Allowing Retailers to fight back?

Kia Ora,

Retailers in particular in Auckland ar present are wanting law changes to be allowed to fight back when confronted by armed robbers.

They seem to think that by been allowed to arm themselves they will not be subject to the law.

In fact it won't change. Now having a weapon nearby can mean you have the intent to use it. That will not change if you are allowed a weapon. By having a weapon the law considers you have the intent to use it.

You are then governed by how & the amount of force to be applied.

The problem you have is in civilian life they talk of reasonable force but what is reasonable to the person in the armed situation might not be reasonable to the Judge sitting in court.

In the Military when using ROE's or rules of engagement we talk of minimum force required. That is the minimum force required to achieve the task.

This has worked well in Northern Ireland, peace keeping & contrary to popular opinion Iraq for both the military & private security.

Though we all technically had immunity from prosecution if you did not follow the rules of engagement then you could be prosecuted in an international court of law. In fact there are a number of US soldiers in particular who have international arrest warrants in their name last I heard(one tank crew in particular). So that if they step outside the US or US military protection they will be arrested for excessive use of force(a warning shot with the main armanent(120mm) of a M1 Abrahams is not minimum force required in the first instance).
Play It Out: How to Fight Fair Rules of Engagement
So any retailer thinking a law change to allow them to carry weapons(not to mention the training that would be required) will make it easier in law to fight back is wrong. They can fight back now & several have but how much force you can use will always be subject to the requirements of the law.

So are there other solutions?

Well yes.

First the government stop dumbing down the police & let them get out & do policing. That is stopping crime through a presence before not been just reactive. Also general arming of the police with much improved training since most criminals are armed now the police need to be.

Secondly requiring the security industry to actually do security. As it currently stands at least 95% of the industry does not do that. Not real security or they do not allow their staff to do it. There also needs to be a look at re arming some of the security industry. First there needs a real clean up of the industry & it has nothing to do with qualifications. Good training & a change in mindset is what is required.
Rules of Engagement: A Life in Conflict
Then there are the steps the retailers can take.

Group of retailers band together to hire private security with the requirement to keep a look out for suspicious behaviour(in other words do actual security).

As they are often told, keep windows clear so people can see in.

Then there is the action I saw offshore which apparently is very effective. I have suggested it to retailers here in Chrsitchurch in the past when there has been a series of armed robberies, but they are more concerned about using the space to sell.

That is set up a large TV that can be seen as soon as you walk in the door(virtually in the door). Now this doesn't have to be a new large plasma or flat screen. With Analogue TV on the way out there are going to be a lot of large screen TV's going cheap. Have a hidden camera & recording equipment, the camera focussed only on the entrance.
The Rules of Engagement: Understanding the Principles That Govern the Spiritual Battles in Our Lives
As people walk in the first thing they see if a large image of themselves. Anecdotal evidence overseas says that people in particular those with criminal intentions back out real quick. They have even apparently had people with full faced balaclava's backout on seeing themselves on the TV screen.

So allowing the retailers to arm themselves to fight back is not the answer. They will still be subject to the law & understand the law as it pertains to their situation.

But improving the general security in our society is!

http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz

Terrorist Raidss! Why do people feel they are picked on?

Kia Ora,

Well have been taking part in a forum where the discussion stemmed from the terrorist raids in the Tuhoe area here in New Zealand in the last few years.

For those that are not in NZ, what happened was after police surveillance, the NZ police raided an area where the Tuhoe Iwi(tribe) is based. From memory 17 were arrested country wide, only two really with connections to Tuhoe, but the community was raided with roads blocked off where the training had allegedly taken place. Most of those arrested were from eco green groups & one person even had an arab name, which in itself is not suspicous but when connected to terrorism things take a different slant.

The first thing to come out was people say the raids were wrong as the charges were thrown out & new ones under another act were drawn up.

That is not what really happened, the charges were thrown out as they were brought under the new Terrorism act which the judge pointed out was badly written.

That is what happens when politicians listen to bureaucrats who have no idea what they are talking about. By not knowing they were not ready & rushed through bad legislation.

The same is happening with the new security personnel bill. Though not rushed the bureaucrats have no idea what they are talking about, so have produced some finely written toilet paper which will be shown to be inadequate & then some very rushed bad replacement will come into force.

Next some are complaining that they were not connected with any terrorists (depends on whose definition as there are so many it can range from work place bullies right through to organized crime & groups such as Al Qaeada, eco greens, anti abortionists) & their children were targeted.

If you let gangs, terrorist organization or drugs & you keep your kids with you then you can not expect otherwise as distasteful as that might seem. Basically it is your fault for putting your children in that situation. Bad parenting & poor community responsbility, no matter what rights you have to grievance as Tuhoe genuienly do.

In recent history there have been enough examples of children been used to carryout or assist terrorist attacks or activities. Vietnam children throwing grenades at vehicles or laying improvised IED's, South Africa kids throwing grenades into vehicles (participants in both have told me how hard it was to shoot towards children to keep them away), Northern Ireland people of all ages placing improvised IED's with magnets against vehicles used by security forces.
Whose terrorism? A classroom activity enlists students in defining terrorism and then applying their definitions to world events.: An article from: Radical Teacher
Whilst working in Iraq knowing this we were looking for the IED's & grenades. In Afghanistan it has been taken a step further with children been used as suicide bombers (so far apparently unsuccessful).

On a lessor level children are often used to carryout criminal activity on behalf of their parents or other adults. Only today a report came out of a 12 year old selling drugs at school on behalf of family.

In this situation in particular Maori have this habit of defending those issues which are destroying us as a people. Gangs/terrorism drug use, child abuse, domestic violence & the list goes on.
Terrorism: definition, justification, and applications.(Terrorism. The Philosophical Issues )(Book review): An article from: Social Theory and Practice
People such as police do not find it easy to point firearms at children as many of them are fathers, but like going into a hostage rescue situation you have to treat everyone as a terrorist until you are sure otherwise.

If I remember properly at the time the police also detained a school bus. Funny thing is when acting as enemy party on one exercise we used a school bus to elude friendly forces to move to a new area of operations. We train to learn from those sort of experiences.

On another exercise the enemy party stole a military ambulance & managed to use it to eliminate some high ranking officials. Rest of exercise & since Ambulances have got a good going over at least by NZ forcs.

In Iraq on more than one occasion insurgents used ambulance to good effect & there was always the rumour of a fire engine fitted as a suicide bomb.

Instead of complaining they should say, "why did we get targeted?" & What can we do to ensure it doesn't happen again?"

http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz

Omagh! Could the same happen here?

Kia Ora,

Always looking to learn from others & in particular mistakes they have made or incidents they have faced.

So it was interesting to watch the doco drama on Maori TV about the bombing in Omagh(Northern Ireland) by the Real IRA.

Though the programme dealt very much with the effects on the families of those who lost someone to the bombing & the political process. I was more interested in the initial response by the authorities & how it would compare to a likely NZ response.
My understanding of Omagh has always been that a hoax bomb alert was called in, resulting in an evacuation to an area obviously identified by the bombers as an area outside the cordon, which they then detonated a vehicle bomb.

The Doco though gave the impression that the message was not that clear & some confusion existed as to where the actual bomb was. This may of been deliberate.

What it showed though that a common tactic used by terrorist groups was able to be employed on this occassion. That is placing a bomb or a secondary device (as shown in Hurt Locker) where groups such as those evacuated or responding services would gather.

In this instance probably what caught them out was the use of the recognized codewords the IRA used. The IRA starting using those to ensure they got their message across but to limit innocent casualties as they had found that counter productive to their cause.

So how would the response I saw on the Doco play out in NZ?

First point is the way in which the Irish people took the news. Bloody nusiance but best we move on. No arguments with the police. In NZ though most might move when informed of a bomb threat, many would argue. It would be yes those people next door have to move but my place is more important or I have important stuff to do.

The next issue is one I have raised before & that is the evacuation procedures which I know from both experience & anecdotal information can range from up to date to nothing more than a fire drill. Of course a fire drills actions are very different from a bomb threat.

Another area I have raised before is the areas where people gather whilst the threat is been dealt with. As shown in recent alerts so far nobody seems to have learnt the lesson & probably won't until something goes bang to control this part of the process.

As the recent incident here in Christchurch showed, both police & the public in one big huddle at the edge of the cordon. From the Doco the impression is that is exactly where they placed the vehicle bomb in Omagh, on the edge where they thought the cordon would be.

NZ is just a terrorist attack waiting to happen. Those sort of groupings are even more of a target for suicide bombers.

Won't happen in New Zealand! As the advert goes. Yeah Right! Given the opportunity.

http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz

So do we need to arm the New Zealand Police?

Kia Ora,

After yesterday's shooting of a police dog & two police officers debate has erupted again about arming the New Zealand Police force.

It is certainly dangerous enough out there to justify arming the NZ police & parts of the NZ security industry.

There are a lot of myths based around our police been armed. I have just heard a high ranking police officer say NZ police have never been armed full time.

Not exactly true.

As the NZ police maybe not but prior to being known as that they were called the armed constabulary.

It is the same with the security industry. It was armed until 1974 when the current act was put in place. In 1974 it might of seemed overkill having armed security, but these days to not have some armed in certain areas of the industry is shear bloody mindiness.



As I have said in a previous blog there are several issues to consider when looking at arming the police.

First is the training & resources required. To be accurate with say a pistol, requires a huge amount of training (a former British SAS member quoted at us in Iraq that to be confident with a pistol it needs to be drawn 6000 times in training to make it natural) but you can look at other weapons systems that will require initial in depth training, but less on going.

The officer I seen armed on the night I was beaten up had his pistol, that with his body armour on, could not of been drawn in a confident manner in a hurry. It was all about looks.



In NZ it all comes back to money.

If you have watched the 'Bill' you will have heard them refer to SO19 which talking to members of British Police are known as ARV's (Armed Response Vehicle's)which contain groups of permanently armed police officers. As opposed to the Keystone cops situation you get at present where the AOS (Armed Offenders Squad) are doing normal police duties until required.

That to me is best option for NZ, along with stepped up training for those officers who want to have access to firearms.

Of course that is another issue. Whilst the NZ Police Association argues for arming of police, not all their members think they should be.

It is actually quite a large number of police think they should remain unarmed. Percentages quoted today have ranged from 40-50%.



Having people with firearms that do not wish to use them is an issue. Solution is to not train these people at all in firearms use unless they later wish to change. It would free up training resources & time for those that are prepared to.

There should be no stigma to that choice as not everyone can face using a firearm. Even those with the training can have trouble pulling the trigger!

Said it before & will say it again & it has been said by many others with much more experience than me.

When you are fired at, it is quite easy to return fire. Just identify your target & fire. For a soldier your training kicks in & as soon as rounds are coming your way, you start looking to identify where they are coming from to return fire.



Where it gets harder is when you are in a situation like the police, the British in Northern Ireland or us working private security in Iraq & you have to in each situation go through the ROE's(Rules of Engagement or OFOF-orders for opening fire).

The military train in the BHL(Battle Handling Lessons) followed by BHE's(Battle Handling Exercise's) to ensure each person understands their legal obligations.



For example a person shoots your mate then turns & runs. Can you shoot them?

No or not unless they turnback towards you with weapon pointing(or starting too) back towards you. Then your life or those of those whom it is your duty to protect come under threat.

It is also not as easy to pull that trigger when you have to go through that thought process.

Not everyone can do it.

http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz

Is Security really one of the three Basic needs in life today?

Kia Ora,

They say that there are three basic needs in life. Food (& water), Shelter & Security.

But is Security really one of them in todays world?

You do have to wonder with recent events both here in New Zealand & in Britain as examples.



Just looking at what comes up in Amazon when you type in Basic needs of life you do really have to wonder.

In recent years it has become customary for any action taken by the police here in New Zealand to be questioned then at least four investigations take place.

Of course all actions need to be reviewed to see where or how it might of been carried out better, but as for all wasted times on exhaustive investigations when it is more often than not, quite plain the police acted in the right fashion.



Now after a gun man shot three people in the UK, threatened to shoot police & the general public there is first a facebook page supporting him even after he has shot himself & those police in the vicinity of him at that tme are under investigation.

So lets put ourselves in the line of fire to protect the public then get questioned over our actions. Sounds like the conditions the British Army in Northern Ireland operated under or we did even as private security in Iraq.



Then of course as the police vehicle who pulled over the crashed car here in Christchurch called it as a chase when vehicle took off, there is now an investigation.

Of what are they investigating?

It is simple. Vehicle took off, went through a red light then probably before the police vehicle had even started pursuit (if you know the area you know how short the distance travelled is to the crash site) it had crashed at high speed.

No police at fault so any investigation is a waste of time & money. It must also be having an effect on police morale.

This will come back to haunt us, if it already hasn't.

No one seems to want to support those that provide their security!

http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz

Who is going down with the ship?

Kia Ora,

An interesting few days & few discussions in amongst been very busy.

First is a discussion with someone much more experienced & qualified than me who has had to carry out a number of courses to be 'recognized' in the NZ industry, even though those courses do not come anywhere near his military training or experience.

Our conversation turned to the Rugby World Cup 2011 & the training required to get the NZ industry up to standard required.

He related that recently he had run some simulations for someone & when they through in terrorist situations, no one knew what to do.

Basically it is not  just the training that is needed it is, as I have said before, a change in mindset & for that you don't need a bit of paper, but real time training & practice.

In short  at this point in time the only way NZ will be ready is by making the standard only ex NZ, British or South African military or ex British or South African Police to begin with.

The hardest part of the mindset comes from the fact that NZ does not see itself as a terrorist target or had many attacks, so in the industries minds eye the worst they can see is some drunken brawls & maybe a bomb threat or two(even then they are not ready).

With Terrorism it is too late once it has happened to think about training or changing the mindset, but it seems that something has to occur before it will happen here.

Today there was an article in the "Press" about a recent release of the US military's vision of the future issues.

It wasn't rocket science to work a lot of it out & in fact much of it says exactly what I have been saying in these blogs. You just look at history & it shows you what is going to happen.

To quote Winston Churchill again "the further back you look, the further forward you see." Just the tools used change.

One point it makes is one I have been on about since leaving the army & entering the NZ security industry.

More & more they see a convergence of the criminal activities of Organized crime & Terrorists.

That directly relates to the mindset of the NZ security industry which constantly tells it's people to ignore crime or suspicious activity.

Terrorist attacks are preceded by criminal or suspicious activity either by the terrorists or someone such as organized crime. Crime is also seen to more often in the future to been used to finance terrorist operations sine the world is now activily looking for connections to finance.

So if you impact crime & suspicious activity, then you impact on the ability for terrorist networks to operate.

It happens to some extent at times here in Christchurch where the boy racers are attracting the attention whilst in the background criminal elements are carrying out crimes. They have often been given drugs as part of the arrangement & this was known to be going on in 2001.

How do we know all this, because good training coupled with experience in the industry & that gained in particular by the British in Northern Ireland & expanded on by experience in Iraq, show one that it happens & two we can counter much of it by good basic security with a good mindset. Something lacking in the NZ industry at present.

                                          http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz

Training for Bomb alerts.

Kia Ora,

It has being interesting to watch the reaction of late after the latest bombing attempt in New York.

The objects in two incidents, that were deemed suspicious could of being easily dealt with in a safe manner had the correct training being applied.

It was something that former members of the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) working  in Baghdad commented on.

The comment was "one IRA ASU cell could of tied up the whole of Baghdad in the way the US responded to threats." An ASU cell was thought to generally consist of four people.

From New York it appears nothing has being learned.

It was also part of our army training based on the British experience in Northern Ireland. Each team  came up with a way to deal with suspicious packages on their own as other wise the 'bomb' squads would never stop going from one incident to another & would basically lock  down a city or area

Having each team go through some procedures meant most iteams were dealt with, with little or no disturbance.

So how does that relate to NZ, the NZ security Industry, security training or even the NZ police?

Well due to lack of training the same situation could happen here as in New York. In fact it already does.

Often the area closed off is much greater than that needed for the size of the suspicious item.

There are clearly at times no procedures to allow activities to carry on.

For example the Dunedin airport bomb scare. I landed there a week after it. Yes I can see where the mens toilet can effect passengers, but where were the procedures to carry on in another part of the airport.

Now  report said that after that one had being cleared, after waiting for 'bomb' squad to arrive from Christchurch, then rest of airport was cleared.

Excuse me but the proper procedure is clear, cordon, contain & control & in that includes searching all other areas once initial item is cordoned, in particular where the emergency services are going to congregate. Obviously in NZ you show up clear the one you know about then think, well maybe there is another.

Terrorist tactics world wide are use a device or a hoax as the come on then hit with the second , maybe even third (as happened this week in Al Hilla, in Iraq) aimed at emergency services. We are ready for the Rugby World Cup.
Yeah Right.

Good training can not only make a real incident safer, but also deal with  potential issues before they become a problem.

This also means changing the mindset of the NZ security industry to one that looks beyond its little world.

To do that though will need help from the Politicians & the bureaucrats, though Sir Humphrey seems to be in residence here & that is not likely to happen.

So maybe we just have to do it ourselves.

                                         http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz