Ottawa police to guard sentries at National War Memorial

[phreak]

Police guarding unarmed soldiers, for a fee... what a disaster. It is absolutely clear that sentries may be targeted, and one has already been killed, but they have never received bulletproof vests and guns with live ammo. Instead the whole tragedy is being used for profiteering. What a total disregard for human life! Absolutely disgusting.


http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-police-to-guard-sentries-at-national-war-memorial

 

[Uncled]

I think the main reason the sentries are not given live ammo is that there is a risk of them being surprised and overpowered and having their weapons taken away from them. Then you have a nutcase/terrorist running around with a fully automatic military assault rifle.

 

[phreak]

I think the main reason the sentries are not given live ammo is that there is a risk of them being surprised and overpowered and having their weapons taken away from them. Then you have a nutcase/terrorist running around with a fully automatic military assault rifle.

Are you serious? The sentries are professional servicemen: if that's the concern, they shouldn't be in the army in the first place. Anyone can be 'overpowered and having their weapons taken away from them', including cops who guard sentries... in theory. But that's a part of firearms training - to prevent nutcase/terrorist from grabbing your weapon.

 

[sybian]

You have to remember that a servicemen can only ...in theory....use his weapon against a human being if there is a sanctioned act of war by his Government.
If there is an incident within Canada that requires the Armed Forces to initiate action...There must be a declaration of Military law...For instance the stand-off at Oka.
I suppose if there was another attack against at the War Memorial, and a Gaurd kills a terrorist, it would be another Canadian nightmare of red tape, and finger pointing.
Gaurding the War Memorial is considered a great honour, but it is also a symbolic gesture to honour fallen veterans, and the sacrifice they made....Not an open target for another terrorist .

Having said that I..'m not in total disagreement with you Phreak, I doubt if any Canadian Citizen would say much, if one of the Gaurds let the air out of another shitbag terrorist.
I think it's more of a legal ,thing than a moral one in this case....And Lawmakers have the luxury to live behind body gaurds, and security patrolled gated communities.

 

[phreak]

You have to remember that a servicemen can only ...in theory....use his weapon against a human being if there is a sanctioned act of war by his Government.
If there is an incident within Canada that requires the Armed Forces to initiate action...There must be a declaration of Military law...For instance the stand-off at Oka.
I suppose if there was another attack against at the War Memorial, and a Gaurd kills a terrorist, it would be another Canadian nightmare of red tape, and finger pointing.
Gaurding the War Memorial is considered a great honour, but it is also a symbolic gesture to honour fallen veterans, and the sacrifice they made....Not an open target for another terrorist .

Having said that I..'m not in total disagreement with you Phreak, I doubt if any Canadian Citizen would say much, if one of the Gaurds let the air out of another shitbag terrorist.
I think it's more of a legal ,thing than a moral one in this case....And Lawmakers have the luxury to live behind body gaurds, and security patrolled gated communities.

Rules of engagement may differ depending of the current regulations as you've mentioned. But usually in any army there is a simple rule which overrides any other rules and regulations: if your life is in danger, you use your weapon and shoot to kill. Period. This rule has nothing to do with legal stuff - it's just basic self-defence and common sense. The same is true if you need to protect lives of other people.

The sentries are not there to replace police, but in case of EMERGENCY they should be able to protect themselves and others. Not providing weapons and bulletproof vests to military personnel in case when they are an obvious target is immoral and from military perspective is extremely unprofessional.

 

[sybian]

You've already answered your own question...."But in case of emergency".....A state of emergency military action has to be declared.
In essence the Government has to declare that we are being attacked on our own soil, to arm and deploy the Military within our own country...And i doubt they will do that.
To get around the red tape and the admission of terrorist attacks, they simply appoint RCMP to get around that.
I'm not disagreeing with you,...When I've leveled my firearm on another human being and squeezed one off, there was a declaration of war. No questions or consequences, other than the other guy in the white turban was trying to do the same thing to me.
There has been no state of emergency declared, and no recognition of a present danger...We are also Canadian, and our rules of engagement follow the United Nation protocol, not the rules of engagement of the U.S.
FYI...When the United Nations arm their security units...the first three rounds in their clips, are blanks.

 

[phreak]

You've already answered your own question...."But in case of emergency".....A state of emergency military action has to be declared.
In essence the Government has to declare that we are being attacked on our own soil, to arm and deploy the Military within our own country...And i doubt they will do that.
To get around the red tape and the admission of terrorist attacks, they simply appoint RCMP to get around that.
I'm not disagreeing with you,...When I've leveled my firearm on another human being and squeezed one off, there was a declaration of war. No questions or consequences, other than the other guy in the white turban was trying to do the same thing to me.
There has been no state of emergency declared, and no recognition of a present danger...We are also Canadian, and our rules of engagement follow the United Nation protocol, not the rules of engagement of the U.S.
FYI...When the United Nations arm their security units...the first three rounds in their clips, are blanks.

I'm not taking about the 'state of emergency' or martial law. I'm just referring to a CASE of emergency, which can be anything that may put the lives of the sentries or people around them in danger. Anyone is entitled to protect their life - this has nothing to do with the 'state of emergency'. Military personnel have been trained to use firearms - they must have firearms for their own protection if they are in danger while on duty. It's that simple.

 

[escapefromstress]

FYI...When the United Nations arm their security units...the first three rounds in their clips, are blanks.

That's crazy!

 

[sybian]

Yes it is crazy....But nobody says anything when they remove those preloaded clips and reload them with hollow points bought back home at Canadian Tire.

Phreak....I don't think anybody would have ever considered a Soldier gaurding a war memorial senitaph would have ever considered they would have been in the line of fire.
We were all proven wrong....The police attending their honour duty is just an easy answer for now, so it doesn't happen again.
Your right, everyone deserves to defend their life, and no lawyer or lawman should be allowed to take that right away. I'm afraid with laws that don't consider what tactics used by extremists, may be antiquated...and need to be revisited.
In some aspects your right...But it's not that simple....We are Canadian, and we don't tote guns around under our jackets like the U.S....We are not a society of fear, and they will use that belief against us.
One very hipocritical thing about my comment here is the fact that I probably walk around with a gun in my hands 4 hours a day...sometimes more than that.They are only tools to me that allow me to defend what I care for here, and at very rare times my own life..But I have no love affair with them.
My point is....If they arm the military out in the general public, with the poilicies they have now, they need to declare military law, or an act of war. They would in fact have to admit we are at war....The Government isn't willing to do that.
It isn't your opinion I'm argueing, or the fact that you may have simplified things...The policies would have to change ...So the question is, are we ready to loosen the control of the military, and have them walking around within our borders , airports, Government buildings with automatic weapons at the ready ? It is the military policies right now that prevent that, and a tight grip is enforced on them through Government control, protocol, and policies.
Once you start a war machine rolling....It takes a very long time to take back control ,and stop it......And thats what these terrorists want, a Government with knee jerk reactions, and to have the public see with their own eyes, within their own borders, the fact that we need to declare a state of emergency....fueling their own small fires of success.