FOUR TRICKS TO THE PRINCIPLES OF

EFFECTIVE PHYSICAL SECURITY DETECTION

 I recently had a newcomer to the security business ask me, “So, how would you describe what security is?”  I looked at her like, what a stupid that question is.  But after I thought for a second, actually it was a pretty good question.  A question many of us would provide varying definitions of.   My answer was pretty short.  Security is, the detection of behavior – good, we reward; i.e., password or PIN and we allow you access to the computer or ATM, bad, we deny access. 

Simple, right?  Yes.  So, the questions become, “How do we ensure effectiveness?  How do WE determine good or bad behavior?  Where should we do it? And, how do we make sure we know the difference?”

AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLE

Detect activity as far from the asset, thing you’re trying to protect, as possible.  We want to detect all behavior.  Then we can decide if it’s good or bad.  Good behavior – we allow access and bad – we don’t.  When it comes to valuables or assets, anything of value can be considered an asset.  An asset is something you place value on.  It could be a building, a process, an object or people.  Even my crazy cousin back in Indiana could be considered an asset.  Ok, well maybe not my cousin.  But you get the gist.

An asset doesn’t have to have value to the owner.  As long as it has value to somebody, then it is an asset.  I guess that means my cousins back in.

We want to protect those things we value at the furthest opportunity we can afford; either at the property line or even before, if possible.  Usually we do this by defining our property line.  We use fences or signs or other materials that say, “Hey, this is my space, so stay over there and I don’t care what you do, but come over here.  I want to know about it”.  In the old days, we had to post a guard to detect penetration.  Today, we can use electronic technologies that assist us in detecting when people come into our space.

You can access my article “More Power to the Perimeter” starts on page 31. http://issuu.com/securitymiddleeastmagazine/docs/sme_july-_aug_2015_web?e=0/14330179

IT’S ABOUT DETECTING UNWANTED BEHAVIOR

Electronic or non-electronic detection, it really doesn’t matter.  It’s about detecting behavior and then deciding if it should be rewarded (allowed entry) or not (denied access).  I often ask my students if they think we should detect all behavior or just the “bad”.  Most say, just the “bad”.  We don’t have the time to watch everything.  Well, actually we do. It’s just that we’re a lot quicker in rewarding “good” behavior than when something wrong happens.  As long as the rules are followed, everything’s fine.  Let someone forget their badge or password and well, and then the problems start.

BEST DETERRENCE IS A WELL-TRAINED STAFF (YOU WERE EXPECTING ME TO SAY GUARD FORCE, WEREN’T YOU?)

Actually, having a well trained staff in knowing what constitutes good behavior is the best deterrence you can achieve.  Trained staff is a force multiplier.  That means more eyes on your environment.  Trust me; your staff knows when things are out of place or when something is just not right.  That doesn’t mean you’re going to get them to “rat” on each other but you can get them to think about protecting themselves and their colleagues.  I recently read an article about the creation of open office spaces adding to efficiency and productivity.  The psychological impact of the space adds to a sense of belonging and our natural instinct to protect ourselves and each other.  Use that to your advantage.

Teach folks what “suspicious” looks like, when and how to report it and when it’s okay to intervene themselves without getting hurt.  Sometimes “bad” behavior can be corrected on the spot.  Other times the “authorities” need to get involved.  When reporting suspicious behavior, describe the “bad guy/gal” by comparing them to yourself; i.e., taller than me, heavier than me, blond hair like me.  While clothes description are important folks should focus on things that are less likely to be changed quickly; shoes or pants, complexion, color and length of hair.  The responding forces will need to know if any weapons were involved and if anyone has been hurt and where to find you.

DRILLS & EXERCISE STAFF & GUARD FORCE (OFTEN, CREATIVELY AND REWARDING)

Administrators and decision makers can increase the likelihood of detecting unwanted behaviors by conducting routine, periodic and creative drills.  Some drills should be done just for small groups, while others should involve everyone.  Sometimes with the guard forces and sometimes the guard should train alone.  There’s a difference between “preparedness” and “readiness”.  “Preparedness” is having material stockpiled and “readiness” is knowing where to get materials and what to do with them.

Follow me on twitter @hainessecurity for more security tips.

Acknowledging Your Own Behavior in

Becoming a Stronger Leader

We all know the stories of how life used to be when we were younger. Even better remember the tales your parents, grandparents told you over and over about how life used to be easier, safer back in the good old days? You could leave the door open and nobody would take anything from your house? It is safe to say the world has changed so much. That sense of security found in the community and groups our grandparents talk about has been overshadowed by the focus on individual achievement. It seems we experience more pressure, more speed, and more complexity and consequently more fear.  Fear of the unknown.  Fear of things we can control and extreme fear from those we can’t.  “Not being good enough”, or not fitting into our collective peer groups, or being able to compete on all levels in today’s very competitive and complex societies all fuel this anxiety.  Our personal behavioral issues are not the only thing we have to worry about.  We also have to react to events that we can’t control yet affect us somehow none the less.  Dealing with terrorist or other types of criminal behaviors or even our psychotic neighbors adds to that angst. The reasons behind these fears are an interesting point of research.  To me, what is even more interesting is the idea that we can overcome this fear by controlling it.  While we can’t control every situation, many of which are outside our realm of personal influence, we can control how we react to each situation, whether from an innate moral perspective or a learned one.

People have a profound need to feel safe.  It’s a basic human instinct.  In order to do that, people need to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones by any means possible. Unfortunately, due to the increased focus on individual talents and lack of group cohesiveness an individual must most often “fend for themselves”.  This means an individual must deploy mental and physical strategies.  Since most of us aren’t big enough to just “pound some sense into” the other guy, we must rely on our mental abilities to defuse or de-escalate the situation before it becomes physical. 

What if the alienation of society and the “stand alone” approach is exactly why we got here in the first place?  Remember the stories about the good old days?

We at BLACK believe that the key lies in returning the stability of the community through individual effort.  By bringing this aggravated anxiety level to a more acceptable one within the individual, society can function as it should.  At BLACK we not only look at the community in general, but also within a company or a team of people.  Our way of working focuses on the individual’s improvement. Being aware of your own strengths and having confidence in using them in your own environment benefits the society as a whole.

Companies, groups and teams of people manifest the same characteristics as individuals and therefore, experience the exact same problems, albeit on a different scale. Results driven, “the bottom line” and ICT are the key words within which any (major) organization operates these days.  Even though people are considered the most important asset, in general, we seem to misplace the personal touch due to the pressures of results minded actions.  We get so lost in the management process that we lose sight of the individual’s contribution toward the whole.  This process of managing people as just another asset in the company inventory doesn’t allow for the organization to achieve its true potential.  The days of sound management are over, and the move from efficiency to productivity is starting. To achieve productivity, organizations must have effective leaders.  Leaders can only guide an organization to achieve greatness, if they recognize and acknowledge their own weaknesses and strengths.  A long-term self-actualization process is needed.  With the world’s increasing population and the burden of more complex societies the need for leadership will become paramount.  While the focus will be on efficient and effective system management, it will only be achieve through the transformation from sound management to truly effective and inclusive leadership.  In the future, leaders will play a greater part in every organization and will be essential to all organizational structures – both, private and public, large and small. 

Through our B.L.A.C.K. methodology we provide leaders the skills they need for organizational success by inspiring them to acknowledge their own personal behavior traits.  By doing so, they gain confidence in their abilities to motivate team members “toward greater things”.                                        

Within our vision of training, we firmly believe that we can achieve these goals by changing the way individuals and groups reacted to situations.  We have no illusion in thinking we can  banish criminality, threats or unwanted behavior as a whole, but we believe we can be a factor in creating more self-awareness by acknowledging how we all contribute to the feeling of fear, environmental pressure and loss of control.  All authority figures will play a huge part in this vision. After all he or she must lead by example and create a feeling of a calm and safe environment. Community members, whether within an organization or a neighborhood, must have a sense of confidence in their leaders because of their ability to create “safe environments”.  Only then can we degrade fear and go from “standing-alone” to “standing together”.  In the last year we have seen an escalation in the appalling interaction between private and public authorities and the societies they govern. There is no need to point fingers as to who is to blame, but perhaps we can all take a good look at ourselves and make the decision to do better by being better.

To quote a great leader, President Thomas Jefferson:

“ Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by Individuals. It is very much the Interest of the good to force the unworthy into their due Share of Contributions to the Public Support, otherwise the burthen on them will become oppressive indeed.”

BLACK

BLACK is a Dutch company specialized in leadership training.  It is run by (former) armed forces with a high success rate. For further information we kindly refer to our website http://www.cpk-black.com

THE 5 MINUTE/5 DAY PLAN TO KEEP BURGLARS AWAY FOR

HOME AND BUSINESS OWNERS

Whether you’re a business owner or a homeowner “security” is about the protection of stuff and the people who use that stuff.  In the case of the business owners, that stuff is the store premises, the merchandise, the customers and employees.  At home, it’s about family members, keepsakes and property.  Even though, the stuff we are protecting is different, the concepts are the same.  They differ in application.  Good security means keeping someone from taking that stuff.  So, let’s look at what the business owner can do that the home owner can do as well.  For the next five days, we’ll spend 5 minutes each day taking steps that will keep would be “bad guys” away.

DAY 1 – From the outside looking in.  Stand on the outside of your property, beyond the property line or boundary and look at what you see.  You must do this on all sides of your property.  Remember, the “bad guy” will exploit your vulnerabilities no matter where he/she finds them.

Business/Homeowners – Look for avenues of approach, especially those that will allow access undetected.  If they exist, remove them to the maximum extent possible.  Since most likely you won’t be able to remove them entirely, add features that will assist you with detection; i.e., lighting, barriers (barriers slow forward movement or channel it).  The goal is to make it so that if the would-be perpetrator choses that route you will slow him/her down enough to detect him/her.  Warning:  CCTV is not a detection tool, so don’t think you can put a camera for detection.  CCTV is an assessment tool and as such, must be monitored 24/7 so that someone can assess the unwanted behavior, AND you must have a response force capable of responding within minutes.  If not, the “bad guy” will not get caught.  Another misconception is that, by putting a camera it will allow the police to catch the bad guy later.  Fact is less than one percent of the time this is true.  So, chances are you’d be wasting your money.

DAY 2 – Repeat Day 1 activities.  Return to the property line only this time at night or during hours of darkness.  Again, what do you see?  Additionally, look for any burned out exterior lights.  Lights are an effective tool in assisting assessment of unwanted behavior.  Bad guys don’t like light because it increases their chances of being caught.  

DAY 3 – Access points.  Walk to the nearest point of the structure where you would enter.  Then walk to the next one and so on until all access points have been looked at.

Business – This is usually an established entry/doorway from the public side-walk.  Check the locking mechanism.  Does the door fit snuggly against the frame?  Could someone “jimmy” the door open with a tool?  Don’t forget about your windows.  They can also provide access.  Just because they are large it doesn’t mean they won’t get broken.  The application of a fragmentation retention film (FRF), if installed properly, may assist with keeping the window intact and from being shattered.

Homeowners – This probably means that in the front of the house the access points would be the front door and any windows.  Check them for functionality.  Do this on all sides.

DAY 4 – Storage areas (shed/storage room/ garage)

Business – This may mean a separate structure or internal warehouse/storage room.  Observe the method of entry.  Can the door be secured when not in use?  Is the door monitored?  Does it need to be?  If a free-standing building, check all sides.

Home owner – If you have an outside building, such as, a storage shed where the lawn mowers, bicycles, etc. are stored, make sure there’s a lock that works.  Just because the shed is in the backyard, it doesn’t mean, a “bad guy” won’t get in to it.  If the bikes/lawnmower are stored in the garage, check the garage door that leads to the side or back yard.  Don’t forget about the car/driveway door.  Does it lock?  My wife always locks the door from the garage that leads into our laundry room and subsequently, in to our house.  Good job Honey! 

DAY 5 – Check your internal spaces. 

Business –  I was in a coffee shop the other day and noticed that they were using a laptop and a tablet for processing payments.  Both were left unattended on the counter.  It would have been real easy for an opportunists to grab the laptop or tablet and run out.  All they needed to do to reduce their risk was place the items behind the counter or on a shelf underneath and to take them out only when they used them.  If you own a business that stays open late or 24 hours, there are special considerations you need to make.  Primarily for the protection of your people/staff.  Remember, stuff can be replaced.  That’s why we have insurance.  People can’t.

Homeowners – The most common place for people to store valuables in their home is in their master bedroom.  Thieves know this.  Consider storing your valuables somewhere else that’s secure.  Just because you have a wall safe it doesn’t mean your stuff is secure.  The wall safe can be taken out of the wall if given enough time.  Remember, slow “bad guys” down so you can detect their behavior.

More tips and tools available at https://hainessecuritysolutions.com/Technology_Improvements  or by calling 805 509-8655.

The Really Big Fat Stupid Thing the Media is doing to help the Terrorist and They Don’t Even Know It, or Do They?

Times Square car bombing attempt. Sandy Hook. San Bernardino. Pulse Night Club.  Any College Campus shooting.  Take your pick.

Each time there is an incident involving mass murder or attempted mass murder the media is all over it with their “Breaking News” or “This Just In” coverage.  They call out the “Big Dog” correspondents and send them to the scene.  They get panels of “experts” with very sexy titles and ask them questions, so that they can glorify the perpetrator by associating them with terrorist groups.   They almost always say, “Well, Chet it’s too early to tell but….”.  What people hear is the “but ….” because they’ve associated these murderers with terrorist organizations.  They are now legitimate. The media arm of the terrorist organizations just loves the compliment and they exploit it in their propaganda and quite effectively I might add.  Additionally, they exploit any speech from the US about the mistreatment of its citizens or the failures and uncertainties of western governments.  This plays right into the hands of the propaganda machine.  For their part, there is no failure or mistreatment or uncertainties as it all fuels the narrative of dominance for the cause.

The western media, primarily in the US, has turned the news into a type of reality show, with sensational headlines, you heard it here first acclamations and the like.  They’ve effectively, knowing or unknowing, turned the news cycle into entertainment.  The rush to “get the scope” and break the news that the murderer is connected or wanted to be affiliated with a terrorist group is their top priority because “it sells copies”.  So, I think they, the media, have done it knowingly in order to gain the top spot in the ratings.  The rush to be on top in turn gets more advertising which in turn makes them money.  And that’s the bottom-line.  The shareholders want them to maximize profits so they get the best return on their investment.  It doesn’t matter that the narrative fuels terrorist because it gives their cause a certain amount of legitimacy.  While this is shameful on a variety of levels, I can’t blame the shareholders.  I can and do blame the media though, because this is where the “rubber meets the road” and it’s the only place in the news cycle process that can affect the outcome of what we see and hear.

There have been many more actual terrorists attacks executed outside of the United States in the last, insert number of years.  Many, in fact, the clear majority carried out by actual “card carrying members”.  When a suicide bomber blows himself or herself up, there is no “I wanted to be part of that group”.  They are or more poetically were part of that group.  A couple of recent attacks come to mine, e.g., the attack at the Brussels airport and the attack at the military base in northern India.  In both cases, these “bad guys” were members of actual terrorist cells and carried out their mission to kill the enemy – any non-believers.  The incidents were reported locally for a short period and globally for an even shorter period.  And some very recent low-sophistication style attacks have barely received coverage.  This is what needs to happen here.

Whenever there is a mass murder in the US, especially in a public place, the media immediately floats the idea that it is somehow terrorist related.  In the clear majority of these incidents, we see that they were “wanna be’s” and amateurs, at best.  For example, it seems to me, that the guy in Orlando was a gay guy that couldn’t cope with his identity because of his upbringing and scorn within his community, so he lashed out at the innocent victims enjoying their evening and claimed jihadist affiliation to justify his actions.  And, the media helped him obtain this affiliation but calling him a jihadist.  They legitimized his actions.  Instead, they should have called him what he was, a murderer or better yet a “piece of S… that preyed on the innocent.

I’ve been confused before.  As I’m sure most of us have, not about our sexually, but about life in general.  But I’ve never had the thought that I should go kill some people on a campus, at work or at a club because of it.

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

The media should keep that in mind, when they rush to make this connection between the perpetrator of a criminal act and its relationship to terrorism - in essence, legitimizing them and their cause.  Most of the time it’s just not there, even if they really, really want it to be, you know for entertainment’s sake.

They We're My Boys, too!

They We're My Boy's, Too!

One afternoon, this past summer I was watching TV with my 11 year old grandson.  He said, “Grandpa, what do you do?”  I responded, “I teach architects, engineers and security people how to incorporate security into building design”.  His next question was more of a statement, “so that’s why you travel all over”.  “Yep”, I said.  “But why do you do that”, he went on.  So, I told him, “when you see all that stuff on the TV about terrorism, well, that stuff’s personal to me”.  He asked why and I told him my story about being at Rhein–Main Air Base when the dead Marines were brought back after the Beirut bombing.  

See full story in My View Blog from October 2015 here http://hssview.blogspot.com/ . 

We went back to watching TV.

A few hours past, then he came to me while I was in my office checking emails, and gave me a really big hug and said, “Thank you for keeping Grandma, Mom, Dad and me safe”.  “You’re welcome Philip. Now you can do something for me. Be the best YOU, you can be, to make sure that what I’ve done was worth it”.  “Okay, Grandpa I will, I promise”, he replied.  He went back to playing and I went back to doing what I’ve been doing since October 1983, thinking that those Marines, my country, my friends and especially my family and doing what I can to protect them. 

I finish each workshop I do telling the students why I'm there.  I tell them about the 283 Marines that were killed by terrorist and the event that changed who I am.  Over the years I've told this story many, many times, and yet, every time I get emotional - even 33 years on.  You see, they were my boys too!

THE NEED FOR A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO ACTIVE SHOOTER INCIDENTS Approach to Active Shooter Incidents

Antiterroism Standards for Public Spaces

Part II

In the RUN-HIDE-FIGHT approach discussed last month we addressed what the victim should do.  Police departments have addressed what they should do but we haven’t address what the “environment” should do.  Legislators have addressed how the environment should react to certain threats, like fire and earthquakes but not for active shooters or other forms of terrorism. 

A few months ago, I was meeting with a very dear friend and she told me that as the Chief Security Officer for a very large multi-national company, the thing that kept her up at night was the fact that since interior designers have been creating office spaces that promote the free flow of ideas and creativity, there were no more walls to hide behind and because of that the company’s employees were basically “sitting ducks” during an active shooter event.  I guess there’s a trade-off between inventiveness and protection.  I don’t think there has to be.  I think we can do both.

I believe we can compartmentalize transit spaces, such as hallways, stairwells, much in the same way as ships have bulkheads that compartmentalize the interiors of the ship in case of fire or flooding.  We could do the same with these transit spaces and make it so that once a “bad guy” is in this space we can seal him or her off so that there is no freedom of movement.  By restricting the freedom of movement haven’t we in essence prevented the threat from causing more victims?  Obviously, some technical expertise is needed and every building or inhabited space would need to be analyzed on its own merit and would probably require a different and specific solution, but the same basic principle would exist throughout.  We would also need to provide additional protection to the interior walls so that the perpetrator couldn’t “mouse-hole” his way out of the space.  In other words, limit the ability to shoot thru the drywall and go into another room.  We would need to figure out what’s the best way to do that in any given situation.  There are ballistic resistant walls already on the market, which we could and should use to isolate the “rat”.

Admittedly, there is probably a higher likelihood of being involved in a fire or natural disaster than there is a terrorist act.  And again, admittedly, a higher likelihood of being involved in an active shooter incident than there is a vehicle bombing event or other form of terrorist act; i.e., kidnapping, arson, etc.   However, just because it’s not a frequent event it doesn’t mean we can’t plan for it so that when it does come the effects are not as catastrophic as they would otherwise have been. 

With the event in Paris last November we saw that hundreds of casualties can result from an active shooter event, especially if there are multiple murderers.  On the other hand, a single vehicle borne improvised explosive device or backpack bomb could cause just as many casualties if not more.  The Department of Defense recognizes that when it comes to terrorist acts, vehicle bombings cause the highest number of casualties, per perpetrator victim ratio; therefore, they’ve developed a set of standards that limit the introduction of bombs into or near inhabited space.  These measures serve to protect all personnel.  Shouldn’t the civilian community be doing the same?  The DOD has recognized that to tear down all buildings and start from scratch would be too cost-prohibitive, so guidelines require new building construction to implement these standards, with a few exceptions, and existing buildings when they meet certain criteria.  Couldn’t civilian building do the same and require that all new construction after a certain date meet a new standard for construction and building design that incorporates features within the design to reduce the effects of terrorist activity.  All existing buildings could be brought into compliance over time when certain parameters are met; i.e., change in usage, increase in floor space or during major renovation projects. 

Local governments for the past few years have been implementing ordinances that require buildings and neighborhoods when “triggered” to meet CPTED principles that were developed in the early ‘90’s.  Shouldn’t the same hold true for anti-terrorism strategies?  That said, I think we could reduce these principles into five general categories for use within the civilian world; maximize stand-off distances, reduce flying debris hazard, prevent progressive collapse, limit airborne contamination and provide mass notification.  I admit there would be additional costs involved in implementing these concepts, but those costs can be greatly reduced if they were incorporated during the design phase, instead of being added at the end of a project, as currently is the normal process for including security features in a project.

I’m not advocating that all buildings should be built to a new higher standard, a standard that reduces the effects of terrorist attack and in particular, active shooter incidents and vehicle borne improvised explosive devices, but I do think that buildings that have high population densities, i.e., nightclubs, public buildings, shopping malls, theaters, etc.,  above a certain threshold should.

Fortunately, there have only been two significant terrorist bombings and unfortunately, numerous shooting attacks on US soil – shouldn’t we have learned something from them? 

The Need for a Different Approach to Active Shooter Incidents

Antiterrorism Strategies In Public Spaces

Part I

I’ve been following terrorist attacks for quite some time now and after each one look back and try to analyze what occurred and why, and if anything could have been differently to affect the outcome. 

The modern era of terrorism, generally speaking, is considered to have started with the 1972 Munich Olympic attack.  Throughout the 70’s we saw a series of hi-jacking which eventually led to stricter security standards for the airline industry.   In the 80’s, 90’s and early 2000’s terrorist attacks took on a variety of formats.  And really little has changed in the way we react.  Sure there’s the DHS, “see something, say something” campaign but outside of that – what?  Unfortunately, in the last few years’ active shooter incidents, either inspired by Islamic-radicalization or not, have taken place.  After the enormous loss of life at the Virginia Tech massacre, the notion for first responders to wait until reinforcements arrived has changed.  Before, the idea was to wait until reinforcements could arrive to neutralize the threat.   While still the case in some instances; i.e., San Bernardino and Orlando, police departments arm their patrols with higher powered weaponry and provide ballistic protection.  And now, some police departments are training their officers to intervene as quickly as possible, as soon a numerical superiority is achieved.  Another change in tactics, and widely-accepted, is the notion that a victim should use the RUN-HIDE-FIGHT approach.  RUN if you can, HIDE if you can’t and FIGHT if you have to. 

Events in San Bernardino, Paris and recently in Orlando, make me wonder if teaching the RUN-HIDE-FIGHT methodology might actually be adding to the injury and death count.  I know many police departments swear by it and a lot of training has been conducted, especially at school, college and university campuses across the nation.  I’m not saying it was all in vain.  What I am saying is maybe we need to take a look and think “outside the box” in how we deal with terrorist acts and specifically, active shooter events.  Maybe we can and should be using building design to assist us in reducing the number of victims.  We know that designing neighborhoods and inhabited public spaces by incorporating Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are effective in reducing crime.  Why can’t the same hold true for other building design and community strategies?

Here’s my point, during a fire, the best protection for an individual in a building is to get out of the building as quickly as possible.  In essence, get away from the threat – the fire.  In the security business we teach distance is the best defense.  Get as far away as possible from the threat in order to protect yourself. 

I’m not a firefighter and consequently have not attended any formal firefighter training, but I doubt if anywhere in their training, it says to tell people to stay in the building until they show up to save them.  We don’t do that for fire but we do that for active shooter incidents.  Huh? 

We’ve come up with legislation that implements fire safety codes, which include labeling exits, training personnel in escape procedures, signage and so on.  There hasn’t been a fire related death in a school since 1957.  That tells me all the codes, training and practice fire drills have paid off.  Couldn’t and shouldn’t the same hold true for active shooter situations or other types of terrorist attacks, for example,  vehicle or backpack bombings ?  We could easily design buildings and rooms within so that there are always at least two evacuation routes.  This would allow people to escape the shooter, instead of hiding in the bathroom and waiting to be murdered or, at best, to fight to overwhelm the attacker.  Essentially, we’ve told and trained folks to be sitting ducks. 

That I know of, no one involved during the initial phase of an active shooter incident has been shot in the back while trying to escape.  I may be wrong here but I’ve not heard of anyone.  But I have heard of people being killed while they waited for the police to neutralize the threat.  I believe, the notion that people should hunker-down until the cavalry arrives is ludicrous.  Instead we should be teaching people to RUN-RUN-RUN.  But in order to do that, we have to design buildings so that people can RUN no matter what.  Which means every internal space should have at least, two exits.  Preferably opposite each other to afford people the opportunity to get away.

Next month, in Part II I’ll share my thoughts on other types of attack and preventive measures or, at least, how the effects of a terrorist attack can be reduced.

Additional reading http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/article/physical_security_are_we_protecting_people_or_trapping_them?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&eid=350354640&bid=1498847