I was a little baffled by his aspirations, but that was before I learned the differences between security officers in Europe and America.
We all know that Europe has a substantial head start when it comes to dealing with terrorism and how corporate security can fill a lot of gaps when it comes to protecting people and assets.
But I think we are still lagging behind far too much in how we deploy security officers, support them and still expect the world from them.
Yesterday's attack on the Holocaust Memorial Museum should be an eye opener to anyone in charge of security officer operations. Especially in locations that can serve as likely targets for religious, political or ideological reasons.
Few people know the exact details surrounding this event yet, but from most accounts it looks like a good case of security officers doing a great job. The fact that a man walked into the building shooting from the start, and everything was over in about two minutes with no civilian deaths is impressive.
The fact that one of the officers died in the process is tragic, but what's even more tragic to me is the fact that it doesn't look like the officers were issued vests.
The Huffington Post is reporting that they were not - and that the government could start providing them. To me, it's absolutely automatic for any officer carrying a gun, or screening people for weapons should have a protective vest. Unfortunately, that's the kind of thing that's too often susceptible to value engineering when the client and provider go over the nuts and bolts of the contract.
No one likes spending money these days, but it's ridiculous to place the safety of your assets, in the hands of your officers when you pay them bottom dollar and give them the bare minimum for support.
