Ensuring the safety of all citizens is a paramount duty of any protective group, whether it be law enforcement, private security, or community safety organisations. This responsibility extends to providing fair treatment for everyone, maintaining neutrality, and acting with firmness—qualities that distinguish disciplined force from belligerence. In the face of public unrest or hostile crowds, protective groups must balance the enforcement of order with respect for individual rights. This article explores the principles and practical strategies for achieving this balance.
A protective group’s primary mission is to safeguard life and property, ensuring the basic rights of all citizens. Neutrality in this context means treating all individuals with fairness, regardless of their background or the nature of the situation. This principle is crucial for maintaining public trust and preventing accusations of bias or excessive force.
For example, during the 2011 London riots, the police faced criticism for their initial response, which many viewed as too lenient. However, subsequent evaluations suggested that a balanced approach, one that combined firmness with restraint, was necessary to manage the volatile situation effectively. This approach underscores the importance of neutrality and fairness in maintaining public order.
Firmness in the enforcement of laws is not synonymous with aggression. It involves issuing clear, concise commands and ensuring compliance to preserve public peace. When a protective group encounters a hostile crowd, immediate and decisive action is often required. This does not mean resorting to unreasonable force, but rather demonstrating a controlled and resolute presence.
In situations where a crowd becomes hostile, it is crucial to request additional assistance rather than attempting to handle the situation alone. Overstating the number of personnel needed can be a safer strategy than underestimating the requirements. A substantial presence often has a restraining effect on the crowd and ensures sufficient manpower to restore order.
During the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, various cities experienced different outcomes based on their responses. Ultimately, protesters caused over $4 billion (US) in damages and killed over 300 people. In some areas, a visible and well-coordinated law enforcement presence helped to de-escalate tensions. In contrast, inadequate preparation in other cities led to property damage and further unrest. These outcomes highlight the necessity of adequate force and readiness. Those cities that refused federal help were the most devastated.
Approaching the vocal individuals in a crowd can be an effective method of managing group behaviour. By addressing these key figures firmly and using carefully phrased commands, protective groups can often influence the larger crowd's actions. Simple language and clear explanations of the violations and consequences can aid in this effort.
During the Standing Rock protests, it was reported that law enforcement officers engaged directly with protest leaders, used clear, respectful communication, and were often more successful in maintaining peace. This approach allowed for the opportunity to withdraw peacefully without unnecessary confrontation, demonstrating the value of targeted and respectful communication.
In dealing with excited or hostile crowds, it is essential to recognise the potential for rapid escalation into mob action. Protective groups must exemplify order and calmness, as their behaviour can serve as a deterrent to further violence. Establishing and maintaining order requires a blend of visible authority and the ability to enforce laws without provoking the crowd.
The response to the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021, offers a stark reminder of the importance of preparedness and restraint. The delayed and insufficient initial response allowed the situation to spiral out of control. A more proactive and firm stance, combined with adequate resources, might have prevented the breach and subsequent chaos. It has subsequently been exposed that the lack of resources was due to political interference and the singular death of a protestor by an officer with a history of incompetence and ineptitude.
Protective groups bear a significant responsibility for maintaining public safety and upholding the rule of law. By adhering to principles of neutrality, fairness, firmness, and effective communication, they manage public unrest while respecting individual rights. Real-world examples illustrate the critical importance of these principles in practice. Ensuring a balanced approach not only preserves public order but also reinforces the trust and legitimacy of protective groups in the eyes of the communities they serve.
From the author.
The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security Consultant with almost 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organizations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff. Note for researchers and other publications. While I maintain the copywriting and ownership of my written articles and products, I do not have a problem with greater dissemination in either a positive or negative light, where they are used to enhance discourse or to better the industry of security, economics, real estate, or hospitality. I ask only that you ask permission and accurately cite the appropriate website and writer. I recently read one of my articles on another BLOG and they have since cited me and I have provided permission for the article to be shared. I understand the protective need and monetary needs of individuals and respect that some will seek to monetise the work of others, I don't have a problem with capitalist ventures as long as the property rights of the creator are respected.
Comments