One of the many roadblocks to security I have encountered, and one of the myths which particularly bothers me, is the idea that security is “somebody else’s problem.” The concept that I, as the potential victim have neither the right nor the responsibility to secure my person or property from outsiders.

Generally speaking I’ve found this falls into three categories “not my fault,” “not my right,” and “nothing I can do.”

Not my Fault:

In this category the potential victims believe, sometimes very strongly, that it is not their fault they are the victim of a crime… and they are right. The problem comes when they start to think that because they are not at fault they should not have to do anything to prevent or thwart the crime, that the offender should know it is wrong, and therefor desist. It is as if the victim, by admitting there was something they could do to prevent a crime, is admitting partial culpability to the event.

Personally, I find this a little silly.

Let’s try an analogy. In many cities a pedestrian legally has the right-of-way over vehicular traffic. If a pedestrian crosses a street and gets hit by a car the driver is typically deemed to be at fault, even if the pedestrian was paying no attention (texting, playing music, reading a newspaper) before he or she stepped out into traffic. The pedestrian has no duty to look for the driver. We all learn, however, to look both ways. Why? Because if we get hit WE (not the car or driver) are going to end up hurt. A simple act of prevention, paying attention, would save us a lot of pain.

One can look at crime in much the same way: if one takes a few simple steps to prevent an incident, then he or she will not have to go through the pain and trauma of being a victim. This may take away some capacity to enjoy life in a reckless and carefree manner, but will save a lot of grief in the end. Pay attention, take preventative measures, and simply refuse to be an easy target.

Not My Right:

I’ve seen this idea present itself in several different guises, but they all generally boil down to the concept that it’s the government’s responsibility (typically through law enforcement agencies) to keep you safe, and you don’t have any authority to do so myself.

I first encountered this concept way back in a basic criminal justice theory course as the “Social Contract” between government and citizens, wherein citizens give up their right to enforce laws, judge offenders, and mete-out punishment, while empowering the government to do so on their behalf. Unfortunately, the idea that keeping ourselves safe is not our right breaks down on several levels. The first is we are discussing crime prevention and personal safety, not law enforcement. The second is the government cannot be everywhere at once, and, I have always believed, are incapable of doing their job without the active participation of the citizens they serve. They may try their best, but simply cannot be everywhere at once. Even after law enforcement has been called, the response time may be between several minutes to over an hour depending on where one lives and the availability of officers to respond to the scene. This means the security you put in place has to hold off an intruder for the time it takes to get a law enforcement response.

Interestingly, law enforcement may not actually be required to keep you safe. In several Decisions (of note Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) both involving a failure to act and enforce restraining orders) the Supreme Court has held there is no Constitutional duty of law enforcement to protect a person. In The Police Chief, vol. 71, no. 7, July 2004, L. Cary Unkelbach, Assistant County Attorney Representing the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office, Centennial, CO writes, “Law enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another.” He raises two exemptions to the lack of duty, referred to as the special-relationship and the state-created danger theories, but advises law enforcement agencies that a Constitutional duty to protect does not exist. Simply put, if you call police, and they are not able to respond in a timely manner, you might be on your own until they can.

Please note, this does not mean they won’t protect you, or will not respond as quickly as possible. It simply means law enforcement agencies are severely constrained through resources and manning, and are having to deal with a multitude of calls with a minimum of manning. They need as much help as they can get. Preparation and cooperation can get them the time they need to respond.

The idea that citizens do not have the right to participate in the law enforcement process may be perpetuated in the media. A few years ago I read a quote from criminologist at Northeastern University regarding a device called the “Mosquito” which emitted an irritating noise which could only be heard by teenagers. The device was being used near the entrances to shops, theaters, and apartment buildings in high crime and gang areas to discourage teens from loitering. The Mosquitos apparently worked, but the criminologist’s opinion was that the mosquito was essentially a law enforcement effort and therefore the shop owners did not have the right to use them. “There is a significant problem with giving people a tool like this and empowering the public to take over the tasks of law enforcement.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/23/high-pitch-only-teens-can_n_98304.html)

It made me wonder whether he regarded locks and alarms in the same light.

Nothing I can do:

The third belief is that there is nothing the potential victim can do to prevent the crime. This may harken back to the first belief, that if there was something I could do then it might be my fault it happened, or it may simply indicate frustration and a lack of understanding of security planning and implementation. This is the reason we created Mountain Wolf Security Consulting. There are a number of methods which can be employed to lower the chance of being targeted by crime, becoming a victim, or being prepared and mitigating the loss if an incident were to occur. MWSC assists in the planning process, indicates strengths and weaknesses of the client’s current security situation, and educates the client in solidifying their own security.

I will be using this blogspace to break down elements of security primarily for preventing intrusions into households and businesses. I will be looking at what factors attract intruders, how to assess the threat, how to harden the potential target and limit indicators of potential gain from a burglary. We will talk about methods of increasing the intruder’s time and exposure outside the building increasing the risk, limit potential entry, and limit the gain inside the building. We will also look at methods to limit damage and loss, and increase the likelihood of recovery of your property in the case you become a victim. In the process we will discuss identity theft prevention, cyber security for small networks, and limitation of information regarding your property and privacy.

Every so often as I encounter security myths and beliefs, we will take a hard look and see what can be learned.