Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Theater safety

So, typically, you feel safer when you know security guards will detect weapons on people entering a building they’re assigned to protect, right?
Aaaah, no, jackass. It usually pisses me off to no end because it typically means a trip back to the glove box. One case in point is the Marine Corps museum, but that's another story.
It’s hard to have that kind of peace of mind with District schools and offices.
Peace of mind? Isn't that what an ostrich does when it sticks its head in the sand? I do agree with him to a point though; I don't have any peace of mind with any area in the District as long as it continues to prevent the community at large from using modern means of scumbag prevention. The community is mostly responsible for that, which is a shame, and it appears that things are not going to get any better:
Last year, the District fired security contractor Hawk One, which had a four-year record of poor supervision, inadequate training, ineffectiveness, and “fraternizing with students.” To replace Hawk One’s 200 guards, D.C. hired two firms on one-year contracts totaling $22.1 million.
So they hired a company to put uniformed human beings with guns in buildings for the sole purpose of disarming everybody, and the end result was that determined people were still able to gain entry with weapons while the guards were aggressively tutoring the youth? Who could have seen that coming, and why do they think hiring armed human beings in different uniforms will have a different outcome? And holy smokes - $22 Mil? Seems like it would be more effective and less costly to have the parents of students holster up and provide security in shifts; if there's a liability question, there are ways around that. Human beings are human beings, and the security folks would be much more inclined to do a good job if their interest in the matter consisted of their flesh-and-blood, and not Federal Reserve Notes.
With security contractors like these, who needs criminals?
Thinking that you'll have a better outcome if the human factor is clad in new duds is going to lead to more disappointment. You'll probably have more failed "penetration tests" too, in more ways than one.

No comments: