I actually agree with the cons on this one:

[tracy]

This is absolutely embarassing.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/24/borderguards060124.html

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.

 

[JomZ]

Well they are not armed. So, what are they going to do, use harsh language.

They shouldn't have walked off the job, but got out of the site.

 

[Hank C]

They had every right to walk off the job, I know if I was in that situation I would of done the same. Hopefully Mr Harper will be able to act quickly to arms our border guards......honestly what where the fiberals thinking?

 

[JomZ]

Hank C,

Although I see the rational for the argument for armed border patrol guards. It seems too me that it will also create more problems.

What if these guards were armed, then what would have happened in this scenario. More likely then not, those two men would be dead or wounded more seriously and there would be a huge fiasco of two american fugitives being killed by Canadian guards.

 

[FiveParadox]

Crossborder Injuries

I would agree with your assertion, JomZ.

We must take particular care to ensure that the relationship between the United States and Canada remains healthy, notwithstanding the somewhat "frigid" relations between the two at the moment; this may change under the leadership of the Honourable Stephen Harper, but only time will tell.

 

[JomZ]

I am more worried about jurisdictional matters as well.

Do our guards have the right to kill suspects being pursued by American Law Enforcement Officers in order to stop them from entering the country.
Do they have the responsibility to aid police in the apprehension of criminals. Are they trained to do that.

What if the roles were reversed (Hypothetically)? Could American border guards do the same, what would be the fall out.

 

[the caracal kid]

i agree with you JomZ,

We don't need to create more problems by arming the customs officials.

 

[Hank C]

Once the two men cross onto Canadian soil and are a threat to Canadian Border Guards or Candaian citizens I would give them the ability to use deadly force. This would not cause a huge "fiasco" and America would understand and respect our ability to use deadly force for our own protection......as they also do not hesitate to protect themselves. Anyhow I would expect for the Tory government to arm our border guards ASAP......the NDP has also supported this concept.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: I actually agree with the cons on this one:

Hank C,

Although I see the rational for the argument for armed border patrol guards. It seems too me that it will also create more problems.

What if these guards were armed, then what would have happened in this scenario. More likely then not, those two men would be dead or wounded more seriously and there would be a huge fiasco of two american fugitives being killed by Canadian guards.

I don't see your point.

Two dead (or wounded bad guys......good.

You think the Americans are going to complain about Canadian peace officers shooting in self-defense?

Have you met any Americans?

Seriously, this is a disgrace. Its bad enough we've been under the US defense umbrella without holding up our end for thirty years.......now they are defending our borders against criminals while our officials run away?

I am ashamed.

 

[Hank C]

Re: RE: I actually agree with the cons on this one:

[
I don't see your point.

Two dead (or wounded bad guys......good.

You think the Americans are going to complain about Canadian peace officers shooting in self-defense?

Have you met any Americans?

Seriously, this is a disgrace. Its bad enough we've been under the US defense umbrella without holding up our end for thirty years.......now they are defending our borders against criminals while our officials run away?

I am ashamed.

:lol: .... I mean c'mon our officials run away!!! :lol:

I too am ashamed of things like this which make us seem like "weaklings"...though Mr Harper should put and end to this.

 

[Hank C]

Re: Crossborder Injuries

IWe must take particular care to ensure that the relationship between the United States and Canada remains healthy, notwithstanding the somewhat "frigid" relations between the two at the moment

You dont seriously believe that arming our border officials is going to harm our realtionship with the United States do you? :lol:

 

[I think not]

Perhaps the border guards weren't armed as symbolic because of the "Peace Arch"? :idea: This would make more sense to me.

 

[Triple_R]

Actually wanting police officers, border guards, etc... to NOT be armed is stupid in the exteme, with all due respect. These are the people who we count on to protect us from the most dangerous elements of society (be it domestic, or in this case, foreign) - and how the heck are they suppossed to do that when the other side has superior weaponry?

There's being a bleeding heart liberal, and then there's just being flat-out stupid and/or silly. Obviously our border guard, police officers, etc... should be armed. We already place great trust in these people by virtue of the highly important positions that they fill. We trust them to do that much, but we don't trust them to properly handle a firearm?

GET REAL...

 

[missile]

I'd like to meet the union negotiator who did that contract. Imagine a deal where you can legally run away from any danger..and you are supposed to be a part of law enforcement? My two cents on the topic is that these people are just cowardly dogs.

 

[Jay]

Perhaps the border guards weren't armed as symbolic because of the "Peace Arch"? :idea: This would make more sense to me.

Thanks for the sentiment, ITN.

 

[I think not]

Perhaps the border guards weren't armed as symbolic because of the "Peace Arch"? :idea: This would make more sense to me.

Thanks for the sentiment, ITN.

Anytime Jay

 

[TenPenny]

I'd like to meet the union negotiator who did that contract. Imagine a deal where you can legally run away from any danger..and you are supposed to be a part of law enforcement? My two cents on the topic is that these people are just cowardly dogs.

It's not a union rule; it's the law.

 

[Colpy]

I'd like to meet the union negotiator who did that contract. Imagine a deal where you can legally run away from any danger..and you are supposed to be a part of law enforcement? My two cents on the topic is that these people are just cowardly dogs.

This has nothing to do with labour contracts......it is part of labour law in every province.

A worker has the right to refuse to do any task he/she considers dangerous.

Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, the result is that if someone is hurt or killed on the job the company has the out......"well he should have refused it!"

The onus for job safety should be on the employer......and the labourer should retain the right to refuse.

Edited to say:

Like Tenpenny says......only longer

 

[Jay]

What about police forces? If a call comes through that sounds dangerous should the police just not show up?

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: I actually agree with the cons on this one:

What about police forces? If a call comes through that sounds dangerous should the police just not show up?

Technically, they could refuse, I suppose.