Question about ceremonial military guards

This question came up because of the recent incident with Kevin Vickers but I didn’t want to go off on a tangent in that thread. If you watch the footage of the incident you can see Vickers and the protester moving past several uniformed members of the armed forces who were present in ceremonial roles and who stayed in their original positions.

How far does that go? If you’re a member of the armed forces in a ceremonial post at what point in an emergency do you step out of the ceremonial role and respond to the emergency? Are there orders covering this?

I performed these duties from 2004-2010 in the US military and it was almost exclusive to funerals but there were some memorial ceremonies. The two were treated the same. While in this role, our presence is more symbolic than anything else. We were trained to stand without moving, shifting, flinching, or even looking around under any and all circumstances. This is a very hard thing to learn even in the best conditions, but it also had to be performed in all rain, heat, snow, bug bites, dogs pissing on your legs, snakes crawling between you feet, etc… The only movement allowed is if your life or health are threatened. You could move for bees if you were allergic. If not you suffered until it was over. This is the mentality of the soldier that’s out there. These soldiers will not, or should not, move unless they or the object they are there to guard are threatened. There were a few funerals I was at that had heated incidents among family. One in particular occurred while I was standing next to the casket. It was a shouting match that turned in to a fist fight and was eventually broken up by other family members. The fracas came within a foot or two from me and I was prepared to either defend myself or the casket and nothing else by deflecting the brawl into another direction. I never moved and remained stoic and expressionless the entire time. I was commended by the next of kin after the service.

In this video, no one was threatened. It was just a guy being an asshole.

Although you can certainly see members of the Life Guards, at Admiralty Gate, responding vigorously to attempts by louts to interfere with them or their horses.

CG2305, thank you for your service.

But you did have an ambassador scuffling with the asshole. Suppose the ambassador had ended up getting injured. You don’t think that would have reflected poorly on the soldiers who stood by and didn’t intervene?

Not if they had the same orders as CG2305.

If anyone was to blame, the first in line would be those charged with keeping order at the event - i.e. not the ceremonial guard, but the police. (And later on the video, you do see the police dealing with the guy.)

Why didn’t the police get to him first? It’s not possible to say from the video. Maybe the incident happened very near Vickers, and he intervened immediately, before any of the police officers got there. Maybe he intervened at an earlier point that the police would think necessary - shouting in objection to a public ceremony may be arseholish behaviour, but it’s not necessarily criminal, or it may not be an offence which the police judge to require immediate physical intervention.

If Vickers had been hurt (and if he weren’t an ambassador) the point would probably be made that it was he who chose to turn a peaceful protest into a physical confrontation, and that might not have been all that wise.

Occasionally, there is a minor disturbance at theTomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery. When the crowd is too loud or a spectator crosses the line, a tomb guard might interrupt his usual routine and confront - as well as yell at - the perpetrator.
*Changing of the Guard:Man Crosses rail gets yelled at! *

T*omb Guard Yelling at Loud Spectators *

*GUARD YELLS AT KID FOR CROSSING THE RAIL AT TOMB OF THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER 2014 [HD] *

I’m speculating here. But normally at a ceremony like this, people like the guests and honor guard are at the center of the ceremony and the police and security are out at the perimeter. So if the protester had waited until he got close to the center before starting his disruption, Vickers would have been closer to him than the police were.

From newspaper reports, the protestor was seated in the invited guests section - he was in fact one of the invited guests - and rose to make his protest while a speech was being given. Security at these events is, I agree, mostly perimeter security. As an invited guest, he’d have had no difficulty getting through the perimeter security.

In this case, the “usual routine” includes yelling at spectators, if necessary.
And even the yelling is done with a rigid ceremonial protocol, performed identically each time.
For polite spectators, it is all that is necessary.

But I’ve always wondered what would happen in a real emergency situation. Suppose a crazy ex-Vietnam vet,who is now an alcholic homeless guy, tries to attack the guard; or a radical protestor tries to dump a bucket of paint on the tomb.
What would happen?

Yes, absolutely. The tomb guards know exactly what to do and what to say in this situation, they must have practiced this.

That is the part I don’t understand: I visited the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier many years ago and I distinctly recall that there was a (civilian) security guard on-site whose job it was (I guess) to have a watchful eye on the visitors. This was in 2002 though, almost exactly one year after 9/11, so there may have been special security concerns.

In most western countries there are legal and moral prohibitions against using the military for law enforcement and, most especially, against protestors. The video indicates that there was no shortage of policemen on site. They most likely just saw two men grabbing each other’s coats and figured it was better to let the cops deal with it.

In the US, a soldier’s authority to intervene in such situations is extremely limited. A Guard at the Tomb of the Unknown or the gate of a military installation specifically has the authority to protect and enforce order at that site. However, if a soldier was at a funeral or some other public event, his power and authority would be identical to any other private citizen. And, let’s face it, for a soldier to beat up a protestor (even one who is being an asshole) just looks bad.

Because the invader had done nothing wrong, Vickers could be charged with assault or some form of false arrest.
Police have the power to issue an instruction, that must be obeyed… That may be issued while the police officer is standing in the way …perhaps as physical communication. Also the police officer walking along is doing his job, and stopping him doing that can be “interfer with officer doing his job”.

anyway Vickers has assaulted the man as Vickers had no authority to interfere.

Only with the permission of the Canadian government, which I suspect will not be given or requested. I suppose the Irish government could expel him, but that would be a political decision, not a legal decision (and also not something I suspect will happen or even be considered).

Yup. On the one hand this is an assault, but a pretty minor one - Vickers grabbed the guys coat and dragged him away from the ceremony. Plus Vickers might reasonably say that in the context he feared more than just a verbal protest, and this should seen as be a mitigating factor.

Plus, as Lord Feldon points out, Vickers has diplomatic immunity. There is no way that the Irish government will request the Canadians to waive this. The less said about this the better, as far as they Irish authorities are concerned. They will be embarrassed that they issued an invitation to someone disposed to make a disruptive protest.

None of the reports suggest that the protester has made a complaint against Vickers. He’s probably quite pleased with the way things turned out. Because of Vicker’s actions, his protest has had far more international attention than he might have expected.