Someone determined to cause harm to a specific individual will make all attempts to do so-they arent right in their head, so I do agree that a visible security presence may not exclude them from causing harm there. However, it COULD deter them from doing it there, and maybe following their intended victim or victims to a less hardened place-grocery store, mall, laundromat, etc. It doesnt prevent the crime from happening; it just lowers the risk of it happening there.
Unfortunately, someone bent on destruction will likely pursue that goal to its end-either until they commit the act, or get caught preparing for it. We cannot apply rational thoughts & ideas to this, because they simply dont apply. It isnt rational to hate an institution to the point of killing its followers; normal thinking folks just dont do that. Visual security may, or may NOT, deter them; invisible security would be the same. Visible security at least has the command presence; and, if strategically placed, can cover one another (provided you have more than 2).
Layered security (visible out front, invisible within the church) is an option; however, remember one thing; if they are to remain invisible, they must do what the congregation does; that is kneel, pray, take communion, sing, etc (based on christian based religions). Otherwise, they arent invisible. This ties them up, and breaks concentration-they cannot be as vigilant when in a crowd, singing. Now, keeping them within the church area, up near the back, along the sides-even hidden from the congregation, but with a good view...that would work-but again, hidden means blending in-in an "active" crowd, that is kind of hard to do. You cannot scan with your head bowed, nor hear well when siging.

Yes, there is a bit of a dilemma in making the decision whether to advertise/structure the security or not to. One of the factors in our consideration was the obvious reaction some of the congregation would have to the presence of armed security, especially during services. For those of us with experience, such presence would be a welcome sight, but for many of the uninitiated, it would be a serious detraction from the normal proceedings.

Also, since the purpose of our security is to secure the facility during service, we are not concerned too much with what happens away from the area after services are over. It is always a general concern the welfare of our friends and family while they are abroad, but that is beyond the scope of our purpose, which was strictly to secure the church during services, given that there is a tangible risk associated with that operation. Peripheral concerns are noted, and where possible, security personnel will exercise to the limits of their ability such additional protections as are warranted and allowed by law elsewhere, but that is strictly a consequence of having a security group in the first place, and not a direct intention.

Having a good plan up front, our clandestine security group has no problem actively participating in all aspects of the services, while also providing suitable defensive capability should a threat materialize. It wasn't too difficult to coordinate, and not everyone participates in every service action at all times. In fact, I haven't closed my eyes or bowed my head in prayer in church in a long time, but I still pray. You adapt and remain as inconspicuous as possible and with practice no one is the wiser. No plan or ability is 100% effective, and I am sure we could be overwhelmed if the force applied were high enough. I don't think we are a big enough target for something like that, given our congregation size is only about 100 or so people at any given time. Bigger churchs would have a greater risk, but also able to field a larger and more complex security force, so it is functionally scalable I suppose.

It all takes effort, as you point out, to get it as right as it can be. It was certainly better for us than to do nothing and remain at the mercy of our enemies. I will definitely agree our solution is not the only one, nor perhaps the most effective. It works for us, and we are all happy with it, and will adapt it if we find something that suits us better.

Good debate there oldsoldier.

I can't help it, as I read this thread I keep thinking "The Mall Ninja got Religion."

So lets move it on and start talking about the most righteously holy ammunition to arm the believers with. I suggest nothing less than 338 Lapua.

I am assuming we get to kick the old lady's bingo groups out of the basement so we can set up our Sacred Shooting Range, or SSR as we call it...

As for consideration of backstops or safe lines of fire, there is no need to think about it.
It will be Church Security shooting, each and every bullet will be individually divinely guided by the hand of the Lord.
Whoever gets hit will obviously have deserved it for their sins, it is not my place to judge here.
The Lord gives life and the Lord takes it away again.

_____
Lets get a bit of reality here folks.
You are talking about having untrained and unidentified people with guns in your congregation.
What is to keep your other already armed parishioners from opening fire on your parishioners who have appointed themselves as gunslingers?
What about the visiting gunslingers from other churches?

If you shoot somebody in your church do you really think any priest is going to claim resposiblility or do you think he will talk about innocence and God's Wrath a bit more as the cops drag your sorry A** off to jail forever and ever Amen?

If you are really that worried about getting shot in Church either dont go or hire real security with metal detectors and visible presence.
They can sweep everybody entering for weapons and maintain a secure perimeter, they don't even need to be obtrusive to do it.
Along with that they will keep their heads up and stay alert during the prayer and chant sessions.

Obviously churches and those who attend them are vastly different for all of us, as they should be. It is my suggestion that you should do what you think is right of course. What we do for our security we feel is appropriate and responsible for us. We do not share the same concerns voiced by others here, for very legitimate reasons, which does not invalidate anyone's views.

I would add that our approach is not going to be right for everyone else. It works for us in our church, and and that is sufficient for us.YMMV.

However, if our method does not fit your viewpoint/situation, it would be much appreciated if the derogatory statements and condescending tone would not be levied against us. It serves no useful purpose and detracts from the discussion.

The OP was presenting a scenario to us, and asking for input/ideas, from people who have experience with this particular situation, or experience with security in general. I havent ever been asked to secure a church, but I HAVE been part of security on military bases, for Olympic games, and several state functions. They arent the same as a church, mind you-people expect to see the security forces in places where I had worked. A church is a little different, and congregants may, or may not, approve.
All that being said, I hope you at least have some ideas here that you can take with you, for better or worse. Good luck in your decisions, and I sincerely hope that it never comes to you having to use security to actively defend your congregants.

Benjaminn, good debating with you as well.


Bill

I think Ben was referring to my Mall Ninja comment.
I will let it stand anyhow.
If you are securing an area you shouldn't need to turn it into a shooting gallery.
When security is working it is very boring because it prevents the problems before they happen.
If it ever gets exiting inside the secure zone that means the security system failed.

Having been through real security situations, I've concluded that most advertised deterrent mechanisms are only a prop or at best the first target that do little more than cost the attacker(s) a moment or so more in their execution than they'd otherwise have.

But my experience is not comprehensive. Being shot at by bad guys while under security escort, or living in a compound where active roving security is constantly present, or having to wear body armor most of the time is not a common thing here in the states, yet. Hopefully none of you will have to experience that at your home or place of work. Based on my experiences, and those of others who've dealt with similar circumstances, our approach made more practical sense than just posting a sign out front or hiring and posting guards at the entrance/on patrol or putting in a metal detector.

No one is talking about turning anything into a shooting gallery. Being prepared to use lethal force and having a plan for deployment that incorporates stealth does not inhibit any of the other aspects of a security protocol. Rather, it validates them, as there is no security without potential force deployment, only a facade. If you don't have a plan that includes the potential use of force, then you don't have security.

Just different philosophies I guess. Layers of security is always the most preferable approach. The use of force should always be the last resort.

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away (Fort Gordon, GA to be exact) the MP unit I was with secured all the "Pay Day Activities". In reality the said activities amounted to turning a basketball gym into a place to cash checks for all the trainee soldiers.

One month before said activity, the OIC of the area asked those of us on the SRT team how we would go about robbing the place.

To a man, our first comment was the obvious guards inside and outside would get a round between the eyes within the first three seconds. Then the team would split between "crowd control" and "theft" teams.

Obvious guards are called objects of intimidation. In a takeover robbery or hostage situation, you eliminate them first and VERY VIOLENTLY. This action then intimidates all the other occupants of the area you wish to control, and eliminates the visible armed threat to your group.

Conversely, were we to have to end a situation like this our aim was also swift, violent, but controlled action.

This ladies and gentlemen is why you want any security to be all but invisible.

"This ladies and gentlemen is why you want any security to be all but invisible."

Just a tad confusing ending for me Desperado. Are you saying then that the less conspicuous (visible) the security force, the better?

Invisible would be best. At least in my mind.