Church Security

My church is beginning the process of setting up a volunteer security team for Sunday morning services and I'm wondering if others have been through this process?

The church runs around 600-700 on a given Sunday morning.

We have a sheriff's deputy who attends, as well as several former military with security backgrounds and some with private security training. One of the issues mentioned was to know who else has a CCW permit so that during an incident, the "good guys" know who each other are.

Among the issues being discussed:
liability (individual and for the church)
training
appropriate use of force and when needed
using those with CCW
issuing tasers
identifying those on the security team (special clothing, etc.)
should those who are armed also wear identifying clothing, or would that make them a target.


Any thoughts, comments or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Tirec

Sorry but I couldn't resist

From a controversial British comedy show from about 12 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAQy8v0d_qo

Has your church had any incidents?

What scenarios do you envision? A lone lunatic? Robbery?

Will the congregation be informed? That could be disturbing to some.

With a deputy in the congregation you at least have a head start on talking to the local police.

Man this is going to be a tough nut to crack. There was recently a story in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram about this very subject. It was part of the 10 year anniversary piece on the Wedgewood Baptist Church shooting.

Many more churches are beginning to do this with or without the congregation's knowledge / approval.

I do know the off duty LEO that was in the church when the shooting went down has had a lot of regret for not carrying his firearm that day. That was another of the FTWST stories.

I've only set foot in a church once since I got my CCW. My daughter was performing a song that night.

I provided my own security while I was there. No-one else needed to know I was carrying, so I didn't feel the need to tell anyone. I carry everywhere else, so it was no big deal to me.

We haven't had any major incidents, though there have been some reports of an estranged couple with a restraining order.

Scenarios could include security for kids, such as in custody disputes, domestic disputes, protesters, someone trying to rob the ushers after the offering, violent attacks such as the New Life shooting in Colorado Springs, or some of the other church shootings in recent years, or an attack on a "soft" target of a church.

An announcement was made about forming a security team, so discussions aren't being kept secret from the congregation.

One of the issues being considered is wearing a colored vest or even just a name badge to denote membership on the security team.

Thanks for the points.

Thanks.

We are looking at civil & criminal liability.

My state does allow carry in Church.

We also discussed that having armed members wear identifying clothing might make them a target.

Thanks.

Have you considered using a certain kind of lapel pin or tie tack? Subtle identification tokens, but obvious if somebody knew to look for them. You could even have tokens that were identical except for color: one color would denote 'security,' another color could denote 'armed,' etc...

I have never been part of or responsible for a security team.
I am thinking about one thing though in regards to it.

So just a thought;
There has always been the question of how visible a policing force should be.
One idea is that they should be very visible and the reasoning is that you want their simple presence to be a deterrent to the bad guys and you want them easily found if somebody needs help. It also should be loud enough that they can tell easily if they are in their right positions or not.

Second;
If your church is like any other organization I have ever seen then as soon as you have people designated as some kind of authority they will be expected to act as ushers as well as security guards. You will likely find yourselves expected to act as first aid, as fire marshals and as almost every other service that your churches administrators are wanting but too cheap to contract out for.

I have never been part of or responsible for a security team.
I am thinking about one thing though in regards to it.

So just a thought;
There has always been the question of how visible a policing force should be.
One idea is that they should be very visible and the reasoning is that you want their simple presence to be a deterrent to the bad guys and you want them easily found if somebody needs help. It also should be loud enough that they can tell easily if they are in their right positions or not.

Second;
If your church is like any other organization I have ever seen then as soon as you have people designated as some kind of authority they will be expected to act as ushers as well as security guards. You will likely find yourselves expected to act as first aid, as fire marshals and as almost every other service that your churches administrators are wanting but too cheap to contract out for.

Two things come to mind; the legality of it, and the need for it. As for the legality of it; I wont speak on that, thats for you to look into. As for the need...is there trouble there? Has there been? I lived mostly in communities of 50,000 or less, and have never seen, nor even HEARD, of a church having a protective detail until a few years ago. Where is our society going?!?!?!

All that being said, here is how I feel it should be run; security guards, armed or otherwise, should be entirely separate from the congregation. They should neither be hired from, nor belong to, the congregation. This prevents any possible legal issues.
If they are armed, ENSURE they have had the correct training!!! I cannot stress this enough; someone who shoots a kid for spitting on a sidewalk, the whole church would suffer. Firearms come with daunting responsibility; do NOT take this likely.
Uniforms are an absolute must. IF there is an incident, it is easy for the local PD to pick out who they are. And, a visual presence can prevent most issues.
The congregation should be left alone-if someone carries in church, that is his/her business. Legal or not. Unless they are passing through metal detectors, or causing issues, there would be some legal issues with a search of a person, unless there is some sort of agreement beforehand. And, unless your security detail are police, or have had police training, they likely dont know how to search, and what violates an individuals rights, etc.
There are a lot of legal issues involved here-and, its best not to skirt them. You can put the whole congregation at risk. CCW plain clothed security isnt an option IMHO; there are too many variables. I also am not a fan of allowing members of the congregation to carry firearms, as you dont know the level of training of them-people panic in times of stress....

Sorry, but I simply cannot fathom going to a church that needs security...I dont think I would want to be part of that community, if I had a choice. No offense to the OP...but a place of peace shouldnt NEED this level of protection. It simply baffles the mind!!!

IMO, any armed security should be contracted out to locally licensed professionals, either from a security company or (with OK of their employer) local LEOs.

This is not a DIY volunteer project. Way too many legal and liability problems.

Not quite the same situation, but our HOA had a security problem, and looked at various alternatives, and ended up hiring off duty local police to provide some additional security. Worked out well; they can use their police vehicle and are in radio contact with their dispatch. Plus, it helps our underpaid police.

RE Identifying who is on the team

"Color of the Day"

The members wear a bandana, a hat, a jacket, some OBVIOUS piece of clothing that is in the "color of the day", which changes

Undercover police do this, and each shift is told the color

Yes, I can imagine that worked out very well!

Everybody knows the police and what authorities they represent. Private security, in particular armed private security, is an unknown variable. In a setting where I would not expect any trouble or reasons for security personnel, I'd react with shock and grief to the presence of either (what have the world come to and all..) - but I'd be MUCH more comfortable with the presence of a police officer than some unknown guy from an unknown private security company. I trust the training and integrity of police officers, whereas some private security companies may or may not train adequately (and some will hire just about anyone with enough brains to fill in their application form).


That being said, the U.S. has a much higher level of police being present and visible than my home turf. When in the U.S, it seems like almost every road block is guarded by a patrol car. At home, if I see the police doing anything else than driving past it means something serious is happening. The presence of a police officer is a very serious danger sign because they are there for a very specific and probably nasty reason.

It's not a sign of the times, but rather the way things have always been. When you get a group of like minded individuals together, anywhere, and there is an opposition to that group you've got the potential for trouble. Places of worship have always been and will always be targets for someone. I challenge you to find an era where no places of worship have been attacked. You've just been lucky and/or have not heard about incidents.



You're right, they SHOULDN'T NEED that level of protection, not in this country of supposed tolerance and freedom. However, in my opinion, it is smart to be prepared for any contingency especially where history shows a need for one.

It shouldn't; especially in small, quiet, rural communities.

There are places that normal people would like to think we are safe. However, if you actually think evil is going to stop at the door of our churches, homes or schools then you aren't looking at history very objectively.

There are many examples but here is one recent case. The perpetrator has not been caught.

http://newsok.com/life-goes-on-in-anadarko/article/3400327?custom_click=lead_story_title#

The grisly Aug. 23 slaying of the Rev. Carol Daniels garnered international attention after her mutilated body was found on a Sunday afternoon inside the Christ Holy Sanctified Church. Sources told The Oklahoman Daniels was found nude and in what appeared to be a "crucifix position” behind the altar.

I agree, oldsoldier, that we shouldn't need this level of security. But sometimes we do.

Not all of us go to "church." I, for instance, regularly go to a synagogue, as I am Jewish. Truth be told, the US is the ONLY country I've ever gone to synagogue in where there were not guards armed with automatic weapons on site to protect the congregation. (I've worshiped in synagogues in the US, Germany, Israel, Greece, Nepal, Thailand, and Singapore. I even stopped by at the Jewish comunity center in Senegal once, but that was located in the Israeli consulate, so it doesn't count.) Unfortunatly, there are people out there who for whatever reason just don't like us Jews. Just a few weeks ago, there was a group of protesters outside of synagogues in Brooklyn, NY, holding up signs saying the "God hates Jews." Nice.

Standard procedure here in NYC is to hire off-duty police to provide armed security. At the larger synagogues, there is someone full time (often a retured cop who can still be armed), at the smaller ones it's only on the holidays or when something visible is going on.

I was a trustee of a synagogue in Brooklyn for a year, and I have to say, lines of communication with the NYPD were generally quite good. Our local precinct usually parked a car outside the building on holidays or when we were hosting public events, and regularly gave us a headsup if they came across something we should be aware of.

That said, legally armed private citizens in NYC (outside of their homes) are rare in NYC, so we never even considered the option of providing our own armed security. Ushers were always instructed to be on the lookout for "suspicious individuals" and to hit the panic button if necessary. (Silent alarm painic buttons wired to the NYPD were in the rabbis' office, at the pulpit, and near the front door.)

Thanks for the continued comments, all good points to consider.

One issue discussed was that any potential member of the security team would need to have the ability to meet the same background criteria as for a CCW license.

My community is over 400,000, so we get the good and bad. There have been some vandalism and break-ins during nighttime hours.

Here are some church incidents from the last 6 years which have gotten many churches at least thinking about increased security:

* August 23, 2009: Anadarko, OK. The mutilated body of Rev. Carol Daniels was found inside the Christ Holy Sanctified Church on a Sunday afternoon. She was nude and in what appeared to be a "crucifix position” behind the altar.

* March 8, 2009: Marysville, IL. 27-year-old Terry Sedlacek walked into the morning service at First Baptist Church of Maryville, approached the Rev. Fred Winters, firing four times before his handgun jammed, fatally wounding Winters. Two parishioners were injured with a knife as they subdued Sedlacek.

* November 23, 2008: Clifton, NJ, Joseph “Sanish” Pallipurath killed his estranged wife and another churchgoer and injured one at the St. Thomas Syrian Orthodox Knanaya Church.

* July 27, 2008: Jim Adkisson killed 2 and injured 7 at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, TN. Believed to be out of his hatred for the church’s “Liberal social policies”.

* July 25, 2008: Brian Neiman killed after threatening Christian station WTLR in State College, PA. The gunman was killed by police on the grounds of the station. Bipolar disorder.

* December 9, 2007: Matthew Murray (24) kills two at Youth With A Mission dorm in Arvada, CO, then kills two at New Life Church in Colorado Springs before killing himself after being wounded by a church Security guard (Jeanne Assan).

* August 12, 2007: A lone gunman, Eiken Elam Saimon, opened fire in a Missouri Micronesian church, killing a pastor and two other churchgoers.

* May 20, 2007: A standoff between police and a suspect in the shootings of three people in a Moscow, Idaho, Presbyterian Church ended with three dead, including one police officer.

* Although not at a church building, the Oct. 2, 2006, attack in Lancaster County, Pa., by a gunman who killed five girls and then himself at an Amish school targeted a religious site.

* May 21, 2006: Baton Rouge, LA. Anthony Bell opened fire Sunday morning at the Ministry of Jesus Christ church hitting five people, four of them fatally before abducting his wife, whom he later shot to death at another location.

* Feb. 26, 2006: Michigan. Two people were killed at Zion Hope Missionary Baptist Church by a man who reportedly went to the church looking for his girlfriend. He later killed himself.

* April 9, 2005: A 27-year-old airman died after being shot at a church in College Park, Ga., where he had once worked as a security guard.

* March 12, 2005: A man walked into the services of the Living Church of God in Milwaukee and open fired immediately, killing seven people.

* Oct. 5, 2003: A woman opened fire in Turner Monumental AME church in Kirkwood, east of Atlanta, killing the pastor and two others.

I didnt mean to come of as niaeve or ignorant; I see it on the news all the time, and it is truly horrible. I guess the point I was trying to make was that, our society has broken down to the point where we now need armed security at places that condone peace. Its a sad state of affairs....

For the record though, I am still against a church policy that allows firearms. I have been a gun owner all my adult life, and have gone through several courses regarding them; I still wouldnt feel good with the "unknown vairables" of someone I dont know, firing into a crowd. At the very least, and to avoid any lawsuits, they should state that they ask people to keep firearms at home, and have that as an official policy. Then, it is the individuals responsibility, and not the church's, should something happen. Its sad, but thats the way we have to think these days, in a litiginous society (if I spelled that right!!).
I certainly wouldnt discourage individuals from doing what they feel they need to protect themselves, but if I were on the board for the church, I would certainly make it that the church isnt responsible for people carrying firearms.

Sorry, but topics like this disgust me. Not that people are defending themselves; that other would want to cause harm in a place promoting peace-REGARDLESS of the religious choice of the congregation!!! Its just a moral violation, akin to killing a police officer. Not only are you taking a life, you are thumbing your nose at something that people put trust in.

What is the benefit of "identifying" your security team to others? Or identifying if they're armed or not? If the team knows each other, the rest of the people don't need to know who they are. Probably better from a security standpoint if they don't. Before considering "how to identify?", first think about "why would I want to identify?" If there's no good reason to, ... don't.

Another thing to consider for armed security - are there any safe lines of fire in your church? Our sanctuary is laid out like an inside sports arena with the alter low and surrounded on all sides by the people (no, it's not a big mega-church, just medium sized, but that's the layout). Even in areas where you'd normally expect a reasonably safe line of fire, you have to consider all the many people around in every direction. That "backstop" you see is probably just a thin sheetrock wall with a Sunday School class on the other side.

I am all in favor of being prepared and able to defend yourself in any location, including at a church, but a mature and responsible person will have thought about and considered safe lines of fire long before any incident happens. You should have already come to conclusions (just examples here) "I will not fire in the sanctuary due to surrounding people, but the doorway to the east parking lot is a possibility during dire circumstances." It sounds a bit dark to discuss things like this, but a reasonable security force WILL discuss things like this, in advance.

Perhaps TV preachers are the wave of the future.

And drive-in churches. At least then you could lock your doors. Of course there'd still be church carjackers to fear.

Perhaps the church that is the subject of this thread should actively recruit parishioners from area police departments and encourage them to bring their guns, and badges, into church (if their police department sanctions carrying their guns off-duty - I don't know what the norm is on that).

I'd much rather have professional off-duty, armed police in my congregation than nonprofessionals with concealed carry permits.

Despite the listing of past incidents in churches, I have to wonder if this is not over-reaction. In this nation of 300 million people, a significant list spanning several years can be compiled on just about any category of violence.

I don't mean to belittle this discussion. It is interesting and I'm going to discuss it with friends in a number of churches in the DC metro area. Perhaps this is a concern more widespread than I realized.

If this is the depths to which this country has sunk, it saddens me less than it angers.

I live in one of the most crime-ridden, violent metropolitan areas in America. I'd feel safe inside a church on Sunday morning in even the worst zip codes. And zip codes aren't even determinative of parishioners as people here commute from the 'burbs to attend inner city churches such as are near me (mostly Maryland plates, but some Virginia, park outside our neighborhood churches on Sundays).

I'm of the opinion that things actually haven't gotten any worse over the years, there's just more of us and everyone's got a cell phone camera. Anyway, as far as your security situation goes, why not form an LLC or become official employees of the church organiztion? That way you've got some liability coverage. And why not have a uniformed security person at each entrance? The uniform can be anything from a tan blazer to a polo shirt with a logo. As long as it looks official, that type of visibility may be your first line of defense. I'm guessing someone with criminal intent is less likely to pick a target with visible security.

I've been in "The Church" all my life. I'm a preachers kid. Even married one. I am also on my local churches board of trustees. Many faiths have a national structure with local districts. I'm a Methodist. We have a document that governs most everything in the church. It's called "The Discipline". Unless your church is a small independant one.(and many are) there may be some guideance for you in such a document. It's worth looking into.

First things first...

A church is an easy mark for all sorts of violent scenarios.

You don't advertise a security team. For that matter, no one involved in regular church ops need even know there's a security force active within the church. You do need to abide by all the rules and laws governing such operations, including lawful concealed carry.

The security team should know unequivically who are and aren't members without the need for special ident.

If you want a deterrence, post a sign. If you want security, don't let anyone know what's going on that doesn't need to know, which means if they aren't part of the security ops, then they don't need to be told.

At our church, we probably have at least two different security teams. I am certain only members of the security teams are aware that people are in church armed and ready to respond to threats, and the pastor is not one of the people who knows. There are action/response plans and control points that dictate how the security teams will respond to various threat scenarios.

Might be a good idea. A local pastor just shot his wife last
week.

Benjaminn, I am going to disagree. Visible presence IS a deterrent-we all see this every day. Think of the cop cars parked on the side of the road-even unoccupied, people STILL slow down. Seeing security there-and it could simply be blazers-having a VISIBLE presence deters criminals. That being said-someone intent on doing someone harm WILL attempt it-security or no. Having a strong visual presence can deter your average criminal-you are hardening your target. Statistics prove out that simple visual queues can deter most criminals-many, many people put up security alarm system signs on their lawns-and dont have an alarm system. Some even go so far as to purchase fake window breach alarms, in case the criminal decides to look for himself. HE doesnt know its fake-but he sees it, and will hopefully look for an easier target.
A visible security force, a good, MONITORED alarm system, and, if you want, an invisible backup force are the way to go. But, again, this is likely out of the realm of the budget for the church. At the very least, I would look into a panic button to the local PD.

Visible deterence might work for the casual crook who is just looking for an easy target, any target. But I doubt it would have much effect on someone intent on doing specific harm to a specific person or place. Like the terrorist type who just want to attack the church for some insane reason known only to themselves. Those die-for-the-cause whackos would just kill the visible security folks and go on with their plans.

I can see your point oldsoldier, and for casual crime, visual deterrence would seem sufficient. From our perspective, a church is not a very likely casual crime risk, and advertising a security force presence there only allows an intended criminal to make better plans at overcoming the defenses. Were we dealing with something like vandalism or burglary, then a conspicuous camera placement and an alarm system would probably take care of the threat. However, our biggest risk is an armed attack during services (risk being a product of likelihood and magnitude). For this reason, clandestine armed presence seems to be the best mitigation against the greatest risk, and so our security team is independent from the administration as well (as members of the church, we are all stakeholders in the general welfare, and do not need consent from the executive level since there are no provisions against members being in church legally armed otherwise).

Given the situation that unfolded in Colorado Springs a couple years ago, where an armed assailant was neutralized by an unidentified armed security member in a church, this plan of action seems prudent and germaine.

Yup. She took down the bad guy pretty quick! Good for her!

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.

Take another look at Tirecs list. The shooters are nut cases looking for death. They want to have an audience though, their 15 minutes of fame and most of them want to go down in a blaze of glory with all guns firing. Offering to engage in a shoot out with them is not a deterrent or a control.
However they are not really interested in being taken out in front of a locked door before they get to do any damage.
They are no different than suicide bombers.

Another sad point is that when you look at all these shooters in schools, churches and other public buildings most of them have already aroused suspicion in their communities because of their bizarre behaviour. Often they are shooting inside of their own churches and schools

Yes my philosophy of this is a bit different.
These people are obviously mental. They have a death wish and an imaginary score to settle.
I think just the fact they are not already in a padded cell is a security breach.

I do think of exclusion first. If I could I would not let them approach within range at all. If I could stop them at the parking lot I would. If the best I can do is the doors then so be it.
If they make it past the doors hopefully they made enough noise doing it that the people at the next point are warned.

If they have already been allowed into the crowd it is too late to prevent carnage. No matter how much of a quick-draw artist you are or how accurate you shoot they are going to get some shots off.

Benjammin caught the point about layers of security, and yes each layer has to be backed by another layer.
How many layers you get and how effective you will be at preventing incidents depends entirely on how much you are willing to pay for.
If all you are willing to pay for is volunteers in the congregation then all you are getting is the final layer of response.
Not only that, your final layer offers these nut cases exactly the response they desire. They want that big splashy exit. Remember when you look at Tirec's list what most of those people were after and how many of them suicided after they were stopped shooting.

As I said before, I have never been part of or responsible for a security team.
I have observed them and have done some of the set up for them though.
The most interesting security provisions I saw were for President Reagan's visit to Toronto in 1988. The most interesting part to me was the month of preparations along the Gardiner Expressway for his motorcade to pass.
Lots of layers there.
There have been a few times I wondered if Reagan was even in that motorcade at all, or if he was quietly brought in by a completely different route.

The visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip and Prince Edward to Victoria BC in 1994 was kind of interesting too.
It was a lot lower key, but every bit as intense.
The sweep of all underwater structures and hulls in the harbour was a surprise.
Both of these people are surrounded by bodies which are there to get in the way of a bullet or take down an attacker if they need to.
But the only way that should ever be needed is if all the layers before them have already failed.

This brings us full circle now on why our security group chose the option we did:

A. The administration was not willing to support the use of force to suppress an attack.

2. Active security measures were viewed as repulsive to the purposes of the call to worship. Cameras, signs, and detection equipment was actually considered an impediment to the extended invitation and was voted down.

d - A visible security force/team present during service was considered too distracting and intimidating for the general congregation.

Thus, we were left with really only one viable option for this limited situation, which seems as practical as will be allowed. Under different conditions and facilities, a more layered and proactive security plan would be much more feasible.

Pretty much yes, Ben.
You notice something like it with airline passengers too.
They want the planes and airports secured but they get real annoyed about the need to go through security checks or to have their luggages inspected. It was especially so when the security was dramatically increased and became much more visible after 911.

People get the security they are willing to pay for. It is not just the money cost either.
The cost includes inconvenience and the challenge to their world view as well.
Even a house alarm costs you some convenience because you have to make the effort to set and maintain it. The more elaborate the security measures are the more inconvenient they are.

The challenge to the world view is a bit more deep. It would seem seeing security in place should make people feel more relaxed, but a lot of people are just reminded that the world is not as secure as they would like and they find that disturbing.

There is one other problem with security on a church. The Church wants to project the image of welcoming all persons and the image of being a safe refuge from the world at the same time.
Security negates both of those conflicting messages.

If you need people with guns protecting it then it is not a safe place, it is a place under siege.
If security is screening people at the door then they are not openly welcoming because they are excluding some people who are regarded as unacceptable threats.

I won't even go near what security means in regards to the power of God to save people from evils.
----edit-----
Anyway, at the end of it all I would still say the first thing is to get control of the doors. You can call your people ushers, you can call them greeters. You can call them whatever you like, and they can be as smiley as you want.
Just so long as they easily identifiable and are competent to secure the access points.
If they can screen for you, and if there is a problem create enough of a disturbance and delay for the next level of response to get there, they have done great.

Yes, and we do have ushers at the entrance of the sanctuary, though they are never armed and likely not at all prepared to deal with any threat situation, but they are at least a presence. If nothing else they give the latent security force the chance to respond.

After Iraq, most of the places I frequent here now I consider to be targets of opportunity for bad guys. Just a different mindset. When you see a whole city block set ablaze in less than 30 seconds and the houses full of bullet holes where the day before they were full of families, well, how do we in our present condition defend against something like that? The answer is for now at least, we don't. Odds are such an attack will never happen. But if it did, the devastation would be overwhelmingly thorough.

Well, I agree there is a point to that Ben.
We do have different views.

At least two sets of doors if possible. The Foyer first, then the Sanctuary doors.

The second comment is about profiling the threat.
One thing to consider is that most of these shooters are not organized very well. The best they are able to put together seems to be a suicide run with guns.
Because they are usually mentally unstable loners they are too socially disconnected to have a team or other support either.

I think that is why you see them doing the sniper and mall shooter OK corral type of plays in their little bids for attention.

I have one other thought to throw at you here.
If they had the knowledge, or organization behind them, to put together a Oklahoma City scene then having an armed congregation would not help much.
Either they would detonate in the middle of your crowd and be going to meet Jesus in the sky just like any other Jihaddi, or they would be expecting to stay secret and get away with it like Nichols and McVeigh.
(Of course Nichols and McVeigh are not in the profile of most of these Church shooters because it was a political action on their part and not for personal attention.)

The other shooters that appear are the estranged husbands and the boyfriends. There are always the people who are doing an shooting, knifing or beating out of purely personal motives.
Seldom are there attacks over business interests, but they do happen.
Either way whatever the reason these ones are just doing the murder in public is because it is where their intended victims are.
These ones are not usually after fame or "glory" but are after a specific target who just happens to be in your building.
They might be there to shoot the ex-wife or the mother in-law, they might be an upset wife there to kill her cheating hubby, or they might even be after an accountant who stole their life savings from them.

Now some questions for you.

If you were teaching your doormen what to watch for and alert you about, then what things would you put into the profile for people of interest?
Facial expression, body language, known personal conflicts, whether the person looks too disturbed or too calm, how much of a loner they are?
If you were alerted to somebody in the profile would you check them out, maybe refer them to counselling, or possibly even report them to official departments for suspicious behaviour?
Would you have somebody keeping an eye on them just in case they tried to do something?
In other words would you take a proactive or a reactive position?


I know profiles are never perfect and the intelligence about personal issues might not be available but those are things that should be worked on too.

If you know somebody in your congregation who suddenly starts acting "funny" then that should be a person of interest so far as security goes. You can consider the outreach or counselling people as a security resource in this case too.

Finally one odd observation and question. Very few Churches are ever robbed even though they have decent sized collections of cash during service.
So why aren't more Churches robbed?
----
I just wanted to add one more thing Ben.
I mentioned earlier that security personnel get re-purposed to act as defacto first aid responders, ushers, parking attendants, cab hailers, tourist info, lost child locaters and everything else.
The flip side of that is all of the people doing those jobs can also be re-purposed to serve security functions, usually without them even being aware they are now part of a security system.

I think you had already picked the thought up, but I just wanted to make it explicit instead of implicit.

Wow, Scafool, how'd we make it on to the same page all of a sudden?

The threat will manifest itself differently and for different reasons based on the target audience. It would be difficult if not impossible to defend a church like ours from an organized politically or socially based attack, but fortunately our church is not a relevent enough target for such a thing at this point in time. Not enough return on investment for such an attacker to hit a church when there are schools, courthouses and the like that are much higher profile.

BTW, we too have two sets of doors, the threshold door at the foyer and the interior doors into the sanctuary, and both are manned by greeters/ushers. If I were to train them, it would be to get as intimate as possible with new faces; the idea being that those with alterior motives will tip their hands easier if confronted. In other words, getting up close and personal with someone who has an agenda for attack will most likely force them to give away a tell as to their intention. As you say, facial expressions, willful disengagement, nervousness, anxiety, all are reads that tell the observers there's something there that warrants due diligence. So I think our lines of thought now are congruous.

I also expect that Sunday morning collections might become a bigger prospect for the desperate. One thing that thwarts this notion is most folks nowadays are writing checks for collection than dropping cash. If someone were to case our church and notice that most of the paper in the trays is not legal tender, I expect they'd seek fortune elsewhere.

To some extent, we are making use of the inferential intel and opportunistic contact our greeter staff use to give our latent forces a bit of a heads up, and yes, it is inadvertant on the greeters' part. Good call.

If the bubble does ever go up, I expect Churches will be a rallying point for many. For this reason, we do keep a cache hidden at church that no one else knows about.

We still have some differences in our approach Ben, but we are at least in the same chapter of the book, even if it isn't exactly on the same page.
I still think the security should be visible and kept separate, and I do recognize the factors that interfere with that too.

We likely have some profound differences in how we would do the walk through too.

Oh I dunno. I bet we are closer on that than we'd believe now as well.

I'd be happy to do a walkthrough with you anytime. Always a chance for me to learn something more.