Safety in the Workplace – Perpetrators of workplace shootings

Lost in the myriad of the news stories this weekend as we celebrated our independence was a spate
of unfortunate incidents of murder-suicide in the workplace. On Friday, in Belton, Missouri, a
Kansas City man shot and killed his estranged wife outside her place of employment then killed
himself a short time later. On Sunday, in Killeen, TX, a soldier killed his wife inside a Dollar
General store as customers looked on before killing himself. There were several other similar
unfortunate incidents over the weekend that occurred inside homes and apartment complexes. As
we see in the first two instances, there is little that can be done to control domestic problems from
following an employee to work. The question becomes how do we protect and notify our employees
and alert emergency services as quickly as possible? At SafeDefend Systems we think of this
everyday and have the answer.

The FBI recently released updated information (2014-2015) on active shooter incidents in the United
States. Unfortunately, instances of violence in schools and the workplace are steadily increasing.
Some of the startling information that needs to be pointed out applies specifically to the work
environment. We know from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that 86% of workplace homicides occur
in privately owned businesses. The media focuses on those stories that occur in a public entity
where a grievance against government function is expressed. The reality is that the violence starts
much closer to the people we know. From the FBI report we have learned that 95% of perpetrators
of violence in businesses closed to the public are current or former employees. The other 5% is
generally made up of those involved in a domestic relationship with an employee. These are
considered your manufacturing, technology driven, or processing businesses with no direct customer
interaction. Employees from these businesses have left behind information on a variety of reasons
for undertaking a rampage. Notions of unfair discipline, termination, ridicule from coworkers,
perceived mistreatment for promotion, failure to receive a raise, love triangles, and domestic discord
to name a few have all been cited by perpetrators. Unlike school shootings, the suspect does not
often drop clues to the plan and often act after some triggered event. There appears to be a growing
trend to resolve problems with violence that is unforeseen in our country. What steps have you
taken to thwart an intruder that knows your day to day business operations?

In response to the increase in violence, companies have undertaken steps to reinforce the workplace
against an intruder. Enhanced fencing, camera surveillance and controlled access doors are the norm
for such an approach. Most of the shootings we have seen recently already have these in place. The
Naval Shipyard shooting is a prime example of how all the money thrown toward security cannot
prevent a determined employee from committing an atrocity. What is missing in each of these
incidents is the ability to notify staff and building occupants of a threat. As we have seen in
workplace shootings such as Excel Industries or Atlantis Plastics, for example, is that the shooting
started outside and the perpetrator then entered the building to continue the rampage. Office staff
were able to start the calls to 911 but there was no ability to notify employees inside the building.
This lack of notification cost lives. We are able to go back and watch videos of employees going
about their normal routine with no idea that the threat was literally walking up behind them.
Employees deserve to feel safe and secure at work. Companies have an obligation to notify their
personnel to a threat inside the building and provide accurate information on how to seek shelter and
safety. If you don’t have a means to do this you aren’t protecting your staff.

More of the same a year after the Parkland shooting

The solution to school security is not more of the same

With the anniversary of the Parkland shooting there have been a lot of articles about the changes over the last year.  The interesting observation is that nothing has changed but rather a double down on more of the same.  The response to these events usually ends with the same options being put out as enhancements.  These options portray the impression to the public that our schools are safer without resulting in improvements that address the threat from an active shooter.

A recent Wall Street Journal article on the Parkland anniversary mentioned several expenditures over the last year.  The school added fencing to several schools.  The 45 acre Marjory Stoneman Douglas campus was fenced in at the time of the shooting.  Upgrades and additions to the security system were purchased.  The school has a robust camera system and the shooter’s every movement is captured on video.  A recommendation was made to have more armed personnel at all Florida schools.  One district hired combat veterans to patrol the grounds with rifles.  We forget that there was an armed officer on the grounds that was at the scene in roughly 1 minute 45 seconds but failed to confront the shooter.  The other armed responders were given confusing information and didn’t make entry until 11 minutes into the incident which was long after the shooter fled.  So the solution is to continue doing what we have been doing for years hoping for fewer casualties.

A true solution comes from looking at what has happened in the past and figuring out what will make a difference. Not hypothetical solutions but thwarted attacks or attacks where the shooter was interrupted.  The 2017-2018 school year was the worst year for the number of school shootings.  Outside of the three major shootings there were others with minimal casualties.  While the intent of the shooter appeared to be a mass casualty incident the impact was minimized by two things.  Notification to the buildings occupants to lockdown saved countless lives.  Actions by teachers to thwart or stop the attack was just as impactful.  If the new strategies for security don’t improve notification or empower teachers then your readiness for a hostile intruder or no better off with a hardened building.

We have had the same approach to school shootings since the 1980s when we started some of the current measures. There have been improvements to the technology for locked doors and surveillance.  These have never stopped an active shooter, they were not effective in Parkland, attempting to address a threat with these improvements will have similar ineffective results.  The SafeDefend system was designed to solve the notification process to building occupants and police while empowering staff to protect students until help arrives.

Train according to the possibilities not the protocols

With the changes to the crisis drill requirements in the country the addition of intruder response drills and lockdown drills have been an overall positive thing. Most school administrators had already added these types of drills to the preparedness training by staff.  At SafeDefend we encourage schools to regularly discuss response options and consider scenarios for notification in the event of hostile intruders.  The manner in which these drills are conducted, however, can greatly impact the way the information is conveyed and maintained.  The idea should always be to prepare not to scare.

Fire drills and tornado drills have consistent response protocols. Regardless of where the fire starts the goal is to exit the building.  A tornado warning clearly indicates the need to take shelter in designated areas.  Very little deviation from these protocols is required.  Practicing these responses and having students be familiar with expectations is necessary to achieve the goal of keeping everyone safe.

Hostile intruder drills cannot be so easily handled. There is no one response option that keeps everyone safe.  Real attacks have demonstrated that the events are fluid and require various responses.  Simply instructing staff to lockdown and wait is an option but it shouldn’t be the only option.  Teachers and staff need to understand that until help arrives their actions can have important consequences.  If you can get out safely then that should be an option as well.  If the intruder is trying to get into the classroom be prepared to drive them back out. In order to accomplish this the drills should revolve around mental exercises and discussions about options.  Having kids hide in a corner while the teacher locks the door and turns out the lights does not prepare them to adapt when the situation changes.

Staff should spend more time learning how to communicate a threat over the intercom with simple commands like ‘Lockdown, Lockdown, Cafeteria Intruder!’ Staff that are informed can make immediate critical decisions that will reduce casualties and save lives.  Simply hoping that police will arrive in time and locate the intruder has shown to fail time and again.  Empowering staff and faculty has had measurable results in numerous unreported low casualty events around the country.

Thinking School Security Solutions As We Head Back To School

In the flurry of back to school emails that I received from administrators, teachers, and staff was a notice about the new buzz in system being implemented at our district. The requisite apologies for inconvenience and lack of access were included for sincerity purposes.  It made me consider why we were apologizing for attempting to keep our kids safe but more importantly why this was considered the best use of limited security funds.

I certainly applaud the efforts of enhancing the security culture in our schools. What concerns me is the notion that continuing to approach security solutions with the same ideas that have repeatedly failed in the past has been the standard across the country.  It is paramount that we look at past incidents to determine what failed and how this can be improved.  Quick response by law enforcement and immediate lock down are the two factors that have proven to reduced casualties and save lives.  If these things aren’t in place the external security measures will be ineffective in addressing a hostile intruder.

The Spring of 2018 was an atrocious time for school violence. Lost in the aftermath of these incidents was the existing security measures that each of the schools had already implemented in the hopes of thwarting an attack.  In Kentucky, Florida, and Texas and many others the emphasis was on the access control, surveillance cameras and SRO as priorities for school security and safety.  Missing from this approach is the realization that more than 94% of school shootings start inside the building according to the FBI.  In the three major incidents the police response was delayed by a lack of information about exactly which room on campus was being threatened.  Responding SROs on campus had little accurate information about where to go.  More importantly the reliance on using 911 to notify police slowed down notification and resulted in confusing information for responding units.  Likewise, the schools were not able to communicate the need to go on lockdown in a timely manner.  Procedures to use public address systems or intercoms have not been timely in school crisis.  We developed a quick notification for fire emergencies that accomplishes notification to building occupants and emergency responders in one step.  We need to implement a single-phase notification system for violent intruders inside the building.

Physical security improvements have a place in our schools. Understanding the limitations of each is important.  Access control will stem the flow of staff, students and visitors but has failed in every active shooter event.  Cameras are great for bullying, theft, vandalism and fighting but has never successfully stopped an active shooter.  Two-way radios in a crisis are overwhelmed and little information is available.  Window laments slow a shooter down but most start in the building and can limit the egress of those inside.  School resource officers will respond but if they aren’t informed what room is in crisis the response will be slow as we saw in the worst three shootings this year.  These measures have their place but aren’t practical at saving lives in a crisis.

School security can only be addressed using a layered approach. Anti-bullying and awareness programs are step one.  Developing response procedures and emergency action plans is paramount.  Having physical security in place heightens the culture of safety.  The addition of a notification system with alarms is the critical element that is often omitted.  Our school staff members have demonstrated the ability to protect our students and step up to meet the challenge for protection but they need information and tools to do this.  The SafeDefend system answers the problem of quick notification with accurate information.

Learning from the Parkland, FL shooting – Communication breaks down in a crisis

With all the investigations, reviews, lawsuits, and committees looking at the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School it is unlikely that an official report will be released anytime soon. In the Miami Herald article Seconds mattered: How the response at Parkland went wrong in 11 minutes there is a clear analysis of the known events during the shooting.  The take away for all of us should be that while all the so called ‘recommended’ security and safety enhancements were in place during the chaos of the event nothing really mattered.  Insufficient information was available for police in the 6 minutes during the killing for them to respond effectively.  The confusion of these events is predictable but we are applying the same measures in the aftermath that don’t address the need for quick and accurate notification to the police while simultaneously alerting building occupants of a threat.

While a large portion of this article focuses on the police response there are several salient quotes that could easily be overlooked. Pete Blair, executive director of the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University. “It’s important to stop (attackers) as quickly as possible.” The number one thing police are taught is to stop the killing.  Disregard every other concern, including their personal safety, and confront the shooter.  In order for this to work in a large building or multi-building campus we need precise information on where police are needed.  Phone calls to 911 repeatedly fail to provide this information in a timely or accurate manner.  11 people were dead in under 2 minutes at Parkland on the first floor.  The average 911 call takes this long just to ascertain the nature of the threat and the address without providing detailed information.  A notification system can do this in seconds while also alerting building occupants, staff and students.

The confusion of responding officers was made worse by bad information. Reports of fireworks near the football field and the limitations of a radio system that only allows one person to talk at a time slowed police response.  The responding officers were informed of a threat on a 45 acres campus but not initially given specific building, floor or room numbers until after they were on scene.  This delayed the response.  Police radios are ineffective when dispatch, officers, commanders, and multi agency responders are all trying to provide or receive information.  Garbled noise is heard when two people attempt to talk at the same time.  A school emergency notification system, like SafeDefend, can pinpoint down to the room number where police are needed.  This information can be transmitted in seconds to everyone.  The fact that the first officer in the building was 11 minutes after the shooting and 5 minutes after the shooter had fled the building is common in this type of incident.

In the Parkland incident the shooting started before the fire alarm added to the confusion. The gunpowder and ceiling tile dust activated the alarm.  If a teacher had the ability to quickly activate a school emergency notification system and alarm inside a classroom the upper floors at a minimum would have heard a hostile intruder alarm before the fire alarm.  Teachers would then have been able to avoid the casualties that resulted from leaving the classrooms on the upper floors.  Most likely those deaths on the second and third floors could have been avoided if the school was put on lock down within seconds of the shooting starting.  An alarm system can do this for our schools.

Communication and information flow are critical in a crisis. Expecting staff to make emergency phone calls or use the public-address system while dodging bullets is ludicrous.   Unfortunately, this remains the go to protocol for most of schools in the country.  What is needed is a single step activation system to put the school on lockdown and notify emergency responders in seconds.  Until this becomes a priority the casualty counts will continue to be higher than necessary.

Workplace Violence Active Shooter – Alerting Employees & OSHA Compliance

The news of an active shooter at the YouTube headquarters is saddening. As the nation focuses on the conversation of school security in the wake of the shooting at Parkland, FL the discussion of threats in the workplace became sidelined.  We know from the FBI Active Shooter reports from 2000-2015 that 95% of active shooters in the workplace to businesses closed to the public are current or former employees. The other 5% have a relationship with a worker at the business.  We have seen time and again how disgruntled employees, domestic discord or disputes among workers has resulted in violence and death.  It is all too common in the American workplace.

Businesses often prepare for many emergencies. Human resource professionals will tell you there are protocols in place for fire, climactic events and chemical spills.  Warning systems will sound, emergency responders will be notified, and staff understand the protocols and responsibilities for their positions in the event of a crisis.  When it comes to a hostile intruder in the workplace, however, the workplace violence protection process is unknown and the need for alarms is almost ignored by businesses.  We know from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that in 2016 the category with the highest increase from the previous year was homicide (525 up from 416 in 2015) compared to the number of fire deaths that was the only category to decrease.  The worst statistic is that 40% of woman killed in the workplace are the result of homicide from a domestic partner.  The likelihood of an armed intruder is 30 time more likely than a fire, 60 times more likely that a climactic event and 125 time more likely than a chemical spill and yet it is the one we are least prepared to handle.

Most business owners and managers assume that Worker’s Compensation will cover these hostile events. Unfortunately, this doesn’t always apply depending on the circumstances.  The OSHA General Duty Clause 5(a)(1) requires employers to provide a workplace ‘free from recognized hazards’.  In the years since the clause was implemented several OSHA director interpretation letters have indicated that ‘courts have interpreted this clause as a legal obligation for employers’.  A January 2017 directive titled Enforcement Procedures and Scheduling for Occupational Exposure to Workplace Violence to OSHA investigators (CPL 02-01-058) recommended for all industries and administrative workplaces to ‘install and regularly maintain alarm systems and to arrange for reliable response systems when triggered’.  Without creating specific standards OSHA has started to implement guidelines that direct employers to take steps to protect employees in the event of workplace violence.

The notion of calling 911 in a crisis is antiquated and when it comes to fire we rely on alarms to alert building occupants so they can seek safety. We have seen that waiting for law enforcement results in higher casualty counts.  In February of 2016 in Hesston, KS an employee shot a worker in the parking lot at the Excel Industries.  Staff called 911 and the police chief heroically responded in less than 3 minutes.  In that same time the shooter entered the plant and shot 14 coworkers, killing 3 of them.  There was no way to alert the employees of the threat on the plant floor from the front office.  This is just one example of incidents across the country where a threat is known by someone in the bulding but there exists no warning or workplace violence protection system in place to sound the alarm.  A security company responsible for a Kraft foods plant was found liable and had to pay out 8 million dollars to families of three employees who were killed after a disgruntled employee returned and stole a security guards access card.  The guard could only call 911 and wait for police.  The ability to sound alarms and alert employees in the event of a hostile intruder is essential to providing a safe workplace.

SafeDefend has worked with companies across the country to install and maintain an alert system with tools for protection and trauma response when a hostile event occurs. Most companies assume fences and access control are sufficient.  This doesn’t address the fact that the most likely threat to the business will come from within.

#youtubeshooter #workplacesafety #activeshooter

94% of School active shooters start inside – Exterior Security Doesn’t Solve the Problem

The picture of the the sheriff’s deputy guarding the front of Marjory Stoneman portrays an extreme sense of security with the gates in the background. When we look at the campus photos we see fencing around the entire campus.  We know that surveillance cameras were placed all over the campus as well.  On the 45 acre campus the presence of the school resource officer from Broward County Sheriff’s Office was known by students and staff.  Some buildings even have access control check points for visitors.  Yet, with all these enhancements a shooter with knowledge of the campus entered a building during the school day and gunned down 31 people.







Even with this knowledge about what happened in Parkland, FL and the recent shooting at Marshall County High School in Kentucky, the administrators and school boards seeking to increase security are focusing on hardening the exterior of their buildings and campuses. This is the same approach security advisors have emphasized for over the last 40 years.  The reason these events aren’t thwarted by existing security measures is that the perpetrators are usually authorized to be inside the buildings.  According to the FBI, active shooters in schools from 2000-2015 were primarily students.  94% of school shooters were authorized to be in the building. (84% students, 5% domestic partners, 5% current or former employees)  The 2015 CDC Understand Youth Violence mentions that 17.9% of high school students reported taking a weapon to school in the previous 30 days.

In speaking with school administrators and facility directors across the country there is always a tendency to focus on aspects of security that impact exterior security.  Campus fencing, building access control, creating pinch points and surveillance cameras are often the go to solution.  The vast majority of money for school safety plans is used for these enhancements that have never stopped a school shooter.  This understanding of security stems from the law enforcement experts that have been previously tasked with securing federal buildings, airports, city halls, courthouses, and other potential high-profile targets.  The threat for these locations is primarily from an outsider.  Unlike schools these locations are not porous, they can be closed off in moments and access is strictly controlled.  We are taking the federal model of security and trying to apply it to schools.

From examining past incidents of mass shootings or just targeted attacks in schools, we know there are two things that can reduce casualties and save lives; alerting building occupants and notifying police to the threat.  Most school-associated violent deaths occur during transition times.  If the security enhancements being considered don’t alert police to the exact location of the threat on campus, then the measures are only repeating the mistakes of the past.  Empowering staff by informing them of the threat has been the most significant factor in minimizing school violence.

The SafeDefend system and school safety plan was designed by school administrators, law enforcement experts and security personnel to notify everyone of threat and provide effective counter measures in the event of a school attack.

School Safety starts with notification not metal detectors

The most important thing to understand when addressing school security is that it must be based on effectiveness. We know from past incidents that quick notification to police and alerting occupants are the two best ways to reduce casualties. Perimeter security focuses on locking the problem out. Metal detectors rely on the idea that you can prevent the problem from entering the school. We have had attacks inside schools with metal detectors and outside in the queue. Once breached, external security offers no protection to address an attacker in the building.

There must be a balance between a practical approach and strict security measures that severely hinder the ability of schools to perform fundamental functions. We all want our kids to be safe when they are at school.  We don’t want them to be traumatized by the simple act of arriving every day.

In the aftermath of the Parkland, FL shooting there have been demands for enhanced security at our schools. Metal detectors are often a go-to solution without much of an understanding of the practicality of deployment.  There does exist an unmeasurable deterrent factor that comes with metal detectors, but  we have seen incidents of students planting weapons outside the building to be retrieved during sports practice or by leaving them by a door.  Students have used after school events, (choir, performances, sporting events) to plant weapons inside the building to be retrieved the next day.  Whenever a barrier is put in place, a committed person will find a way to bypass the security.

Although the cost of the detectors seems reasonable around $3500.00 a piece, the cost for personnel to operate and manage the system is enormous. For every metal detector, you need someone to monitor the system.  During peak hours the number of people required to manage this system increases.  The simple expense of having one person sit at a metal detector from roughly 6:30 in the morning until all activities are done for the night is high.  This doesn’t take into account all of the weekend events for plays and concerts as well as community sports that utilize the facilities.  If at any point, someone is able to enter the building without being checked, there exists an opportunity to plant a weapon for later use.  The one thing history tells us about school shooters is that they plan the attack and scout out opportunities.

The question we should be asking is: will the safety and security measures I put in place get law enforcement there quicker and will it reduce casualties in the event the perimeter is breached? Access control, cameras and metal detectors have been compromised in the past and did not accomplish either of these things.  With limited funds for security and an increasing demand for various approaches, we need to look at those things that have been proven to save lives.  The biggest factor in reducing casualties is a school emergency notification to police and alerting building occupants of a threat.  Once these are done the individuals can initiate the respective emergency action plan. Perimeter security has been thwarted in every single school attack.  What does your approach do to minimize casualties once this occurs?  The SafeDefend system was designed with this question in mind.  Saving lives by preparing staff to respond, notifying everyone in a crisis, and providing tools for protection and trauma response should be the first step for safety.


School Safety Requires Immediate Notification in a Crisis

In the wake of another school shooting there is talk about the best approach.  The one glaring problem that continues to arise is the lack of notification to building occupants and police, or a lockdown alarm.  According to media outlets it was 10 minutes until a Coral Springs police officer entered the building.  The SRO was on scene shortly after the shooting started but did not make entry.  This seems unbelievable.  What we do know is that the shooter fired his last round 5 minutes after the initiation of gunfire.  Regardless of when police responded there is little chance they would have been able to intervene in less than 5 minutes. (Original blog edited to reflect accurate response time information.)

What is needed in this situation is a simple way for staff to activate an alarm system that immediately notifies police down to the room number of a threat in just a few seconds. At the same time, lockdown alarms can go off in the building instantaneously.  Exact information should be sent via text and email in mere seconds to teachers of the room number where the threat started.  The alert should also go out to all other school administrators to initiate lockout procedures at those schools.  Once emergency responders swarm one school there are no resources to protect the others.  They should be on lockout to prevent further tragedies.  All the above actions can be accomplished with one swipe of the finger using the SafeDefend lockdown alarm system.

The system includes protection tools and trauma response. The heroic stories of teachers throwing themselves in front of students to shield them with their own bodies are noble.  I would rather those teachers have some means to disrupt the shooter and reduce casualties. The other problem we face is that in these mass casualty events there just aren’t enough paramedics that can arrive in time.   Having tourniquets and hemostatic agents on hand and readily accessible is a must.  We know of at least 31 gunshot victims in Parkland, FL.  That overwhelms first responders.  The SafeDefend system provides these tools in the personnel protection boxes.

The two most important things to save lives in a crisis are notification and response options. Access control systems and cameras don’t notify police and can’t be used in a crisis to save lives.  History has demonstrated how these events unfold.  We need to change our response to address the realities of the crisis. The SafeDefend solution was designed by industry experts to prepare schools and businesses to respond in a crisis.

Time is of the Essence; Waiting for the police takes too long in an active shooter crisis

The reporting on the school shooting at Marshall County High School in Kentucky demonstrates one critical point that is often missed. Waiting on law enforcement to respond and handle an active shooter crisis is not an effective option and leads to higher casualty counts.  It should be stated clearly at the start that our peace officers and emergency responders act bravely and with valor when rushing in to a hostile environment.  This isn’t meant to disparage their performance but to focus on the reality of the amount of time it takes for them to respond.

According to the FBI, 69% of active shooter incidents are over in under 5 minutes. On average, one person is shot every 15 seconds.  These two factors show how important it is to sound the alarm and alert emergency personnel.  R. Borsch of Active Response Training mentions research that suggests that when waiting on law enforcement to respond and handle a crisis the average casualty count is 14, but when people are notified and are able to take action the casualties average 2.5.  In the several recent shootings (Aztec HS in New Mexico, Mattoon HS in Illinois, Italy HS in Texas, Freeman HS in Washington) staff confronted the shooter immediately.  None of these incidents had casualty counts higher than two.  Empowering staff and alerting everyone to the threat has proven to be the most effective response.  The FBI statistics show that more active shooters are stopped by unarmed civilians than are apprehended by the police.

Note: After preparing this blog it was reported by Fox News that “Officials confirmed there was a school law enforcement officer in the building when the shooting transpired.” It is unclear why this did not change the response timeline. 

The timeline for the Marshall County H.S. shooting as it is pieced together puts things in perspective. A CNN article shows the stark reality of the timing for notifying police via phone. “Sanders said the suspect, armed with a handgun, walked into the school at 7:57 (8:57 a.m. ET) and started shooting. The first 911 call was received two minutes later.” CBS stated “Police arrived at the school just seven minutes after the first 911 call. (This is 9 minutes after the shooting started.) They quickly found the gunman and arrested him.” This response was confirmed by a local affiliate that reported “First responders were on the scene within 10 minutes.”  The AP reported the shooter ‘kept firing until he ran out of ammunition and took off running, trying to get away.’ The DailyMail reported the sheriff’s deputies ‘apprehended the suspect 15 minutes after the shooting broke out.’ While police acted valiantly in their response it was too late as the shooter had already stopped and was attempting to get away.


Shooting started                     7:57

First 911 call                            7:59 (2 minutes later)

Deputies arrive                       8:06 (9 minutes after shooting)

Suspect Apprehended             8:12 (15 minutes after running out of ammunition)

Casualties – 2 dead, 14 shot, 4 injured

The notion that calling 911 is an effective and reasonable approach for shootings is ludicrous. The importance of immediate notification for life safety events is widely accepted for fire events, but we inconsistently believe that placing a 911 call is a feasible plan when bullets are flying. The frequency of school attacks is concerning but we are more prepared for the fire.  When was the last time you heard a media story concerning a school fire compared to a report of on an attack in our schools?  The immediate notification systems have been shown to work.  The SafeDefend system was created after a thorough review of past incidents of mass shootings.  Research has demonstrated that notification, protection options, and trauma response will save lives in a crisis.  The time for arguing about the best solution has passed.   The data clearly shows what we have done in the past has failed to reduce incidents or protect or children.

The Dilemma of Conditioned Helplessness in Active Shooter Incidents

We have seen several instances over the last few years of normal citizens stepping up and acting to prevent a crisis. We are now seeing stories of passengers on a plane that step up to assist flight attendants with an unruly passenger. We hear of school staff who act to intercept an armed intruder preventing countless casualties. The stories of the initiative of bystanders seems to be an obvious response to helping our fellow citizens. The good news is that this is becoming more the norm, but there is still a tendency to defer action to those in authority. This default can lead to greater casualties and loss of lives when action is needed. Taking action by sounding the alarm, empowering personnel to protect themselves with training, and providing methods of countering an attacker have demonstrated time and again to be an effective response to a threat.

The reality is that we have been conditioned for years to not do anything. Flight 93 was the exception of the four flights on 9/11. The reason is that the other three planes had all crashed and once word reached the passengers on the plane they knew they had to act. As a society when terrorists were taking control of planes the best advice at the time was to be complacent and let the authorities handle the problem. We took that advice and spread it to all areas of our lives. In our schools, workplaces, and personal lives we have been conditioned to step back and allow the authorities to handle the crisis. This has resulted in an over reliance on external forces to control a situation where early intervention can have tremendously positive results.

There is a notion that without a gun you cannot confront a hostile intruder. The best option is for law enforcement to confront a violent attacker. The police aren’t always where you need them to be. The decision to confront an active shooter in schools or workplace is a personal decision. While I would never recommend attempting to take out an armed intruder without proper training and equipment there are plenty of things that can be done to delay, thwart, and incapacitate an attacker. The biggest obstacle to accomplish this is the personal feeling that any action would be futile. The truth is just the opposite. Most attackers are not prepared for resistance. All the training and preparation provided by professionals attempts to overcome the feelings of helplessness. Regardless of the maxim you use to describe the training the most important thing to remember is that with advanced notification and readily available options there are means to stay safe in a hostile event.

The principles at SafeDefend exemplify the idea that there are proactive steps that can be taken to prepare personnel for a hostile intruder. The idea that simply locking the doors and hoping that law enforcement arrives in time has failed for generations. A fundamental change needs to occur that addresses the idea of notification, training and response options as the most critical component of protecting people. SafeDefend has been working with entities across the country that have recognized this vital premise.