Terrorism Training For Local Police & Private Security
In the wake of the terror attack in San Bernardino, I've seen the subject of terrorism / counter-terror training for local law enforcement and security officers once again come to the forefront of conversations among public safety and private security stakeholders.
This is a subject that is close to my heart for a number of reasons. For example, while working as the Regional Director for a private security firm, providing security services to our counties Public Utility District, I had occasion to have contact with local law enforcement as it directly related to soft probes and active surveillance of critical infrastructure sites throughout the service area. On one occasion, the site supervisor witnessed an individual in a restricted area, taking photographs not only of the utilities property (and operations area), but also of a nearby railroad tunnel and overpass, situated directly adjacent to a regional transit center. Critical infrastructure all the way around.
When the security officer called 911, he was effectively blown off by the responding beat cop. The departments response time was several hours, and no report was written about the incident. As I received daily briefings related to the account, I saw this report and immediately contacted the police department. I was stunned to learn that this agency provided their Officers with very little training in the handling of potentially terrorism related incidents, particularly as it relates to soft probing and surveillance.
I escalated the issue within this agency, and was put in touch with the then Lieutenant that was responsible for the agencies role in a Regional Intelligence Group (RIG), a function that funnels information to the regional Joint Terrorism Task Force and uploads information to the Washington State Fusion Center. From that point forward, any incidents of this type were screened in real time and forwarded to the RIG's email address for immediate scrutiny, reporting and follow up. This turned in to a fascinating and productive relationship which resulted in several investigations.
Since before I got out of the high school, I've been doing security work. For the three years prior while in high school, I was a police Explorer with two local LE agencies. My interactions with law enforcement as it relates to both private and public sector security incidents has spanned a 25 year career, with involvement at nearly ever level of physical security. I have also served as a Federal Law Enforcement Officer and Federal contract Protective Security Officer.
As it relates to training, as a private Federal contractor and Federal LEO, we received a healthy amount of pre-assignment training as it relates to counter-terrorism, counter-surveillance, IED recognition, and of course, response to a variety of incidents (All-Hazards after all). Back to San Bernardino, I wondered how much training exposure our local LEO's were receiving in the State's Basic Law Enforcement Academy. I was stunned to see only three hours dedicated to this subject. One 1 hour block related to counter-terrorism, and two hours related to IED and bomb recognition.
To surmise that this is the totality of physical security and terrorism related training available from the CJTC would be inaccurate. There are many follow on, post basic training courses that are available from the State's authorized training body, and many more offered by institutes and agencies through a variety of grant funded programs throughout the country.
As it relates to private security, again using Washington State as an example, there is no specific curriculum outlined by the State of Washington's "Public Protection Unit" at the Department of Licensing (the body responsible for regulating and licensing security guard companies and officers), only guidelines. The depth of the training and curriculum is up to each individual company and licensed security guard trainer to develop and present, which means that the instructors depth of knowledge and experience is the embodiment of the pre-assignment training received by many private security guards in WA State. Many companies are still using a video produced in 1992 by the DOL and private stakeholders, which guard licensing was first introduced in the State.
In both cases, this is deeply concerning. While the Federal government has significantly expanded it's body of training for it's contract security providers and FLEO's through their training body, FLETC (the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center), and made these standards mandatory throughout the nation, State's basic Police Officer training and private security guard training have to meet no national standard as it relates to this incredibly important topic.
Critical Infrastructure exists practically anywhere. Phone lines, power lines, train tracks, fiber optic and cable telephony transmission lines, ports, shipping, banks, refineries, chemical plants, nuclear reactors - the list is long. Furthermore, the threat posed by terrorists and active shooters is obviously quite real, and while training for active shooters has expanded significantly over the last many years (to include inclusion in basic police training), there remains no training mechanisms in many law enforcement or private security entities that teaches behavioral threat recognition and interdiction. Reports of 'suspicious activity', or persons who are acting out, vulnerable or hostile are often not funneled to the level of a Fusion center, triggering investigation and mitigation, because the line police or security officer isn't trained to recognize the behavior for what it is, or could be, and to help mitigate the threat potentially posed by such a person.
These cues are often missed even by Human Resources professionals, supervisors and managers in workplace environments, again, due to a lack of training on the subject matter. Several weeks before the San Bernardino shooting, it has been reported that one of the suspects got in to a heated argument with a co-worker, and effectively threatened him because of his ethnicity. Stemming from a racial and religious conflict dating in the thousands of years, it is absolutely conceivable that if mitigation / interdiction mechanisms had been employed in this case, perhaps the soon to be terrorist could have been stopped before he and his spouse ended 14 lives and wounded 21 others.
Back to law enforcement and private security, I have spoken for some time about the need for national training standards for private security, and I believe in the context of disaster response and terrorism related subjects, that this should be extended to local law enforcement training as well. Would having the millions of law enforcement and security officers who protect our public and private interests day and night be more effective in observing, assessing, reporting and mitigating the risks to public safety posed by these actors not be best served by more effectively and comprehensively training our protectors?
I have refrained from expressing these opinions in such a public forum before, because of what some perceive and are concerned with related to wait they call Federal overreach. Isn't the Attorney General of the United States the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of our nation? Grant money and other funding flows from the Federal government to our local first responders through a variety of platforms. Would some of this Federal funding not be better spent providing and/or mandating training to those who hold the thin blue line in place around us? Would it not be in the public's interest for Congress to introduce minimum standards and training for law enforcement and private security as it relates to All Hazards training, planning, mitigation, response and recovery, particularly as it relates to the now fast evolving asymmetric threats that are inarguably effecting the lives of ordinary citizens with increasing prevalence?
While DHS has mechanisms to better coordinate, inform and train local law enforcement, through their Office for State and Local Law Enforcement, this training is not compulsory. Many agencies, particularly in smaller jurisdictions, may not have received the benefit of outreach by this agency, or may have brushed off the prospects offered through this arm of DHS. Making training of this nature mandatory, even at the basic academy level, would undoubtedly provide a measurable benefit to public safety.
Furthermore, introducing mechanisms to better regulate and train the body of security personnel throughout the United States, particularly in light of there being more private security officers than law enforcement officers, would also have a measurable impact on the ability of our private protective personnel to more comprehensively secure the Homeland.
The security guard responsible for protecting the conference center where the San Bernardino attack took place was unarmed, and ran for his life after the attack started. Imagine if this guard was comprehensively trained and appropriately equipped, what impact that may have had on this attack as it was unfolding. It took only four minutes for the Police to arrive on this scene, but four minutes is an eternity when there are persons with weapons, bombs and the will to use them in a low security, target rich, gun free zone / environment.
Would the terrorists have even carried out their attack, given the advanced knowledge of the facility that this person had about the location, if they knew that the facility was guarded by a competent, well equipped security guard? Yes, the what if's are endless, but imagine the force multiplication benefits on a national scale with better trained, aware and capable protectors deployed throughout the country? Soft targets are only soft because of someone's lack of will or resources to adequately protect them. A step towards decreasing target availability would be to send a message to those that would potentially do harm that security and public safety as a whole is better trained and equipped to mitigate and/or respond to that threat.
No plan is perfect. No training program covers all conceivable scenarios. No security program is always 100% effective. Criminals will commit crimes no matter the environment or resources you put in place to deter or respond to them. That's human nature. But is it not in our best interests to use the mechanisms we already have in place through the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department to better insure the safety and security of our country by compelling a minimum standard of training related to these potential and (some would argue) inevitable catastrophes? I believe the only responsible and moral answer is yes.
Tony R. Myhre
President & CEO
Physical Security Consulting & Staffing Services
(425) 610-9777 unified phone
“None of Us Is As Good As All of Us”
I help companies and organizations around the world to prepare for the most serious crises, respond effectively during a crisis and to rebuild goodwill with critical audiences once the crisis subsides.
9 年We just had the honor of having Tony on The Crisis Show to discuss this article. https://youtu.be/HeOeX9BlBxs
Counter and Antiterrorism, Contemporary Threats, Emergency Management, Physical Security Threats; RET USA SNCO
9 年Tony, Excellent assessment! Training will, as we all know, always be the cornerstone of readiness. To think that 15 years in and almost 20, since the attacks on September 11th, and the Active Shooter incident at Columbine, and all those since then, that we have not introduced effective, Anti/Counter Terrorism Training, or Active Shooter training, into not just Law Enforcement or Security functions, but into the workplace is, IMO unimaginable. As I have repeatedly written about, and as you so eloquently pointed out with this post, the primary methods to mitigate, prepare for and respond to these incidents is an effective training, exercise and response program. I agree, if these simple and relatively low cost solutions be considered and used, maybe we would have a lot less victims of these very violent and brutal crimes. It is so much easier for us to stick our heads in the sand and hope we are never targeted, but I prefer to live in the real world, and will stand by my mantra, now for over 30 years, “it is no longer a question of if, but when!” Can we prevent all attacks on our soft targets, realistically, NO! Because there will be successful attacks. Workplace Violence Prevention and Mitigation programs are one step, but overlooking the “First Responder”, and in this context, the first responder being to me, “Bob” in accounting, programs as well, is a gross underestimation of the situation! And one that has been demonstrated to be very costly! BRAVO BROTHER!!!! and keep up the great work and push!!