The Art of Staying Invisible: Mastering Low-Profile Protection
Let’s face it; we all like gear! More importantly, we like the kind of gear that the high-speed operators endorse. Whether we intend to use it daily in a demanding environment or throw it in the trunk of our car “for that day,” we want to know that we are using what the experts recommend. We are proud of our gear and want our peers to know that we wear, carry, or shoot only the finest. Many of us have seen (or owned) the T-shirt that says, “If you die first, we’re splitting up…” enough said.
However, when working in the often misunderstood field of protective operations, calling attention to our gear is usually a mistake. It lets others know who we are, and it often alienates or worries the very people we are assigned to protect.
Let’s think back to the principal focus of a protective mission. It is not only to prevent intentional or unintentional injury to the protectee but also to prevent embarrassment. Protection can only be successful if the protectee and their organization are cooperative and engaged, highlighting the need for subtle executive protection strategies.
The public expects to see guns and gear in combat theatres or high-profile presidential events. However, the vast majority of protective details are carried out by one or two agents (protection specialists) and are successful due to the invisibility of the security advance work.
Often, the protectee’s chief concern is not appearing to be “protected,” they are therefore reluctant to have you stand too close or impede their ability to look strong and independent in front of their constituents or friends. This situation underscores the importance of executive protection strategies that prioritize discretion and effectiveness without visibility.
Blending In: Techniques for Effective Protection without Detection
When temporary protective details are deployed for workplace violence incidents, the number-one concern of human resources professionals is, “We don’t want to see any guns…guns will alarm the employees!” But, what if the nature of the threat overwhelmingly indicates the necessity for firearms or other “hard” equipment, such as a recent case:
“An employee was discharged for making specific threats to the management and other employees of their facility, which included the use of a high-powered rifle to eliminate members of the workforce systematically. A quick background check revealed that the suspect employee did possess a firearms ownership permit for his state.
It also revealed that he had completed annual rifle marksmanship qualifications at a previous job. These facts, combined with our consulting psychologists’ opinion that the suspect may not have been “joking around,” as he had put it, but may have harbored some deep resentment that, under the right circumstances, could be acted upon, heightened the threat profile even further.”
Adapting to such situations requires innovative executive protection strategies, ensuring safety without exacerbating tensions or drawing undue attention.
When an assessment indicates that the defined or design basis threat is a scoped rifle in the hands of a qualified operator, it would be foolish to prepare for this by stationing an armed private security guard at the front gate. Even the best SWAT operators have difficulty delivering accurate fire with a handgun past 75 feet in low-light conditions; especially if their target is concealed, moving, or already shooting back.
Add to this scenario that the referenced manufacturing facility was a well-lit island of light, surrounded on three sides by wooded tree lines. When you factor in the 200 to 500-yard stand-off range or worry zone created by a seasoned rifleman, you quickly determine that you have opened hunting season on the uniformed security guards and the employees who take smoke breaks under the designated light poles.
This is one situation where the threat assessment has established a legitimate need for long-arms but has been shunned by non-protection decision-makers because of the prevailing politically correct environment. In other words, the protectees want or need protection, but they don’t want anyone to know how you protect them.
And, Heaven forbid that you would dare to bring a firearm into their “No Guns” site, even though the only constant in every workplace mass shooting in the last twenty years is that ubiquitous but impotent sign on the door. Such scenarios demand a nuanced understanding and application of executive protection strategies.