Training for security team after hours scenarios

[Dorky_D]

Hey, I am working with a volunteer security team for an organization. We just went through some training, but we are thinking of doing a bit more. We are thinking of meeting after hours where we run test scenarios (not live fire, but with blue guns or something). The idea is for us to get our heads around some different things that might happen, so that if something does, we are better prepared to respond and react to a situation with the appropriate response.
We have some hallway/meeting rooms and one large meeting hall.

Does anyone know of some written out scenarios that we can use and tweak to test things? Do you have any ideas of your own for us.

Thanks!

 

[Jackson]

1. What kind of organization?
2. What training have you just completed?
3. What kind of security? What are the scenarios you realistically expect to be encountering?

I guess I would expect the real day-in-the-life of a security guard or security professional to be pretty boring and mundane. The most lively scenarios probably include ejecting an unruly individual or breaking up a confrontation between two patrons. I would bet there are a lot of skills which would be handy before a full-on guns-blazin' kind of response would be necessary. Things like awareness, communication, threat assessment, theft prevention, how to make detailed reports, understanding how to organize events to prevent issues, etc. Skills that require blue guns and building searches are probably a pretty small slice of the necessary skills for a security team.

I would say some of the biggest things you can work on are the following:

Sit down and realistically determine what the threats are in your environment and to your organization. Look way beyond active shooters. Fires, tornados, cyber security, theft, vandalism, potential kidnapping, succession planning and delegation of authority for leadership, whatever.

Develop a security plan that addresses your most likely threats and your most severe threats. Detail how you'll respond to them. Make sure the responses mitigate immediate and long-term risks to you and the team and to other memebers of the organization. Write it down. Make it a policy. Implement it specifically. Make sure your key players understand it.

When you have it down, provide high-level training on the plan to everyone else in the organization so they know how to react. Having people who aren't on your team moving the right way will go a long way toward your goal.

Work with your team on working together, communicating effectively, and reporting in great detail what is happening or did happen.


After you have all that kind of stuff down you will have a team that's rowing the boat the same direction and you'll have really given some thought to what will make your organization safer.

However, if shooting scenarios are what you really want to work then I would focus on:

1. Communication
2. Understanding space, angles, and working in structures
3. Moving as partners or teams
4. Gun handling and marksmanship need to be tip-top when you're working and moving with a partner

These are basic skills and would apply to any scenario you might train "with blue guns or something". I'm not a security expert. These are just my thoughts.

If I took a group of people who've never really worked on these things and threw them in to a scenario, I'd expect chaos, a total lack of communication, and no ability to move and work together. So I think that's step one.

 

[Jackson]

If you can give some details about the type of organization and the purpose of the security team we may be able to recommend something more specific, or some specific training courses that would apply to your needs.

 

[Slawburger]

Church security?

I would think identification of a problem, communication within the team, prompt intervention and conflict resolution would be needed more than "active shooter" drills. Maybe some drills on getting everyone to safety in case of tornado or fire would be appropriate. What kind of trouble are you anticipating?

 

[iChokePeople]

If it's church security, the OP's in luck. There just happens to be a guy...

 

[cedartop]

If it's church security, the OP's in luck. There just happens to be a guy...

Oooh, I see what you did there.

 

[rhino]

If it's church security, the OP's in luck. There just happens to be a guy...

Oooh, I see what you did there.

I'm not saying anything JUST IN CASE.

 

[HardTargetFirearms]

I would be happy to discuss your security situation and training needs with you. Please private message me if you wish to discuss.

 

[Jackson]

I would be happy to discuss your security situation and training needs with you. Please private message me if you wish to discuss.

Guy Minnis?

 

[ModernGunner]

I'll refrain from posting specific information until we have something better to go on from the OP than "...working with a volunteer security team for an organization."

There's WAY too many variables in true security work to give 'general' responses. NOR is there ANY 'written out scenarios' for 'general' security scenarios, as such scenarios do not exist. Escorting the church congregation safely to their vehicles is a 'bit' different than working armed security at a high-threat-level secured facility.

Yes, there's a plethora of 'Be aware, observe, and report' general information out there. But you don't need a thick book or written out scenarios for that. In fact, I just gave you the WHOLE program in those 5 words.

The 'problem' nowadays with 'general' security work (at least in the U.S.) is that, for the most part, it's pathetic. At BEST. Shooting and bomb scenarios, terrorist attacks and hostage situations are a real possibility in today's world, even right here in "Mid-Town America". Yet MOST folks still treat it as those those possibilities are 'so remote' that their approach is beyond naive. Just get a few (alleged) 'security' guards, pay them minimum wage (or close), give them some 'authority'-looking uniforms and a gen-u-ine two-way radio, and have them wander about the mall, looking 'official'. Oh, and if something ever actually happens, "Call 911, let the police handle it". Mind-numbing.

Why, because it's just 'so remote' that some scumbag with a gun would... oh, I dunno... say... wander purposefully into a theater and start shooting everyone in sight. Oh, I dunno... say... wander into a school and shoot a bunch of elementary school children. Oh, I dunno... say... wander into a shopping mall in Chicagoland shooting his ex-, and taking out a few bystanders while he's at it.

To the OP, I would strongly encourage you and the security detail to be specific as to what you're inquiring, then refer to and garner information ONLY from those that have 'been there / done that'. For example, there's tons of 'combat' handgun Instructors out there, but only a few of them are experienced in the matter.

'Cause it all gets 'very real' and 'very different' when someone is really trying to take your life with a knife or a firearm.

 

[Jackson]

To the OP, I would strongly encourage you and the security detail to be specific as to what you're inquiring, then refer to and garner information ONLY from those that have 'been there / done that'. For example, there's tons of 'combat' handgun Instructors out there, but only a few of them are experienced in the matter.

'Cause it all gets 'very real' and 'very different' when someone is really trying to take your life with a knife or a firearm.

Can you elaborate on that? Are you saying that only people who are in the security field should teach security protocols? Or are you saying that only people who've been in gun fights should teach shooting classes?

 

[HardTargetFirearms]

This is Dan Manrique. Myself and 3 other instructors purchased Hard Target from Guy. He is no longer affiliated with Hard Target. I will be formally introducing the new Hard Target Firearms Training once our forum is set up. In the meantime, please feel free to visit our newly redesigned website. Hard Target Firearms Training | Welcome

 

[sloughfoot]

 

[HardTargetFirearms]

My name is Dan Manrique. Myself and 3 other instructors purchased Hard Target from Guy Minnis. We have revamped some of our training and have a lot of new things going on. Please look at our redesigned website. Hard Target Firearms Training | Welcome

 

[chezuki]

 

[Denny347]

Can you elaborate on that? Are you saying that only people who are in the security field should teach security protocols? Or are you saying that only people who've been in gun fights should teach shooting classes?

Anyone can teach "shooting". However, you want to learn how to survive a gunfight, try to find an instructor who has been in one.

 

[Dorky_D]

This is for a church. We are of course concerned with an active shooter situation, but also the disturbed person that is there to end a single life. Of course theft, other violence is a concern. We have a safety team that is more in charge of the medical, first aid and evacuation. We are more getting started and want to do some stuff right and evaluating what we need and do not know is all part of it.

 

[szorn]

Anyone can teach "shooting". However, you want to learn how to survive a gunfight, try to find an instructor who has been in one.

While this makes sense in theory, reality is another story. Generally speaking those most likely to have survived gunfights will have likely done so in high risk professions like law enforcement or military. What applies in those arenas doesn't automatically apply to civilians or even private security. Regardless of the arena, just because a person survives a gunfight it doesn't mean that their actions or tactics were ideal under the circumstances. Sure, they survived but could they have avoided the fight altogether and chose not to? Did they attempt to immediately escape before engaging? Did they appropriately exhaust all other options? Could they have used better and more efficient tactics? Did they survive due to their training or their lack of it?...and the list goes on.

This is a common misconception passed around in training circles, that those with "experience" have more to offer than those that don't. If this were the case, there really wouldn't be many instructors in the world and even those instructors would be limited in what they could teach because most experiences are relative to the situation. In other words if a person survives only a single gun fight he would be qualified to teach those skills, strategies, and tactics specific to that single scenario because he would have no relative experience in any other scenario in which to compare. This is assuming that those skills, strategies, and tactics he used were ideal under the circumstances and are actually worth passing on. As we all know, anyone can get lucky but luck alone doesn't make a qualified instructor. If we follow the logic that "experience" alone is the determining factor of a qualified instructor it would mean that only those who have been raped could teach rape prevention. Only those that have successfully used unarmed skills against weapon-wielding attackers could teach unarmed defense against weapon threats. It would mean that only those that have killed with their bare hands could teach unarmed lethal force options. Only those that have killed with knives could teach lethal application of a knife. Etc. Etc. Even then due to the specific nature of these situations the skills applied in each one doesn't automatically apply to other similar situations. Something else worth mentioning, regardless of how vast a person's practical experience might be, it doesn't automatically mean they will have the ability to impart that knowledge and experience to others. In other words it doesn't automatically turn them into quality instructors, or even competent instructors. There are tons of people out there that are good at things but don't do well as teachers.

That said, due to modern technology ALL instructors have access to statistical data (gunfights, assaults, rapes, etc.), CCTV footage, interviews with victims and assailants, research into various aspects of crime, violence and combat, and in many cases there is access to experiences of others either in their own words or through written accounts. In short, we have the ability to learn from the experiences of others and use that to shape the knowledge and skills that we teach. We also have the knowledge and ability to pressure-test any and all skills that have previously been proven to work in the real world. We can also pressure-test those skills that are found questionable. Fortunately, all of this can be accomplished without having to risk life or limb just to have that "experience". While this subject is often mentioned in firearms and combatives groups and forums, few consider that some of the most knowledgeable and sought-after instructors in these fields are greatly lacking in this "experience". However, that doesn't take away from the quality of their instruction or skill, nor does it change the fact that they are providing life-saving skills to those that need it and those that are often forced to apply it.

Steve

 

[Denny347]

While this makes sense in theory, reality is another story. Generally speaking those most likely to have survived gunfights will have likely done so in high risk professions like law enforcement or military. What applies in those arenas doesn't automatically apply to civilians or even private security. Regardless of the arena, just because a person survives a gunfight it doesn't mean that their actions or tactics were ideal under the circumstances. Sure, they survived but could they have avoided the fight altogether and chose not to? Did they attempt to immediately escape before engaging? Did they appropriately exhaust all other options? Could they have used better and more efficient tactics? Did they survive due to their training or their lack of it?...and the list goes on.

This is a common misconception passed around in training circles, that those with "experience" have more to offer than those that don't. If this were the case, there really wouldn't be many instructors in the world and even those instructors would be limited in what they could teach because most experiences are relative to the situation. In other words if a person survives only a single gun fight he would be qualified to teach those skills, strategies, and tactics specific to that single scenario because he would have no relative experience in any other scenario in which to compare. This is assuming that those skills, strategies, and tactics he used were ideal under the circumstances and are actually worth passing on. As we all know, anyone can get lucky but luck alone doesn't make a qualified instructor. If we follow the logic that "experience" alone is the determining factor of a qualified instructor it would mean that only those who have been raped could teach rape prevention. Only those that have successfully used unarmed skills against weapon-wielding attackers could teach unarmed defense against weapon threats. It would mean that only those that have killed with their bare hands could teach unarmed lethal force options. Only those that have killed with knives could teach lethal application of a knife. Etc. Etc. Even then due to the specific nature of these situations the skills applied in each one doesn't automatically apply to other similar situations. Something else worth mentioning, regardless of how vast a person's practical experience might be, it doesn't automatically mean they will have the ability to impart that knowledge and experience to others. In other words it doesn't automatically turn them into quality instructors, or even competent instructors. There are tons of people out there that are good at things but don't do well as teachers.

That said, due to modern technology ALL instructors have access to statistical data (gunfights, assaults, rapes, etc.), CCTV footage, interviews with victims and assailants, research into various aspects of crime, violence and combat, and in many cases there is access to experiences of others either in their own words or through written accounts. In short, we have the ability to learn from the experiences of others and use that to shape the knowledge and skills that we teach. We also have the knowledge and ability to pressure-test any and all skills that have previously been proven to work in the real world. We can also pressure-test those skills that are found questionable. Fortunately, all of this can be accomplished without having to risk life or limb just to have that "experience". While this subject is often mentioned in firearms and combatives groups and forums, few consider that some of the most knowledgeable and sought-after instructors in these fields are greatly lacking in this "experience". However, that doesn't take away from the quality of their instruction or skill, nor does it change the fact that they are providing life-saving skills to those that need it and those that are often forced to apply it.

Steve

I guess I'm lucky that many of my instructors have been there/done that. Of course an instructor doesn't HAVE to have been involved in a shooting to be a good instructor or give good instruction but I have found that those who have, have an insight that is hard to match. Combine quality teaching with firsthand knowledge and you get a kick ass instructor. Find one if you can.

 

[Dorky_D]

I think both szorn and Denny347 make some valid points. I would agree that to teach the fundamentals, you would not necessarily have to be in a gun fight. Having experience in one would give you some knowledge especially in the mindset area that would be hard to replicate even in the best training.
Thanks for the ideas so far. I would be interested in more.
I think most of the members of the team that have gone to training, have gained some valuable insight and have learned well the fundamentals of shooting. We also had some scenario training, but would like to have some more situations to think through. I think having thought through some draw/no draw (talking someone down) and some shoot/no shoot (possibly talking down, or there is no good shot or whatever) would be really good for the team.
The stinker of some of this is it is very reactive vs. proactive, so being as prepared as you can in case a bad guy does something bad is a good thing.
There are proactive steps, but there is know way to know months in advance when a bad guy will do bad things.