would be given basic tactical entry and search techniques, and the tools to do it, maybe now is a good time for it.   Coming from a guy who has been on both sides of the green/blue uniform, I am here to tell you it takes just one rifle to be in a house and WE ARE OUTGUNNED!
> 
> I'm sorry if this reply comes off as aggressive, but I just lost four co-workers.   Before you get all worked up about my comments, think back to how YOU felt, when you lost four brother's in arms over an errant bomb.



You are not aggressive, but passionate!  You are speaking the truth!!!!!


----------



## Sandbag (5 Mar 2005)

Blackhorse, it was my honour, as a military member, to have worked on a few occasions with members of D Div 97-99 and it is my belief that no military member would refuse to support members of the Force or other police agencies when we were requested to and/or authorized.  My condolences go out to all members of The Force, being a small tight community this tragedy deeply affects all members and their families, regardless of which div they serve in.  You have nothing to apologize for in my opinion.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (5 Mar 2005)

Thanks for all of the support, guys.  You really, really don't know how much it means.  I just found out last night that one of the members who was slain was a troop mate of two of my good friends in our office.  That just brings it even closer to home.  It was creepy working yesterday.  People would be looking at you differently, like you were a ghost.  Not saying anything, just staring at you.  

Thanks again... it almost brings a tear to my eye when I read some of the comments posted in here.  Makes me feel like I'm still a member of the CF.


----------



## pbi (5 Mar 2005)

Arguments apart, the law of Canada (ie: the NDA) requires that if we are called upon by the Solicitor General of a Province to assist the police in that province when the police can no longer maintain control, we must assist, in a manner that we determine is suitable based on a joint assessment with the police. The soldiers and equipment remain under the command of the military: police cannot give orders to military personnel. Despite the fact that we can in certain circumstances assume the powers of a peace officer, we do not "become police". We always seek to turn the matter back to the police as quickly as possible. Whether we go in under Aid to Civil Power (the high end stuff like Op GINGER (1970) or Op SALON (Oka), or under Assistance to Law Enforcement Agencies (lower end stuff without the implied state of emergency) we must go unless we have a very good reason not to. We go alot less often than we used to in Canada's history (name the last time we deployed to a prison riot, strike, or public disorder...) because police forces in Canada are now generally much larger and far more capable than they were years ago. But the law remains the law. I think it is very false and alarmist to suggest that the military is being used to "police" Canada. This is nonsense, and anyway the Provinces are unlikely to ask too often: they have to pay the shot- it isn't free.

Having said that, since events such as Oka, Gustafson Lake and the G8 (and, no doubt, now Rochfort Bridge...) I have heard on several occasions that the RCMP has shown official interest in obtaining some kind of armoured vehicle capability. This is not new in Canada: the Calgary Police have, at various times owned a former British Army FV432 tracked APC, and more recently two South African wheeled assault vehicles. I have climbed on and in all of them, so I know that they existed. In my opinion, this is a good idea given the risks out there. I am not sure how they would crew them, but I think the time has come for the RCMP to have this kind of equipment.

As for the comparisons to the US: it is difficult to draw an exact parallel because we have no equivalent to the State-controlled Army National Guard, which is a part of the US Army but responds to the request of either State Governor, a County Sheriff, or the administration of a major city (depending upon the state) to assist the police in an emergency. The ARNG has a long history of assistance to law enforcement, ranging from the conduct of searches to confrontation of rioters. Our Army Reserve is federally controlled and cannot be called out directly by the provinces for assistance to law enforcement in criminal or public order situations.  

The US Active Army has been used on occasion (Little Rock, Arkansas and during the Rodney King Riots) but there are political considerations to deploying Federal troops into a state or using them to maintain order. We have similar considerations (the military must be asked to come in by competent civil authority, and remains subject to the Criminal Code) but the only option for military force in Canada is the Federal one.


----------



## portcullisguy (5 Mar 2005)

There is no reason why the military option should not be available to the civil powers should the situation warrant.

Obviously, it should not be a first option.   But any time a search warrant is conducted on a large rural property, it is going to require a certain amount of manpower.   Just look at the Robert Pickton raid in BC, or for a more violent and extreme example, the Branch Davidian raid in Waco, Texas.   Both situations required many, many officers and loads of time.   In the latter, they knew there were guns and site was defended, and so they took what they thought to be appropriate measures.

Things aren't always what they seem, and if these four RCMP officers attended this farm in Alberta, and knew of the criminal history of the owner, they must have had a reason for their state of alertness and only a full investigation will reveal what exactly took place.

Another reason why the military option was probably considered in the Alberta case is likely because you just cannot redeploy every police officer in the province to one incident.   No matter what happens and where, you must still be able to provide police services and protection to the rest of the public.

As it was, the authorities managed to resolve the incident, and probably much to everyone's relief, the suspect dealt with himself, possibly saving further tragedy.   It's the only good thing to come out of it, as now there is zero chance the courts will let him off on a technicality, and in any event, he is sooner reunited with the One who will pass Final Judgement.

What I find amazing is that the media has not touched on the issue of this farmer's guns, yet.   I think perhaps this will turn out to be another political embarassment.   The gun registry was created, in part, to screen out criminals and high-risk individuals and keep them from getting guns.   The suspect in this case apparently had sexual assault and gun convictions.   One would assume he'd be prohibited from owning firearms.   Will there be any answers on that issue, or is this another bullet for the embattled law-makers to dodge?


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Mar 2005)

One thought that I have shared with others is increasing the size of the RCMP by up to another 2000 to 5000 members and form them into a special division like the Dutch Marechausse.

They are responsible for security at embassies, borders, airports and harbours as well as being the home of CT units.  They effectively are Policemen with some infantry training and specialist skills.

The Dutch also employ them overseas as part of their CIMIC commitments.

http://www.mindef.nl/

They describe themselves as a military force that does police work, commanded by the ministry of defence but controlled by civilians operationally.  I figure that means that they are operating in the grey area that you are discussing here.

Perhaps in Canada it would be more politically saleable to put this grey zone firmly in the hands of the RCMP and make them available for international taskings.  This has already happened to an extent, takes some of the load of the CF and gives the Government on more diplomatic tool - and a non-military one at that.

I don't know if such an organization or capability exists already in the RCMP.  I know even less about them than the little I like to think I know about the CF.


----------



## Freddy Chef (5 Mar 2005)

Organized crime/Motorcycle gangs, drug dealers, etc, posses small arms and the disposition to use them.

Regarding the CF conducting Aid To Civil Power: Absolutely! I remember a story about the RCMP requesting CF-18's from CFB Bagotville scrambled to intercept a drug smuggling plane entering Canadian air-space. Excessive force? Solicitor General's call, as previously mentioned. Likewise with Oka, and the FLQ crisis. *â ?Reasonable groundsâ ?* [ie: a *â ?clear and present dangerâ ?*] is what most Canadians would expect of the police/Solicitor General if the CF were to be called in. 

Regarding police departments to be better equipped: Absolutely! More equipment and training for investigation (detectives/forensics), Emergency Response Teams including Explosive Ordinance Disposal, and of course for the regular beat cop.

Would it be appropriate for every Canadian police department with an EOD/ERT to get a pair of refurbished, surplus Bisons?

Would it be appropriate for every Canadian police department to get refurbished, surplus Diemaco C8 carbines? [Certainly for ERT's, and one per patrol cruiser.]  Several American police departments are replacing their cruiser-shotguns with carbines. [Effective range of Remington 870, 2  ¾â ?, five round magazine, with 00 Buckshot is less than 20m.]

But the best equipment that we could give our police is *a justice system that isn't lenient on violent criminals!* Repeat offenders are getting the courage to step up their game a notch when they are given a light sentence. If the system doesn't change, then the memory of the four police officers we lost on March 3, 2005 would be horribly dishonoured.


----------



## MPIKE (5 Mar 2005)

First thread for me.. and Probably not the best topic to start with but a few things in this discussion bothered me. Granted, I'm not known to forum I am a stakeholder of both fields in this thread.   

Firstly, it is not my intention to slam pers with a first post but I would like to make a point that it is utterly ignorant to armchair quarterback the event of Rochfort Bridge or make statements to the effect that I have "buddy" who told me how he trains so now I'll wade into a discussion of what police should need to do their job.    

As already suggested refrain from uninformed opinions , get the facts from an Inquiry or from someone who was there and not the media's spin before putting your comments in print.

Thanks to Blackhorse for adding his comments and I echo his thoughts....

Piker


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Mar 2005)

Welcome Piker.

And under the circumstances I think it is a pretty fair post.

I hope there are no personal acquaintances of yours involved.


----------



## big bad john (5 Mar 2005)

PIKER said:
			
		

> First thread for me.. and Probably not the best topic to start with but a few things in this discussion bothered me. Granted, I'm not known to forum I am a stakeholder of both fields in this thread.
> 
> Firstly, it is not my intention to slam pers with a first post but I would like to make a point that it is utterly ignorant to armchair quarterback the event of Rochfort Bridge or make statements to the effect that I have "buddy" who told me how he trains so now I'll wade into a discussion of what police should need to do their job.
> 
> ...



Well done and well said!


----------



## Sheerin (6 Mar 2005)

> ... [M]ake statements to the effect that I have "buddy" who told me how he trains so now I'll wade into a discussion of what police should need to do their job.



Point taken - I even made reference to lack of credibility anecdotal evidence has in my post.  However, i feel my ideas have been well, misunderstood, mostly because i wasn't very clear in my posts as well as a myriad of other reasons.

I used the anecdotal evidence to illustrate my concerns about training, I personally feel 1 day a year is not adequate for a hand gun, and it most certainly would not be enough for military-esque weapons.  If these weapons are introduced, as a citizen, I would want to them to get as much training as humanly possible with them.  I would certainly hope that most forces have their officers on the firing range more than once a year, perhaps someone here could let us, well me, know how many days of training the get with live ammunition.  

Secondly, I have nothing against improving the capabilities of the police, be it municipal, provincial or federal.  I hope no one here got the impression that I'm anti-police or whatever.  If so, Please believe me when I say I'm not.

Thirdly regarding the use of the military.   I personally don't like it; thats my opinion.   i am open to hearing everyones ideas on the topic; there is nothing wrong with having a debate.  



> Firstly, it is not my intention to slam pers with a first post but I would like to make a point that it is utterly ignorant to armchair quarterback the event of Rochfort Bridge...



As for refraining from uninformed opinions, well, it is impossible not to have uninformed opinions.  it is human nature to form an opinion even without all the evidence - you have all formed an opinion about me, yet none of you know who I am.  I have the feeling most of you think I was armchair quarterbacking the tactics used by the RCMP.  When in fact i am not - I'm sorry if thats how my comments came across - rather I was looking to start a debate about the use of the military in civilian operations, and by extension the implications for civil liberties.
As for calling me ignorant, I say this.  How do you propose to change a person's opinions if you don't know what they are?  Take this as an opportunity to educate me with your experience, maybe I'll change my opinion, and likewise, I might change yours.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2005)

Sheerin:

In life as in comedy, timing is everything.

It may be a worthwhile debate, but now may not be the best time to have it.

My opinion anyway.

Cheers


----------



## Sheerin (6 Mar 2005)

Well, I agree with that to, but I also know that the public has a problems with long term memory...


----------



## The_Falcon (6 Mar 2005)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Thirdly regarding the use of the military.     I personally don't like it; thats my opinion.     i am open to hearing everyones ideas on the topic; there is nothing wrong with having a debate.
> 
> rather I was looking to start a debate about the use of the military in civilian operations, and by extension the implications for civil liberties.



Is there any particular reason you don't like the military aiding/assisting civil power when (keywords) "REQUESTED BY THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES".  As has been pointed out the use of the military in civil situations have been few.  Those instances were the military was called in were situations that completely overwhelmed the local civil authorities and military were the only people who had the equipment and resources to help.  These have NOT been situations such happened in third world countries were the military just marches in and takes over.  Civil liberties have only been suspended twice in this country (FLQ and Japanese internment, history buffs feel free to correct me or add on).  But instance were seen as extreme emergencies at the time, and it only lasted for a relatively short period of time.

If you want to start a debate fine, but back up you statements.  It is not good enough to just say you don't like the military getting involved in civy stuff.


----------



## pbi (6 Mar 2005)

> rather I was looking to start a debate about the use of the military in civilian operations, and by extension the implications for civil liberties.



Sheerin: whether or not the military are used to assist the police in certain emergency situations, in which the military posesses capabilities that the pollice do not, is IMHO not really the issue. This is a fairly standard practice in th US, UK, and Canada: all three of which are (IMHO) pretty good models of free democratic societies with a strong respect for human rights. To date (unless we inlude Oliver Cromwell...) none of these countries has ever come close to risking militarization of its policing, nor has a military coup ever been a serious possibility. Thus I would say that such employment of the military, limted by time and place, is not a threat to civil liberties. It might be an unwelcome burden on the military, but that is a different issue.

The real issue to me is the legal framework inside which the military is employed, as well as the degree of respect that the military has for that legal framework. Again, in all three countries there exist combinations of legislation and regulation that clearly limit the circumstances, conditions and procedures for involving the military: the Army does not just "walk in" and start arresting people. This is further reinforced (in Canada, anyway...) by a healthy reluctance to become engaged in doing the jobs that should be done by other competent civil agencies, except again_ in extremis_. I have had a fair amount of experience in working with various police forces and civil agencies over te years, in operations ranging from the Red River Flood (Op ASSISTANCE) to the G8 (Op GRIZZLY). In all of these cases we (the military) were extremely vigilant to ensure that we were not drawn into doing things that were clearly outside our mandate, and that we did not provide assistance to the police that might be misused (Believe me--some police planners come up with some pretty weird ideas about what they want us to do...). I have lost count of the number of times I have heard military planners and commanders recite the mantra "we are not the police". There is, and has been for some time, a debate inside the military as to whether or not we should even have the capacity to train and equipment for public order operations-the military is not "chomping at the bit" to go out and crack heads and lock people up.

A third observation is that in Canada the military is not exempted from the Criminal Code. There are provisions in the CCC that will assist us in perfoming our duties in a public order situation, but every member of a unit deployed on any domestic operation, whether under ACP, ALEA or emergency humanitarian assistance, remains subject to the same law that regulates the conduct of civil police and indeed all Canadians.

Finally, the question remains about how much of this we should be doing as opposed to police forces assuming a greater responsibility by developing improved capabilities. IMHO, the aim should be to contnue the present trend that has been in place for the last few decades: police forces are becoming far more capable in all areas (EOD calls, for example, are way down as opposed to the day in which almost every base had an EOD team that went out to help the police). Things such as helicopters, night vision equipment, improved weaponry and satellite based communications are now available to most oplice forces, either directly or by mutual aid from the RCMP/OPP/QPP to municipal forces. To me, a regional armoured vehicle troop, managed by either the RCMP or one of the two Provincial forces, is a good idea.
Overall, we should encourage the police to become more capable so as to reduce demands placed upon us, but I do not agree that we can either legally or morally escape the need to assist the police _in extremis_.

Cheers


----------



## Sheerin (6 Mar 2005)

> If you want to start a debate fine, but back up you statements.  It is not good enough to just say you don't like the military getting involved in civy stuff.



Which I intend to do once i get back to my computer in Peterborough.   

I also believe during WWI we set up concentrations camps for Germans and other enemies at the time, I'll have to re-check my sources on that one though so give me a few days.  

PBI, would you mind waiting about 24 hours so I get my ducks in a line?  

- Thanks.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Mar 2005)

Couldn't resist adding to this one, if only to expand on what PBI says.

I have - at various times - been heavily involved in providing military support to civilian agencies.  There is a difference between the provision of emergency support to a province and the conduct of "Aid to the Civil Power" operations.

An Army Area Commander can provide emergency support to a province at that province's request without recourse to higher authority.  This is what happened during the BC fires in 2003.  We launched on BGen Fenton's authority.  Throughout that operation (OP PEREGRINE), we constantly demanded that BC assure us that all civilian resources had been exhausted and that there was a genuine threat to life and limb.  "Last in, first out" was a mantra echoed by the entire chain of command.  BC was also told, in no uncertain terms, that they were picking up the bill.  When the situation was well in hand, we pulled out.

This is different from support to policing agencies.  Again during PEREGRINE, we received several requests to conduct traffic control or (unarmed) neighbourhood patrolling.  This became a very sensitive subject, because it would have required CF pers to act in a policing role - definitely "Aid to the Civil Power".  In these instances, we reminded the province that an ACP request would have to be made officially from BC to the Federal Solicitor General, who then would approve the request and ask that DND provide the resources.  An ACP request was never made.  ACP requests can be processed very quickly, though, and there are examples of where the CF has reacted on very short notice to support the police - again "last in, first out" and as the force of absolute last resort.

All this to say that there is a difference between emergency CF assistance during a domestic disaster/situation and actual policing.  The latter is comparatively rare, although there are some "standard" things the CF does that I won't get into here.



> also believe during WWI we set up concentrations camps for Germans and other enemies at the time, I'll have to re-check my sources on that one though so give me a few days.



Different situation entirely - wartime, War Measures Act in effect, and (I believe) Enemy Aliens legislation.

TR


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (6 Mar 2005)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> I can't believe there is even anyone questioning military involvement in a matter like this.   You can bet your *** if one of YOU went down, and I was around, I would be there.   The only difference in us is that my uniform is blue and yours is green.   The military was called in for support, not a Police action.   And when I was in, I would not have thought twice about taking my AFV or rifle in to get downed officers.
> 
> What I don't think anyone realizes is that it takes time to mobilize an ERT team.   They don't work 24/7, they are on call.   And for that very reason, members SHOULD be issued with, and train regularly with tactical weapons.   The shotgun may not always be an appropriate choice for the situation.   We have been arguing this point for years.   Most US Police agencies have three gun availability.   Pistol, shotgun, and a carbine or rifle of some sort.   And even if they were in the trunk, their mere presence might have made the difference.   There has been many a discussion about Active Shooter Teams, small groups of members who would be given basic tactical entry and search techniques, and the tools to do it, maybe now is a good time for it.   Coming from a guy who has been on both sides of the green/blue uniform, I am here to tell you it takes just one rifle to be in a house and WE ARE OUTGUNNED!
> 
> ...


----------



## MPIKE (6 Mar 2005)

> Point taken - I even made reference to lack of credibility anecdotal evidence has in my post.  However, i feel my ideas have been well, misunderstood, mostly because i wasn't very clear in my posts as well as a myriad of other reasons.
> I used the anecdotal evidence to illustrate my concerns about training, I personally feel 1 day a year is not adequate for a hand gun, and it most certainly would not be enough for military-esque weapons.  If these weapons are introduced, as a citizen, I would want to them to get as much training as humanly possible with them.  I would certainly hope that most forces have their officers on the firing range more than once a year, perhaps someone here could let us, well me, know how many days of training the get with live ammunition



Well, I'm not about to discuss Training Requirements and Practices in a public forum but be rest assured that every officer is held to a standard before being allowed to hit the road again each year.  Whether uniform police should have rifles as an Use of Force option ?..  that's a thread in itself..and Blackhorse7 has "summed it up"...

It would be prudent to keep our green hats on and stick with the army banter?



> As for calling me ignorant, I say this


Sheerin,  Just to clarify...not the person but the words used were just a little offside...

This would be the point where we break off to FGH_Recce_DJ's "Canadian Forces used to aid the civil power in whatever situation may arise" thread ?? Which, I believe has split the Use of Force Options talk with the Aide to Civil Power action? (but I'm just the new boot to the forum SOPs)

Piker


----------



## pbi (7 Mar 2005)

> It would be prudent to keep our green hats on and stick with the army banter?



Not necessarily: it depends on your background. I have had enough dealings with various civil police forces in different types of Dom Ops (as have some others here such as Teddy...) that I don't feel uncomfortable talking about that sort of thing. My experience has mostly been at the planner/commander level of the different forces, so I have seen some of the serious problems that our police forces (including the RCMP...) have in trying to mount large, comlex operations. I can certainly talk about that, all day. On the other hand, I have had very limited contact with the actual process of training individual police constables, so I don't feel too competent speaking about that, and I would defer immediately to Black Horse, Potcullis Guy, or others with current LEA experience.

Cheers.


----------



## obsidian (10 Mar 2005)

Ok I'm new here and this is my first post but I'll jump right in.  I was part of the IRU that was called out with the armoured vehicle.  It was a Coyote and the whole point of the callout was because the RCMP thought the shooter had escaped into the woods.  We were going to set up our Surv gear and look for him.  When it was determined that he was still inside the hut, we were going to ram it and make a hole for the "swat" team.  As it turned out, none of that was necessary.  

I think most of the posts are missing the point though.  The RCMP does have a tactical team.  They do have surveillance capabilities.  but not in MAYERTHORPE Alberta.  Why would they need it there?  It is completely impractical to think the RCMP should have that sort of capability in their rural or remote detachments.  Major centres yes.  Rural Alberta?  No.  The idea of regional swat teams is a good one though.  The bottom line is that the RCMP didn't call the CF because they couldn't handle the situation, they did it because we were the closest asset available to them.  Period.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Mar 2005)

I thought this info was classified from Kevin B?


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Mar 2005)

The Coyote was clearly on the news. As for the rest, who knows.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (11 Mar 2005)

obsidian said:
			
		

> Ok I'm new here and this is my first post but I'll jump right in.   I was part of the IRU that was called out with the armoured vehicle.   It was a Coyote and the whole point of the callout was because the RCMP thought the shooter had escaped into the woods.   We were going to set up our Surv gear and look for him.   When it was determined that he was still inside the hut, we were going to ram it and make a hole for the "swat" team.   As it turned out, none of that was necessary.
> 
> I think most of the posts are missing the point though.   The RCMP does have a tactical team.   They do have surveillance capabilities.   but not in MAYERTHORPE Alberta.   Why would they need it there?   It is completely impractical to think the RCMP should have that sort of capability in their rural or remote detachments.   Major centres yes.   Rural Alberta?   No.   The idea of regional swat teams is a good one though.   The bottom line is that the RCMP didn't call the CF because they couldn't handle the situation, they did it because we were the closest asset available to them.   Period.


     Thanks for the update.  It sounds like the RCMP and CF are both doing their jobs by the numbers.  Now if the reporters would just shut up long enough to hear a fact once in a while, the whole media frenzy would go back to resembling news, rather than the clusterfrag it is now.  If we have an asset that can assist, then it is the RCMP's duty to ask, so that we can respond.  Cudo's to all involved, and sincerest respects to those who fell in the doing.


----------



## couchcommander (11 Mar 2005)

The following is my uninformed OPINION as a civvie living in Canada,

I have the utmost respect for the CF, and I must say IMO if the police or any other organization EVER feels they do not have a handel on the situation I would hope that they do not hesitate and call in the CF for support. You guys are a highly trained, capable, and I might add expensive asset that should be used whenever it is felt you can help the situation, minus all of the political bull, interservice rivalry, and people who get upset when guys (and girls) with large guns and a uniform show up (something I never understood... those large guns are there to PROTECT the people who are getting all upset....*shakes head*). The forces recent history in dealing with domestic problems has been excellent, something that you should all be proud of. You guys are here to help, and should be used as such. 

I must say that I feel a lot more safe and secure living here in Edmonton knowing there is a brigade around, incase the sh*t hits the fan, than I did in other parts of the country.

And indeed mainerjohnthomas. The journalists should get back to reporting the news like they are supposed to.


----------



## rangers (11 Mar 2005)

the cops should be able to help the selfves with having to get us to come in to take car of a riot. thats not our job. our job is to protect cananda in all forms, not help police forces. [post edited to remove insulting phrase.  Member also put on warning]


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2005)

rangers said:
			
		

> the cops should be able to help the selfves with having to get us to come in to take car of a riot. thats not our job. our job is to protect cananda in all forms, not help police forces



Grammar!

Spelling!

What are you trying to say?  Do you want the police to drive cars into riots?  The Army was called out to help Farmers save their pigs and cattle during the floods in Manitoba and the Ice Storm in Eastern Ontario/Quebec, so it is not new for the CF to protect/save farm animals.

GW


----------



## pbi (11 Mar 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> The following is my uninformed OPINION as a civvie living in Canada,
> 
> I have the utmost respect for the CF, and I must say IMO if the police or any other organization EVER feels they do not have a handel on the situation I would hope that they do not hesitate and call in the CF for support. You guys are a highly trained, capable, and I might add expensive asset that should be used whenever it is felt you can help the situation, minus all of the political bull, interservice rivalry, and people who get upset when guys (and girls) with large guns and a uniform show up (something I never understood... those large guns are there to PROTECT the people who are getting all upset....*shakes head*). The forces recent history in dealing with domestic problems has been excellent, something that you should all be proud of. You guys are here to help, and should be used as such.
> 
> ...



couchcommander: Thanks for the vote of confidence: your support is much appreciated. 

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you about the freedom of civil authorities to call on the military for assistance. For a number of reasons there have to be reasonable limits placed on this freedom. I can assure you, from quite a bit of experience in dealing with various civil agencies (and not just police services...) that too many of them see us as " Kit R Us" or a free labour pool. Some of them are quite indignant when told we have other things we are supposed to be doing, or that we are not allowed to compete with private business. 
Some of the requests I have personally been involved in shutting down over the years included:

-demolishing old buildings (for free, of course);
-guarding a rock concert;
-storing building materials for a contractor;
-firing a .50 cal HMG into a clogged industrial conduit system;
-providing a military vehicle to lead a Gay Pride parade; 
-putting up tents for municipal festival; and
-distributing parking tickets.

Our assistance needs to be confined to those situations(like Rochefort Bridge) in which clearly we are the only ones who have a resource (fewer and fewer these days) or at such times as civil authorities have exhausted their own resources and there is no alternative. Otherwise, believe me, our already thin resources will be stretched beyond what they are now.

Thanks for your support otherwise.

Cheers


----------



## couchcommander (11 Mar 2005)

Oh dear, yea I was not referring to meanial tasks, and I 100% agree that these type of things are not something that the military should be called in to help with. What I meant was situations where there is a serious threat to life, limb, etc. and the civil powers can't adequately deal with it; whether it be a natural disaster or a horrible crime, and further simply that they should not hesitate to call you in these circumstances.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (11 Mar 2005)

Thanks for the update.  It sounds like the RCMP and CF are both doing their jobs by the numbers.  Now if the reporters would just shut up long enough to hear a fact once in a while, the whole media frenzy would go back to resembling news, rather than the clusterfrag it is now.  If we have an asset that can assist, then it is the RCMP's duty to ask, so that we can respond.  Cudo's to all involved, and sincerest respects to those who fell in the doing.

You don't really think that will ever happen do you?

That would mean reporters would have to stop reporting opinion and start reporting fact.  That is crazy talk.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (11 Mar 2005)

What happened to fgh recce's comments that were on the site earlier in response to the callous and ill timed comments made by Rangers?  I would like to read them, if they have been moved somewhere.  And Rangers?  You better think twice about making remarks such as you did in here earlier.  Not only do you make yourself out to sound like an idiot, but you piss off a lot of people who may be mourning.  Here's a tip.  Count to ten next time you feel like typing something, and if at the end of that your comments still come out offensive and rude, keep them to your damned self.


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (11 Mar 2005)

Hmmmmmm i couldn't have said it better myself, yes i may have over stepped the line a little but hey as you said we are all in mourning, some more than others, Cheers brother!!!


----------



## Lost_Warrior (11 Mar 2005)

This might be a bit off topic, but has there been any word on whuch CF unit was called up for support?  Were they a reserve or reg force unit?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (11 Mar 2005)

It would not have been a Res unit as Res pers cannot be used for ALEA (Assistance to Law Enforcement Agencies) without Cabinet approval and (basically) mobilization.  Note, as PBI and I have both stated, that ALEA is different from support to a civil emergency.

Obsidian posted some information above that would allow one to make a guess as to what unit was involved, but I'm not going there.

TR


----------



## Slim (11 Mar 2005)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> This might be a bit off topic, but has there been any word on whuch CF unit was called up for support?   Were they a reserve or reg force unit?



I believe that someone said its not to be spoken about as it's classified. We as a forum should work very hard to respect that edict.

Slim


----------



## Kratak (11 Mar 2005)

Something that I feel I should point out about the police having C8's, is that I don't believe that every officer on duty would have one. I don't know about other police departments but the police where I live, in Abbotsford, BC, only have somewhere between 4 and 8 (can't remember the exact number) C8's on duty at any one time. And I got this information directly from a police officer in the Abbotsford Police.


----------



## pbi (12 Mar 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> I believe that someone said its not to be spoken about as it's classified. We as a forum should work very hard to respect that edict.
> 
> Slim



Without giving away unit identities, it was the RegF Cbt A unt that was assigned Immediate Reaction Unit (IRU) for LFWA. Each LFA is required to maintain a mobile Cbt A unit at certain levels of readiness for deployment to domestic emergencies. The IRU task is rotated around the Cbt A units of the resident CMBG, with additional assets added as the mission requires.

The Res CBGs in LFWA (and, I think LFCA if CONPLAN TRILLIUM still exists...) have important roles in domestic ops as well, but only in the humanitarian assistance emergency situations. ACP and ALEA are still normally only carried out by RegF Cbt A.

Cheers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Mar 2005)

"Each LFA is required to maintain a mobile Cbt A unit at certain levels of readiness for deployment to domestic emergencies. The IRU task is rotated around the Cbt A units of the resident CMBG, with additional assets added as the mission requires."

That said I wish it was taken more seriously (including myself).


----------



## obsidian (12 Mar 2005)

>>This might be a bit off topic, but has there been any word on whuch CF unit was called up for >>support?  Were they a reserve or reg force unit?


>>>I believe that someone said its not to be spoken about as it's classified. We as a forum should work >>>very hard to respect that edict.

>>>Slim

I know I haven't posted anything here that was restricted but you're right as far as the unit name goes, I'm not sure if that's ok to post so I won't just to be on the safe side.  I think most people however can guess just based on the equipment.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (12 Mar 2005)

The rotation schedule for IRU is normally "Confidential", which precludes posting on this website.   Basic capabilities and structure are not classified, though.   Each LFA is required to maintain an IRU, which is tracked at the DCDS level.   If an Area (for operational reasons) cannot fulfill its IRU commitment, another LFA will step up to provide a unit.   I know of at least one instance where this has happened (not on my watch).



			
				CFL said:
			
		

> That said I wish it was taken more seriously (including myself).



Me too...I've got a couple of war stories surrounding IRU readiness (or lack thereof)...causes a bit of chaos!

TR


----------



## Barek (12 Mar 2005)

First of all, my respect and gratitude goes to the fallen RCMP officers.   I am in the process of becoming a CF member to do my part but as of yet am still a civilian. But  I digress. 

I watched the local news here in Ottawa a few days ago and the police chief of Ottawa made a statement that applies to this discussion. He said that in all grow-op busts that the Ottawa police use the local SWAT team to prosecute the warrant. No exceptions due to the high chance of dangerous offenders, associated with organised crime, and high-powered weapons, which they have found regularly.  They then showed footage of SWAT entering a local residence. 

It saddens me that the brave men that fell doing their duty were not better equipped to provide them with every possibillity succeeding in their duty without sustaining mortal wounds. Please do not misunderstand me. I know that this was a local, small time grow-op, or considered as such, and they were not expecting the resistance that they received.  No one can be prepared for everything. And I am not commenting on the officers abilties, from the newspapers I have read on the individual officers they were of outstanding caliber. But I do feel that, as the Ottawa police chief pointed out, that there should be a set standard for shutting down grow-ops, regardless of their presumed size and possible threat. That, even for small grow-ops with little apparent risk, should be dealt with a minimum level of law enforcement power. It is unfortunate that men had to die to facilitate the change that is needed within the various levels of government to allow law enforcement to deal appropriately with illegal substances in this our country and I dearly hope that these mens lives will not be given in vain. That changes for better enforcement and safety, to both officers and civilians, will be implemented.

As the Bible says, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends". My respect to all those called to risk their lives in the service and protection of others, I truly hope that I may serve, someday soon, in this great capacity and family.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Mar 2005)

Barek

You have misconstrued the situations.  Ottawa's Police Force does use its' Tactical Teams to "RAID" Grow Ops, and the RCMP and OPP use similar tactics also.  What happened in Alberta was not the actual Raid on a Grow Op, but the guarding of evidence after the fact.


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (12 Mar 2005)

Barek, talk to Blackhorse7, he is on the force and he could explain it better as to how the SWAT teams are used and how small detatchments are in the talking stage of having officers trianed in High Risk Tactics.


----------



## Barek (12 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Barek
> 
> You have misconstrued the situations.  Ottawa's Police Force does use its' Tactical Teams to "RAID" Grow Ops, and the RCMP and OPP use similar tactics also.  What happened in Alberta was not the actual Raid on a Grow Op, but the guarding of evidence after the fact.



I intended to comment that while it was guarding of evidence after the fact. The fact still remains that the offender(s) where not in custody and assumptions, assumptions may be the wrong word here it could have been an commanders decision based upon limited intel, where made that the site was secure and not at serious risk of attack and that only 4 lightly armed and armored officers were needed. I am aware that surprises abound even in the best planned situations. I used the reference to Ottawa's use of SWAT for raiding grow-ops as a reference to how they look on the situation as "prepare for the worst and hope for the best" type of deal. In that they expect heavy armed resistance and are prepared for the possibility. I am aware that I do not have first hand experience on the matter and maybe no comments should be made into the discussion of what really happened or the tactical aspects of what happened considering that the actual events have not been disclosed and we are all making certain assumptions of what actually happened. But, without discussion, there willl not be any improvement in the way things are done to give those people in these situations the best chance we can give them of surviving. We need to be careful to discuss with care with reagard to the families and individuals involved. 

Blackhorse7, I would be interested in understanding better the procedures for SWAT and ERT in Canada. I have a buddy that is looking into joining the OPP and going for SWAT or some type of ERT in Canada. If the subject is still too close to home I am in no hurry and would understand if you did not wish to discuss the matter further or so openly at this time.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (13 Mar 2005)

First off, maybe some clarification of the events should take place.   I'll do my best to relay the facts as I know them....
1.   Baailiffsttend to the scene, with the intention of seizing back a truck that the suspect had stopped making payments on.   Due to the suspects known history, RCMPmbers attend as well to assist in a peaceful seizure.
2.   The suspect flees with the truck, reported by witnesses.
3.   Now I am not totally certain on this, but I believe it goes like this.   While on scene, members discover a grow op.   Two members are left at the scene to secure it while a search warrant is drafted.   NOTE - THIS IS COMMON PRACTICE IN ALL POLICE FORCES.
4.   During this time, auto parts that likely are related to stolen vehicles are also noted.   Edmonton Auto Theft Unit are notified.
5.   In the morning, two more members arrive.   One is off duty, bringing his recruit by to see his first grow op.   They speak briefly outside with two Auto Theft members, and then enter the Hut.   Gunfire erupts, and the suspect comes out of the Hut.   He exchanges gunfire with the Auto Theft members, being hit twice.   He then runs back inside the Hut.
6.   The Auto Theft members back off, and call it in.

It is surmised that the suspect snuck back into the property during the night, and lay in wait to ambush the members.   LET ME MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR.   It did not matter that the members were junior.   You could have had senior members there, and the results would have been the same.   It is common practice to have junior members guard a scene.   And in this case, the threat level was low, as the suspect was not there (to their knowledge).   To call out an ERT Team is a huge expenditure of both money, and manpower.   Often ERT members are from neighboring communities, which, at least in Northern BC, can be hours away.   Before you even get to that point, the Discrict OPS Officer needDistrictconsulted, and approve the deployment of ERT.   We are talking hours before they are on scene.   

And Barek, no problem to answer questions, 24/7.   Yeah, it's a tough time right now.   I cried myself to sleep on Thursday, but it this kind of stuff that draws us brothers in arms that much closer together.   I have friends in both the CF and the RCMP that are extended family, and always will be.   Two frequent posters in this forum know who they are.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (13 Mar 2005)

Sorry, I don't know what my PC just did, but I was trying to correct spelling/grammar, and it just sent my post.  I'm more litterate than the last post suggests...


----------



## Barek (13 Mar 2005)

Thanks for the clarification on the events.  I had missed the part about it being a peaceful seizure. I will have to read more closely various news articles to better ascertain my facts before commenting.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (13 Mar 2005)

One fact remains clear to all of those who serve in our uniform, or the RCMP's, this was an ambush.  All the training in the world will not prevent good troops from being vulnerable to ambush while carrying out routine duties.  When responding to a call, or out on patrol, troops and police are on high alert, and hard to ambush.  When carrying out technical or paperwork, they do not have, and cannot have the same degree of alertness, and do not have weapons prepared and in hand.  In these situations, the ambush is initiated by the injury or death of one of ours, I expect that it will swiftly be followed, as in Mayerthorpe, with the death of the attacker.  To serve your country in any capacity (police or military) is to knowingly place yourself in danger.  Civilians may believe it is possible to not ever have anyone hurt while dealing with armed and determined enemies, but we know this has never been true.  I expect to hear the usual criticism's about the training of the officers slain, but no training in the world will stop the first shot initiating an ambush; civilians simply cannot accept that in some jobs, you can do everything right, and still die.  By the same token, if the police would have had high powered assault rifles in their cars, the results would be unchanged.  This was not an assault by the police, but an ambush upon a crew doing technical work on a crimescene; weapons of whatever nature would not be in their hands.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (15 Mar 2005)

I have to say, I'm not so sure about those last comments.  I have always been against this new "huggy, feely" verion of Policing that we seem to be developing in this country.  And i'm certainly not going to suggest that we have Police officers walking around with C8's or MP5's all the time, Ireland in the 80's style.  But given the fact that these guys were in a rural environment, doing scene security at a site where a known sociopath lived... if I had the option of having a slung C8 with me, I probably would have been carrying it.  That's just me though, and I've got a bit of a rep within my office for always looking at things from a tactical perspective.

That being said though, I would wager that 70% of the force would have done just what mainerjohnthomas said, and left the extra tools in the car.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (15 Mar 2005)

Blackhorse7 

No disrespect intended as i to carry a badge but, you and i both know the conversation went something like this...  Guys guarding the scene(1) "bout time, what no fresh coffee"  Guys arriving(2) "Sorry no coffee did you guys see or hear anything last night" (1) We didn't see anything last night it was so cold and dark not even the rats were out" (2) Alright then lets get this done and over with, Rookie you are going to be in for a dozy your first grow op and not even a month in, lucky sob"

Operation/tactical safety was not the first thing on their mind.  It may have been the long night the cool weather or the fact that they were watching and did not see anything.  We all get complacent sometimes it happens at 330 in the morning and you are drowsy and it can happen at 1930 hrs after umteith traffic stop.  

It is truly sad that they had to pay the ultimate price and i am saddened by the lose of four members.  No planing could have prevented this an ambush is designed to inflict maximum injury with minimal exposere.  But from all tragedy's there are lessons to be learned.  I just hope we learn fast.  It was quite the event to see 10000 plus on parade on last Thurs day the heart felt emotion and support from all law enforcement agencies on this continent was truly amazing.


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (15 Mar 2005)

I think people think this guy was just some loon, this guy was trained in weapons and obviously tactics, take a look at this.....

The man who gunned down four RCMP officers on his farm was armed with three guns he hid under a white sheet he used to sneak back to his property, an Edmonton radio station reported Tuesday. 

CHED Radio quoted police sources as saying James Roszko was armed with a military-style assault rifle, a hunting rifle and a pistol when he was found dead, along with the officers, in a metal Quonset hut near Mayerthorpe in northwestern Alberta on March 3. 

Investigators believe he was able to sneak into the hut by using the sheet as camouflage against the surrounding snow, CHED reported. The radio station also said he wore socks over his boots to cover tracks and muffle sound. 

The RCMP member who wounded Roszko in a final exchange of gunfire was apparently a member of the elite emergency response team. 

The radio station said Roszko was hit twice in the groin, while another bullet struck the pistol he had tucked in his pants. It said a fourth slug hit the stock of the assault rifle he was using. 

As the Mounties outside retreated, Roszko went back into the hut and killed himself. 

CHED said officers who searched the building found a hidden compartment under the dirt floor. A source said it's believed the hiding place had been used to store weapons, but it's not known if he retrieved the guns from there. 

Constables Peter Schiemann, 25, Anthony Gordon, 28, Brock Myrol, 29, and Leon Johnston, 32, were all shot and killed by Roszko in the worst modern-day shooting in RCMP history. 

I don't think personally the officers fell alslasleepwere more worried about coffee, i think that the suspect had the training and the knowledge to use camocamouflage his surroundings in order to ambush the officers like he did, whether it was yourself Wizard of Oz or Blackhorse7, i think it wouldn't have mattered, whoever was on the scene would have been killed, My 2 cents, thanx guys!!


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (15 Mar 2005)

Why the spelling got messed up i have no idea glitch i guess.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (15 Mar 2005)

Wizard of Oz,

Quite to the contrary, I agree with you, and that very likely is the way it went down.   I am just saying (with respect to better armour/weapons) that it is better to have and not need, than need and not have.   As was the case here.   And yes, even if they did have better firepower, they may have had it locked in the car.   I personally would not have.   You are doing scene security at a place that is out in the open, with long fields of fire to cover.   But you are right... other than Tim Horton's, a cop's worst enemy is complacency.   Or is it lawyers?   Well, you badge carrying guys that read this pick which is worst.   Maybe paperwork....   ;D


----------



## sguido (18 Mar 2005)

*snip*
... other than Tim Horton's, a cop's worst enemy is complacency.  Or is it lawyers?  Well, you badge carrying guys that read this pick which is worst.  Maybe paperwork....  
*snip*

No...without a doubt, the absolute worst enemy is the civilianization of upper ranks.  Those liberal bean counters who have never carried tin, and know nothing about 'taking care of our own', the ones who make it necessary to have a bloated Association of useless kludges.

I'm not saying that there should be no civilian input, or oversight.  But there was a time once when a cop who gets IOD was taken care of properly.  The 'comp' claim went in, and there was no lapse in pay while you recuperated in hospital and at home.  Nowadays, you're *lucky* if you see a 'comp' check within a year.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (18 Mar 2005)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> Wizard of Oz,
> 
> Quite to the contrary, I agree with you, and that very likely is the way it went down.   I am just saying (with respect to better armour/weapons) that it is better to have and not need, than need and not have.   As was the case here.   And yes, even if they did have better firepower, they may have had it locked in the car.   I personally would not have.   You are doing scene security at a place that is out in the open, with long fields of fire to cover.   But you are right... other than Tim Horton's, a cop's worst enemy is complacency.   Or is it lawyers?   Well, you badge carrying guys that read this pick which is worst.   Maybe paperwork....   ;D



Absolutely we should have more firepower there is no doubt in my mind that (espically rual areas) all the cars should have a long rifle or a something similar to c-8 or MP-5 in them.  Sometimes back up is 25 min away (sometimes more).  

As far as the worst enemy i don't know about Tims its like a symbiatic relationship that one.  Lawyers well they are made from the S*U* of the earth but they can only get you if you do sloppy work( or just bad case law) but i think the real enemy is some of the public who think they are street smart cause they watch CSI or Law and Order or (insert cop show here) and then try and pull the shit they see on TV in an interview room or in a vehicle stop.  That is the dangerous and stuff.  Paper that is bad but (i cant believe i will say this) a sometimes necessary evil.  The whole CYA thing you know so det commander comming in on Monday with his hind sight saying and you did this why?

ahhh the joys of a monday quarterback.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (19 Mar 2005)

No doubt.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Mar 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> The Res CBGs in LFWA (and, I think LFCA if CONPLAN TRILLIUM still exists...)



Its now called CONPLAN RAPTOR (MGen Leslie refused to have an operational plan named after a flower - he said "we are predators, not ruminants" and so I changed the name).  It has been updated to reflect rthe CCPLOs.

Dave


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (22 Mar 2005)

What follows below is a reprint of an email received from an RCMP officer in Cold Lake Alberta regaurding the Mayerthorpe attack:

A SERVING MEMBERS PERSPECTIVE. 

It Has To Be Said

It just has to be said. Things I feel that I must say in the light of the assassination of four of my brothers. First I must state that these are my personal views and are not necessarily the views of the RCMP or any governments I serve. 

Before I start I would like to qualify myself, my back ground and training. I have been a very proud member of the RCMPolice for the past 15 years serving in rural Alberta. Prior to my full time engagement in the force I served as an Auxiliary member of the RCMPolice for 7 years in 2 detachments in B. C. I am an experienced and senior member of this force. My duties over and above general investigations and law
enforcement include providing ongoing firearms and use of force options training to the members of this force. 

We all deal with grief and loss differently and as such I suppose is the reason I feel I must write this. Throughout my career I have often wanted to write letters to the editor frustrated with our justice system or inaccurate details published by the media. On many occasions we as a police force have been unfairly criticized based on partial
truths and limited facts presented by the media or persons of less desirable qualities. We as police officers quietly and professionally accept this as we are restricted (by civil and criminal liabilities, privacy laws, policies, and the potential of hampering good
investigations) to reveal all the facts to the Canadian Public. If the citizens of this great country were provided with all the situational factors when officers were criticized I'm confident they would support decisions and actions taken. 

The loss of the 4 members last week is gut wrenching sad and a gigantic loss that has produced unbearable grief. This loss meant many things to many people but it definitely was not a surprise. The citizens of this great country have no idea what police deal with every day and night, no idea at all. On an average day we receive at least two e-mail warning of people who are dangerous to police for various reasons. Many are known to carry knives or guns and are eager to use them if confronted by police. 

Unfortunately with what the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has turned into limits police in proactively addressing the risk. In most of these cases we are unable to act until something bad happens leaving the public and police officers vulnerable. Police officers deal with violence more often than most people realize and are in fact put in very dangerous situations several times a day. Considering this,  injury and death of our members is an expected occurrence. Unlike a soldier we often don't know who the enemy is. 

In the near future we will see the media questioning and criticizing police action and policy over this situation. It is very easy when one looks back on a situation to provide a course of action to alter an outcome. Before the bashing starts I would like to state
these facts in expectation of the areas of criticism that I foresee. 

First of all unlike large municipal police forces we have very limited manpower to police vast areas. In most cases we work alone and are forced into situations with little or no back up. The limited resources we have are based on our Provincial contract. Despite our efforts to increase our numbers the Province has not provided more
members and money requiring us to work with numbers allocated in the late 1980's. Despite population growth and crime rates I think we continue to provide an excellent service and have done a damn fine job. 

It would have been nice to have placed 10 or more members on that farm to watch over things however those resources and costs are not available to us. The fact that they had two members there shows due diligence to the situation as many times I have guarded crime scenes by myself. I suspect that the fact of the members service level, 
experience and training will come under attack. 

I would like to say right now that if someone has the intention and planning to kill a police officer they will most certainly succeed.  These 4 members were assassinated and provided with no warning or opportunity to react. Why would we place a junior member at a crime scene? How else does someone learning any trade or occupation gain experience and develop skills with out exposure. 

As far as training goes I am proud to advise that the Mounted Police has one of finest training facilities and curriculum in the world. Our training produces police officers of the highest calibre. If this was not the case we would not be in such high demand by the
United Nations. We are continually called upon for peace keeping efforts and to rebuild and train police forces around the world. 

As for national pride it should be known the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the only police force in the world that polices at the municipal, provincial, national and international levels. That has to say something about our training and capabilities. Police officer safety is paramount in our training and recertification. 

I further suspect that our justice system and Charter of Rights and freedoms will come under attack (or at least debate) as it most certainly should. I would like to state that I am (as are my colleagues) a strong supporter of our Charter as it guarantees our freedom within this wonderful nation. I further believe that the intent of this charter
was based on solid Canadian beliefs and wholesome values. 

Having said that I further believe that legal defense sector has created a billion dollar business around cutting it up and making loop holes. I do not feel the present days accepted legal interpretations were intended when it was drafted. It is ironic that the very law that was created to protect freedoms as citizens has chained and handcuffed
the police. It has forced us without recourse to be victims of criminals and non productive members of our society. I would suggest that common sense, fairness, reasonable and probable are traits God has granted to most Canadians however withheld from some of our political leaders and our law interpreters. 

Allowing the Supreme Court of Canada the power to veto proposed laws based on charter/constitution interpretation, limits our elected officials power for change. This in turn makes our democratic elections very superficial which is a frightening consideration. 

I heard the father of one of the deceased Mounties say "something good will come of this loss" I have been able to see two good things. I have seen the Canadian people rally around their police forces with heart felt condolences, warm acknowledgments and appreciation for the work we do. For this we thank you, your thoughts, prayers and kind gestures touched the hearts of everyone in our extended family. 

The second is that Canadians are looking at our justice system and I believe wanting change. If positive change is made and lives are saved because of it then these deaths have not been completely without cause. 

In closing I wish to say, despite what the media or any appointed committees disclose about this occurrence please remember what I have written. There was no fault with the members, policy or the RCMP. The only thing that may have changed this outcome would have been empowerment of police officers to effectively and proactively address
this type of risk. 

The badly needed increased money and manpower may have influenced this but likely not as the killer was focused and determined on his actions. If you feel change is needed (real change) to our Justice System I urge you do something about it. Flex your democratic muscle and force democratic change. As police officers we know who the drug dealers, rapists and psychopaths are but we need the tools to deal with them. The same law that defines their actions as illegal also prevents their actions from being stopped or them being punished. 

We must put proper deterrents in our court system ensuring the message of poor behavior is not acceptable. This is our country and I feel we must provide our police with the power to protect people again.  We as citizens must also have the confidence that our police officers will not abuse this power. 

If you feel change is not needed don't feel obligated to do anything. Your police officers will continue to proudly serve Canadians in the professional way we always have but please understand the limitations restricting us. Most of all, please when the next police
officer dies don't say it was a surprise. 

For those of you who read this whole letter thank you for letting me vent and grieve in this way. Please feel free to pass this on if you feel it has any merit, if not hit delete. 

Cst. S. (Steve) Smith Cold Lake Det.


----------



## Kal (22 May 2005)

I have much respect for cops, they got a ugly job to do and are often held back by civvy watch groups and legislation, but 'the show must go on'.  It is sad to see that some people do not believe that violence does not occur in their community and refuse the tools to those that require them, because they feel that they do not require them.  It is sad to see that some police dept. won't allow cargo pants because of public image, or that have the shotgun in the front of their cruiser looks too mean and are forced to lock it in the trunck, so that when they really need, they can't readily get to it.  To some people, God forbid that the police wear cargo pants bloused into their boots and wear body armour on the outside of their uniform.  It is sad to see that while some criminals have more firepower readily available than the patrol officer.  I wonder how many lives will be lost or ruined because the cop was stuck with his 9mm pistol against the criminal with an AK, AR, or similiar because they were pinned down and couldn't retrieve the shotgun from the trunk, or because they weren't allowed to carry rifle caliber weapons because they look too militaristic...  I wonder how many lives may be lost or ruined before some people will learn, that just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


----------



## Slim (23 May 2005)

> or because they weren't allowed to carry rifle caliber weapons because they look too militaristic...



Interesting fact. 

The N.A.A.C.P. successfully lobbied the U.S. govt. to ban the use of Black Talon Controlled expansion hollowpoint Ammunition in law enforcement communities because (they said) it was developed specifically to injure or kill African-Americans.

Common sense isn't common! Not even close! :

Kind of makes you wonder what's next!? 

Slim


----------



## Kal (23 May 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Interesting fact.
> 
> The N.A.A.C.P. successfully lobbied the U.S. govt. to ban the use of Black Talon Controlled expansion hollowpoint Ammunition in law enforcement communities because (they said) it was developed specifically to injure or kill African-Americans.
> 
> ...



     i would love to see their rationale and evidence supporting their case....


----------



## Blackhorse7 (23 May 2005)

Actually, Black Talon did not get banned, just changed.  They lost the black coating, and started calling it Ranger XST.  It is rumored that some Police Officers were referring to the ammunition as "Black Felon".... not too smart.


----------



## Slim (24 May 2005)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> Actually, Black Talon did not get banned, just changed.   They lost the black coating, and started calling it Ranger XST.   It is rumored that some Police Officers were referring to the ammunition as "Black Felon".... not too smart.



Hey all

We now use the ranger SXT on the range and performs pretty much the same way that BT did...The "colour" is just not as offensive! As for the Black Felon thing, I had never heard that before. 

Seems kind of silly when you think about it... :

{quote]i would love to see their rationale and evidence supporting their case....
They probably just started to lobby various congressmen in the States, or turned it into an election issue...No problem in getting action there!

Slim


----------



## Blackhorse7 (25 May 2005)

We are now using some new Winchester ammunition... I've no idea what it is called.


----------



## Slim (21 Jan 2006)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/2723.30.html

Take a look if you have a sec.

BTW the OPP are now carrying M4 and Ruger mini-14 patrol rifles.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Jan 2006)

The OPP have had Mini 14's for years.  Many forces are talking about switching over to C-8's due to shotguns not carrying enough rounds to be usefull in a sustained fire fight.  Once again, it is a question of money.  No one has gotten outgunned at a distance any time recently, so a brother will have to get waxed before something constructive happens.  
Now, if we could just get them to approve the switch, then subtly change the "8" to a "9" on the acquisition orders... :gunner:
Yee Haw! ;D


----------



## Slim (30 Jan 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> The OPP have had Mini 14's for years.  Many forces are talking about switching over to C-8's due to shotguns not carrying enough rounds to be usefull in a sustained fire fight.  Once again, it is a question of money.  No one has gotten outgunned at a distance any time recently, so a brother will have to get waxed before something constructive happens.
> Now, if we could just get them to approve the switch, then subtly change the "8" to a "9" on the acquisition orders... :gunner:
> Yee Haw! ;D



I have a friend on the Peterboro Det who says that they are now doing traffic stops with them (mini14's and C-8's)

I should mention, however, that I have not seen this for myself. Durham still has the 870 in the car. Never seen anything else unless the TSU is out to play.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Jan 2006)

I'm going to bet that they are referring to a high risk take down, where weapons are trained on the car being stopped.  As a generality, long guns are not required for speeding soccer moms.


----------



## Slim (30 Jan 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I'm going to bet that they are referring to a high risk take down, where weapons are trained on the car being stopped.  As a generality, long guns are not required for speeding soccer moms.



I don't think tht I've ever actually seen a long gun come out for a traffic stop (my experience is limited mind you) so I would have to agree with the above statement, although with sports parents they way they are these days... ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Jan 2006)

Definately for a hockey mom, but the soccer moms are all talk :


----------



## bllusc (30 May 2007)

The OPP are using the C8 CQB in a semi-automatic version with 30 rd mags, which will replace the venerable Ruger mini-14 eventually. The Remington 870 shotguns are staying. Having just completed my 2 day conversion course with the C8, I can honestly say I haven't had a more enjoyable time on a range in a long time. The weapon is extremely accurate and a pleasure to fire. The only drawback is that Diemaco (Colt Canada) sold them the plastic mags that we got rid of in the CF ages ago. They are going to be replaced by metal ones soon!

The idea is to have every cruiser (Black and Whites!!!) deployed with a C8. I must say that the standard of firearms and IRD (immediate response deployment) training has increased and that the "average" uniformed member is a lot better trained tactically and with weapons than ever before. Our pistols are the Sig Sauer P229 .40 cal, a real cadillac of a pistol. Much better (IMHO) than the Glock I carried when I was with TPS.

Brian Luscombe
Highway Safety Division - OPP


----------



## Teflon (30 May 2007)

Police get a Grizzly 
Armoured personnel carrier to help with standoffs, riots 

edmontonjournal.com 
Published: Thursday, May 24, 2007 

The Edmonton Police Service will today unveil an armoured personnel carrier intended for high-risk situations. 

The Department of Defence donated the 1973 "Grizzly" to police, who then put $35,000 worth of work into it. The vehicle was painted and all weapons systems were removed. The police service plans to use to carrier as a defensive tool in incidents such as armed standoffs, riots and hostage situations. 

Its primary use will be to protect officers and civilians at high risk. 

The vehicle will also be available to the RCMP. 

In 2006, a fatality inquiry report on the deaths of Cpl. Jim Galloway and Martin Ostopovich recommended that such a vehicle be available to police services in central Alberta. Galloway and Ostopovich were both fatally shot during a standoff in Spruce Grove in February 2004. 

© Edmonton Journal 2007


----------



## Greymatters (30 May 2007)

Will have to see if, like many new toys, it will be too full of higher up muckity mucks and VIPs attending the scene to be of actual use...


----------



## medaid (30 May 2007)

Speaking of patrol rifles. All West Vancouver Police PCs have a patrol AR-15 in there. They will be slowly phasing to C-8 CQBs because their AR-15s are becoming old and unreliable. The Delta Police Department have G36s available to all members on shift, and anyone can go tot he armouries and sign one out for their PC. Keep in mind though Delta PD is also considered the country's best practice police force. They have all their members trained for Taser, and they're available just like the G6 to be signed out when ever the member goes on duty.


----------



## pbi (4 Jun 2007)

In Halton Region of southern Ontario, where I live at the moment, the Halton Regional Police carry both a Beretta and a taser system, and wear a police utility uniform with a protective vest. Our Region is a bit of an "island" between the high crime areas of Hamilton to the west and the increasingly violent Peel Region and T.O. city to the east, but that happy status is rapidly changing. Gun calls, once rare, are becoming routine, and the baddies are getting much badder. The high concentration of very upscale homes and lots of money in Halton probably makes it attractive to the scumbags.

On the subject of Police using AFVs, when I was stationed In Calgary in the mid-90s the CPS bought a used British Army FV432 tracked APC, which they painted in CPS colours (I saw it in the vehicle yard at HQ downtown). I don't know what happened to it, but it struck me as a bad idea for a police department: something light and wheeled would have been much better. As a former OC Adm Coy, I can say that any tracked AFV can be a maintenance pig: I wonder how a PD would look after such a beast? Right after the G8 Conference was over, I toured the CPS logistics site out at the Calgary airport. They had two South0-African built armoured wheeled tactical vehicles that were designed to assault aircraft. They were fitted with a hydraulic ramp on the roof, that could be controlled from inside the vehicle. I don't know what happened to them, either.

Cheers


----------



## nihilpavor (4 Jun 2007)

The SQ got some muscle with it's GI (groupe d'intervention).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jun 2007)

That looks like a highly modified V150


----------



## Greymatters (4 Jun 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> ... Right after the G8 Conference was over, I toured the CPS logistics site out at the Calgary airport. They had two South0-African built armoured wheeled tactical vehicles that were designed to assault aircraft. They were fitted with a hydraulic ramp on the roof, that could be controlled from inside the vehicle. I don't know what happened to them, either...



Do you recall ther exact make or model? Any other hints? Would like to see what this looked like...


----------



## pbi (5 Jun 2007)

Unfortunately, I can't recall the make. They were four wheeled, with a "bus-type" configuration. I would guess they could carry about 6-10 fully equipped officers. The bodies seemed to be armoured: the crew doors on the sides were quite thick. Wheels and windows were protected by screens, and they had firing ports for small arms. They were not fitted with any kind of launchers or weapons stations. The roof mounted ramps were intended to allow rapid entry/exit  to/from an aircraft. Sorry I can't recall more but if there any folks on army.ca who are connected with the CPS they might be able to help out.


BTW the CPS G8 logistics warehouse was a truly amazing site, containing literally tons of  brand new public order gear that had been bought for CPS for the G8: everything from personal protective gear to baton guns to EOD gear. Not sure what happened to it all: it seemed to be far more than CPS could justify having on a normal basis.

Cheers


----------



## McG (5 Jun 2007)

Is this it:  http://www.gdls.com/programs/rg12-mars.html


----------



## pbi (5 Jun 2007)

Yes, almost for sure: it looks identical. The only thing is that this veh is a General Dynamics product, but the CPS guy touring me around told me that it was South African. Otherwise it's a match.

Cheers


----------



## McG (5 Jun 2007)

This veh goes back to the days of GM Defence and (like the RG-31) is a partnership with a South African company. GM Defence was bought by GDLS and so, it may infact be the same vehicle.


----------



## pbi (5 Jun 2007)

> "...partnership with a South African company



Bingo. 

Cheers


----------



## Greymatters (5 Jun 2007)

Found it now, thanks.






Interesting, Ive seen RG-12's before but not with that ramp system.


----------

