All I got is to maybe protect the crowd from some nut/terrorist who wants to shoot up what can be quite a few people watching the ceremony. Their senior NCO and/or the Park Police, or whoever polices that area, can take care of that.
Different job than other ceremonial guards—Buckingham Palace, Swiss Guards, etc—as you wrote, there’s nothing there that a bad guy can realistically harm that requires a deadly force response.
Thanks for the detailed post.
Exactly. And there are generally quite a few VIPs in quick succession doing the wreath-laying ceremonies. It’s a popular and highly symbolic site. Just the sort of thing that terrorists love to hit.
There are also generally park police around because folks like to try and protest there. It’s not allowed, but they do try. There is always some group of idiotswho think the best way to promote peace is to interrupt the funeral of some soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice.
Wow.
I am told on this board that a good guy with a gun is the solution to so many criminal problems. Are you telling me guns are useless/unneeded in most cases?
I’m not sure how you could honestly interpret my response as saying this. Perhaps you should start a GD thread?
What I said was that a firearm is not the defining characteristic of a “guard” and that there are plenty of places and things successfully guarded by unarmed guards. My statement was in a response to your idea that they’re not being guards because they’re not armed. You said, “why not have them be actual guards”? My response was that the absence of a loaded weapon does not mean they aren’t actually guards. The vast majority of military guard duty is done unarmed.
I think the unarmed security guard at the front desk of an office building or driving the car around a Wal-Mart parking lot is still a guard despite the fact that they don’t have loaded firearms.
When and where a “good guy with a gun” is needed is irrelevant to my point that an unarmed guard is still a guard.
Is it really difficult to believe these guys aren’t carrying loaded weapons? The Marines standing in front of the White House entrance are not armed either! They don’t even have empty weapons. They have nothing. At least the Tomb Guards have bayonets.
So you are telling us guards do not need weapons.
I will be quoting this forever in future threads. Thanks!
This is silly.
If it is an application-only duty, then by definition it is sought-after. We don’t know exactly how sought-after it is… how many apply? What is the rejection rate? I have no idea. But as a matter of simple logic, given that the duty is volunteer-only, and that the duty is performed 24x7, it is logically incontestible to say that it is a sought-after position.
It depends on the nature of the guard duty. I have stood guard duty both with and without a loaded weapon, as the situation dictated. Sometimes the job is to stand behind a locked gate, look scary, say “you can’t come in here”, and report the attempted intrusion.
I cannot prevent you from trying to die on this stupid hill, but I would advise against it.
I really don’t understand what point you think you’re making, but it doesn’t seem like this has anything to do with the topic of this thread anymore. Did we have a previous argument about gun control or something? Have I ever made the claim that guards do need weapons? Do you think you’ve discovered a clever gotcha? What is your point? Better yet, what is your problem?
Moderator Note
Drop the political commentary. No warning issued, but stick to the topic.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I also wondered about the commands to remain silent and/or standing during the ceremony. Putting aside political protests, what if a tourist has a health issue or a recent surgery that makes standing impractical?
I am sure that in these videos where the guard demands that a person stand, it is probably some kid or a clueless tourist that once rebuked probably hops to his or her feet like a rocket was just fired out of his ass, but what happens if a person does not stand either because of choice or inability? Does the guard continue to yell? Does someone else come down and see why the person isn’t standing? If it is a simple refusal to stand, is the person ejected from the area?
I know nothing about military career paths, but as a civilian, if I were hiring for certain types of jobs, knowing that somebody was capable of and willing to maintain that level of detail and decorum would be a hell of a mark in their favor.
Wouldn’t there be park police stationed nearby as a matter of course? This is just based on my experience in NYC, but I see cops keeping watch in various places all the time, especially in places where crowds gather. Maybe I’m wrong, but it would seem obvious to have some park police monitoring the whole scene while the guard guards the actual tomb.
In other words, I’m doubting they’d actually have to make that phone call to alert the park police. It’s hard to imagine that the guy with the perfect uniform is the only security at such a popular tourist destination.
If you watch the video posted upthread where the guard racks the bolt, it seems that after the guard has returned to pacing, the tourist still has not complied. You hear a female voice (that doesn’t sound military to me) seemingly over a loud speaker instructing the tourist to “go down the stairs” and behind the rail.
It seems logical that: 1) there is observation going on apart from the guard, 2) that the guard disengages once his initial steps to enforce compliance are unsuccessful, and 3) that the next step would be the lady on the loudspeaker alerting the police to come and deal with the recalcitrant or confused tourist.
I am suggesting that for a circumstance where a gun would be needed it makes sense that the tomb guard has one on his person (including bullets). He is (or easily could be) trained in appropriate times to use it. He certainly knows how to use it being in the military.
The alternative is him running to a phone, making a call, explaining the situation and then waiting for someone to arrive.
Why not just have him do it? He’s a great choice for that job.
Vesicant above suggests they actually do have sidearms. If so then they are being used as actual guards.
I should have posted this in the OP but the tomb guards doing their thing reminds me of the Monty Python skit, Marching Up and Down the Square.
Doubtless there is other security around the place. I doubt they have only one person, who marches in one place, be the only security around.
The issue is response time. If a guard needs to call for help it will take time for help to arrive. No matter how fast they are a bad guy can do a lot of damage. Better to have the tomb guard be able to respond too. He’s trained to hyper levels of perfection…he seems perfect for the job and you really do not have to do much extra to get another actual guard (as opposed to honor guard) in the area.
Why don’t we use soldiers to police the streets and have police officers fight in wars? Because they exercise two different functions even if they are both familiar with how to use firearms.
The tomb guard is already there. Let him be an actual guard.
The military are not on city street corners looking spiffy.
I don’t have any further expertise about whether or not the guards are actually armed, but I can say this:
A few years ago, my wife and I visited the Tomb of the Unknowns. A Marine was the Sergeant of the Guard. This guy was the largest man I have ever seen in my life. He was a mountain of a human being. I cannot imagine his needing a gun to enforce any directive he chose to issue.
If the purpose was to be an actual guard, you wouldn’t have him pacing back and forth. You wouldn’t have him carrying a rifle. You wouldn’t have him being so stiff and formal.
You would have him sitting in a chair, with a taser and a pair of handcuffs.
IOW, for the purpose of having a ceremonial guard, they have largely taken away his ability to be an actual guard.
My point is, since he is already there pacing back and forth, why not make him a real guard?
Do you have a reason why not to do that?