How not to get into a gunfight as a protection agent
As painful as it might be to acknowledge, 2020 proved to be a significant year for those engaged in risk mitigation as a profession. Never before has there been a more opportune time to glean real-world lessons on what not to do in times of crisis. From mishandling a pandemic response to mismanaging protests and even tarnishing one's reputation to the point of business downfall – the year offered a wealth of lessons.
Consider also, the aspect of avoiding gunfights for protection agents. Recent months have witnessed a string of incidents involving so-called "professional" security personnel, resulting in catastrophic consequences. Each time, social media erupts with uninformed opinions vying for attention. The familiar "he said - she said" cycle ensues, as everyone seeks to gratify their own narcissistic tendencies. The clamor of being right and disregarding others' backgrounds and expertise becomes overwhelming.
It's truly remarkable how numerous "experts" emerge during these disastrous incidents, often hesitant to provide proof of their credentials. The genuine professionals, on the other hand, usually refrain from immediate engagement on social platforms. They understand that investigations are underway and the media is hungry for sensationalism. Initial impressions are seldom accurate, even when backed by video evidence. For a protection agent to find themselves in a gunfight, a series of deliberate missteps must occur; it's never a spontaneous event.
How many critical decision points lead to that life-or-death crossroads? Here's a hint: it's never just one. Professionals comprehend that any involvement in a gunfight signifies an error on their part or that of their team. Their primary duty is to avert such situations at all costs, not to overlook warning signs and march towards conflict.
The military employs a strategy called "movement to contact," involving actively seeking out engagement with the enemy. Law enforcement responds to ongoing incidents to restore order. Both scenarios require assessing danger and moving towards it, fitting roles for soldiers and police officers. Protection agents, in contrast, don't conduct such operations; their mission revolves around avoidance.
When a security professional finds themselves unexpectedly embroiled in a volatile situation, it's often indicative of inadequate prior assessment and planning. This suggests weaknesses in intelligence analysis and operational planning. While unpredictable factors exist, they're typically few and rarely so unique that they can't be mitigated to some extent.
For instance, imagine an agent tasked with safeguarding a news crew of three amidst a protest. Limited resources and remote support characterize the situation. The agent receives intelligence from analysts stationed remotely but relies solely on online data. Given the anticipation of violence, how can the agent minimize risks?
This is where the decision-making process concerning a crisis initiates. It's not a last-minute occurrence but rather begins well before the event. Logically, the agent would decline involvement in such a hazardous scenario. Entrusting someone else to face extreme volatility with inadequate support would be the sensible choice.
Fear of losing a client often compels agents to comply with unfavorable requests. Comparatively, would a skydiver permit a client to dictate parachute type or pilot choice? When the stakes involve protecting a client, honesty reigns supreme. If the client refuses to heed advice or pay for the necessary precautions, their worthiness of protection is questionable. Payment is meaningful only if the agent can ensure their own safety.
Hence, the initial judgment of whether to proceed becomes pivotal. While circumstances may sometimes leave no alternative, evaluating support availability and other factors is crucial. Subsequent steps involve gathering ample information within the time frame. Who are the protesters and clients? Where is the event unfolding? What's the crew's itinerary? What are potential outcomes considering counter-protests, police action, attacks, etc.? When and how does the event proceed?
Of all the data an agent must gather, the "why" is paramount. Why is the protest happening? What's the crew's motivation for covering it? Why is the agent willing to risk their life for this cause?
Answering these questions aids in devising mitigating strategies and contingency plans. Priority must always lie in avoidance. Though the news crew may desire immersion, it's unnecessary to place them in the thick of it. Often, ego is what drives people into the midst of danger when they could easily stay out. This inclination extends to agents as well. Here, the question of "why" returns. If either the client or agent seeks thrill over safety, a disastrous outcome is likely.
Transitioning from pursuing danger to evading it takes genuine professionalism. Agents must swiftly extract themselves from danger without hesitation. The decision-making process commences well in advance, and much of the associated risk can be mitigated. If only the individuals involved were adequately trained for these situations.