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
No comments:
Post a Comment