Shots Fired On Parliament Hill

[Argus]

Speaking of "wimps", you do know, of course, that Steven Harper hid in a Parliament Hill cubbyhole.

In every game of chess, the king stays in the rear because he's the object of the game. Even if you don't like Harper you should ... well not you ,but regular people wouldn't want terrorists to be able to trumpet the kind of victory shooting our prime minister would give them

[Argus]

Don't you find it odd that Mr Tough Guy was hiding in a cubbyhole, jbg? Do you consider this to be churchillian?

I noticed you forgot to answer his question.

[Argus]

The leader of the Canadian military is Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, represented by Governor General David Johnston.

She has a wonderful hat collection too.

Who's the leader of YOUR military again? Oh right, a guy who despises, loathes and hates the military and everything about it. Good job!

[Argus]

But what were they thinking!

That caused its own set of problems as some showed up in street clothes and others donned balaclava-style masks -- causing concerned members of the public to report sightings of armed, masked men around the city. Those reports led to unnecessary investigations which further confused and taxed authorities.

Things got quite a bit more confused when off duty cops showed up dressed up as terrorists.

I think there ought to be a law that says anyone wearing a balaclava and holding a gun should be imprisoned for not less than one year, whether he or she is a cop or not.

[Argus]

There is no proof that OBL was responsible for 9-11.

You think the Jews did it, don't you?

[Argus]

There is, however, incontrovertible proof that explosives were used in WTC 1, 2 & 7.

Incontrovertible suggests more than a circle of wack job conspiracy theorists believes in your... er, conspiracy theory.

And that's just not the case.

[Argus]

I'd go a lot farther and say the weight of a vast VAST majority of scientists and scientific institutions, not posters - in some cases even the weight of that isn't enough to convince.

The weight of the vast, VAST majority of scientists and institutions say exactly the opposite of his 'incontrovertible' beliefs.

[eyeball]

I doubt these even give it more than a few seconds thought before shaking their heads in utter disbelief.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm not sure about all of that, but I think the reason they don't release the video to the public is that it would unduly traumatize the gunman's family who are innocent in all of this.

I read somewhere that portions of the video had been edited because they were investigating whether or not someone had aided the shooter.

[PIK]

Cpl Cirillo was shot 3 times. It seems when he was trying to crawl he shot him a again and then a 3rd when he was just lying there.Radio report.

[Big Guy]

Now more and more details are coming out about the shooting. The original statement indicated that Mr. Vickers snuck up on the shooter, dove across in front of him and fired twice to kill him. Vickers was consequently honored and appointed as ambassador to Ireland.

Now it appears that the killer of the guard was shot at least 31 times. There is speculation that if the killer was on drugs that it would have required many shots to disable him. But him being on drugs causes other questions to be asked.

I have been criticized here by other posters who appear prepared to believe anything that they are told by our government. I am not and the story continues to change. There is video that would show EXACTLY was transpired. There is only one reason that I can think of why the authorities refuse to release that video - that is because it may not reflect what we have been told and embarrass those involved.

I am not claiming that this killer was not a murderer or that there were not heroic acts performed during this crisis but if there is irrefutable information (a video) available of what happened then why not release it?

[cybercoma]

There is video that would show EXACTLY was transpired. There is only one reason that I can think of why the authorities refuse to release that video - that is because it may not reflect what we have been told and embarrass those involved.

Or that they don't want to publish video of someone being riddled with bullets when there's a good chance that his family, who is innocent in all of this, will have to witness the death of their child, brother, nephew, cousin, grandson, over and over again in the media. There's absolutely no reason to release the video, other than to satiate the blood lust of radical extremists. Who cares if he was shot 3 times or 31 times? Let the courts deal with it. This doesn't need to be a public matter for everyone to scrutinize at the expense of the deceased's family.

[PIK]

Great post Cy.

[Big Guy]

Ok cybercoma - you do not want to see it but I do. I assume that you are not in favor of governments deciding what people are allowed to see. I would never dream of forcing you to watch it.

As to who watches what, media tends to censor vivid body damage. Release the video to YouTube and allow access to those who wish to see it. As to the gore and blood lust - how many times have you watched the Zapruder film? Watching Kennedy's brain protrude through the right side of his head is not pretty but there is no question as to what happened. Is this film watched only by those (estimated multi-millions) who wish to satisfy the blood lust of radical extremists? This incident has been used to push the current government agenda on terrorism. I want to see exactly hat happened.

You obviously do not want to know but why do you assume that others should think the same way as you do?

I submit that this is not the last time that this issue is back in the news. Eventually this video will surface and then perhaps the truth will be revealed.

[cybercoma]

It's not that I don't want to know. It's that I don't think it's appropriate to release the video of someone's last moments unless the family consents to it. It's a private matter. I'm quite fine reading court transcripts or publicly scrutinizing the investigation notes and documentation. The video itself, I do not need to see, since I think the benefit of shielding the family from that far outweighs satiating your curiosity over something that's trivial by comparison.

Edited June 5, 2015 by cybercoma

[On Guard for Thee]

Ok cybercoma - you do not want to see it but I do. I assume that you are not in favor of governments deciding what people are allowed to see. I would never dream of forcing you to watch it.

As to who watches what, media tends to censor vivid body damage. Release the video to YouTube and allow access to those who wish to see it. As to the gore and blood lust - how many times have you watched the Zapruder film? Watching Kennedy's brain protrude through the right side of his head is not pretty but there is no question as to what happened. Is this film watched only by those (estimated multi-millions) who wish to satisfy the blood lust of radical extremists? This incident has been used to push the current government agenda on terrorism. I want to see exactly hat happened.

You obviously do not want to know but why do you assume that others should think the same way as you do?

I submit that this is not the last time that this issue is back in the news. Eventually this video will surface and then perhaps the truth will be revealed.

It's not that I don't want to know. It's that I don't think it's appropriate to release the video of someone's last moments unless the family consents to it. It's a private matter. I'm quite fine reading court transcripts or publicly scrutinizing the investigation notes and documentation. The video itself, I do not need to see, since I think the benefit of shielding the family from that far outweighs satiating your curiosity over something that's trivial by comparison.

Exactly. There is ample evidence on record of what he did including hijacking a car at gunpoint, his own video made in the car, ad the various cctv shots of people running and ducking for cover as he ran to the building, and shooting a guard on the way in who tried to wrestle the gun away from him. When you do that kind of thing you can likely expect to get shot. How many times, who cares.

[Big Guy]

I care.

[Big Guy]

More information trickles out - A couple of days ago the RCMP reported that the first time they heard that there was something going on was a garbled message from a female RCMP constable who was involved in a "scuffle" with some anonymous lady pushing a stroller.

Two days ago, the lady with the stroller contacted the CBC with her story. She was not interviewed or contacted by the RCMP. Her story was that she was pushing her 9 month old along the street. She heard some shots and saw the guard Corporal Nathan Cirillo go down. She quickly (still pushing the stroller) made her way to the parliament buildings assuming that it would safer there. She stopped at a police car with a female officer in there. She declared that a shooting had taken place and asked the officer if she could get into the police car for safety. The officer used her radio to alert others and opened the car door for the lady and her child.

Just then, Michael drove by in the commandeered black limousine and the officer took off after him leaving the passenger door ajar and the lady and child still on the sidewalk. The lady put the child back into the stroller and took off looking for shelter. She has still not been interviewed by the RCMP.

By the way, the video confirms the lady's story. I am glad that video was released so the facts could be verified.

[cybercoma]

More information trickles out - A couple of days ago the RCMP reported that the first time they heard that there was something going on was a garbled message from a female RCMP constable who was involved in a "scuffle" with some anonymous lady pushing a stroller.

Two days ago, the lady with the stroller contacted the CBC with her story. She was not interviewed or contacted by the RCMP. Her story was that she was pushing her 9 month old along the street. She heard some shots and saw the guard Corporal Nathan Cirillo go down. She quickly (still pushing the stroller) made her way to the parliament buildings assuming that it would safer there. She stopped at a police car with a female officer in there. She declared that a shooting had taken place and asked the officer if she could get into the police car for safety. The officer used her radio to alert others and opened the car door for the lady and her child.

Just then, Michael drove by in the commandeered black limousine and the officer took off after him leaving the passenger door ajar and the lady and child still on the sidewalk. The lady put the child back into the stroller and took off looking for shelter. She has still not been interviewed by the RCMP.

By the way, the video confirms the lady's story. I am glad that video was released so the facts could be verified.

Why exactly would they interview her? To see if Cirillo was actually murdered?

[Argus]

The only points of interest for me in the revelations this week concern the appalling lack of security preparations on the Hill. The fact there were three forces which were on different radio frequencies was bad enough. Evidently, though, the mounties on the Hill were just mounties. Ie, none had been given any sort of special training to cope with a possible attack. The cameras were poor quality and lack of manning meant they weren't being properly monitored. The mounties even hesitated to follow the gunman inside since the procedures said mounties only took care of security outside. One mountie couldn't use her radio properly, while another was busy reading a report as the gunman zipped through the gate.

Security and police work are NOT the same thing. You don't just stick a cop somewhere and expect him to act or think like a security professional without any additional training. And you have contingency plans for any likely attack with response procedures worked out and practiced repeatedly well in advance. You also have red teams which do their best to think up ways to get around security so that when holes are discovered they are closed.

None of which was done by the mounties on Parliament Hill. The results were that one clown with a low end rifle was able to get within range of the Prime Minister and the Official Opposition leader! Now imagine if it had been an organized pair with automatic weapons like those who hit Charlie Hebdo. The results would have been far, far worse.

[Big Guy]

To cybercoma - I am surprised by your question. The RCMP, Hill security and 3 other security agencies are trying to figure out what went wrong and how to change that. One of the reasons that the RCMP claim a slow response is because the initial reporting officer was involved in a "scuffle" with somebody. A witness is available who saw a murder, can explain the "scuffle", gave the initial warning to the security agencies and was implicated by the RCMP in the "tardiness" of response. She was also one of the very few people to see the killer while he was alive.

I am not an experienced investigator but I sure as heck would want to hear what she had to say as to what she SAW that happened. Wouldn't you?

[Big Guy]

Little by little more information "trickles out" on what actually happened during the shooting.

"Sources told CTV’s Parliamentary Bureau Chief Robert Fife the four officers were told two days after the shooting that “the Kevin Vickers train has left the station but you guys will get internal recognition,” including a commissioner’s commendation and recommendation for a Governor General’s Award." They have been ignored.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mounties-who-helped-end-parliament-hill-attack-still-not-recognized-1.2608529

It has been one year. There have been a few different versions of what happened.

There is still a videotape of exactly what happened. But those in charge and a few others on this board feel that it is nobody business of what actually happened when a two people were killed in our Parliament buildings.

What other secret disclosures are needed before somebody decides that maybe the Canadian public is entitled to find out what happened in their Parliament?

[nerve]

The only points of interest for me in the revelations this week concern the appalling lack of security preparations on the Hill. The fact there were three forces which were on different radio frequencies was bad enough. Evidently, though, the mounties on the Hill were just mounties. Ie, none had been given any sort of special training to cope with a possible attack. The cameras were poor quality and lack of manning meant they weren't being properly monitored. The mounties even hesitated to follow the gunman inside since the procedures said mounties only took care of security outside. One mountie couldn't use her radio properly, while another was busy reading a report as the gunman zipped through the gate.

Security and police work are NOT the same thing. You don't just stick a cop somewhere and expect him to act or think like a security professional without any additional training. And you have contingency plans for any likely attack with response procedures worked out and practiced repeatedly well in advance. You also have red teams which do their best to think up ways to get around security so that when holes are discovered they are closed.

None of which was done by the mounties on Parliament Hill. The results were that one clown with a low end rifle was able to get within range of the Prime Minister and the Official Opposition leader! Now imagine if it had been an organized pair with automatic weapons like those who hit Charlie Hebdo. The results would have been far, far worse.

There were preparations. There is more security there than military bases in Canada and police stations. Arguably court houses now have more security but still what do you expect a sniper in the clock tower (peace tower) picking off people who don't look like they belong? Really?

What you can do however is have secure meeting rooms that aren't next to the entrance of a public building, or not have caucus meetings in parliament at all and leave it to government business, and the meeting of the legislature. They do way too many things in the parliament buildings. Party business should be moved out of Parliament. It is free office space for the parties. It really shouldn't used that way. Having a road there is the big issue, take for example a model of outer perimeter such as used as Osgoode Hall in Toronto, they have a fenced perimeter at the front of the building (not back though) that could be used as a security checkpoint. Having the first security checkpoint IN parliament is just bad security planning. Sure there are cops on the hill but it is a public space, it would make more sense to have security screen at a perimeter.

It wasn't "bad" security per se, as they were able to deal with an active shooter with limited casualties. Someone with a rifle has a very large range of impact, even from off the hill. It is "surprising" there were so few casualties, without militarizing parliaments perimeter. putting up bunkers/sandbags and having the armed people in full body armor. It would be extreme. It would be a little alien to militarize the parliament building, then you need to worry about a military coupe.

It makes more sense just to give high profile targets CCW and tell them to learn how to use them, and for them to wear concealed body armor.

The best security is personal security.

BIG GUY - the issue with releasing the event footage is likely that it exposes security staff as well as security tactics and positions which may still be in place. It is very surprising that so many cops were able to spring into action in such short of time, we are talking like a whole lot of cops within minutes inside the building in the lobby area. that is VERY FAST reaction time.

Edited October 23, 2015 by nerve

[jbg]

There were preparations. There is more security there than military bases in Canada and police stations. Arguably court houses now have more security but still what do you expect a sniper in the clock tower (peace tower) picking off people who don't look like they belong? Really?

What you can do however is have secure meeting rooms that aren't next to the entrance of a public building, or not have caucus meetings in parliament at all and leave it to government business, and the meeting of the legislature. They do way too many things in the parliament buildings. Party business should be moved out of Parliament. It is free office space for the parties. It really shouldn't used that way. Having a road there is the big issue, take for example a model of outer perimeter such as used as Osgoode Hall in Toronto, they have a fenced perimeter at the front of the building (not back though) that could be used as a security checkpoint. Having the first security checkpoint IN parliament is just bad security planning. Sure there are cops on the hill but it is a public space, it would make more sense to have security screen at a perimeter.

I think that most "security" measures are theater. It's one thing to protect the person of a Prime Minister, Governor General, Queen or President. Protecting places on a large scale is largely impossible. In the U.S. the TSA is a joke.

[Argus]

I think that most "security" measures are theater. It's one thing to protect the person of a Prime Minister, Governor General, Queen or President. Protecting places on a large scale is largely impossible. In the U.S. the TSA is a joke.

Depends on how large. It's easy enough to protect a building like the Center Block or the Capital Building. It's a little harder but still doable to protect a large area like Parliament hill or Capital hill. Beyond that you can ensure that if anyone starts anything it will be finished very quickly. The Times Square district of New York, for example, is heavily patrolled by uniformed and plainclothes police and there are a lot of CCTVs there. Likewise downtown Ottawa.