A Florida Man Shot his Neighbor to Death, Put the Body in the Back of his Pickup Truck
and Drove Dead Body to his Lawyer’s Office
A Fort Myers, Florida man shot his neighbor to death during a struggle before loading the body into the back of his pickup truck and driving it to a lawyer’s office, according to the News Press of Fort Myers, Marshall claimed he shot the neighbor in self defense.
Lawyer Robert Harris, said that John Marshall (the shooter), walked into his Fort Myers law firm claiming he had shot and killed neighbor Ted Hubbell in self-defense and had the body outside in the bed of his pickup.
The shocked attorneys called 911 and Marshall spent hours at Harris’ office before finally leaving
for the hospital around 10:30 p.m. that night. Marshall had a swollen lip, missing tooth and what
appeared to be two broken thumbs.
According to attorney Robert Harris, John
Marshall wrestled a gun away from neighbor
Hubbell and fatally shot him earlier Wednesday.
Harris said late Wednesday that Marshall will
not be arrested, because he shot in self defense.
1. Avoid fights with neighbors.
2. If a fight seems unavoidable, call 911 and wait for police in a safe area.
3. Do not transport a body to your lawyers office in the bed of your
pick up truck!
RISKAlert®is a publication of Risk & Security LLC
To subscribe to RISKAlerts® – write to: email@example.com
The Los Angeles District Attorney announced felony charges Monday against Bumblebee Tuna’s San Diego Plant, alleging that a worker, Jose Melena, entered a thirty-five foot cylindrical oven that sterilizes cans of tuna. Melena’s co-workers closed the door and started the oven. The oven temperature rose to 270 degrees in the next two hours, and when the doors were opened, they found the severely burned remains of Jose Melena.
According to District Attorney Jackie Lacey, “We take worker safety very seriously”, according to a published statement. “Our goal is to enhance the criminal of workplace safety violations. Although the Bumble Bee investigation began in 2012, this case represents our commitment to protecting workers from illegal – and, potentially, deadly – on-the-job practices.”
Two plant employees, former Safety Manager Saul Florez, 42, of Whittier, California, and the current Director of Plant Operations Angel Rodriguez, 63, of Riverside, California, with three felony counts each of an Cal-OSHA (State of California ) violation causing death.
Both men face arraignment on May 27 at the Foltz Criminal Justice Center in downtown Los Angeles. If convicted, the individuals could serve three years in state prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Bumble Bee faces a maximum fine
of $1.5 million.
1. Strong safety controls should be put in place to protect workers in High Risk
2. Employees should make sure that all employees are aware of the
company’s safety and security rules to prevent incidents like this.
RISKAlert®is a publication of Risk & Security LLC
To subscribe to RISKAlerts® – write to: firstname.lastname@example.org
RISK Alert Alert #590 – White House Security BREACHED
UPDATED Dateline: Sept 23, 2014
White House Attacker had been ARRESTED TWICE BEFORE, INCLUDING ON AT THE WHITE HOUSE, CARRYING A MACHETE!
In Federal court, prosecutors said the Gonzalez car contained 500 rounds of ammo, guns, assault rifles, a hatchet and a machete!
AND HE HAD BEEN ARRESTED TWICE BEFORE, including in August 2014, carrying a hatchet on the White House Lawn. And on July 19, after being spotted driving recklessly in a gray Ford Bronco, Gonzalez was charged in Wythe County, Virginia, with evading arrest and possession of a weapon after he was found in possession of 11 weapons, including a sawed-off shotgun, assault rifles and knives, and map — with the White House circled!
The Nation Was Shocked on Sept. 19 when an intruder not only jumped the fence,
but was ABLE TO ENTER THE FRONT DOOR of the White House. Controls that should
have been in place were apparently not ready for an actual security incident.
When even elementary schools have access control and card key systems, it is really hard to believe that there is NO CARD KEY SYSTEM for the White House.
SECURITY IS A PROCESS, and that’s why Security Plan, Security Policies, and Security
Procedures are in place for every U.S. Federal Building. Obviously, at the White House, the process is broken, or agents are willfully ignoring the security controls which should be in place 100% of the time. Every government building should have strong access control systems in place.
The intruder, Omar Gonzalez did the unthinkable, according to the Washington Post. They reported that the 42-year-old ex-veteran from Texas climbed over the north fence line along Pennsylvania Avenue, toward the eastern side of the house’s circular driveway. His breach set off the standard security alarm across the compound. Officers rushed to the North Lawn but were unable to reach him on foot as he ran, arms pumping, threading the needle between the fountain and a security guard booth and ignoring their commands that he stop.
Gonzalez actually entered the White House because the door was UNLOCKED!
What We Learned:
Security Procedures and Policies MUST BE FOLLOWED 100% of the Time for Security to be Effective. In this incident, the major problems included:
Front Doors MUST BE LOCKED to keep intruders out.
Canine that was on the job should have been released.
Active Monitoring of cameras was not effective. Was the intruder missed?
The perimeter fence is obviously not up to the job. In fact, a 2nd jumper
breached the fence again on the same day,RISKAlertis a publication of Risk & Security LLC
RiskAlert INCIDENT REPORT 552 – HOSPITAL SHOOTER Terminated Employee Shoots Staff Member during Card Game
at Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Dayton, Ohio
Allowing terminated employees to have access to a hospital or facility where they
worked before is a questionable decision, because not only anger at the organization,
but also anger at individuals and former co-workers may turn into an incident as this report explains.
In early May, a terminated housekeeper at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Dayton, Ohio came back to the hospital to play cards in a hospital break room with a group of current VA staff. The perpetrator, Neil Moore, had also brought a handgun to the hospital. Neil was upset because he thought another VA staff member was having a relationship with his wife, so he pulled out the gun, and as a result, one person was shot in the ankle.
It was not a typical active shooter scenario, but it does point out
the access control problem in hospitals, and also questions the
ability for anyone to walk into a hospital with a loaded gun.
1. Access to former employees should be prohibited or at least limited on a case by case basis.
2. Visitors should not be allowed to bring guns into a hospital. Metal detectors should be used to screen for weapons.
Moore, a former employee at the Veterans Affairs hospital, told police that he was going to a regular card game with
his former co-workers. He said he went to the hospital Monday intending to brandish the handgun to intimidate two former co-workers he believed were involved in relationships with his wife and daughter, both of whom reportedly work at the hospital. Moore planned to “hold the ex-co-workers at gunpoint while he punched them with his right hand,” according to court documents.
The hospital complex has beds for about 450 people and provides veterans with medical, mental health and nursing home care. It doesn’t have metal detectors at its entrances, but it does have its own security force.
VA spokesman Ted Froats said the force conducts active shooter training four times a year and showed outstanding response Monday. He said in a statement Tuesday that the hospital will consider additional steps to ensure safety, while making sure that any new measures won’t impede the hospital from providing care to veterans as quickly as possible.
When I turned on the news today, I was in the middle of writing an article on the 2nd Shooting
at Ft. Hood from last week, and then saw that there had been a violent knife attack at a
Pennsylvania high school, with 20 casualties and at least eight injured critically, the next day,
there was a hate crime shooting at the Jewish community center in Overland Park, Kansas.
Once again, we see violence on a mass scale, the FBI has been brought in, and next will come
information on the victims. With two major events, in two weeks, what can we deduce about the
security in place at both Franklin Regional High School, Pennsylvania, and Fort Hood, Texas.
NEWS FLASH: THE CURRENT SECURITY MODEL IS NOT WORKING!
CURRENT SECURITY MODELS
Disaster preparedness is improving, Emergency Management is working, but security is still not where it needs to be. It is a systemic problem based on the fact that security around
the U.S. is still locked in a REACTIVE mode, not a PROACTIVE mode.
The main reason for this reactive mode in security organizations, is because most security
officers come from a law enforcement background, with a model which is based on crimes
and arrests, and it is totally REACTIVE. A crime happens and police officers go into action
and arrest the perpetrator(s).
CRIME HAPPENS = PERP IS IDENTIFIED = PERP IS ARRESTED
Unfortunately, this reactive model does not work for preventing security incidents and mass violence
because it is INCIDENT DRIVEN, not Risk-Driven. It focuses on individuals, not on a more holistic,
generalized view of Threats, and it totally leaves Solutions (Controls) out of the equation.
After studying pages of after action reviews, post-incident analyses and media sources, the one
recommendation that makes sense is that organizations need to switch to a RISK-BASED,
PROACTIVE mode for security to work.
This was highlighted in a remark made by a Pentagon official, commenting on the 2nd Fort Hood
Shooting on April 2, and the fact that new DOD recommendations for security, had just been released.
“After the Navy Yard shooting in September 2013, another round of recommendations were made to improve security at all DOD installations, however, a Pentagon official said thatthe new
recommendations had not yet been put into effect at Fort Hood. At Fort Hood, very little had
changed from 2009 regarding security procedures for soldiers at the entrance gates.”
The question for the Department of Defense is “how could this happen again at the same military
base? I took extra time to study the 89-page document called An Independent Review “Protecting
the Force”, one of 3 reports created after the initial Fort Hood Shooting, whene 13 were killed, and
If you look at the recommendations, they are very bureaucratic and procedural. They could have
been written by an efficiency expert, not by anyone with a background in security, and covered things
like policy changes, and having screening for clergy and psychologists, and improved mental health
programs. These are all important, but they do not provide a secure environment.
The LAX after action analysis’ Number One recommendation was to change
the security focus to a Risk-Based approach.
The problem with a reactive approach is that you can’t screen and lock down everyone. At Fort
Hood, for example, there are 80,000 individuals living on the base, and probably hundreds of
visitors who go in and out every day. It’s impossible to assess the mental health, and the
‘intentions’ of all of them.
That’s why a Risk-Based Approach works – because it focuses on the potential threats and then evaluates the existing controls to see whether they offer the required amount of protection based on the likelihood of the threat occurring.
You stop violent events by controlling access and by controlling weapons. No matter how unpopular they are, you use metal detectors at certain points, you use security officers at key entrances, you control entrances and exits.
Once the event starts, you can improve security by having faster notification (panic alarms), ability
to block, or disable weapons and attackers, adequate transport, better emergency response, but to
avoid the violence, you need to have strong access control.
The Risk-Based approach makes use of annual risk assessments that are holistic in nature. They
are not done in stovepipes, they include the entire organizations, they include input from staff
members, visitors, students, vendors, soldiers, patients on how they see security from their point
of view, which is always dramatically different from management or administration.
A risk-based approach requires an organization to:
Define potential security risks.
Develop standardized risk assessment processes, for gathering and
analyzing information, and use of analytical technology
Risk-Based Security focuses on PREVENTION OF NEW INCIDENTS
whether they are active shooter, general violence, etc.
Enhances security’s ability to rapidly respond to changes in the threat environment.
MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK
According the LAX (LAWA) after action report, “Simply adding more security does not
necessarily provide better security. Determining priorities and where to achieve great
value for the dollars invested requires regular, systematic assessment of the likelihood
and consequences (risks) associated with a range of threat scenarios that morph and
change more quickly now than ever before.
Collaborative engagement in a security risk assessment process across the community builds
the buy-in needed to develop and sustain a holistic security program over time. Leaders must
be open to challenging established practices and demonstrate a willingness to change direction”.
Making the switch to a Risk-Based security program is the best recommendation for those who
want to protect their staff, students, patients, vendors, clients, soldiers, and visitors from a mass
casualty event, or for all the organizations who don’t want to have a terrible incident happen in
the first place!
RISK Alert Alert #530 – Fort Hood Active Shooter-April 2, 2014
Dateline: April 5, 2014
Shock and grief were the reactions when the news said, for a second time, a shooter
inside Ft. Hood near Killeen, Texas had killed 4 and injured 13 in another Active Shooting
Incident. Everyone remembered the first major shooting attack in November 2013, when
a major killed 13 and injured 43 because he did not want to be deployed to Afghanistan.
A total of 73 injured and/or killed in the two incidents!
How could this have happened? The Department of Defense had implemented many of
the recommendations of its internal, and independent review panels, and the changes had not been enough to prevent another active Shooter incident.
The 34-year old shooter had apparently been denied a leave form, and asked to come
back the next day and he came back, with a .45-caliber Smith & Wesson semiautomatic
handgun, recently purchased at Guns Galore, and started shooting. He eventually turned
the gun on himself, after firing 35 rounds in two buildings over a 2 block area. He had a
history of mental issues, and had recently been transferred to Fort Hood.
What We Learned:The After Action Review “Protecting the Force” had detailed 89
recommendations, but by Sept. .2013, only 52 had been
implemented and none included an Active Shooter Risk Assessment. A comprehensive Active Shooter Risk Assessment has to be the first recommendation after any Active Shooter event. Recommendations from the previous shooting were concentrated
on new policies and procedures, mental health screening, education and training programs but
those controls did not directly influence PREVENTION of incidents.
A Review of the Most Important Active Shooter controls would have been more
likely to prevent a future shooter event, like:
Tightened Access Controls for Facilities
Tracking of Potential Troubled Individuals
Metal Screening for Weapons
Policy on Personal Weapons on Base
After the Navy Yard shooting in September 2013, another round of recommendations
were made to improve security at all DOD installations, however, a Pentagon official said on Thursday, April 4th, that the new recommendations had not yet been put into effect at Fort Hood. Unfortunately, at Fort Hood, very little had changed from 2009 regarding security procedures for soldiers at the entrance gates.Stay Alert and make sure that any Security Incidents are reported IMMEDIATELY!
The Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) released the long-anticipated After Action Analysis on the LAX Active Shooter Incident in 2013.
The 83-page report was written by an independent consultant who analyzed all aspects of the Shooting incident and includes a list of “Major Observations and Recommendations.” The recommendations are “to provide focus for LAWA’s efforts toward continuous improvement in it’s security and emergency preparedness programs.
These areas were highlighted in the report as “7 priority observations that merit special consideration.
Recommendation 1.1: Evolve the LAX Security Program to reflect a more integrated assessment of security risk and provide for the ongoing development and management of mitigation measures.
Recommendation 1.2: Based on the RISK ASSESSMENT and updated security plan, consider the focus and structure of security functions to determine whether realignment and integration are needed.
Recommendation 1.3: With the benefit of recent vulnerability and risk assessments, take a risk-based approach to evaluating current security programs and explore intelligent use of technology.”
Once again, doing frequent Security Risk Assessments and managing the security program and enhancements to follow the recommendations of the Risk Assess- ment are the first recommendations in the After Action Analysis of an Active Shooter Incident.
In my experience, in most organizations, Facility Security Risk Assessments are not conducted correctly, are not reported to senior management, and not used as a tool to ADJUST AND FOCUS the security program based on RISK.
Why aren’t security risk assessments done more often?
1. People don’t have the right expertise to do a full risk assessment.
2. Security managers view Security Risk Assessments are too difficult to undertake.
3. Law enforcement personnel still do not understand the concept of risk assessments and instead, tend to rely on checklistsof controls or security elements, rather than integrating all the information to create a true Risk-Based model for security.
The solution to this problem is to use affordable, easy to use software tools, like the Risk-Pro Application for Facilties Security Assessment and their Risk-Pro Application for Active Shooter Incident to simplify the process of doing more frequent risk assessments and using them as a management tool to focus security so it will be able to recommend the security enhancements that are needed, and not only how MUCH to spend, but actually dictate the order of necessary controls.
Far from being a boring, intellectual exercise, well done security risk assessments can dramatically reduce the possibility of an active shooter event, and also mitigate the many negative consequences that come from such disruptive incidents.
Saturday morning at the Columbia Mall, in this neat, planned community was cold and many people decided
to go to the mall! Columbia, Maryland is a large mall, situated between Washington DC and Baltimore
in the Maryland suburbs. I’ve been there frequently – in fact, last month.
Unfortunately, at 11:15 in the morning, a young man entered the mall and started shooting. Some witnesses
said he was shooting down into the Food Court from the 2nd Level. The shots were centered in a surf, skateboard
and snowboarder store called Zumiez.
Two young people were killed, store employees, Brianna Benlolo, 21, of College Park, MD; and Tyler Johnson
25, of Ellicott City, MD, and a man police identified as the shooter. He had killed himself, but was wearing more
ammo and had more ammo around him.
A bystander was shot in the foot, and others were injured in the chaos that started when the 8-10 shots
were fired and someone yelled, “There’s a man shooting”. But these injuries were judged to be minor.
ONE MORE ACTIVE SHOOTER. ONE MORE YOUNG MAN WITH NO MOTIVE. Seven families devastated and looking for answers.
Again, we look at access control, and due to the NRA effect, making it ridiculously easy to carry a gun, even
a concealed gun almost anywhere, we have to start with what kind of access we should allow to public places,
like schools, malls and airports.
In a risk and reward calculation, it’s basically, does the right of an individual to take a loaded gun anywhere
they want, supersede my right to safely shop at the local mall on a Saturday morning? I think it does.
Now the burden is on the mall owners about how many of these shootings it’s going to take before we start
seeing armed guards at malls, and access control devices like metal detectors, at entrances to the larger malls.
Because think of what the mall owners lost – they lost their reputation as a “SAFE” place to go. They lost
almost a whole day of sales, and maybe they will lose another day.
The local police and county Executive were on TV saying police arrived within 2 minutes of the shootings.
and the SWAT team entered the Mall and did a store by
store search, while the media trucks assembled in the parking lot.
If people want to take loaded guns everywhere and society
thinks that’s great – then store owners are going to have to
increase security and be able to have tools to exclude these
Guns are for hunting, not for shopping!
Terrible day for Columbia Mall and it’s customers, I guess it’s a wonderful day for the security industry that will sell
lots more metal detectors, cameras, monitoring, panic alarms and more. Because that’s what we need to keep
the public safe.
Almost every day I get a note that a hospital or corporate facility is planning to have an Active Shooter Drill. That is always good news because it is a critical part of preparedness that protects not only against an active shooter incident, but also prepares the staff for other emergencies, but it may not be enough.
I’ve found that to be really effective, drills need to be supplemented with short training sessions, and also awareness programs that teach staff to be on their toes, or “situationally aware”. Security awareness training doesn’t have to be a full time job and it doesn’t have to be expensive.
One of the best ways to create an on-going security awareness program is to make a 12-month calendar, with an activity for each month, or better yet, every two weeks. Here’s a list of activities I use:
1. Start with a one page newsletter. You can have the marketing department help, or use WordPress to design your
own newsletter and email it out to all the staff. Whether your staff is 100 people or 6000 people, it’s a great way to promote the security program.
2. Send out very short emails highlighting news items about security incidents at other companies, especially ones in your industry, for example, hospitals. If there’s a terrible incident at another hospital, cut and paste the story and email it to everyone. In fact, if you’re an IAHSS or ASIS member, their publications have great stories about different security situations.
3. Use seasonal reminders. Now that it’s late October and daylight savings time is almost over, send an email reminding staff how to stay alert when they leave the facility after dark and head for their car. How to use the escort service, if that’s available, or how to use your keys as a weapon in a potential incident.
4. Buy posters to put in the cafeteria, or in the elevators that serve as reminders about the concept of staying alert and aware of your surroundings at all time.
I have interviewed more than 8000 staff members in the last 10 years, and they welcome these reminders and feel more secure just because you are keeping awareness up. Remember, it also reminds everyone that there is a Security Department, and that is working every day to keep them safe.
The Department of Homeland Security also provides free brochures and charts you can print out and give to employees, or you can email them for the staff member to print out and put in their purse. There are wallet sized cards, and lots of other great information you can use in your own active shooter awareness program.
Check out the preliminary OIG Report, which was leaked to Time Magazine on their swampland.com site at
Looking at the CNN footage of the Boston Marathon finish line yesterday, I was struck by the shock of the bystanders and the chaos that followed the blasts.
Having just giving two seminars on security controls, I pulled out my list to see what could possibly have been done differently to prevent this devastating outcome, and there was the first word on the list ACCESS CONTROL.
After thirty years as a security expert and risk-threat analyst, I am about 85% sure that this was a lone wolf attacker who made his crude bombs to address some personal perceived problem, whether it was fear of gun legislation, spillover from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Neo Con torture initiative, or something else.
Putting the attacker aside for a moment, the tragedy happened because SOMEONE WAS ABLE TO WALK RIGHT UP TO THE FINISH LINE AND PUT AT LEAST 3 BOMBS right near the finish line! THiS IS NOT RIGHT.
There has to be SCREENING and ACCESS CONTROL PROCEDURES IN PLACE! You can’t have security if you have open access to a major event like the Boston Marathon. For year, security experts have cautioned that large crowds make a great target, and so events have paid lip service to this concept, without staying on the task, and making sure that SECURITY CONTROL NUMBER ONE – ACCESS CONTROL is ALWAYS in place.
But people don’t like access control, it’s too much trouble, they say. They don’t like metal detectors, too expensive, too much trouble, too intrusive. Well, it’s not as intrusive as having a major injury. There are ways to secure these high profile sites, but the security community has to lead on this.
Yes, it is very sad and depressing that the world has come to this — but it has. And it will happen again. As long as security is perceived as too much trouble, too expensive, too tough to do, and too intrusive, there will be more tragic events like this one.