Canadian Parliament on lockdown after deadly shooting

[TrueMetis]

Charity begins at home.

The service(wo)men of the Canadian Armed Forces should not only wear their uniforms, but also a loaded (machine)gun at the ready.

It absolutely amazes me when people in the aftermath of something like this advocate for what is effectively a military state.

The gunman, it's now reported, shot three times - twice into Cpl. Cirillo, then turned and and shot at the other guard, trying to kill him as well, but who managed to duck out of the way behind the monument. He then started chasing the gunman, but decided he had better turn back and help Cirillo. Had he had bullets in his weapon, I assume he would have shot back. And no, I am not fucking pleading for anything.

So with bullets the result would have been, at best, effectively the same one victim and one shooter dead. Worse case scenario being about the same as without bullets as well, IE he would have killed the other guard and then went on to kill a bunch of other people as well. So why do you keep bringing up having bullets in the gun?

[Arkhangel]

Nobody is suggesting that removing the Honor Guard is somehow a "cure" for violent acts of domestic extremism. Clearly FB thinks it's a reasonable protective measure for soldiers who are otherwise (i) completely unarmed and (ii) engaged in an entirely symbolic, and probably unnecessary, activity.

I am also uncomfortable with the idea that we should be deliberately placing people in situations that otherwise serve no practical use for the apparent purpose of making them targets for violent extremists. Because that sure seems to be what you're suggesting.

That is a baffling leap in logic to me. What I'm saying is that a nation, and particularly the army, shouldn't allow itself to be intimidated out of going about daily life as normal because of a single nutter with a gun.

And as for an honour guard being symbolic - symbolism is enormously important in both politics and war. Killing a soldier at the War Memorial in the heart of government is about as symbolic an act as it's possible to make; if Canada responds by symbolically retreating, saying that soldiers are not safe in their own War Memorial, what kind of a message does that send to the Canadian people and the international community?

[Demonblade]

I see what you're saying, but I think it rather misses the point. It's not a case of, if there had been no honour guard there would have been no shooting. If there had been no honour guard, he would have shot at the next policeman or traffic warden or whichever other walking symbol of the state happened to cross his path. And surely if there is any group in society which it's acceptable to place in the firing line, it's actively serving soldiers? That is after all what the military is for.

Responding to this by removing the honour guard would be a pretty extreme case of treating the symptom rather than the disease, in my opinion.

Except that the whole reason why the guard was placed there was to make sure that nobody would piss on the memorial itself, a reactionary measure taken to show the public that the Conservatives mean business when it comes to honouring veterans. The guard was placed there to serve a political purpose. Even having the guard stand there unarmed was a means to undercut a potential political debate in the HoC about having a permanent armed force stationed among the public, iirc. If you're going to have a guard placed somewhere that needs guarding, may as well have them armed. That the guards were not armed at the War Memorial shows that their purpose served was a political one, which ultimately placed them in danger, certainly more than an armed cop.

As for the situation in the Parliament, that the gunman was able to make it to the outside doors of both the government caucus and the opposition caucus obviously shows that there was a security failure, and a serious one at that. I can't imagine how much carnage that guy could have done had he gotten there just a few minutes later when the respective caucuses were to have wrapped up. I mean, the guy drove right to the door, ran in and made it pretty far before he was taken down. It's crazy how close he came to unleashing death to a good chunck of our federal legislative body.

[Shryke]

I sincerely hope you never need to deal with a hysterical person, because you obviously have no idea whatsoever what hysteria is.

The gunman, it's now reported, shot three times - twice into Cpl. Cirillo, then turned and and shot at the other guard, trying to kill him as well, but who managed to duck out of the way behind the monument. He then started chasing the gunman, but decided he had better turn back and help Cirillo. Had he had bullets in his weapon, I assume he would have shot back. And no, I am not fucking pleading for anything.

Yes, you are. I've already pointed out where you did it.

And again, you've demonstrated how them being armed wouldn't have saved Cpl Cirillo's life.

Now, that's called a discussion, not my position. My position is we don't need an honour guard to make sure drunk young men don't piss on the monument. We don't need to Conservatives to stand in Parliament and cry "Shame shame the Americans have an honour guard we need one too!" When it was first suggested, I had no problem with it, but if we are going to live in a world where mentally unstable people are going to use the cover of their religion to commit acts of murder, I don't think it's worth exposing our soldiers to the risk.

And as for my position about the incompetence of authorities, I have already heard reports of people calling for a judicial inquiry about the events of the day and the incompetence displayed. As I said, you are one of the few people in Canada who thought they did a swell job.

Mentally unstable people are unstable. By definition. Maybe he would have shot up someone else somewhere else. Random acts of violence of this sort are essentially unpreventable except by more widespread mental health treatment.

And again, you may need to talk to more Canadians. Or just take an actual good faith look at this thread. There's plenty of Canadians who don't find this a huge breach.

[Shryke]

Presumably, Parliament has security (four guards at every door is what FB is saying), which is geared in part towards preventing people who are armed with weapons from entering the building. If that's the case, then the security procedures should be judged at how effective they are in achieving that goal. So if an active shooter managed to breach Parliament and make any kind of significant headway into the building, then that's clear evidence of the failure of the security protocols. The idea that someone has to actually be shot to death in Parliament before you can allege that security was deficient or someone was negligent is absurd.

Actually I'm pretty sure their job is security. They aren't a gloried door, they are there to make sure the premises are secure while balancing that against public access.

You are pulling the same crap Fragile Bird is and asserting the bolded without any reasoning backing it up. If the purpose of security is ... security, then they very much should be judged on how well they accomplished that. And the fact that no one was killed or even substantially hurt and the gunman was dispatched after, according to news reports, about 14 seconds of entering the building is some of the most relevant information here because that outcome is the most important overall assessment of this situation.

Should he have been able to get inside at all? Probably not. But given the outcome, it doesn't seem that him getting inside was that big a deal.

[Shryke]

And to bring the point home, let's talk about how Harper is reacting to this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-shooting-harper-government-wants-to-make-terror-arrests-easier-1.2811571

Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney is giving more indications of how the government intends to strengthen Canada's security laws in the wake of Wednesday's attack in Ottawa on Parliament Hill.

The minister told Radio-Canada on Friday that the government is eyeing the thresholds established in Canadian law for the preventive arrests of people thought to be contemplating attacks that may be linked to terrorism. Officials are considering how to make it easier to press charges against so-called lone-wolf attackers.

The challenges are the thresholds — the thresholds that will allow either preventive arrest, or charges that lead to sentences, or more simple operations," Blaney said in French. "So what the prime minister has asked is for us to review in an accelerated manner the different mechanisms that are offered to police to ensure everyone's security."

Harper also said he believes police powers need to be increased.

"In recent weeks, I've been saying that our laws and police powers need to be strengthened in the area of surveillance, detention and arrest," he said as MPs returned one day after a gunman killed a soldier and made his way into Centre Block on the Parliament Hill.

"They need to be much strengthened, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that work which is already underway will be expedited."

In a news conference yesterday, RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson noted the police currently cannot charge anyone who has yet to commit a crime, and suggested there needs to be a change.

"We need to look at all options to deal with this sort of difficult and hard-to-understand threat," he said.

[The Fallen]

Law enforcement is complaining that they can't charge someone who hasn't committed a crime? Am I missing something?

[kairparavel]

Law enforcement is complaining that they can't charge someone who hasn't committed a crime? Am I missing something?

They can't charge people with conspiracy to commit an act. They can't apprehend people in the planning stages.

Or more like 'Hey, you looks suspicious. We're going to detain you indefinitely til we decide we like the look of you after all.'

Ugh

[Aemon Stark]

Law enforcement is complaining that they can't charge someone who hasn't committed a crime? Am I missing something?

They haven't gotten the pre-cogs ready yet.

[The Fallen]

They haven't gotten the pre-cogs ready yet.

I wonder how much campaign cash you'd have to give to get that gig?

They can't charge people with conspiracy to commit an act. They can't apprehend people in the planning stages.

Or more like 'Hey, you looks suspicious. We're going to detain you indefinitely til we decide we like the look of you after all.'

Ugh

Tell me about it.

Now, in the U.S. we arrest people for planning stuff. It seems that in Canada you need more "probable cause", for lack of a better word, before arresting someone?

[ants]

Shryke, can you imagine a lone gunmen getting into the US Congress or the Senate? That we didn't get a bloodbath is likely pretty damn lucky.

One got into the white house last year.

[kairparavel]

One got into the white house last year.

A person with a firearm has not gotten inside the White House. A person off the White House property seated in his car on the street shot at the White House in 2011.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/us/white-house-intruder-got-farther-than-first-reported-official-says.html?_r=0

And the White House is not Congress is not Parliament. Shooting up the White House would be tragic, but it wouldn't take down the nation's government quite the way shooting up Congress or Parliament would.

Canada is not the US is not England is not Australia is not... Yes, the security procedures should be reviewed and scrutinized and improvements, if identified, should be put in place. But it needs to be a Canada-type response, not a US-type response. In so many threads there is so much bleating about how the US is this or that because of this or that and what works in country X will not work in the US. So why in the hell should an American-type solution work anywhere outside the US?

Fallen, I'm Canadian from Ottawa (born in Montreal) but I live in the burbs of DC. So I've had the experience in living in two capital regions.

[ants]

Got mixed up. Yes it was a knife not a gun (but it could have been a gun) and it was this year:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/white-house-intruder-east-room

But the point was whether this kind of thing could happen elsewhere, especially the US. Although not the senate/congress, I think the White House counts. He was hardly going to be able to take down the Canadian government with a rifle. In both systems deputies can and will step in.

[Aemon Stark]

I think the notion that this incident - I refuse to call it a "terrorist attack" - requires any kind of legislative response represents the usual overreach of Harper and "security" types for whom no civil liberty is worth protecting.

We definitely need better security on Parliament Hill, but that might only involve posting a few extra guards. An early alarm system might be worthwhile too. But I'm hardly an expert in that, so I don't really know what the best approach is.

Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way to prevent (via "security" measures) the kinds of random violence exemplified by the attack on the reservist "guarding" the War Memorial. We should certainly re-evaluate whether providing such a "guard" represents an appropriate balance of risk and resources. I can think of no reason why it's necessary to have someone there to prevent another one-off of drunk guys pissing on it.

Otherwise, I don't think we can really make any assumptions that the shooter was an "evil terrorist". Much of his recent history and apparent behaviour suggests psychiatric disturbance likely due to substance abuse. I remember the CBS article originally identifying his name suggested he was a "recent convert" to Islam whose name was originally "Michael Joseph Hall", both of which are fabrications. He was, it seems, something of a "born-again" Muslim, with a criminal record and apparent attempts at redemption interspersed with periods of homelessness and living in shelters. Personality seems to have been a major part of the problem. It's hard to know how impulsive his actions were. They don't some especially planned.

Good article here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/drugs-and-religion-key-themes-in-ottawa-shooters-troubled-life/article21282240/

[Demonblade]

Got mixed up. Yes it was a knife not a gun (but it could have been a gun) and it was this year:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/white-house-intruder-east-room

But the point was whether this kind of thing could happen elsewhere, especially the US. Although not the senate/congress, I think the White House counts. He was hardly going to be able to take down the Canadian government with a rifle. In both systems deputies can and will step in.

If it weren't for pure luck, he might very well have taken down the government with a rifle. He made it to the doors of both the government and official opposition caucuses while they were in session. Had he done this a little bit earlier or later he could have killed a potentially large number of elected representatives of parliament. Were he successful, I don't know how the present House of Parliament could continue without calling another election. Having such relative ease of access to so many members of our federal government, including the PM and the Official Opposition leader, even for a few moments, while they are at their jobs, is a frightening reality that shouldn't be overlooked or marginalized.

[Demonblade]

Harper is going to try and use this to flash his crusader-against-terrorists creds in the hopes that it would provide enough contrast between him and Trudeau (who is sure to be called a terrorist appeaser in a forthcoming Conservative ad), so that it would lead him to victory in the next year's election. But I doubt it would resonate with anyone outside of his base, who don't need any more excuses to dislike Trudeau.

[Shryke]

If it weren't for pure luck, he might very well have taken down the government with a rifle. He made it to the doors of both the government and official opposition caucuses while they were in session. Had he done this a little bit earlier or later he could have killed a potentially large number of elected representatives of parliament. Were he successful, I don't know how the present House of Parliament could continue without calling another election. Having such relative ease of access to so many members of our federal government, including the PM and the Official Opposition leader, even for a few moments, while they are at their jobs, is a frightening reality that shouldn't be overlooked or marginalized.

I think you are vastly overestimating how many people he could have killed even if they've all been standing right there at the door.

To wit:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ottawa-shooting-where-did-michael-055233509.html

[TrueMetis]

I think you are vastly overestimating how many people he could have killed even if they've all been standing right there at the door.

To wit:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ottawa-shooting-where-did-michael-055233509.html

Anyone who can take down an entire government with five shots deserves some kind of accolade.

[Horza]

Canadians are very polite and obliging people but I can't imagine the entire Cabinet would form the neat and orderly line neccessary for that to happen.

[SpaceChampion]

He was a murderer and an attempted mass murderer. Doubtful this was a coordinated terrorist attack.