Why Soft Targets Stay Soft, Unarmed Sites Are Invitations, Not Operations

The first thing you learn in threat management isn’t theory, it’s reality. And reality is unkind to the naïve, the cowardly and the ignorant. The harsh truth, repeated across case files, camera footage, and casualty reports, is this, soft targets don’t survive because they are peaceful. They survive until they are selected. Because in the mind of the offender, a site without resistance isn’t neutral, it’s vulnerable. It isn’t a place of work or leisure. It’s a score.

The decision to leave a site unarmed is often wrapped in public relations spin. We’re told that visible deterrents are intimidating, that weapons escalate risk, and that a “friendly atmosphere” is incompatible with strong security. But ask the victims of the next armed robbery, mass assault, or knife attack how friendly that atmosphere felt. Ask the shop staff who pressed the duress button, or made the call to 000 only to wait helplessly for police while the aggressor walked free. There is nothing civilised about helplessness. Its primitive and only acceptable by troglodytes.

The idea that unarmed officers and “customer service-oriented” guards somehow provide meaningful deterrence in locations with high value targets, like alcohol, drugs etc, is not just foolish, it’s dangerous. It turns security into a symbol, not a strategy. A smiling guard with no tools to act isn’t a deterrent. He’s a decoration. And criminals know it. Recent allowances for a guard at a bottle shop to be armed with OC Spray in practice is a joke. Restrictions on the product only allow for small canisters that is only effective on a singular assailant, and the criminals, even in the act that led to the approval, the murder of Declan, attack in groups, he was killed by a group of three offenders.

Those who prey on soft targets don’t gamble. They calculate. They observe. They probe. They choose locations with low visibility, minimal resistance, and policies that favour compliance over confrontation. These are not brave people. They don’t want a fight. They are cowards, they want control. And unarmed environments give it to them. In the NT the most common weapon of choice is a machete, or kitchen knife, and you approved a 40ml canister of OC spray, after training, Advanced First aid care and verbal deterrence training.

From shopping centres to hospitals, transport depots to entertainment venues, the pattern is clear, where weapons are banned and force is discouraged, attacks increase in boldness and frequency. Violence doesn’t disappear when you disarm the protectors, it migrates to where it’s safest for the attacker.

Security without the capacity to respond is a contradiction. Imagine a firefighter with no water. A paramedic with no defibrillator. A surgeon with no scalpel. The public would revolt. But somehow, we’ve convinced ourselves that unarmed security in high-risk zones is not just acceptable, but virtuous.

I want to make this abundantly clear, I’ve been used as the “blueprint”, the promoted example, and I’ve got the runs on the board, decades of frontline experience and proven myself again and again in high-risk situations, and, I’ve been stabbed twice and slashed once, whilst performing my duties in uniform. So, I have been extremely lucky. In every class of Defensive tactics I’ve taught, I show techniques on how to deal with weapons and the best advice anyone can give an unarmed security guard, its to run, run fast Forrest, and get behind a barrier or door as soon as possible. We go to work to go home, a little richer, a little more tired, but we always go home, I do not need tombstone guards. Even the basic removal of prohibitions on a defensive weapon like an extendable baton would make a massive difference.

Virtue doesn’t save lives. Preparation does. Offenders do not fear intentions. They fear consequences. And when a site broadcasts that it will not respond with force under any circumstance, it ceases to be a deterrent. It becomes an invitation.

This isn’t about aggression. It’s about balance. A visible, trained, and equipped security presence doesn’t escalate conflict, it prevents it. It sends a message before the first punch, the first threat, the first act of vandalism. It says, not here.

We have decades of data, thousands of case studies, and countless warnings from within the industry. And yet, decision-makers continue to prioritise optics over operations. They confuse calm for control. They budget for uniforms, not for capability.

The result is a security workforce stretched thin, demoralised, and exposed, expected to intervene without the tools to succeed. The criminal, by contrast, faces no such limitations. He brings a knife to a verbal de-escalation. He brings brass knuckles to a clipboard. He brings a mob against an individual. And too often, he walks away untouched.

This moral confusion is not a sign of enlightenment. It’s a betrayal. A betrayal of staff, patrons, and the public who believe, wrongly, that someone is watching, someone is ready, someone is prepared. But preparedness requires power. And power denied is protection forfeited.

If society can afford to staff a site, it can afford to arm it, or at the very least, to enable real intervention. Unarmed presence is not a compromise. It’s a surrender dressed as policy. I may have proven to be an exception, my colleagues and friends are proud of that, but you do not perceive an industry by the exceptions, but by the industry norms. That I could be a barrier to the ongoing safety and security of my colleagues angers me. I’m almost 50 years of age, that members of the public expect a 24-year-old entry level guard to perform the same is not only unreasonable, it’s dangerous.

In the end, it’s simple, soft targets stay soft because leadership is soft. Because policy is soft. Because the courage to draw a line has been replaced with the cowardice of appeasement. But criminals don’t negotiate with good intentions. They exploit weakness. They follow the path of least resistance.

And until that path ends in resistance, the attacks will continue.

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.