What’s your decision

Here’s the scenario: you have a client whose CEO is a very vocal public figure that can, by the nature of his position on the uplift of his people, can spark anger from some hate groups.

You do the assessment on the event that you’re going to cover him for during the week. During that time you will have to collaborate with other official protective teams as well as an on site uniform security company. Your sole responsibility is the close in protection of the CEO to and from each venue, during meetings and media events.

The organization he/she works for is stressing a large presence of specialists on the shift. Their rationale has nothing to do with any known threat, but more so from an image perspective. They want 7 specialists on the shift at all times. We can do it effectively with 4 or 5 max.

The last time we did it for them I literally had to hide guys because the footprint was so large it brought about unnecessary attention and comments to the organization. ” Why does he/she need to spend that much money on security?”.

Heres the question of the day? Would you recommend to the client that they reduce the footprint because: 1- you can save them money, 2-the footprint brings about too much attention, 3-the extra security is actually harder to manage for the mission

Or would you just go with their recommendation and ultimately make more money and just manage the extra personnel where ever you see fit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *