Subject: RE: Case Study- MUST READ and DICSUSS
Date: 95-02-15 08:22:09 EST
From: cntrspy@iapps.org (Executive Protection Associates)
Sender: owner-bodyguard-101-l@netcom.com
Reply-to: bodyguard-101-l@netcom.com
To: bodyguard-101-l@netcom.com

= = = I haven't seen metal detectors at a ballpark recently, and I
suspect they are not there because it would take the better part
of a day to screen everyone through.  Reason- balancing PR and
economic interests with safety interests.  Most large venues are
a pain because they are also GREAT terrorist targets, high access,
low security- a real challenge.

        As for the firearms issue, I fully agree.  If you are not
WELL trained with your tools, the chance is much greater of injury
to yourself or others- not to mention the LIABILITY issues.

        If an attacker is intent on carrying out an attack, there is
not much REACTION you can do, only pre-planning and action training.

        Anyone else care to comment ??
+++++++++++++++++++++



>        I have not been to a game in a long time, are there metal detectors
>in use at the ball parks.  It seems to me that a stalker with a real intent
>to do harm would use this venue.  A sports arena would offer many places
>where someone experenced with a firearm could get off many shots before any
>thing could be done to stop him.
>        As for ball players with personal weapons; most people who don't
>take time to hone their skills are more likely to shoot a by-stander or
>themselves.  I have spent enought time on ranges too know that it is easy
>to be dangerous with a weapon, effective with one takes time.
>                                                              ML.

--
Chris Hall, C.O.O., Executive Protection Associates, Inc.
Providers of Worldwide Investigative, Security and Protective
Services to the Fortune 500, Celebrities and Industry, Except Florida-
Regional Governor IAPPS/ Info@IAPPS.org  PGP 2.7 key available
++ Moderator-Bodyguard's List> bodyguard-L-request@netcom.com
Opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of EPAI.
================================================================




----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From owner-bodyguard-101-l@netcom.com Mon Feb 13 23:00:42 1995
Received: from mail4.netcom.com by mail03.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA275374441; Mon, 13 Feb 1995 23:00:42 -0500
Return-Path: <owner-bodyguard-101-l@netcom.com>
Received: by mail4.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom)
	id TAA28987; Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:41:35 -0800
Received: from shell1.best.com by mail4.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom)
	id TAA28975; Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:41:27 -0800
Received: from [204.156.129.183] (cntrspy.vip.best.com [204.156.129.183]) by
shell1.best.com (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA18351 for
<bodyguard-101-l@netcom.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:41:07 -0800
Message-Id: <199502140341.TAA18351@shell1.best.com>
X-Sender: cntrspy@best.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:35:11 -1000
To: bodyguard-101-l@netcom.com
From: cntrspy@iapps.org (Executive Protection Associates)
Subject: RE: Case Study- MUST READ and DICSUSS
Sender: owner-bodyguard-101-l@netcom.com
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bodyguard-101-l@netcom.com

