Premises Liability Claims Including Please Read B

Need 250 word response with one cited reference #1

1. What is the interrelationship between a terrorist group’s cause (their ‘motive’) and the ‘message’ they are trying to send by conducting an attack on innocents, if any?

The interrelationship between terrorist organizations motive and message is inconsistent at best. Before the readings of this week’s lessons I would have thought that the attacks are all conducted in furtherance of the terrorist groups ideological pillars. The more I read the more the reoccurrence of testimony from captured members of terrorist groups continued to surface that they were in fact not very familiar if familiar at all of their organizations end goals (Paul K. Davis, 2009). At the lowest level the persons carrying out the attacks may believe they are carrying out the objective of the organization and find honor in killing for their fundamental beliefs. In reality, the leadership of these terror groups, even some of the more well-known groups such as Al Qaeda plan attacks on civilians for publicity (Martin, 2016). These attacks are conducted to gain media attention to their cause. Successful attacks drive up recruitment and motivation in followers without knowing the organizations end game. Many of these groups rely on peoples who feel slighted by society in some manner for low level membership. These people want a community to provide them a sense of belonging. Tired of alienation they resort to any community that will give them what they seek, even if it is a terror group. Terrorism relies on the “unemployed and underemployed and those on the fringes of society for its entry level recruitment (Paul K. Davis, 2009).” Those groups don’t necessarily require a 5-year plan be presented at the time of recruitment. Several groups have changing end games as their leaders are killed or captured and replaced through succession. Many of the reading suggest attacks are motivated by publicity with no hardline attainable and measurable motive driving the attacks other than publicity for their group in many cases.

2) What do the London Subway bombings in 2005 highlight about the terrorist attack cycle and the means (tools) employed by international terrorists?

The London Subway attacks showcase an evolution of international terror groups tactics. These groups have showcased time and time again a willingness to wage war on the civilian population in urban centers. In order to carry out these attacks the perpetrators must be radicalized “in house”, meaning these groups are utilizing the internet to begin the radicalization process and recruit citizens of western nations such as England and France in which they seek to coordinate and orchestrate attacks. According to Law enforcement reports three of the London bombers spent time in Pakistan and are believed to have met with members of Al Qaeda. One of the London bombers reportedly had ties to an Islamic terror group in Malaysia (US Army Training Document, 25). These methods serve to demonstrate that these groups have reach beyond their state supported strongholds. These groups utilize as tools the very freedoms western nations enjoy as weapons against them. Civil liberties are our gift and our curse with terrorist groups willing to exploit them in order to create mass causality attacks.

References:

Martin, R. H. (2016). Soft targets are easy terror targets. Mercer University.

Paul K. Davis, K. C. (2009). Social Science for Counterterrorism Putting the Pieces Together. National Defense Research Institute.

US Army Training Document, TRADDOC G2 Handbook 1.01 Terror Operations Case study (July 2007, 25).

Need 250 word response with one cited reference #2

Every single terrorist group is made up of two things when they are conducting an attack which are their motive and the message they are trying to spread across. Now a key example of which allowed me to understand motive is Osama Bin Laden’s Letter to America sent in November 2002 after the attacks of September 11, 2001. This was honestly a written letter to the United States which gave the motive of the attacks on 9/11. A citation from this state the following “Why are we fighting and opposing you? What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you? As for the first question, why are we fighting and opposing you? the answer is very simple: because you attacked us and continue to attack us. You attacked us in Palestine. It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah” (Carrilo, 2003). Motive is very simple to example it is why you did what you did. Motive is something that changes from group to group and attack to attack. But some motives a the same a spread across the world which is done by have a good message. A terrorist message in general has always been the same. They want to spread their own beliefs and mindset to a group of people. Now way this message has been spread has changed in the recent years because of social media. Social media is huge platform which terrorist have used to allow them to spread their word. A key example of this is the uploading of a video in which ISIS members burns a captured fighter pilot to death. So, their motive was that this fighter pilot bomb fellow ISIS soldiers so eye for an eye. Then motive or message that they pass is simple mess with us and this will happen to you. Burning a person alive can cause a lot of fear into a person. So, to put it simple you can not have one if you do not have the other one. It completes the cycle of the term of terrorism which is placing free into the hearts and minds of others. Also, one thing to think about is the fact some terrorist groups develop their attacks from the message they are trying to spread. This message is sometimes discovered prior to an attack from happening which can help to prevent the attack from happening.

London Bombings of 7 July 2005 was one of the worst days for citizens of the United Kingdom. This attack on London’s public transportation system during the rush hour took the live of 52 and injured over 784. The responsibility for this attack was taken by Al-Qaeda and was carried out by the following men Hasib Hussain, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Germaine Lindsay, and Shehzad Tanweer. Now it is hard for me to say this, but it was a successful attack by these terrorists. One of the tactics used by these terrorist planning and conducting this attack was the terrorist attack cycle. The terrorist attack cycle consists of six steps which are the following. Staring from the beginning target selection, planning, deployment, attack, escape, exploitation. Now believe that the terrorist attack cycle highlights many things about this attack. Frist was the fact there was evidence that planning, and target selection were done prior to this attack. Now these men had no plan on escaping so that aspect of the cycle was not used. This is a very coming thing for terrorism. The following quotation can allow you to understand how this attack was planned and carried out. “On the morning of the attack, three of the bombers traveled from Leeds, the site of the suspected bomb-making “factory,” to Luton, where they joined the fourth bomber. The group, now carrying backpacks filled with explosives, boarded a train to London’s King’s Cross station. About 8:30 am the attackers entered King’s Cross station and split up, boarding east- and westbound trains on the Circle Line and a southbound train on the Piccadilly Line” (Ray,2019). One key tool to think about is the backpacks which were filled with explosives. Now there are two things to highlight from this first the bag itself. This is an everyday item for many people riding the train so it isn’t something that would cause a person to be out of place. Then you have the fact that a backpack can be filled will a lot of explosives and only needs a person to carry it. Another tool they used was rush hour. What I mean by this is that these men knew what time attack which would allow them to have the maximum amount of casualties.

Works Cited

Carrillo, K. J. (2003, Jan 30). Bin Laden Sends a Letter to America – he’s as ready for war as bush. New York Amsterdam News Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/docview/390177090?accountid=8289

Ray, M. (2019, July 1). London bombings of 2005. Retrieved February 11, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/event/London-bombings-o…

Need 250 word response with one cited reference #3

Four common criteria that lead to premises liability litigation are inadequate security, negligent hiring, maintenance issues, and safety hazards. Claims of inadequate security relate to the lack of physical security measures in place, such as access control, surveillance cameras, intrusion detection, and personnel. Negligent hiring claims result from employers’ failure to conduct background checks or hire regardless of their findings. Maintenance issues are subject to premises liability claims when properties fail to maintain operational locks, lighting, fencing, doors, etc. Safety hazards such as wet floors and potholes result in premises liability claims when an individual is injured. In all premises liability claims, victims must prove that the owner or landlord failed to exhibit reasonable care for foreseeable harm and that they suffered an injury or loss as a result. Atlas provides suggestions for protecting organizations from litigation arising from premises liability claims including ensuring sufficient training, conducting inspections of locks and lighting to ensure proper operation, testing intercoms, alarms, fire systems, and CCTV, maintaining perimeter fencing, key control, conducting thorough background checks of all employees, and communication of security issues including area crimes to employees/residents (Atlas, 2008).

Offensible space is considered areas where criminals create safe spaces by using defensible space and CPTED strategies to conduct criminal acts. Atlas (2008) provides an example of offensible space as rows of backyards with tall privacy fences that creates walls to hide drug and gang activity and symbolize an alley as territory for criminals. A study conducted by Peeters et al. (2018) measured street-level characteristics and CPTED to determine their effect on residential burglaries. One of their findings indicated that houses that are clearly visible to two or more houses are half as likely to be burgled. Homes in culs-de-sac or on dead-end streets have lower burglary odds while houses on streets with graffiti and litter have higher risks of being burgled. In my opinion, the most surprising finding is that the more open and visible a house is, the more vulnerable it is to burglary, which contradicts the natural surveillance premise of CPTED.

FEMA provides several design countermeasures to implement in utility systems such as water and electrical to protect against terrorist attacks. One suggestion is to install utilities underground where they are concealed and protected. Another suggestion is that redundant utility systems are placed separately to support life safety and rescue. Water treatment plants and storage tanks should be secured, including all access points to the facility and the actual tanks themselves in the case of manholes. Finally, periodic vulnerability assessments should be conducted of all utility services and implement countermeasures as needed (Chipley, 2003).

References

Atlas, R. (2008). 21st Century Security and CPTED. New York: Auerbach Publications, https://doi-org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.1201/9781420068085.

Chipley, M. (2003). Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings: Providing Protection to People and Building. Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Peeters, M. P., S, V. D., & T, V. B. (2018). Adding to the mix: A multilevel analysis of residential burglary. Security Journal, 31(2), 389-409. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.1057/s41284-017-0106-1.

Need 250 word response with one cited reference #4

Since foreseeability and adequacy are the two primary criteria where liability litigation is often judged I will start with these two (Perry, 2012, p. 95). Foreseeability is the ability for someone to reasonably suspect that an event is likely to occur. This can often be substantiated with prior like-events. For example if a breaking and entering (B&E) occurred in an apartment complex, the landlord could reasonably assume that in the absence of any remedial measures that a B&E would likely occur again. Adequacy is the ability for the existing security system to functionally delay, deter, and detect a security breach. This would include the effectiveness of security lighting systems, CCTV systems, mechanical or electronic locks, and any other security system being employed. The third liability that I will cover is that of the availability and performance of security personnel. This is a liability that I’ve seen all too often. Security guards are expensive, and properly training security personnel can easily double that cost. Security guards are generally undertrained, underpaid, underequipped and underskilled to effectively protect the assets that security managers use them to protect. If a facility chooses to use security guards they should ensure that they are paid enough to entice good recruits, trained to a standard commensurate to their duties, equipped to safely conduct security duties, and skilled enough in de-escalation techniques to buy time for law enforcement response. Lastly, I will discuss information sharing. Intelligence should be shared with tenants and employees of a facility if it is deemed pertinent. If a B&E occurs within a tenant facility, then a landlord could be held liable if he or she did not warn other tenants of the B&E threat.

Offensible space is essentially the opposite concept of defensible space (Perry, 2012, p. 110). Instead of public areas being used as common space where users can possess a sense of ownership (extend their defensible space); users are confined to their space within four walls, and illicit activity controls public areas such as hallways, stairwells, and courtyards. In this example criminals will use spotters positioned at strategic vantage points, and an illegitimate guard force to screen entrants into the facility to identify potential threats to the illicit operation. As previously mentioned this is in stark contrast to defensible space where hallways and courtyards are an extension of a tenant’s defensible space. Perry argues that resources and consensus are the two driving factors that will determine whether a space becomes defensible or offensible (Perry, 2012, p. 101). Although resources can certainly help, a consensus on the type of social environment that a particular complex becomes relies solely on the mindset of the occupants. A consensus is extremely important because if everyone in the complex is on-board and willing to put forth some effort, the complex will become a safe social environment. More than anything, to accomplish a goal, the effort has to be there. If more effort is being exerted by the doers of illicit activity, then an offensible space scenario is sure to arise.

Several countermeasures can be implemented during the design process to protect a complex such as a water or electrical distribution facility from a terrorist attack. The first line of defense for preventing a security incident is that of fencing (Perry, 2012, p. 129). Fencing is set in place to deter, delay, and detect (IDS equipped fences) potential aggressors, as well as establish standoff distance. Perry suggests a minimum of 50 feet in power distribution facilities (Perry, 2012, p. 128). Location also plays a large role in security design. When considering the nature of the facility to be protected (i.e. water or electrical distribution facility) planners should take advantage of areas that provide natural security such as remote areas that can offer natural surveillance. By choosing a remote location planners can reduce the routes of approach which allows for cheaper and more effective surveillance. Staffed facilities where processes are coordinated and monitored by a control room must ensure that the control room is located as far from public areas as possible and that access is strictly controlled. Control rooms should have full control of automated systems and processes as well as the ability to monitor security alarms and CCTV cameras. The control room should lie within the most central ring of security layers to prevent unauthorized access and system hijacking. One more security concern that can be addressed in the design process to prevent a terrorist attack is redundancy. Designing redundant critical systems such as a dual fed electrical distribution facility can prevent an attack from completely shutting down a facility. Multiple water intakes at a water distribution facility allows for a facility to continue operations if one of the intakes are destroyed. Redundancy is also important to the concept of the concentric ring theory. Redundancy increases the confidence level of a security system by compounding each level’s effectiveness ratings to formulate an overall effectiveness rating.

On a side note, I highly recommend folks that intend to do work in physical security to bookmark the BIPS 06 from this week’s material list. This is a document that I often reference in the PSRA assessments for the USCG. There is a lot of good information here for facilities that require enhanced security.

Reference

Perry, M. (2012). Influence of Physical Design. In L. J. Fennelly, Effective Physical Security (pp. 1-10). Waltham: Butterworth-Heinemann.