A New Approach to Active Shooter Response

We have been facing a pandemic.  Not only are the incidents of "Active Shooter" been growing in frequency and in the toll these events claim, but just as disturbing are the many tactical response options we train our first responders in.  From the FBI's ALERT program, to various other schools that teach anything from a team response to a single (first responder) officer entry, all programs state they are the best and most suitable to address this tragic events.

I, for one, believe that all of these approaches are not only ill-perceived, but down right dangerous and counter productive.  Anyone within the security industry should be able to relate as well.  When developing a security protocol for a dignitary, an event, or a location we do not approach it with the mindset of what we will do when things go bad, but rather we think in terms of avoiding and mitigating possible threats to begin with.  In other words, we are proactive in our approach rather than reactive.  As we very well should be.  So why is this different when discussing Active Shooter response?

Security experts often times refer to the Four D's.  These stand for: Deter, Detect, Defend, and Destroy.  Active Shooter response as we address it today concentrates around the Destroying, essentially being reactive, with no real regard to the proactive measures of deterrence, detection, and defense.

There is no doubt that training our police officers to response swiftly and effectively to these mass casualty events is paramount.  But I believe that efforts should be given to mitigate many of these events before they happen.

Perhaps investing funds in establishing relationships between schools/workplaces/industries and local law-enforcement in terms of sharing intelligence would be more beneficial.  Maybe, teaching security elements within these establishments to recognize suspicious behavior prior to an incident taking place could in fact expedite response and prevent the event altogether.  If we created safer and tighter security rings, meaning more effective security measures around our protected assets (most valuable of all our children's lives), we could mitigate the malicious actions of a potential ill-doer.

Lastly, the way we train those would be victims must change.  Shelter in place and barricade policies have proven to do little more than concentrate potential targets in one location, making toll of life much higher than it should be.  A better approach that has been implemented successfully by various organizations we work with is to teach these would be victims to fight back!  Nobel idea, isn't it?  And valuable because it accomplishes several important objectives:  it throws an attacker off his/her comfort zone because such attackers expect no resistance at all; it plays into the "numbers game" by engaging a suspect and making it harder for him/her to engage others; and lastly, it allows those who are already there to address a threat rather than just wait for the cavalry.  This approach has already been put to the test with much success (including averting one possible shooting situation) in local organizations.  In one such event employees of the organization overcame an armed suspect with no casualties!

I truly believe we need to overhaul the way we look at Active Shooter response.  Instead of just concentrating on what would the police do, we should stop worrying about public perception and outcry about "profiling", and begin implementing better screening and defense protocols to mitigate potential events to begin with.

Stay safe, watch your six, and stay vigilant.
BK Blankchtein
Masada Tactical Protective Services

Is the Government a Good Metric for Comparison?

I read a lot of opinion pieces, and recently within the executive protection community there has been a lot of discussion about the trespassing incident at the White House.  Comments were made about the performance of the Secret Service and other local agencies in dealing with this event.  It got me to think, are we correct in comparing the level of our training and performance to that of the government, be it local, state or federal?

Let's examine a few examples:

If you ran your business' fiscal books the way the government ran its, would that have been a good option?  Of course not.  As a business, or as an individual, we cannot afford the level of debt (even if you factor in proportional expenses) that the government does.  Some may argue not even the government can afford it...but that's a different blog post.  Reality is that if we ran our finances the way the government does we will be bankrupt and living on the streets in no time.  We must exercise better practices to assure we are profitable and can operate within certain fiscal guidelines.

The Secret Service has a specific mission and a tremendous budget to complete it.  Most corporate security entities have to deal with a much more diverse set of threats, higher sensitivity to public perception (We can't get away with some of the stuff the USSS would), and a much smaller budget to complete it with.  This typically translates to a more innovative approach, creativity, and the development of truly multi-faceted professionals.  Leaders and team players are the only ones who can succeed, while in the government one can pretty much cruise in the shadows until retirement if he just doesn't mess up too much...and sometimes even if he did.

Training is another aspect that I believe the corporate dignitary and executive protection community has an advantage over the federal government.  It is true that the government has a larger budget and access to some excellent trainers.  But with that comes a tendency to get stuck in a rut, believe that what worked forever will continue to work, and training is based on accommodating the lowest common denominator.  In the private sector, since we all try to better ourselves and "one up" the competition, security professionals are more likely to seek advance training, develop new sets of skills, and stay sharp and current on threats and means to address them.  It is the responsibility of the foot soldier just as much as it is that of the manager.  We are always training and improving...or at least we should be.

Those are only a few examples of why I believe the private sector is developing and producing higher caliber people.  Of course exceptions apply and we also have our share of "wannabes" and slackers, and by sheer numbers alone probably much more than the government.  But those who shine through, progress in the industry, and truly make the profession their own, are much better at what they do compared to the average government official.

So keep growing as a person and as a professional.  You may not be on government retirement plan, but you are probably just as good if not better than most government officials out there!

Stay safe,
BK Blankchtein
Owner, Masada Tactical Protective Services
www.MasadaProtection.com