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

[old medic]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[big bad john]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Well done and well said!

 

[Sheerin]

... [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]

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]

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

 

[The_Falcon]

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]

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