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

[Gunner98]

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

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

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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

 

[Remius]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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

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

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

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

 

[expwor]

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

Tom

 

[dapaterson]

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

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

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Fully agree with you expwor.

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

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

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

 

[dapaterson]

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

(EDIT: fixed phrasing)

 

[Remius]

Fully agree with you expwor.

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

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

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

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

 

[brihard]

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

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

 

[Stoker]

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

 

[GR66]

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

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

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

 

[brihard]

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

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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

I apologize for misspeaking.

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

 

[GR66]

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

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

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

 

[Zoomie]

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

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

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

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

 

[cryco]

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

 

[George Wallace]

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

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