Domestic Terrorism/Public Attacks on CAF Personnel

[cryco]

does that mean an armed soldier out in the streets would not get arrested but would get in a world of trouble by their superiors? (assuming he/she wasn't given orders requiring weapons)
What drives the internal policy to not arm all on duty personnel?  Prohibitive cost of arming everyone? Risk of mishap?

 

[Remius]

does that mean an armed soldier out in the streets would not get arrested but would get in a world of trouble by their superiors? (assuming he/she wasn't given orders requiring weapons)
What drives the internal policy to not arm all on duty personnel?  Prohibitive cost of arming everyone? Risk of mishap?

Depends on why they were out with their weapons.  I've seen police stop guys doing BFTs along the canal.  Mostly because they weren't advised what was happening. Unless they are operationally required to or have some sort of training or a specific tasking/job purpose then they are not required to have them.  And yes they could be arrested and charged if it is outside their duties and responsabilities.

We also have plenty of personnal weapons to go around so cost isn't the issue.  We're not a police state either.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

does that mean an armed soldier out in the streets would not get arrested but would get in a world of trouble by their superiors? (assuming he/she wasn't given orders requiring weapons)
What drives the internal policy to not arm all on duty personnel?  Prohibitive cost of arming everyone? Risk of mishap?

Troops don't just walk into work and voila there are weapons laying around.  We have controls, checks and balances we follow.

 

[a_majoor]

A wonderful gesture by the Pittsburgh Penguins:

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014/10/23/pittsburgh-penguins-play-o-canada-in-show-of-solidarity-after-ottawa-shooting-acknowledged-by-stephen-harper/

Pittsburgh Penguins play ‘O Canada’ in show of solidarity after Ottawa shooting; acknowledged by Stephen Harper
National Post Staff | October 23, 2014 | Last Updated: Oct 23 2:23 PM ET
More from National Post Staff

Screen grab/YouTubeThe Penguins played 'O Canada' in addition to the 'Star-Spangled Banner' before Wednesday night's game..

The Pittsburgh Penguins were playing an American team in the U.S., but they made it clear their thoughts were with Canada.

The team played ‘O Canada’ in addition to the ‘Star-Spangled Banner’ before Wednesday night’s game against the Philadelphia Flyers as a tribute to those affected by the shootings in Ottawa that morning.

The crowd, too, showed its support, singing along loudly as Jeff Jimerson performed O Canada. Here’s Sean Gentille’s video from the press box at the Consol Energy Center:




Both teams include multiple Canadian players, but Canada’s national anthem is generally not played unless a Canadian team is playing.

“It was a really, really nice gesture,” Penguins captain Sidney Crosby told Sportsnet. “I was following the news all day and it was tough to see [what was happening]. It’s awful to think that people are capable of doing that to each other.



“But I think we all come together after different incidents … we saw it in Boston, [with] the World Trade Centers, all that stuff. I think that you see people rally behind one another.”

Hockey fans all across Canada showed their appreciation. Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged the Penguins’ show of solidarity during his speech in Parliament on Thursday morning.

There were acknowledgments elsewhere in the NHL, including moments of silence in Anaheim and Edmonton.

It was a particularly emotional performance of O Canada for the Oilers — the only Canadian team in action on Wednesday. (The Toronto Maple Leafs were scheduled to take on the Senators in Ottawa but the game was postponed.) It’s difficult to hear the fans singing along on the broadcast, but this video shot from the stands captures some of it:

 

[cryco]

Troops don't just walk into work and voila there are weapons laying around.  We have controls, checks and balances we follow.

I assume that if you're staying on base and doing office work you're not getting a weapon, but if you're required to do something off base, say honor guard, driving a VIP around or whatever, that packing some firepower isn't unreasonable.

 

[DAA]

The more logical solution to current events would be to have an armed guard watching them.  Be it an MP, cop or whoever.  Discreetly out of the way with a pistol.  While it may not prevent someone from doing what they did it might certainly end it sooner.

I was thinking the exact same thing.  In my travels throughout the world, anytime I have visited a cenotaph/memorial/Royal Palace/ etc which is accessible to the public and where there is the presence of some form of "Ceremonial Guard", there has always been some form of "dedicated" armed security aparatus within very close proximity.

 

[The_Falcon]

Before we go further down this rabbit hole about armed status, lets remember this is an OPEN forum.  Talking in a broad sense is fine ie, CC and Firearms act say it's ok, DND/CAF policy may say otherwise.  Getting into the SPECIFIC details of who is armed, for what purpose and when, is not on, Period.

HM
Staff

 

[George Wallace]

I assume that if you're staying on base and doing office work you're not getting a weapon, but if you're required to do something off base, say honor guard, driving a VIP around or whatever, that packing some firepower isn't unreasonable.

Let's not let Hollywood be the model of what should or should not be done.  Let's not speculate on what should or should not be done.  In the REAL world, things are done and if you are not privy to what is being done, there often is no need for you to know.  An example is what happened on the 22nd and for those watching the news live, you saw hundreds of Police and Security coming out of the woodwork.  Suffice it to say, there are people doing their jobs to keep you safe.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's troubling to me that the narrative around Justin Bourque never really included "terrorism." He targeted the RCMP and killed 3 officers, and there's every indication he was driven by a far right, anti-government, anti-gun control ideology. I'm far more worried about people like that than home grown "terrorists" of may or may not be of Arab descent. The FBI and the RCMP are also more concerned about right wing militias and the like than Islamic fundamentalism. Somehow this reality seems to be lost on our esteemed mainstream media.

Gee lucky me, since I had to convert and gave up on the NDP and despise gun control as enacted in this country I can cover all of the bases at once. Perhaps you can blame the previous governments for lying and attempting social engineering as precursors to such actions? You certainly slathered us with that brush.

 

[Kilo_302]

Gee lucky me, since I had to convert and gave up on the NDP and despise gun control as enacted in this country I can cover all of the bases at once. Perhaps you can blame the previous governments for lying and attempting social engineering as precursors to such actions? You certainly slathered us with that brush.

I'm not sure what you mean. Being against gun control isn't in itself an extreme position (in most cases). Killing to support that position is. This is what Bourque did. HIs Facebook page is full of extremist posts. My point is, why aren't we calling him and people like him terrorists? They seem to target law enforcement and the government, and also appear to have political motivation, regardless of how disturbed they may be. And again, law enforcement agencies across North America have acknowledged groups and individuals with these views pose a greather threat than Islamic terrrorism. My issue is with the media frenzy around this clouding the reality of the situation, as per usual. It's not a problem of the "liberal media" it's a problem with turning this into some sort of existential threat, not questioning Harper's ridiculous statements linking this attack to Iraq etc.

 

[kratz]

I see two parts in the answer to your question Kilo.

1st-the main difference is the agenda (ie: religion) vice grudge.

2nd-and more disquieting, the winner always narrates the story. Even here on Navy.ca, we've tacitly approved saving taxpayer money and the suspect a public platform at trial.

Do I disagree with the outcome of these three examples? No, as there was ongoing active risk to the public at large.
As a society, should we always approve of it? I do not believe so.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I assume that if you're staying on base and doing office work you're not getting a weapon, but if you're required to do something off base, say honor guard, driving a VIP around or whatever, that packing some firepower isn't unreasonable.

The very fact that you don't know tells me you don't need to know.  Sorry.  As mentioned, open forum and all that.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

While his action are extreme and unforgivable, some of the root causes are due to the dishonesty and demonization of firearm owners by past governments leading most to frustration and some to extreme action. I don't see the parties responsible for creating such an environment calling for changes to remove the grievances. You could undercut most of those extremist you worry about, but that would mean giving up sacred cows for some politicians. 

 

[kratz]

This is why I prefer to wait until things shake and staighten out.

ref: CBC.ca

*snip* 

Paulson said the shooter was at an angle where Cirillo would not have been able to see him, and fired twice at Cirillo. He also fired once at Stevenson, but missed.

Ron Foxcroft, the honorary colonel of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada regiment, said Brandon Stevenson briefly chased the shooter before returning to the war memorial to try to revive his wounded friend. Foxcroft said he showed "tremendous bravery" in pursuing the shooter, later identified as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau.

*snip*

Now we know more of what the 2nd sentry was doing and able to do.

 

[57Chevy]

With this type of savagery happening to our soldiers, my questions is:

Could veterans be at risk ?


I can see this Remembrance Day as a very special one indeed, and I'm hoping these events do not affect the attendance.
(Actually it should increase)

:yellow:

 

[2ndChoiceName]

With all the talk about keeping CAF members out of their uniforms in public, I can't wait until Remembrance Day when we're all back in the public eye, uniformed, and in full force.

 

[George Wallace]

With all the talk about keeping CAF members out of their uniforms in public, I can't wait until Remembrance Day when we're all back in the public eye, uniformed, and in full force.

OK.  The CDS was on CTV today and his statements were to the effect that it is OK to wear your uniform to and from work, at work, etc.  It is NOT OK to wear your uniform to go shopping after work, or to a restaurant or bar after work.  A little common sense goes a long way even if we have seen that common sense is not always so common.

 

[2ndChoiceName]

I've gotten the sense that that's been more or less the sentiment all along, even before the incident, however I wouldn't be surprised if there were fewer uniformed CAF members in the public. I know that I'm a little wary to wear my uniform to work, seeing as I live in the heart of Toronto and ride the subway 30 minutes to and from work.

 

[George Wallace]

My commentary on the events of the last few days are this:  The two culprits who MAY have thought that they would be remembered forever as martyrs have not seen the resolve of Canadians of all faiths who are praising WO Vincent, Cpl Cirillo and Sgt-at-Arms Vickers as HEROES.

 

[dimsum]

I've gotten the sense that that's been more or less the sentiment all along, even before the incident, however I wouldn't be surprised if there were fewer uniformed CAF members in the public. I know that I'm a little wary to wear my uniform to work, seeing as I live in the heart of Toronto and ride the subway 30 minutes to and from work.

I'd suggest that now is a good time to "show the flag" and wear your uniform to/from work on the TTC.  I think you'd be surprised at the positive reaction.