On the nature of security: Coda by Fremdfirma

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

On the nature of security: Coda

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Thursday, October 11, 2007 06:07
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 554
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:30 AM

I am posting this for a reason, and as a sort of coda to something else.

You might recall a while back I assisted some small bi-lingual media companies and independants with security services, and had a nice long rant on what does and does not constitute proper security.

This is a sort of closure to the event that sparked those companies to go looking for that kind of security protection - quite specifically, against over-aggressive police.

(Please take note that May Day is also an Anarchist holiday and generally celebrated by mock demonstration, such as tongue in cheek, staged "attempts" to storm city hall, etc etc - or attending someone elses demonstration, which is how this caught my attention.)

Original URL - http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_7134559

L.A. police faulted for using excessive force during rally

By Richard Winton
Los Angeles Times
San Jose Mercury News

LOS ANGELES - The May Day MacArthur Park melee, in which Los Angeles Police Department officers clashed with protesters and journalists, occurred because of a series of errors by police commanders, according to a long-awaited report released Tuesday.

Officials said 26 officers are under investigation and could face discipline for excessive use of force during the incident.

The report, prepared by top LAPD officials, highlighted numerous missteps by commanders and officers before and during the confrontation:

• Deputy Chief Caylor "Lee" Carter "underestimated the size and significance" of the rally, which took place at the end of an immigration protest.

• Commanders did not take advantage of the more than 450 officers available to handle the crowds at the park, relying instead on a smaller group of elite officers who easily became overwhelmed.

• Officers appeared to use more force on journalists and protesters than LAPD policies or the law allow, the report said. "It appeared that some of the officers and supervisors in MacArthur Park believed that, contrary to department policy, baton strikes could be used to compel a person to disperse, even if they were merely standing in front of the officers, failing to respond to direction," the report said.

• There was confusion among officers about who was in charge, with some officers saying there was tension between Carter and two other commanding officers.

The clash injured 42 protesters, reporters and police and is considered a black eye for the LAPD. TV footage showed officers wielding batons and firing rubber bullets at reporters covering the story.

Police Chief William J. Bratton has been highly criticized for the way the incident was handled by officers and ordered that officers be retrained in crowd-control tactics. He also created a crowd-control bureau and bought new technology to aid in crowd management.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:32 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Of course that "New Technology" bit worries me, given a dept which thinks breaking a reporters arm with a nightstick is appropriate as instruction to disperse...

Anyhows, so far the security arrangements, with a few hitches inevitable to such things, have gone well, actively preventing several incidents that without their intervention, the personnel involved honestly thought there was a chance of the reporter and/or camera crew being roughed up by overly aggressive police.

Basically you got one on-site guy, one crowd-mingler, and one backup who also provides vehicle security in the meantime.

How this works, so far the tactical outline that has worked best, is that when police are spotted moving towards the reporter, the crowd-mingler does a walk-by (crossing the path of the on-site guy) to let him know "somethings up, look sharp", and takes up a position close by, and if circumstances merit - generally police involvement rather than just some yahoos, he punches the alert signal to the rearguard, who moves in as well.

If nothing comes of it, all well and good - but if the officers engage, they stand ready nearby in low-profile, it could just be the police warning them that the area is unsafe, or being curious in both personal and professional manner, which is common enough and not a problem.

If the officer seems aggressive, and the situation seems to be escalating, the rear-guard steps in and self-identifies, attempting to divert the officers attention while the principles move away, but remain in sight, to try and calm the situation.
This also keeps the cover of the other two, since the back-up guy is a non-cover to begin with.

If THAT doesn't work, and there is risk of danger to the reporter and/or camera crew, the rear-guard calls "ALPHA!" and all three security personnel *immediately* form a shield wall in front of the reporter, while the camera personnel step back and go online to document, moving also away from each other if there is more than one.

We have had, thankfully, ZERO incidents in great part thanks to that last protocol, because the officer is immediately aware that he is facing multiple credible witnesses, and is being taped besides, and it's no longer him versus one or two, but versus five, three of whom obviously have some level of training.

Only once has it been pressed, and that with a charge of obstructing sidewalk traffic and failure to obey officer instruction, summarily dismissed with prejudice and a verbal warning to the officer in question.

Of the three security personnel, only one, the crowd-mingler, is armed at all, and only with an extendable baton (not legal for civvies in CA, but conditionally legal for security folk) for the most dire of emergencies, when the lives of the principles are in direct danger - limiting liability and legal concerns, while maintaining an effective coverage for any reasonable situation that might pop up.

(In the case of a threat to the life of the principle, he can effectively strike from ambush, using surprise and shock value to help neutralize the threat - thankfully it's never even come close to that, knock on wood.)

I would have to say so far so good, they've really gotten their moneys worth, and all of the initial contracts, after some negotiation, have been extended.

Some of the companies involved have of course filed legal action against the Police Dept, and fearing departmental retaliation for that fact, were very keen to keep the security folk given their performance, and expressed satisfaction in particular with their low profile, professionalism and restraint.

So a job well done, although I cannot exactly name names, but a credit to the work nonetheless.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:07 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Whether it's anarchists, illegal aliens, or other pathetic group of miscreantic bloodsuckers really doesn't matter to me. As far as I'm concerned they could all be bashed in the head by law enforcement and left to bleed to death on the streets...or even better....big gargage trucks with extended forks mobilized to scoop up all the sub-human filth, and take them to be processed in Soylent Green plant # 27.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:42 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Uh huh, and as I juuust this moment posted somewhere else...

Any time you give the Gov the power to do something FOR you - it carries the risk and effect of giving that Gov the power to also do it TO you.

Might wanna buy a helmet there, Jong... although I can't see what good it would do you, there's not much left in there to protect, it would seem.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:00 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Might wanna buy a helmet there, Jong... although I can't see what good it would do you, there's not much left in there to protect, it would seem.

You're a regular riot Alice. Bang, zoom!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Jongsstraw- have you really thought your position thru?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:22 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Why?...Are you gonna tell me I'm stupid too because I don't think like you? Forget it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:12 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Any time you give the Gov the power to do something FOR you - it carries the risk and effect of giving that Gov the power to also do it TO you.

Its your desire to deny the Federal Govt. the power to protect you because you fear they'll NOT protect you (from themselves).

I would suggest you worry about the abuses on your rights by terrorists...but that would require imagination instead of paranoid delusion. I note that if your in the room with an agent of the US govt. you've got rights. If your in the room with a Jihadist...you'r probably going to lose your head...and without even a trial.

Respond to me. Say something bad about the government and the President. If you survive the experiance...and you will...without being tortured, arrested, held without bail, jailed without a hearing, or abused in any way...which we both know is the case. Then I would suggest you reconsider the amount of evil the govt. intends to do you. Cause it aint so and your living proof.

If, on the other hand, you are killed for expressing your opinion...then I promise to rethink my position.

And none of that secret govt-militia-death-squad-jewish-nazi-queen-elizabeth crazy talk either. Either they've just beaten down your door and hauled you off or they haven't.

Truth is your not even on anybody's radar, they could care less about you and your nonsensical poltical opinions and aside from your one tiny vote (likely wasted on the likes of Ron Paul) and minimal contribution to the tax base...you just don't matter and that pisses you off most of all.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:17 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Why?...Are you gonna tell me I'm stupid too because I don't think like you? Forget it.

No, I am gonna tell you are stupid and not because you don't think like syg, because I think he is stupid too. See there are degrees of stupidity. You are dangerous stupid. That is the lowest form of stupid, but you are to stupid to know that...Right? See dangerous stupid says, what dangerous stupid hears, even when what dangerous stupid hears comes from hairy republican rears. And there lies the danger in dangerous stupid, stupid, ears evolved to hear sound...not shit! So, if you hear shit I can only wonder what you speak...see, I can only come to one conclusion, Dangerous stupid listens to shit and spouts on like a fucktard from his ass. So, now you ask "what about dangerous stupid's mouth?", like I said before ...it is believed to be no more than a cockholster.

If I have mislabeled you I apoligize. I can be wrong now and then. I first thought you were lazy stupid, but after your post in this thread I think my diagnosis is right on.....Well, it's true.........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:32 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Wow !...and all that coming from our very own inane drone. I'm impressed!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:53 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Jongsstraw: I'm just wondering, if you hate America's freedoms as much as you appear to, why don't you go live someplace nice and orderly? Like Cuba, or Singapore, or Communist China?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Its your desire to deny the Federal Govt. the power to protect you because you fear they'll NOT protect you (from themselves). I would suggest you worry about the abuses on your rights by terrorists...

See there you go again with that Bend over die DIE!!! shit. You have failed to show that it's NECESSARY for us to lose our rights in order to be safe. Until you can show that is the case... and in your zillion posts on the topic you have not even come close... all I can say is that you don't have a point. So show us it's necessary or just stop posting about it because there is a huge gap in your mentation that undercuts your entire point.

Quote:
but that would require imagination instead of paranoid delusion. I note that if your in the room with an agent of the US govt. you've got rights.

Sure.

Yanno, I understand prolly more than you that we're facing a real enemey. 9-11 didn't surprise me at all. I knew it was going to happen sooner or later and I just was grateful it wasn't worse. And I expect that several terrorist cells somewhere are planning something bigger and even badder.

But I live in the USA. I doubt that I'm going to be in a room facing a jihadist (speaking of paranoid delusions). Much more likely I'm going to interact at some point or another with our very own security folks, as has happened in the past. Do I want to be facing someone who has no limits, the Jack Bauer type that you all seem to be so obsessed with? That's just as bad as facing a jihadist, isn't it?

It's as Rue said: We didn't have to become Nazis in order to fight them, and we don't have to become terrorists in order to fight them too.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE