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
Law Enforcement Can Transform Itself by Turning to a Risk-Based Policing Model
Watching the protests across the country over the last few months, the two groups, the Citizens and the Police, as polarized as the US Congress, I think, we can do BETTER than this. We can make police officers RISK OFFICERS for their communities.
The current stereotypes of police with military-style weapons and protective gear, is counterproductive, just like the stereotype of poor, uneducated, violent, drug-using citizens is also counterproductive to progress.
Most departments are still working with the historical model of law enforcement that is still followed religiously around the country, even though it is over 100 years old. This model is totally ” Enforcement ” oriented. Something bad happens, police go find the perpetrator and arrest them.
At the same time, cities and counties are having a hard time enlisting new officers, in fact, in Police Chief Magazine in the December 2014 issue, they point out that 80% of departments are having major recruitment problems. Young men don’t want to become ‘traditional’ police officers. The role needs to change.
The model of law enforcement is at a point when it needs to change, and to evolve into a risk-based, crime-preventive model, instead of a total arrest and subdue model.
The benefit would be a different kind of police force, one that is more educated, more tech-savvy, and problem solving, and focused heavy on prevention.
Instead of educating police officers on some goofy model of how to talk to people, they need to get educated on threat-risk techniques. They need to be able to go to a neighborhood, pro-actively and come up with a risk assessment for that neighborhood, followed by a plan to improve the lives of the people who live
there. Just like we use interviews and surveys for our high-tech risk assessments, these officers could do the same thing.
Police officers today perform only a narrow range of activities. This great group of ethical professional officers COULD DO SO MUCH MORE.
In the next article, we’ll include suggestions on how to make the change.
According to Delaware County District Attorney Jack Whelan, police in Upper Darby, Pa., where Plotts lived, were aware of at least three mental health commitments, including once after he cut his wrists and once when he threatened suicide — but said such stays can last just one to three days. Whelan also noted in his press conference that Plotts had also spent time in a mental health facility.
Not only in healthcare, but throughout the U.S., these random active shooter trends are increasing. To see how much of this violence is related to severe mental health problems, we only have to look as far as these high profile incidents:
June 14, 2012 – Buffalo, N.Y., trauma surgeon shooting
July 20, 2012 – Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting
April 2, 2014 – Fort Hood (2nd) active shooter incident
None of these incidents were related to poor performance review, losing a job, and only one of these could be called “domestic violence,” but what they all have in common is that the perpetrators were all severely mentally ill.
Guns scare me. Guns kill people by accident and on purpose. I never let my children play with guns. However, as I analyze the elements of these shootings and dozens more, my bias is changing. I think it’s less about guns and more about mental illness.
Healthcare and hospitals would be the one industry where you would think that people would be concerned about the state of mental health of their patients and staff. Instead, it seems like mental health problems are walled off by society, treated ineffectively, and violent tendencies (which sometimes make their way onto patients’ Facebook pages) are largely ignored and unreported by the clinicians treating them.
So it’s left to the security and law enforcement community to deal with these individuals who are paranoid, depressed, angry, frustrated, disappointed, hurt, confused, and, ultimately, violent.
Now that mental health has been re-classified as another medical problem, the money is flowing to the treatment centers and it’s covered by Medicare. But progress doesn’t seem to be either easy or effective.
Dr. Graham C.L. Davey, Ph.D. writing in Psychology Today in January said: “Many of those health professionals (GPs and family physicians) at the first point of contact with people suffering mental health problems are poorly trained to identify psychological problems in their patients, and have little time available to devote to dealing with these types of problems. This increasingly makes medication prescription an attractive option for doctorswhose time-per-patient is limited—an outcome which will have all the potential negative effects of medicalizing the problem into a “disease.”
And that’s exactly what we see, patients who don’t take their meds because of the negative side effects and so they become isolated and increasingly violent. The side effects are clearly pointed out in TV commercials, that you’ve probably watched.
For example, one medicine has side effects that include sexual side effects, convulsions, brain shrinkage, stroke, death, suicide, violent thoughts, psychosis and delusional thinking.
The increase in hospitals adding seclusion rooms, expanding the number of beds for psych patients, and the time spent by both law enforcement and security professionals in dealing with these troubled individuals, may account for one-quarter to one-third of an organization’s security budget.
Many of the security risk assessments we do are focused on handling mobile mental patients, including the baby boomers suffering from Alzheimer’s and dementia.
As violent incidents continue to increases in our society, our workplaces, and in our hospitals, we need to spend more time looking for, and demanding treatments that work and that are sustainable by the patients so they can lead happier lives and we can protect the rest of society, and our healthcare facilities, from their potentially violent behavior.
Since 1988, Caroline Ramsey-Hamilton has been a Thought Leader in All Aspects of Active Shooter and Security Risk Assessment in both Public and Private companies and organizations. Specializing in Hospital and Healthcare Security. Hamilton is Certified in Homeland Security (CHS-III), Anti-Terrorism (ATAB) and Security Risk Assessment. As President of Risk & Security (www.riskandsecurityllc.com) she works with many hospital clients, and develops affordable risk-based apps for improving security risk assessments, and publishes the RISKAlert security awareness program. She lives in south Florida with two beagles, a rescued kitty and (on weekends), 4-year old twins.
Reprinted with permission from www.SecurityInfoWatch.com
32-year old Behavioral Health Patient found Strangled to Death
in his Hospital Room
32-year old Alex Paloumbis diagnosed with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia at a young age, had been in the hospital for two weeks. He was on the fourth-floor psychiatric ward when he was attacked by the patient in the next bed.
The other patient in the room, identified by police as Alexander T. Jackson, 31, was charged with first-degree murder and remained in Miami-Dade County Jail on Monday with no bond. Jackson, who is homeless, was admitted to the hospital around 10 a.m Thursday, the day of the murder, which occurred about 3 p.m. the same day. He was put in the same room with Rios, according to the arrest report.
Behavioral health patients require extra controls including
live, continual camera monitoring, use of appropriate
medication and possible use of restraints.
Patients may pose a danger to others, as they did in this tragedy,
and should be under continuous supervision.
Rios was last seen alive at about 2:45 p.m. Thursday. At 3:36., a hospital housekeeper found him face down on the floor. “The defendant admitted to killing the victim by strangling him with his hands and a bedsheet,” according to the report.
While administrators declined to comment on the security procedures at the
hospital, IAHSS (the International Association for Healthcare Security & Safety)
President Marilyn Hollier said psychiatric floors generally have lock-down
procedures, metal detectors, seclusion rooms and cameras at the access
points. It is not known whether any of these security controls existed at the
hospital. Hollier also stressed that security officers need specialized
training to deal with behavioral health patients.
Aventura Hospital, located near I-95 north of Miami, Florida, has a large
behavioral health unit with 46 beds. The victim’s mother said her son was
never violent. “He never, never, never raised his voice,” Paloumbis said.
The mother was summoned to the hospital Thursday. She was told come
quickly and then was ushered into a room where police officers and detectives
were waiting. Though she had limited English skills, she understood that
her son was dead and initially thought that he may have died from a heart attack
or other natural causes.
Stay Situationally Aware and Continuously Monitor Behavioral Health Patients!
reprinted with permission from www.securityinfowatch.com
Using Risk-Based Security to Stem the Tide of Violence
in Hospitals and Healthcare
Created by: Caroline Ramsey Hamilton
Date: May 22, 2014
Hospital and healthcare security is experiencing a major increase in violence,
instigated by patients, patient families and even healthcare staff. Just last year,
there was an active shooter incident in Reno, Nev., in which two physicians were
shot, and in Houma, La., a hospital administrator was shot to death by a terminated
nurse. As recently as Easter Sunday in California, two nurses were stabbed at the
hospitals, where they worked. One was stabbed in both the upper and lower torso
and is in critical condition. These two incidents add to the more than 100 violent
incidents in 2013 and the first half of 2014.
Since 2010, violence in healthcare has skyrocketed. As a result, the Joint Commission has
issued a “Sentinel Event Alert” on the issue and contributed to numerous articles on shootings
in U.S. hospitals. The Department of Homeland Security and a consortium of state and local
hospitals recently released a standard for active shooters in healthcare. These all point to the
conclusion that the current law enforcement-based hospital security model is not working.
Changes in Healthcare The changes in healthcare, including the increase in insured Medicaid patients and increased
traffic to emergency departments, highlights the fact that very well-intentioned people are
working with an outdated security model that hasn’t evolved to address a changing healthcare
environment. The change in billing and reimbursements for healthcare organizations, such as
tracking of readmission rates, has squeezed hospital profits causing reductions in funding in many
security departments at a time when violent events are steadily increasing.
A new risk-based model for hospital security is emerging that is less linear and more cyclical.
It uses technology to a greater extent, employs forecasting and statistical models to predict the
likelihood of future incidents, and is proactive instead of reactive, focusing money and energy on
preventing events instead of simply responding to them. This model also uses risk assessment
formulas to quickly assess the current security profile of a hospital, clinic, hospice, or behavioral
health facility, factoring in heightened threat-risk environment, not only for the facility in question,
but also adding in the wealth of healthcare data that’s now available.
Risk –Based Security Focuses on Continual Assessment A major focus of this model is the continual assessment and evaluation of preventive security
controls, which are reviewed quarterly, semi-annually, or annually to discover gaps in controls,
and to fix gaps as soon as they are identified. This dovetails nicely into the assessment models
already required by the Joint Commission, OSHA and new CMS standards.
Looking at recent high-profile security events that took in place in hospitals shows that incidents
happen because of exploited gaps in the existing security of the healthcare facility. In the past,
security officers successfully worked hard to reduce response time so that often officers could
arrive in under two minutes, but it’s still too long. In the Reno shooting, response time was under
two minutes, but that was long enough to kill two doctors.
Focusing on prevention makes sense for healthcare, much in the way the Joint Commission
focuses on patient safety, by continually assessing controls, reducing discovered gaps in controls,
and mitigating gaps by reassessing and tightening security, which creates a cycle of continual
improvement in the healthcare security environment.
Taking Advantage of Technology The healthcare risk-based security model takes advantage of technology. Instead of waiting
for manual recording of security incidents every day, software programs allow hospital security
officers to enter data at the end of each shift, and that means security directors can map what’s
happening in the hospital or facility on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis. This can go a long
way to identifying trends early and help facilities make appropriate changes in controls so that
negative trends can be reversed quickly and both patient and staff security is increased.
In addition to automating incident collection and analysis, the healthcare security risk assessments
must be automated too. Risk assessments are too time-consuming and labor intensive to be done
annually. By the time the risk assessment is over, the environment has changed again. By
automating the risk assessments, including environment of care and hazard vulnerability,
it produces data that can be used instantly to analyze and recommend the most cost-effective
controls, and rank them by their return-on-investment (ROI).
The role of security in hospital and healthcare organizations is changing too. Security organizations
should no longer be isolated without intensive interaction with others in the organization, including
the human resources department, the facilities managers, safety managers, and the emergency
New DHS Guidelines for Active Shooters in Healthcare With DHS issuing new guidelines for active shooters in healthcare, hospital emergency managers
are now required to prepare for active shooter incidents, as well as storms, hurricanes, tornadoes,
power interruptions and other events related to natural or man-made disasters. This creates a
natural partnership between the emergency management staff and the security program,
because the skills of both functions are needed to properly prepare an organization for any disaster.
Instead of existing in a vacuum, healthcare security directors and managers should cheer at
this development because it expands the importance of security inside the hospital or healthcare
facility, and underscores its value in protecting the organizational assets – the physical facility,
patients, visitors and staff – to proprietary information, including the HIPAA mandated PHI
(Protected Health Information), vehicles, security systems, high-value healthcare equipment
and the healthcare provider’s reputation.
Security budgets have always suffered because security costs are seen as operating
expenses, not an income source, but by tying the security expenses more closely to loss
prevention and protection of the organization, it creates a cost justification for hospital and
Risk-Based Security Links to Hospital Compliance Standards A risk-based security model also links security to myriad compliance standards that affect healthcare
and this also supports and justifies the costs related to security. For example, hospitals are required
to have a variety of security controls in place related to tagging of newborns, posting of no-weapons
signs, and environment of care issues. Any healthcare organization accepting funds from Medicare
or Medicaid must comply with the new mandate for annual security risk assessments.
OSHA 3148 also requires hospitals and healthcare organizations to do annual workplace violence
assessments, and more than 33 states also require enhanced protection of hospital and healthcare staff.
As security incidents continue to increase and violence in healthcare escalates, making the
switch to a risk-based security program will provide better protection for hospitals and healthcare
organizations, making more effective use of existing security personnel, as well as justifying and
expanding healthcare security budgets.
For more information: contact: Caroline Ramsey-Hamilton at email@example.com
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 invasion of Ukraine’s Crimea region by Putin’s “un-labeled” troops illustrated two major principles of a Risk Assessment.
#1 – Secure your Critical Assets First
It’s not about the citizens of Crimea, not about the Ukraine wheat fields, or even it’s use as a pipeline pass-through area. It’s all about the Black Sea
Ports. These ports are absolutely critical to Russia (and also to PUTIN
– the EGO), because they are a critical place to ship gas and oil from,
and they also give Russia their only access to the Mediterranean, in case Putin urgently needs a gelato!
The second principle of a risk assessment is
#2 – Analyze all the Potential Threats
I read a great article over the weekend about how Putin had sized up the EU and the European bankers, and calculated that the threat of any interruption of the Russian-European banking relationship was zilch – zero. Bankers are not going to reduce their profits by refusing to do business with Putin.
The next potential threat is U.S. retaliation or sanctions. Putin correctly calculates that the US didn’t get out of Iraq and almost out of Afghanistan to immediately send any boots on the ground to Crimea or eastern Ukraine. We can threaten to curtail his trips to Vegas and Disneyland, but the U.S. is not going to start a war over this.
Putin did his risk calculation and decided that his chance of getting in any serious trouble was VERY SMALL and his potential gain was VERY HIGH:
1. He gets to look like a tough guy again.
2. He gets lot of media attention from the whole world (doesn’t care what media writes about him, as long as they spell P*U*T*I*N correctly and gets him back on the world stage again.
3. And, the clincher is that he can pull the troops out anytime he wants,
send them back home, and no real harm done.
But I did pay attention in my history class, and I am hoping out loud that we are not on the precipice of another war!
RiskAlertINCIDENT REPORT 473 – ACTIVE SHOOTER 12-27-2013 Oschner Hospital Administrator Shot to Death in his Home in Active Shooter Spree
Dateline: December 27, 2013 pm
A Louisiana man attacked his former in-laws, his current wife, and the Administrator of a hospital
where he’d worked, killing three and wounding three others before killing himself, authorities said.
The shooter, Ben Freeman, 38, was found late Thursday night in his car along a highway,
dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.
The shootings happened at four locations in two parishes about 45 miles southwest of New Orleans
on Thursday. The first report came about 6:40 p.m., when Lafourche Parish Councilman Louis Phillip
Gouaux, who was shot in the throat, called 911 from his home in Lockport, Houma, La.
The suspect, Ben Freeman, 38, was the ex-husband of Gouaux’s daughter Jeanne, Lafourche Parish
Sheriff’s Office spokesman Brennan Matherne said in a news release.
Gouaux’s wife, Susan “Pixie” Gouaux, was dead when deputies arrived. Louis Phillip Gouaux and his
daughter, Andrea Gouaux, were injured and taken to Interim LSU Public Hospital in New Orleans.
Both were in critical but stable condition, Matherne said.
About 20 minutes later in Raceland, Ochsner St. Anne General Hospital Administrator Milton Bourgeois
was shot and killed at close range at his home. His wife, Ann Bourgeois, was shot in the leg, and taken
to the New Orleans hospital, where she was listed in stable condition. Raceland police said Bourgeois
was shot at close range and his wife was shot in the leg.
Freeman had been employed at three area hospitals over the last few years, including Oschner St. Anne Hospital, where Lafourche Parish Sheriff Craig Webre said he had been a registered nurse before he was fired in 2011. All three hospitals were put on lockdown for a while Thursday.
Freeman’s wife, Denise Taylor Freeman, was found dead in the couple’s home in Houma in Terrebonne Parish. Matherne said her cause of death was not immediately known.
RISKAlert is a publication of Risk & Security LLC at www.riskandsecurityllc.com.
Every Security Officer I’ve ever met has mentioned how difficult it can be to get funding for additional security! It is a never-ending mission, to get the budget for a security program that will truly protect an organization.
Hospitals are no exception. They have suffered their own financial problems and because security is not seen as a ‘clinical’ or ‘patient care’ issue, it is easy to take money from security and put it somewhere else.
But there’s one sure way to get management’s attention for Security — having a security incident. And if you don’t have one at your organization, high profile security incidents at other facilities will all grab management’s attention.
In my Risk-Pro Security Incident Report today, a shooter killed four, wounded three, and then killed himself. What was unusual about this incident was that the shooter went to the Hospital Administrator’s house and shot the administrator dead, and then shot his wife who was taken to an area hospital.
Most executives and administrators think about security as sort of an abstract concept, that doesn’t directly affect them. But it might, and by sending your management a copy of our Risk-Pro Incident Report, you’ll get their attention this time!
(Subscribe to the Risk-Pro Incident Report program by sending an email with the word SUBSCRIBE on it to firstname.lastname@example.org)