Topic: CBSA arming

[WR]

We can only hope.....

[AFireinside13]

I am a Customs Officer, now my opinion doesn't represent everyone else's in the agency, but I feel arming Customs Officers at land borders is a good idea.
The unfortunate thing is, i see no reason for the officers in the airport to be armed, only the land borders. I work in the airport and i feel it is one of the safest places to work. The reason is there are too many security checks to go through before you even get to us, there are always exceptions, but for the most part, i don't think we need firearms.
Now, as for the land borders, arm them, and get rid of the idea of having 1 Officer in the Primary booth ( first point of contact).  We need at least 2 officers in the booth for safety reasons. In the airport, i can touch the Officer next to me, but on the land border, a dangerous situation could be developing and the next officer wouldn't have the slightest idea.

With our union, if one officer gets special training, we all have the right to that training. So obviously, we all would have to have firearms if the land borders get that ability. I don't know, that is just my opinion, if VERY interested to see how they will handle this situation. Will we need psychological tests to prove the capacity to hold and use that weapon? Let's see how this pans out.

[Lane]

Just a little tidbit about Canadian border security, I did my BMQ and SQ in Chilliwack, several of the field areas are near the border.
During the SQ training portion for recce patrols, we came across a maginzine containing live rounds in them, and small shelter. None of this was likely to be military, as the mag looked like it was for a MP5. (I actually didn't get that good a look at them, as my Mcpl. took the mag back to the plt warrant.)

[zipperhead_cop]

I think Bruce Monkhouse has the right idea.  Make the firearm an optional item for existing officers and if they want one, submit them to the full battery of aptitude tests similar to the ones police are subject to.  For the grandma's that are only there to ding you for taxes on your American TV and for bringing in booze and smokes, don't make them carry a gun.  If nothing else, you wouldn't have a gun pointing at you when it was sticking out on a horizontal over their monster hips.  Ive seen it.  I can defend it.
Then make it mandatory for new hires and make sure everyone is up to speed.
Part of the problem is their heavy reliance on summer students to supplement their numbers during the peak seasons.  It would be cost prohibitive to get a bunch of temporary hires full use of force training courses just to punt them four months later.
Another part of the problem is that the CBSA is only recently transformed from an extention of Revenue Canada to an actual enforcement branch of the Fed.  No doubt that is where SteveB gets his fairly ignorant views from.  There are so many levels of bureaucracy and resistance within, you would be dismayed at how much border security is sacrificed for the sake of "not stepping on toes".  Pile that on with the fact that there would be a massive expense at arming all of them, as well as a pay increase to bring them closer to RCMP salary.  There would also have to be a shameful admission from the Fed that the border is actually dangerous, something they have resisted savagely.
Hows this for policy:  As it stands now, if the CBSA gets an alert from the US, warning that an armed and dangerous criminal is likely to be crossing the border, and they see that car coming through their line, they are forbidden from sending that car to the secondary area for inspection.  They are required to let it go and simply call the local police service to try to find it after it goes through.   Nice.  We really love that one, since we share the border at two crossing points with Detroit.
I believe there has been some rumblings about a Canadian Border Patrol for a while now, but I don't know where that is at this point.  No doubt crushed on the alter of the Big Red "L".

Hey WR, tell the story of how you were ordered to remove your personal defense weapons and bullet proof vests because the visiting Customs Minister thought they looked "scary".

[WR]

A few years ago the Revenue Minister at the time Eleanor Caplan, visited Windsor. Every employee was ordered on the threat of dismissal and/or 30 day suspension to remove our personal protection tools (handcuffs, spray & extendable baton) from our belts, take our bulletproof vests off and the cruisers had to be hidden. Ms Caplan was afraid and intimidated of the "weapons". Her RCMP escort was armed...she must not have been that scared. 
During this visit  I was part of an regional enforcement team and we were waiting for a patched member of the Hell's Angels to come back from Mexico on a charter flight, he had some of his fellow "motorcycle enthusiasts" waiting for him and we had no tools or restraint devices. We did bother intercepting him, he was allowed in without an examination.
That was the "old school" tax mentality at it's best. I can say it is improving slowly under the CBSA.

[HDE]

Hi Guys

   I heard a couple of members of the CBSA union leadership giving evidence before the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veteran's Affairs and it appeared the thinking is that Border Agents are defacto police officers.  I wonder if the claim they should have sidearms is an effort to upgrade the job in order to suggest that they should be seen as a police officer.  I'm not necessarily opposed to it but if we are going to give them sidearms and the authority to use them there should be considerable thought given.  Terms of employment?  Hiring standards? Training?  Union/Non-Union?  Should those who choose not to use a gun be allowed to opt out?  I can't see this happening in most police services.

[zipperhead_cop]

CBSA Inspectors are already peace officers as per the definition in the CCC.  It is only by company policy that they can't carry sidearms.  As for qualifications, that has been hashed out in other posts and threads.  As a police officer, though, I completely support and encourage their being armed.

[WR]

Shootout closes Peace Arch border crossing
Last Updated Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:44:52 EST
CBC News
A police chase at the Canada-U.S. border forced the closure of the Peace Arch border crossing south of Vancouver on Tuesday.

It also caused dozens of Canadian guards to walk off the job, fearing for their safety.

The incident started when two men, both murder suspects, tried to get into Canada. Officials say the two men, 38-year-old Ishtiaq Hussain and 22-year-old Jose Antonio Barajas, are now in custody. They are wanted on murder charges in California.

But the arrest didn't come easy. One of the suspects was wounded in a shootout with police.

U.S. sheriffs say the pair managed to make it to the check point about a metre before Canadian soil.

"They [drove] through the border and they almost struck two uniformed officers," said Bill Elf, of the Watch County Sheriff's Department.

The suspects continued northbound and struck the Peace Arch itself at one point.

Witness Bill Whittle didn't see the ensuing gunfight but he heard it. "I heard about seven or eight gunshots on the other side of the Peace Arch," he said. "One of [the suspects] was shot. [The police] got him out of the car."

Officials credit a brave deputy sheriff for single-handedly stopping the pair, who were considered armed and dangerous.

CBC News has learned that when unarmed Canadian border guards found out the murder suspects were coming their way they left their posts at four crossings along the B.C. border. Only two supervisors were left at each crossing to protect the Canadian side.

A spokeswoman with Canada Border Services says the guards have the legal right to refuse to work if they believe they are in imminent danger

[zipperhead_cop]

Why not?  You have to wave them through anyway.  Might as well not be in the line of fire.

[COBRA-6]

Tories to fulfill promise to arm border guards
Updated Wed. Jan. 25 2006 11:31 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Conservative justice critic Vic Toews announced Wednesday that Canadian border guards will be armed as soon as possible.

The move will make good on a Tory campaign promise to beef up border security and respond to border guards' long standing plea for arms.

"It's simply a practical matter of how soon these officers can be trained and the firearms issued to them," Toews said.

"That's our commitment and I trust our (justice) minister will do exactly that."

Prime minister-designate Stephen Harper has not yet appointed his cabinet.

Toews quick announcement, made just two days after the party was elected into office, may have been speeded up by an incident Tuesday when two murder suspects in the U.S. made a run for the Canadian border.

The fugitives were stopped by a police shootout mere metres before the Canadian border. One of the suspects, Ishtiak Hussain, was shot in the neck and remains in hospital. He has not yet been charged.

The driver, Jose Barajas, was charged with eluding a police vehicle, and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon for allegedly attempting to run down two guards, said Mac Setter, the U.S. prosecutor.

The suspects did not fire back at police.

Courts in Richmond, California have issued warrants for both men on murder charges in the death of a taxi driver last Saturday.

Prosecutors are now deciding whether the suspects should face charges in Washington, or California.

Canadian guards at the Peace Arch border crossing, and at three others crossings, walked off the job in fear of their own safety when they heard the suspects were headed their way.

They were unapologetic and warned it could happen again.

"If you're being told someone is armed and coming up to the border crossing the most we have as protection is body armour, bullet proof vests, etc, we have batons we have pepper spray, but someone comes up with semi automatic rifle… were not prepared to deal with that," George Scott, a spokesman for the border guards' union told CTV Vancouver.

Guards who feel their lives are in danger have the legal right to refuse to work, according to a spokesperson for the Canada Border Services Agency.

The border was closed for about seven hours as the result of the shootout and ensuing investigation.

B.C.'s Solicitor General John Les called on the new federal government to provide arms and training to border guards, following the incident.

"I think they need to be armed," Les said, according to CP. "We sometimes have some not very nice people who want to try and get into our country."

Toews pledged that guards will be armed just as soon as they can be properly trained and equipped with the firearms.

He said he was disturbed that the guards abandoned their posts, but said he understands if they felt their lives were in danger.

The fleeing suspects, considered dangerous by police, had tried to outrun officers in a high-speed chase down Interstate 5 in Washington state. The pursuit reached speeds of 160 km/hr.

The Conservatives were elected on a platform that pledged to bolster border security to stop the flow of illegal guns being smuggled in from the U.S.

In addition to his promise to arm border guards, Harper said he would also restore port police service which has been disbanded by the Liberal government. Port security is now handled by local law enforcement officials.

Canada's border services union threatened to strike in 2005 in an effort to force the government to provide them with guns in order to protect themselves.

Currently, the RCMP is called on to deal with perceived threats.

Very nice to see them moving on this already, and the part about restoring the port police makes sense too, go Team Harper! 

[zipperhead_cop]

We'll see. If the Lieberals get ahold of this one, they might have us in a vote sooner than later.

[WR]

It will not require any action from Parliament (thank god)....just an order in council. The Liebrals will not have the opportunity to screw with this.

[dutchie]

I still contend that it is not as simple as arming all Customs Officers. When hired, they were not hired for their physical ability to take down an assailant. More importantly, they were not hired for their psychological predispostion to using deadly force in the execution of thier duties. A lot, but not all, are more in line with the clerical staff at any random Fed Gov office (like a Tax clerk), and don't possess the necessary 'jam' to be able to be safely armed.

Now, some would say, then can the ones that can't hack it. Not so easy. When hired, they are hired against certain 'core competancies'. If you cannot justify that they are not fullfilling one of those by remaining unarmed, or that they are not fullfilling their job description, then you're out of luck. This is a PSAC union shop.

My solution: Hire a 'task force' for each border crossing. Staff it with those already on payroll with the makeup to be armed, and top it up with new applicants. Set a new standard for hiring so that all new recruits are 'armable'. Offer a transfer to another area of CBSA for those not 'armable' and set a deadline for them to bring themselves up to the new standard (say, 2 years). Once that 2 years is up, you either meet the new standard, or you are reassigned.

[AFireinside13]

My solution: Hire a 'task force' for each border crossing. Staff it with those already on payroll with the makeup to be armed, and top it up with new applicants. Set a new standard for hiring so that all new recruits are 'armable'. Offer a transfer to another area of CBSA for those not 'armable' and set a deadline for them to bring themselves up to the new standard (say, 2 years). Once that 2 years is up, you either meet the new standard, or you are reassigned.

Caesar, So far, that is the most proactive theory i have heard to date. I am an inspector, and there is so much confusion with this topic that most officers think that it is just not going to happen. I personally am interested in how this is going to be handled, because what you do to one inspector, you have to do to the others. And i agree, those necessary competencies just don't exist in some of us, as far as know they do in myself, but i know others don't feel the same way in themselves. Anyways,

cheers

[zipperhead_cop]

There would likely be a pre screening process for the existing Inspectors to assess their ability to be in an armed conflict.  Probably even a simple survey of "who wants a gun, who doesn't" will need to come in.  Then take the willing and able and run them through a use of force course. 
Nobody knows how they will react to a fire fight until they are in one.  You might think that you are completely switched on, then freeze at a critical time.  And vice versa.  Same in the Army.  You may have a recruit that is the ultimate soldier, but once in theatre they go to pieces.  None of us know until we are tested.  That is not a valid reason for not arming the border, though. 
I agree that anyone being hired from here on in should be required to have a side arm and then through attrition, they will all end up armed in the end.

I still contend that it is not as simple as arming all Customs Officers. When hired, they were not hired for their physical ability to take down an assailant. More importantly, they were not hired for their psychological predisposition to using deadly force in the execution of thier duties. A lot, but not all, are more in line with the clerical staff at any random Fed Gov office (like a Tax clerk), and don't possess the necessary 'jam' to be able to be safely armed.

That will be enough of that.  Unless you are a mid level Customs recruiter and have personal knowledge of what the hiring criteria are, whether you mean to or not, you are being insulting.   There is nothing magical or heroic about using a tool to protect you or one of your comrades from a lethal threat.  It is a choice.  What needs to be assessed is how fast it will take an individual to make that choice.  I work with these guys and the few yentas that are still around that are there to grab taxes on the turkeys and cheese are on their way out.  From what I have seen at the three Customs facilities in Windsor, they are 95% switched on and highly motivated.  The other 5% probably (hopefully) won't be made to carry.

[dutchie]

There would likely be a pre screening process for the existing Inspectors to assess their ability to be in an armed conflict. 

First off, they are called 'Border Services Officers' (the old Customs Officer'). 'Customs Inspector' is a higher level position.

That will be enough of that.  Unless you are a mid level Customs recruiter and have personal knowledge of what the hiring criteria are, whether you mean to or not, you are being insulting.   

Actually, I am employed in the Fed Gov Service, and as such, am very much aware of how it works. The process is the same for all public service commission postings. There is a statement of qualifications, and the applicant is evaluated against those through written tests, interviews, practical tests, and reference checks. If you pass through the hoops, you make the eligibility list. New hires are taken from that. There is NO requirement for use of deadly force currently in Customs, and as such, having that as part of the Statement of Quals couldn't and doesn't happen. Ability or even willingness to use deadly force is NOT ASSESSED.

Nobody knows how they will react to a fire fight until they are in one. 

Well let's be clear, they will not be put in a fire fight to 'see how they react'. Were you put in one when you joined the CF?

There is nothing magical or heroic about using a tool to protect you or one of your comrades from a lethal threat. 

No one suggested it was. However, few people have the 'jam' to react to 'effective enemy fire' as the natural instinct is to duck and run. Assessing whether someone has the jam is critical to arming them.

I agree that anyone being hired from here on in should be required to have a side arm and then through attrition, they will all end up armed in the end.

Bad idea. Arm all BSO's in the booths, or none at all. Once they are armed, they will be treated by the bad guys as such. If you leave a BSO unarmed sitting in their booth, you put them in serious danger as the bad guy will assume they are armed. Essentially, they will bring a gun to what they believe is a gun fight, not realizing it is a fist fight.

I work with these guys and the few yentas that are still around that are there to grab taxes on the turkeys and cheese are on their way out. 

Well, good for you. A quick look around YVR, Pac Hwy Border crossing or Peace Arch will show you that the ones you know DO exist, but a good number are your run 'o the mill Civil Servant.

[WR]

First off, they are called 'Border Services Officers' (the old Customs Officer'). 'Customs Inspector' is a higher level position.

You are wrong, there is technically no one called a Customs Inspector, all Officers are known as BSO's

Actually, I am employed in the Fed Gov Service, and as such, am very much aware of how it works. The process is the same for all public service commission postings. There is a statement of qualifications, and the applicant is evaluated against those through written tests, interviews, practical tests, and reference checks. If you pass through the hoops, you make the eligibility list. New hires are taken from that. There is NO requirement for use of deadly force currently in Customs, and as such, having that as part of the Statement of Quals couldn't and doesn't happen. Ability or even willingness to use deadly force is NOT ASSESSED

The actual process may be the same, but on statement of qualifications the use of force is addressed and it is indicated that the potential applicant may have to use force in the execution of their duties. The hiring process interview is much differant than a "tax clerk", the interview is to determine the suitability of a Law Enforcement Officer with vast powers and responsibilities.  All present Officer's will have to be assessed and a decision would be made on their suitability to be armed, the job itself will not change, just the tools.

Bad idea. Arm all BSO's in the booths, or none at all. Once they are armed, they will be treated by the bad guys as such. If you leave a BSO unarmed sitting in their booth, you put them in serious danger as the bad guy will assume they are armed. Essentially, they will bring a gun to what they believe is a gun fight, not realizing it is a fist fight.

Presently there are several officer's who decided not to take use of force, officer's with medical conditions etc that do not have any defensive tools, they call for help from fellow officer's when the situation arises. Is it a perfect situation?? NO it is not, but what can you do with some officer's who have 20-30 yrs experience, fire them?? After July 2000 all officer's hired must pass the use of force training and maintain that ability.

Well, good for you. A quick look around YVR, Pac Hwy Border crossing or Peace Arch will show you that the ones you know DO exist, but a good number are your run 'o the mill Civil Servant

[/quote]

You seem to have a "hate on" for BSO's...why is that? I have worked and trained with several BSO's from the Pacific region and almost to the person they have been educated, professional and good officer's. I work at the Detroit/Windsor Tunnel and there the " run 'o the mill Civil Servant" deals regularly with the worst the city of Detroit can offer. There the "run 'o the mill Civil Servant" deals with hardcore gang members, murderers, terrorists and every day deviants. Are there Officer's that should not be working there, yes there are more than one, but the majority are professionals. Ask Blackhorse 7 or Zipperheadcop or any other other cop if they work with someone who does not deserve the job and should not have a gun, they exist everywhere

[Blackhorse7]

Ask Blackhorse 7 or Zipperheadcop or any other other cop if they work with someone who does not deserve the job and should not have a gun, they exist everywhere

No argument there...

[HDE]

It strikes me that while the idea of arming BSOs is may be a good idea, in theory, there are considerable issues to be addressed before it could be done.     

[zipperhead_cop]

Actually, I am employed in the Fed Gov Service, and as such, am very much aware of how it works. The process is the same for all public service commission postings. There is a statement of qualifications, and the applicant is evaluated against those through written tests, interviews, practical tests, and reference checks. If you pass through the hoops, you make the eligibility list. New hires are taken from that. There is NO requirement for use of deadly force currently in Customs, and as such, having that as part of the Statement of Quals couldn't and doesn't happen. Ability or even willingness to use deadly force is NOT ASSESSED.

Okay, there Capt. Vague.  Are you talking about being a Reservist, or do you actually work for a branch of the Federal Government?  They kind of have a lot of branches, you know.  Being a quality inspector for bovine semen purity with the Ministry of Agriculture under the Animal Pedigree Act could be quite an adventure, but would hardly qualify one as a Customs expert.
Looks like from WR's post you actually don't know how it works.  If you look into the use of force continuum that we use, Deadly Force is just one zone at the end of it.  It is a force option, which you train for and simply make a decision to use when put in a particular circumstance.  Ability is just a training issue.  Willingness is another issue, and as said they don't force the older CBSA members to use PPT equipment if they are not comfortable with it. 

Well let's be clear, they will not be put in a fire fight to 'see how they react'. Were you put in one when you joined the CF?

Yeah, back then I think we called it "training" and we used these things they called "blanks".

No one suggested it was. However, few people have the 'jam' to react to 'effective enemy fire' as the natural instinct is to duck and run. Assessing whether someone has the jam is critical to arming them.

Police fire fights generally take place within 3 meters.  There isn't really time to get scared, just react.  We can only hope that we react quickly enough to stop the bad guy.  I don't think that is quite the same thing as someone in the middle of a sustained battle with arty and rounds zipping all around being told to go forward.  Then, you have a lot of time to think about getting waxed, and the soldiers that go when they are told to have bigger stones than most of us. 
I agree with WR that you seem to have a bit of a hard on against the CBSA.  Why is that?  What would you rather see, them with their asses in the wind getting shot at with no ability to return fire?  Maybe a bunch of them die when they send down a cold hit suspicious car and some desperado jumps out and starts shooting?  Of course there will be issues with training and aptitude.  They will deal with it. 
Would anyone say that the London Metropolitan Police (Britain) should not be allowed to carry guns because most of them don't right now?
Things change, and our country is getting more dangerous by the hour.  Lets give them the tools they need to go home to their families at the end of their shifts, instead of just crossing our fingers and saying "it won't happen here".

[HDE]

Why does the London Metropolitan Police choose not to arm all of their constables?  Just curious!

[zipperhead_cop]

Maybe we need to special request Big Bad John pop in for that one.

[big bad john (John Hill)]

Why does the London Metropolitan Police choose not to arm all of their constables?  Just curious!

We do not believe in the basic premise of arming all police.  It is a fundamental difference in philosophies.  That is why you can hear the police cry, " stop, Police!", and the criminal  usually runs faster.  But when the cry is "Stop, Armed Police!", they usually stop.  It is changing.  We still have the image of the unarmed Constable in our minds.

[TCBF]

You mean the cop has to actually say "Stop, ARMED police"?

What if he says that, and the puke stops, only then they both realize the cop is not in fact armed.  Does the cop have to let the puke walk?

 

Tom

[big bad john (John Hill)]

You mean the cop has to actually say "Stop, ARMED police"?

What if he says that, and the puke stops, only then they both realize the cop is not in fact armed.  Does the cop have to let the puke walk?

 

Tom

The law is quite clear.  It would not be useful to cry wolf.  But they must identify themselves and the fact that they are armed.