don't panic!

When placed under life-threatening stress, our performance as human beings has a tendency to collapse. There are a multitude of factors that work against our ability to successfully counter an assault, for instance. However, there are also a number of factors that work in our favor, in order to survive. The key is learning how to manipulate and manage these factors.

The Relationship between the Body & Brain
There is a relationship between performance and stress. Most of us are already “wired” in such a manner that we rise up and perform better when required. This relationship is often referred to as the Yerkes-Dodson Curve. It works something like this. When there is:

• No stress, there is no performance. Imagine sitting on the sofa surfing through television channels. No great stress, no great performance. Just hit the button on the remote. Life is good.
• Great stress, there is great performance. You walk in to work and your supervisor advises a colleague is sick and you will be covering their work as well as your own. Or perhaps you are at home and one of your children is sick in addition to a very busy schedule. Generally speaking, performance improves greatly when called upon. People rise up and figure out a way to handle these unexpected difficulties. Life is stressful.
• Huge stress, there is a marked decrease in performance, unreliable performance, or terrible performance. In the example used above, your supervisor advises the whole department is out sick, and you have to handle all the work. Impossible. You now want to go home and crawl into bed assuming the fetal position. This is the type of thing that happens when we are attacked, feel threatened or are in danger. Our performance is lost.

The sympathetic nervous system is activated when the mind detects a potential threat to survive. It reacts by mediating the involuntary responses to alarm by speeding the heart rate, raising the blood pressure and dilating the pupils of the eyes. This system opposes and overrides the parasympathetic nervous system, which regulates many body functions. It does this in order to provide the body with the necessary capabilities to fight, or flee from danger. This is commonly referred to as the “Fight or Flight Syndrome”. However, in doing so, the body loses its fine and complex motor skills and increases its gross motor skills.

While this process is taking place, the heart begins to beat rapidly. At 115 beats per minute the body starts to lose cognitive ability and fine motor skills. At 145 beats per minute the body loses complex motor skills. At 175 beats per minute the body is in condition to employ its gross motor skills to fight or flee – and survive.

Suffice it to say that if someone is threatening you, trying to hurt a loved one, or you sense danger, this is the interaction that begins to take place between the brain and the body. Under High Stress one of the first things to deteriorate is the cognitive ability to make decisions! That’s not good.

Required Survival Skills

As complex as all this might sound, there is a solution. To begin to bring all these effects back into a more reasonable arena, breathe deeply. Research reveals after three deep breaths many of these effects begin to dissipate. This will enhance your ability to respond to danger.

In order to alter the odds before the incident, training is required in the observation of environmental and behavioral clues, preparedness, motor skills practice (self defense), tactics and simulations.

During the incident, the only thing that will affectively alter the odds in the civilian’s favor is their capabilities, based on experience and training. Once the incident commences only training and the will to survive can assist the intended victim.

This is a condensed version of the article. Read Full Text at Assault Prevention Blog.

Why do some people seem to be able to accomplish super-human feats when they find themselves in seemingly impossible situations, while others freeze, panic or are unable to defend themselves? Some survival capabilities are part of our genetic code. Part of our genetic heritage is the relationship our brains have with our bodies when placed under High Stress. Most people experience High Stress if being attacked or assaulted. High Stress Situations Defined High Stress situations are defined as any situation that forces us to face our vulnerability and mortality. This would likely include an assault.

High Stress situations often include the following elements:

1. The event is sudden and unexpected: Assailants and criminals do not advertise they are about to commit a crime or assault.

2. The event will disrupt a person’s sense of control: Most of us walk around with a sense of control over our actions and environment. An assault, by its nature, has the assailant making the rules, and the victim frantically trying to counter the actions being presented them.

3. The event may disrupt a person’s beliefs, values and very basic assumptions about how the world works: In a nation where there is an 8% chance of being a victim of any crime, and a 1-2% chance of being a victim of violent crime – most of us walk around feeling generally secure. Being a victim of a violent crime has a strong tendency to mess with one’s sense of how the world is supposed to work, which includes not being the victim of violent crime.

4. The event includes an element of loss; control, ego and self-esteem: If you have been the victim of a violent crime, you already know this to be true. In the aftermath, there are lingering effects that may subside or last a lifetime. One of these effects is a sense that you could have or should have prevented the incident, or performed better during it. This type of thinking can seriously affect ego and self-esteem.

5. High Stress situations come in all varieties: Examples include a car accident, a personal emotional trauma, a missing child, an assault, a shooting, an attack or threat.

6. Reactions to High Stress come in all varieties: Reactions are dependant on several elements.

• What is the intended victim’s cognitive ability? This is the intellectual ability, or thinking process which includes planning, tactics and decision-making.

• What are the intended victim’s affective skills, or ability to control their psychological reaction under stress?

• What are the intended victim’s motor skills? Have they been trained in the use of appropriate force, tactics, techniques and weapons?

All three of these skill sets are called into play during a High Stress situation, and deeply affect the outcome.

Elements of an Assault 
• The incident is usually spontaneous.
• The incident is life threatening.
• The incident occurs at very close range, 75% are less than 10 feet.
• The adversary has the initiative and the intended reacts to the threat.
• There is no time to think of a response.
• The intended victim experiences extreme life threatening stress.
• There may be more than one adversary.
• The adversary may not be the original target of the intended victim’s attention, so the intended victim is caught off guard.
• There may be a physical altercation involved.
• The adversary will be 10 younger than the intended victim and in better shape.
• The adversary will anticipate the intended victim’s actions and responses.
• The intended victim will not anticipate the adversary’s actions and responses.
• The intended victim may hesitate to evaluate the situation because they do not know how to, or what to do.
• The adversary decides to use force and acts: the intended victim must react, but cannot respond in time.

The chances of the intended victim winning under these conditions and in these situations are poor and survival usually depends on luck! The dilemma the intended victim faces when confronted with spontaneous violence is the need to evaluate the level of force available to overcome the resistance; and, to react in time to win. The first part calls for a cognitive decision, the second for an immediate acceptable motor response. 

This is a condensed version of the article. Read Full Text at Assault Prevention Blog.

Have you ever watched one of those television programs that examine the world of animals? Some animals are loners and some travel in groups. Many animals will mark their territory. If that territory is violated by an outsider, there is a good chance a fight will ensue. Human beings, when threatened, will exhibit some of the same behaviors animals do. These behaviors are genetic. Properly understood they can be harnessed and applied in threatening situations, giving intended victims an advantage over the potential Adversary.

Combative behavior is part of our genetic heritage and can be developed through training. Human behavior and body movements are closely linked. For example, humans are wired to react defensively to a “looming” threat. The brain is hard-wired in a way that reacts strongly to the visual threat of assault. Typically, if someone is assaulted, their hands go up to ward off the attack while flinching away at the same time. This is genetic; it is instinctive and requires very little thought or cognitive functioning. It is hard-wired within us to survive threat.

Ideally, your goals when it comes to personal safety are:
1. To present a professional and confident presence in routine situations.
2. To use appropriate techniques in potentially violent circumstances and emergency situations, with the intent of escape.

There are several types of aggression.

Affective aggression is displayed towards fellow members of one’s group or species aimed at intimidating and establishing dominance over the opponent. It is typified by high emotional arousal and some kind of aggressive emotional display. This is often typical macho, bravado or “tough guy” behavior. It is displayed because it is unnatural to use lethal dominance against one’s own group. In simple terms, it is an emotional display anger or fear, with the main goal of causing injury or harm in order to maintain dominance or control. The effectiveness of this type of aggression as it relates to personal safety is poor.

The second type of aggression is predatory. Predatory aggression is exhibited between members of different species. There is little or no emotional arousal, and little emotional display. Typically, the animal assumes a “stalking” posture. In humans, it is often how the hunter will stalk prey. The hunter’s functional posture, stalking, is used in order to be in position for an instant transition to an explosive and lethal attack. The effectiveness of this type of aggression as it relates to personal safety is poor. It is not appropriate to stalk, hunt down and kill others. 

Finally, there is pseudo-predatory aggression. This aggression has evolved in humans to suit those situations in which neither purely affective nor purely predatory behavior were appropriate. It is aimed at achieving dominance with as little risk as possible, utilizing behavioral and performance traits from predatory rather than affective, although affective aspects can be part of the confrontation. The effectiveness of this type of aggression as it relates to personal safety and attack management is very good. This type of aggression does not assume a fighting stance. It assumes a semi-stalking posture. This will elicit efficiency of movement, no arousal, no display, and minimal communication with the potential Adversary.

If the goal is to present a professional and confident presence with the intent of escape, is this type of behavior likely to calm the situation or escalate it? What message are you sending to the potential Adversary? This position and demeanor exudes confidence.

Read Full Text at Assault Prevention Blog

High-profile kidnappings, sexual assaults, child abuse and elder abuse are a handful of crimes that get a lot of attention from the media. Often, these cases are the catalyst for changes in the law or procedural changes regarding the manner in which the offenders responsible for these crimes are sentenced or treated. Mass school shootings have sparked a debate over whether school personnel should be armed. These crimes create intense emotion and often result in change. There are schools with metal detectors, which were unheard of years ago. What motivates most people to evaluate real risk and take proactive steps toward a safer life or community?

During the evening rush hour on August 1, 2007, the 35W Mississippi Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota collapsed in catastrophic failure. Thirteen people were killed and approximately 145 people were injured. In January 2008, the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) suggested the bridge collapse may have originated with the failure of gusset plates that were too thin. By June 16, 2008, the Minnesota Department of Transportation had announced it would replace or rehabilitate 120 bridges throughout Minnesota by the year 2018 to the tune of $2.5 billion. Is this expense necessary or is it a knee-jerk reaction based on emotion?

Dr. Peter Sandman is the creator of the “Risk = Hazard + Outrage” formula for risk communication. Essentially, the formula works like this: Outrage and hazard do not carry equal weight. When hazard is high and outrage is low, people under-react based on their perception that everything is okay. When hazard is low and outrage is high, most people over-react based on their perception things are not okay. The reality of real risk will not necessarily be the determining factor that motivates people toward action.

In the example above: The bridge collapse may have exposed a real hazard, previously unknown, which is being addressed. We can be certain, due to the intense emotion surrounding the bridge collapse; officials will err on the conservative side of safety when evaluating bridge design.

As an entity who has been preaching a proactive approach to personal safety for many years, we have made some interesting observations. Most people do not take action unless significantly motivated. When it comes to personal safety, it is fear or outrage that usually motivates people to take action, not necessarily the actual hazard. Others will wait until a lawsuit requires them to take action, or a violent act in their community demands action.

Community is defined by any group that has a particular mission; a company, corporation, association or organization. It is a place where a group of individuals spend a considerable amount of time with others. Think about this as you consider the personal “communities” that you are a part of and interact with. Are they really safe? What real hazards are experienced with some frequency? Are the decisions regarding safety based on emotion, or solid research and information?

Read Full Text at Assault Prevention Blog

Consider this. You have just finished buying groceries one evening and are on the way to your vehicle, when you are confronted by a stranger who demands your money. You push him away in an attempt to escape. He trips and falls, hitting his head against the ground. The police arrive and everything is sorted out. You are sent on your way and the stranger is carted off to the hospital. You find out several days later, the stranger died due to the traumatic brain injury he received when his head hit the ground. Several weeks later, you are served papers which indicate you are being sued by the stranger’s family for Wrongful Death, due to your negligence. Is this possible?

The central idea behind a Wrongful Death lawsuit is that through negligence, carelessness or recklessness, someone died. These lawsuits, usually brought forth on behalf of the surviving family members, attempt to collect damages for expenses related to the death, pain and suffering experienced by the survivors and for future earnings of the deceased.

There is also the possibility of a Personal Injury lawsuit in which the injured party attempts to collect damages for their injuries based on negligence or intentional wrongdoing.

What rights do civilians have when using force to prevent injury to themselves or others? What are the legal limitations and implications on use of force by civilians? What legal thresholds will be examined by the Courts? What specific type of force can be used in self defense?

Almost all states within the United States allow civilians to use reasonable force in protection of their own or someone else’s property or life. Check your own state statutes, as they vary considerably from state to state.

Most of these statutes do not define what reasonable force is. Using the example we opened with, is it reasonable to push someone down who is demanding your money, but is not displaying, brandishing or threatening you with a weapon? This is where it gets tricky. Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that the stranger who died from the brain injury after you pushed him, was found to have a concealed knife in his pocket? Does this make any difference?

Let’s change the scenario. The same stranger produces a handgun and demands your money. You, being a legally licensed handgun permit holder, pull your handgun and shoot him. He dies. The police discover the handgun he pulled is really a BB gun, or a toy gun. Does this change your liability?

The bottom line is that the courts will look at several factors.
1. Do you have the legal (statutory) ability to use force, and under what conditions?
2. Were those conditions present at the time of the incident?
3. Were you a reluctant participant? Did you create or exacerbate the problem?
4. Did you consider retreating? Was it reasonable to consider retreating?
5. Was the force you used reasonable, given your perception of the events?

The problem most civilians confront when using force is that they do not understand what is reasonable. The legal definition of reasonable: what is appropriate for a particular situation? This definition is generally applied in the law of Negligence. It is the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe under a certain set of conditions. Someone who exercises such standards would not be negligent.

Let’s go back to our example. Is it reasonable for the intended victim to push a stranger away who is demanding their money? Of course it is. We frequently hear about death and injuries that result from these types of crimes. If the civilian’s perception is that they are about to be hurt or injured as a result of a crime, it is reasonable to use force to escape.

Was it reasonable for the civilian to shoot the stranger demanding money, when the gun the stranger was using is a toy gun? Yes, it is. The civilian has no duty or obligation to ask the stranger if the gun he is holding in his hand is a toy gun or a BB gun. The civilian’s perception at the time of the incident is that the stranger is holding a real gun, with real bullets, and he might shoot.

Traditional martial arts and self-defense classes do not teach what is reasonable and timely. Most of these classes teach motor skills and techniques, but do not provide the civilian a framework of force to work within.

Do your homework when choosing self defense training and defense weapons. Make sure that the techniques you learn are in the context of a Use of Force Model that has been tested by the courts and is appropriate for civilians.

Read Full Text at Assault Prevention Blog.

Crime statistics are worthy of discussion. The greater understanding we have of the subject, the more informed we are when making decisions that may affect our personal safety. The purpose of evaluating relevant information regarding violence is not to frighten or make one paranoid. It is to raise awareness and examine prevention strategies, thereby giving people the ability to develop their own Model of Personal Safety. This process begins by defining the problem.

In Crime Statistics – Developing a Model of Personal Safety – Part 1, I presented some of the most recent available statistics in the Violent Crime Category from the 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey. I then drew conclusions from them, some of which were ridiculous. Let’s look at the real-life problem.

Violent confrontations are unexpected, unplanned and unpredictable. You can get into situations from which you cannot escape. If this were not true, there would be very few accidental deaths, car accidents, or violent crime victims.

I agree with those who feel that many problems can be avoided by simply paying attention to your environment. I also endorse the application of appropriate interpersonal communications in situations that present personal risk. BUT…..there are still situations that evolve in which we cannot observe our way out of, talk our way out of, or escape from. Now what?

Below, are some arguable statistics about crime in the United States. They are arguable due to the estimated percentage of un-reported and under-reported crime. For example, it is estimated that up to 55% of sexual assaults go unreported. Additionally, these statistics change to some degree frequently.

Violence In America:
• One burglary every 11 seconds.
• One motor vehicle theft every 20 seconds.
• One aggravated assault every 28 seconds.
• One robbery every 47 seconds.
• One rape every 5 minutes.
• One murder every 22 minutes.

You might be thinking; “With almost 300 million people in the United States, what are the chances that I will be a victim of violent crime?” If you evaluate your personal safety by asking this question, you are asking the wrong question. The appropriate question is: “If I do find myself in an unexpected, violent situation from which I cannot escape, what am I going to do?”

In 2005, there were 5.2 million crimes of violence. With a population of approximately 300 million, your chances of being a victim of violent crime are about 1-2%.

Before an incident, the following are proven elements that alter the outcome:
1. Appropriate observation of the environment and behavioral clues.
2. Preparedness for unexpected violence.
3. Appropriate motor skills practice. A motor skill is the term used when referring to martial arts, defensive shooting and other self-defense techniques.
4. Tactical training. Self-defense techniques alone are not sufficient to significantly reduce personal risk in violent confrontations. They must be learned in the proper context of the realistic aspects of violence.
5. Practice technique and tactics through Simulations.

Unfortunately, the great majority of self-defense and martial arts programs miss the mark completely when considering these elements.

During the incident, your capabilities, based on experience and training will affect the outcome. Once the incident commences only training and the will to survive can assist you. Do you see the common thread here? It is appropriate training.

Having conducted considerable research into the characteristics of real-life violence, I find that most people who acknowledge these characteristics are able to begin to put them to constructive use in building a model of personal safety. I have just described the elements that are critical in surviving the outcome of that unfortunate 1-2% category. These elements should be considered in determining how you begin to assemble your model of personal safety.

Most people begin by conducting a personal risk/needs assessment. This is best accomplished by considering your personal circumstances. Ask questions such as:

1. What are my usual daily patterns and what environments do they expose me to?
2. Within those environments, what is the nature of reported crime?
3. What personal observations have I made in those environments?
4. Is my home safe from theft, burglary, flood and fire?
5. If someone does attempt to break into my home, do I have an alarm or a plan?
6. In the event I do find myself in a situation from which I cannot escape, what are my alternatives?
7. Do those alternatives require any special preparation, training, equipment or self-defense devices?
8. Where can I get appropriate information and training should I decide that self-defense is an appropriate part of my response?
9. What type of self-defense training should I seek?
10. Should I carry a handgun, pepper spray, impact weapons, stun device or other types of self-defense devices?

These answers should lead you to search for accurate information that once understood and acted on, will effectively alter any possible negative outcome in your favor.

Read the full text at Assault Prevention Blog.

From the neighborhood to the nation, crime statistics are published frequently and are readily available to the public. Most often these statistics are used by lawmakers to shape public policy and by criminal justice system administrators to develop strategic crime deterrent programs. But what, if any, value do theses statistics hold for the average citizen?

If you get all of your relevant news information from most major media outlets, including newspapers, magazines, television and the internet, you will likely have a skewed perception of crime in the United States. Why? Because most media outlets have a formula they use in choosing which stories they will cover. If the demand for hard news is not present, media outlets will focus on other subjects.

Perception: most people in the United States perceive gang members to be very dangerous and potentially a great risk to their personal safety. Since most people do not have personal experience with gang members to draw from, they believe the sensational stories regarding gang-related homicides and violence presented by the media.

Reality: according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005) National Crime Victimization Survey, in the 1970’s, nineteen states (201 American cities) reported gang problems. By the 1990’s, all states (1,487 communities) reported gang problems. This represents a 640% increase in about 25 years. This startling increase in gang activity provides a reason for the sensationalized media coverage.

 Reality: Although gangs have grown, between 1998 and 2003 victims perceived their perpetrators to be gang members in 6% of violent victimizations. This has fallen from the peak in 1996, when gang members where perceived to be responsible for 10% of all violent crime.

The Net Result: the public walks around in fear of gang members, when there is a far greater chance they will be assaulted by someone else.

Let’s assume for a moment that these figures are accurate and not just the victim’s reported perception. If gang members are responsible for 6% of violent crime, who is responsible for the remaining 94%? Logic dictates the public would have a keen interest in who represents the greatest percentile of threat in violent crime, and the natural expectation is that media outlets would have an interest as well. But logic, or common sense for that matter, does not fit the formula many media outlets use in choosing what they cover.

Let’s take a look at the realities of some crime statistics.

Read Full Text at Assault Prevention Blog.

Have you even been in a car accident? If so, you probably did not leave the house planning to have an automobile accident that day. That is how violence erupts into our lives. It is spontaneous, unexpected and quick. No crime victim ever thought they would become a victim on the dreadful day they became one.

According to the 2005 statistics released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey, United States residents age 12 or older experienced approximately 23 million crimes. This figure includes all categories of crime. Therefore, you have approximately an 8% chance of being a victim of crime in a country of approximately 300 million people.

The trick, of course, is to stay out of that 8% category. How does the average citizen prepare for this? Unfortunately, many people don’t give it much thought, or do not know what they should do. Additionally, Americans are experts at denial. If you need proof just look at the amount of debt most Americans carry, or the national debt.

Using a more practical example, if we look deeply into statistics provided by the National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration, we can come to some very solid conclusions based on what we know are common elements of automobile fatalities.

1. Wear a seatbelt.
2. Do not drink and drive.
3. To minimize alcohol related fatal crashes, minimize vehicle travel between the hours of 6:00pm and 6:00am.
4. To reduce all fatal crash risk, minimize vehicle travel between the hours of 9:00pm and 6:00am.
5. As much as is practical avoid two-lane, undivided roads.
6. Drive at slower speeds.  

We can use the same type of methodology in reducing the risk of becoming a crime victim. Perception is most people’s reality. However, perception may be far removed from reality. This is why the effort of considerable research into crime trends, criminal traits and real-life violence characteristics are valuable. As a result, we are able to recognize valid and reliable conclusions that will effectively reduce daily risk, rather than making faulty assumptions based on faulty perception. It is the Science of Safety.

1. Having someone else with you reduces the risk of personal violence by up to 80%.

2. Having a third person with you reduces the risk of personal violence by up to 90%.

3. Learn to say no, emphatically, to a stranger who approaches you, regardless of their story.

4. Be aware of your surroundings. If you need help, you choose whom you will ask. You are far less likely to randomly pick a person wanting to do you harm, than waiting for someone to approach you.

5. In public areas, look around your vehicle as you approach it. Look into your vehicle before you get into it. When out at night, park in a well-lighted area.

6. When at home, park in the garage if you own one. Scan the garage before you close the garage door. Although not a common tactic, assailants will wait in hiding and enter through an open garage door.

7. If you own a cell phone and feel you might be in a place that puts you at risk, have it pre-dialed to 911 or the local police telephone number. Then if you do need to call for help, just push the call button.

8. If you are approached, do not let a stranger come within two-arms length of you. Assailants must control victims in order to successfully complete their crimes. If the assailant cannot grab, hit, stab or kick you – their ability to control you is greatly reduced.

9. Never, ever, allow yourself to be taken to a secondary location should you be confronted by a potential assailant. Assailants look for privacy to successfully victimize people, and sometimes that involves taking the victim to a secondary location. Fight where you stand! Statistically, you are far better off than being taken to a secondary location.

Read the full text at the Assault Prevention Blog.

We live in, arguably, the greatest country on earth, but it becomes more deeply divided each day with changing demographics and clashing cultures. Although these figures change to some degree frequently, please consider this:

• There is a huge gap between the rich and poor. The world’s median per capita income per year is approximately $1,400.
• 34 million U.S. citizens live below the poverty line.
• There are over 2 million U.S. citizens are in jails.
• Our Imprisonment ratio – 1 in every 100 adults – is tied with Russia as the world’s highest.
• The use of illegal drugs in our society is a business approaching $100 billion in annual volume.
• The United States has 5% of the world’s population, and yet we consume 23% of the world’s energy.
• Approximately 10% of American adults are functionally illiterate, 40% of youth.
• Half of all marriages end in divorce. Three of ten children are being raised solely by their mothers. Two-thirds of children are born out of wedlock.
• In the 1970’s, nineteen states (201 American cities) reported gang problems. By the 1990’s, all states (1,487 communities) reported gang problems. This represents a 640% increase in about 25 years.
• According to Rand: In 1995 there were approximately 268 international and domestic terror incidents. Compare that to the estimated 4,981 incidents in 2006.
• In 1949, gas was priced at approximately 27 cents per gallon. Today, it hovers near $4.00 per gallon.

All of these elements contribute to violence. These things create pressure in people’s minds and hearts. When enough pressure is created in anyone’s life; they either change something, or burst – just like a balloon. Often times the bursting balloon comes out in aggressive, inappropriate or violent behavior.

If you struggle to understand some of the more despicable acts you hear about in the media, one of the first things you should consider when it comes to violence is the “big picture.” If your world is so small that it is a challenge to see beyond your own doorstep, making sense of violence will be difficult and skewed. I encourage you to take a broader view of violence and the factors that contribute to it. Therein lays the ability to begin to objectively plan for you own personal safety.

Read the full text at the Assault Prevention Blog.

On December 9, 2007, four people and the gunman died in attacks at the Colorado Springs New Life Church and the Youth With a Mission missionary center in the town of Arvada, Colorado. Five people were wounded. What, if anything, can be done to mitigate the consequences of these mass shootings and the insanity that comes with it? There have been a plethora of deranged shootings on religious institutional premises in the last decade.

These incidents highlight the need for religious organizations to recognize the realities of the world we live in.

In the case of the New Life Church, we must recognize this simple fact: lives were saved due to proactive planning and training. New Life Church had proactive emergency plans in place and Jeanne Assam had appropriate training. This saved many lives.

The average duration of a typical violent encounter is less than 2 minutes. In a survey of 63 cities in the United States, conducted by the International City/County Municipal Association, (a professional and educational organization for municipal administrators) the average response time of police was 6 minutes and 15 seconds.

You do the math.

Negligence is defined as a party’s failure to exercise the prudence and care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances to prevent injury to another party. Given the mass shootings that have taken place over the last decade, do churches have a legal obligation to protect the congregants from deranged individuals?

Generally, the plaintiff is these cases must prove the following in order to be awarded restitution, compensation or reparations for their losses:
• that the defendant had a duty of care;
• that the defendant failed to uphold this duty;
• that this negligence led to the plaintiff’s injury or death;
• the actual damages that were caused by the injury. Gross negligence is usually understood to involve an act or omission in reckless disregard of the consequences affecting the life or property of another.

Every religious institution worldwide is vulnerable to these types of attacks, given the current geopolitical climate. There are strategies available that are able to reduce risk and liability of these organizations, both large and small.

Religious organizations – wake up! There is a certain amount of irony in the theological stand many Faiths take on the sanctity of life, yet are unwilling to dedicate resources to protect their own congregations.

Churches, Temples and Synagogues: Seriously consider the realties of our current geopolitical circumstances and the world we live in. Please be proactive in your emergency planning.

Read the full text at the Assault Prevention Blog.