Deterrence Vs Theatre

What the public thinks is the difference between Real security and theatre

Private security exists for one reason only, and that is to prevent harm before it occurs. Everything else, uniforms, radios, visibility, polite scripts, is secondary. When security degenerates into performance, it stops serving the public and starts serving appearances.

Deterrence is grounded in human behaviour. People calculate risk. They scan for resistance. It's not about uniform; it's about action and behaviour. They act where they believe authority is absent, weak, or constrained by indecision. Effective security alters that calculation. It introduces uncertainty, consequences, and immediacy. The mere presence of a capable defender, trained, alert, and empowered, prevents more violence than any after-action inquiry ever will.

Theatre, by contrast, is reassurance without substance. It relies on symbols rather than capability. It substitutes compliance checklists for judgement and visibility for effectiveness. Theatre comforts administrators because it looks orderly. It comforts the public because it feels safe. But it does nothing to stop a determined offender who has already crossed the moral threshold that polite signage and scripted responses assume still exists.

History shows that most mass-casualty events are not sudden mysteries. They are preceded by leakage, in statements, symbols, behavioural shifts, fixation, grievance, rehearsal. Deterrence works when someone on the ground recognises these patterns and is authorised to intervene early. Theatre fails because it trains people to wait, defer, and escalate paperwork rather than act.

Private security occupies a critical space between normality and emergency. Police arrive after a threshold has been crossed. Security is there to stop that crossing. That requires discretion, profiling based on behaviour rather than ideology, and the ability to act decisively when indicators converge. It also requires accepting an uncomfortable truth, that prevention often looks like overreaction to those who mistake calm outcomes for proof that no risk existed.

A society serious about safety must decide whether it wants guardians or greeters. Deterrence demands higher standards, better training, clearer authority, real accountability. Theatre demands only optics.

When violence is prevented, nothing happens. No headlines. No praise. That silence is the measure of success. Security that exists to be seen will always fail the moment it is truly needed. Security that exists to deter rarely has to prove itself at all. 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 and Risk Consultant with 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. Sam has trained over 1,000 entry level security personnel, taught defensive tactics, weapons training and handcuffs to policing personnel and the public. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organisations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.