Threat Assessment and Planning for Personal Security
Contrary to the dream of American society on the creation of safe neighborhoods and attacks on the individuals and their properties, much has to be done by criminologists to achieve this security dream. This is in the light that there have been many attacks against key persons who are involved in critical cases since the past have been attacked or/and assassinated increasing the need to equip our security agencies with knowledge of threat assessment and planning in regard to personal security.
Unfortunately, protecting people working or involved in undertakings within the corrections environment has become one of the most risk and dangerous job for security personnel (Katz and Caspi 2003). As a consequence, the attacks on the targets connected to the corrections environment and their underlying causes have impact not only on the American society safety, but also on the judicial system (Wax 1992).
In this regard, this paper shall seek to describe a systematic mechanism aimed at preventing targeted crime in relation to personalized security of a key defendant who should appear in a court from and back to his house including his homestead. In order to do this successfully, the paper shall look at the threat assessment, planning and execution of key security measures to protect this defendant. Threat Assessment
Criminology scholars noted that acts of violence directed against public figures do threaten ideal of an open and free society despite disturbing most Americans. This impact on the ideals of a free and open society that criminologists struggle to facilitate, prompt a vexing question of how best to prevent targeted crimes against public figures. The answer that was found worth the question was needed to develop a protective intelligence capacity; threat assessment.
According to Wax (1992) states that threat assessment as a fact based mechanism involves three core components: first, identify the individual (s) or group that appear to have inappropriate intentions for the target (Wax 1992 ; Berkman 1994; Holden 1995); second, conduct comprehensive research and investigate whether the identified person or group pose risk of attacking the potential target; and thirdly, the security agencies should design, develop and implement a security plan to manage the perceived or projected risk with aim of preventing a possible attack.
Using this model of threat assessment to this case, it implies that the primary group that poses risk of assassinating or attacking the principal shall be a rival white supremacists group that is vying for political power within the movement. Other groups that can be the possible threat to security of principal can be individuals with black and Jew ethnic orientation since this are the main groups which are at conflict with the principal.
However caution should be taken in identifying the threat group since there is no “typical” demographic profile of an assassin as anyone, at any place and at any time can pose a threat and attack the principal. Therefore, the assessment of the threat in this context should not chances and any loose ends since any group can be a threat or use any machinery to assassinate the principal. Security Plan
The security plan for the day of principal appearing before the court shall be centered on the key principle of threat assessment approach which state that any inappropriate behavior or/and communication causes concern should not be ignored as it should be treated as a potential threat. The security details from home shall encompass the strategies that minimizes environmental propensity for staging a possible attack while at the same time increases the perpetrators risk.
In moving from and back to house from court, the security attention shall be focused on the concept of time and distance such that court times are adhered to while also not following the fixed schedule to destabilize the potential attacker timing. The principal shall be made to be a hard target from the house door shall be surrounded by my security persons to deter any attempts to assassin or fire.
The vehicles used shall be three identical to confuse potential assassins, vehicles driven at a high speed with bullet proof glasses to prevent firing through glasses and minimize time of the attacker to plan how to launch the attack (Berkman 1994; Holden 1995). When we arrive at the court car park “soft spot” (Wax 1992), precaution shall be taken against surrounding environment since many assassinations have occurred outside courthouse specifically at car parks.
At this time the principal shall be surrounded to harden the target. However, since my principal is planned to make grand entrance and meet the press making effective range of weapons (MER of weapons) shall be used through ensuring that the principal avoids close physical contact to prevent a possible close combats and edged weapons as an attack might be fast with fatal outcomes. While inside the court room, the security detail shall closely monitor the audience as well as other sources (Katz and Caspi 2003).
Thus, in case of any change in procedures or process go with the flow rule shall be in cooperated in the strategy while cooperating with the court security, yet remain flexible to handle emerging procedures or changes. From the courthouse back to house, the procedure shall be the same. Whilst at house at least a guard shall remain there and apply Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) (Vossekuil et al. 1999).
For instance, there can be the padlocks, restraining posters alarm system, camera systems, and the use of displaying firepower indicating that if any one attempts to kill the crew, the security crew can do the same. The essence of CPTED is indicate slim chances of success for perpetrators, thus reduces the ability to take risk. In conclusion, the paper has shown how to asses threat and plan to enforce necessary security measures for a personal security in a tensed situation.
However, caution should be taken while driving the target, meeting people, soft areas such as court parking’s and combination of time, distance and firepower; 21-foot rule. Additionally, the perpetrators of violence behaviors and communications are crucial and also need to be monitored (table 1) Appended documentation Table1. Inappropriate concern indicators Jaws tensed into a biting position Shoulders pulled back Palm-down gestures Frowning Clenched fists Staring References Berkman, H. (1994).
Threats to Judicial Security Not Being Met: National Law Journal, 12 Sept. G. A. Holden, G. (1995). Threat Assessment: An Approach to Prevent Targeted Violence. National Institute of Justice: Research in Action, Sept. : 1-7. Vossekuil, B. et al, (1999). Threat Assessment an Approach to Evaluating Risk of Targeted Violence: Behavioral Sciences & the Law 17:323-37. Katz, D. & Caspi, I (2003) Executive’s guide to personal security: New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. Wax, J. (1992), “Stop Violence in the Courthouse” National Law Journal, 24 Aug.Sample Essay of Custom-Writing