Protection Agents: Avoidance Over Armed Confrontation
While difficult to admit, 2020 was a pivotal year for risk mitigation professionals. It provided unparalleled real-world examples of crisis mismanagement, from ineffective pandemic responses to reputational failures leading to business collapse.
Another critical issue is the need for protection agents to avoid armed confrontations. Recent incidents involving security personnel have had severe consequences, often followed by a surge of uninformed commentary on social media. This environment prioritizes being heard over respecting expertise and experience.
Many self-proclaimed experts appear during such incidents, often without verifying their credentials. In contrast, true professionals typically avoid immediate public commentary, recognizing that investigations are ongoing and media coverage may be sensationalized. Initial impressions, even with video evidence, are rarely accurate. For a protection agent, involvement in a gunfight usually results from a series of preventable errors, not spontaneous events.
Multiple critical decisions lead to life-or-death situations; it is never a single choice. Professionals recognize that any involvement in a gunfight indicates a failure by themselves or their team. Their primary responsibility is to prevent such situations by identifying and addressing warning signs.
The military uses a strategy known as "movement to contact," which involves actively seeking engagement with adversaries. Law enforcement responds to incidents to restore order, both requiring movement toward danger. In contrast, protection agents focus on avoidance rather than direct engagement.
If a security professional is unexpectedly caught in a volatile situation, it often reflects insufficient assessment and planning. This points to shortcomings in intelligence analysis and operational preparation. While some unpredictability exists, most risks can be mitigated.
For example, consider an agent assigned to protect a three-person news crew during a protest, with limited resources and only remote support. The agent relies on online intelligence from remote analysts. In anticipation of violence, how can the agent reduce risks?
Crisis decision-making begins well before the event, not at the last minute. In this scenario, the agent should consider declining the assignment due to the high risk and insufficient support. Assigning another agent under these conditions would also be inadvisable.
Agents may feel pressured to accept unsafe assignments out of concern for losing clients. However, just as a skydiver would not allow a client to dictate safety measures, protection agents must prioritize honesty and safety. If a client refuses necessary precautions or advice, their suitability for protection is questionable. Compensation is only meaningful if the agent's safety is assured.
Therefore, the initial decision to proceed is critical. While there may be situations with limited options, it is essential to assess available support and other factors. The next steps include gathering comprehensive information: identifying protesters and clients, understanding the event location, reviewing the crew's itinerary, and considering possible outcomes such as counter-protests, police actions, or attacks. Timing and logistics must also be evaluated.
Among all the information an agent must collect, understanding the underlying reasons is most important. This includes why the protest is occurring, the crew's motivation for covering it, and the agent's own rationale for accepting the associated risks.
Addressing these considerations supports the development of mitigation strategies and contingency plans. Avoidance should always be the top priority. While the news crew may seek close coverage, it is rarely necessary to expose them to unnecessary risk. Ego can drive both clients and agents into dangerous situations. If either party prioritizes excitement over safety, the likelihood of a negative outcome increases.
Shifting from seeking danger to avoiding it requires true professionalism. Agents must be prepared to remove themselves from risk promptly. Effective decision-making begins early, allowing for significant risk mitigation, provided all individuals are properly trained.