A Different View of the Attempted Assassination on July 13, 2024

Here we go. I have resisted throwing any opinion into the “Attempted Assassination” mantra of opinions, objective or otherwise.

As a symptom of my previous career, I do not comment publicly on incidents where facts have yet to be entered. So, I have decided to talk about some of the facts that are known. I did this yesterday with a dissertation on contemporary communication through social and news media. Today, I will provide a different view of known facts. Even as I write today’s tract, I think, “How ironic, this message will be transmitted on a platform that likely will not be well received because it will have negative attributions that don’t fit today’s need to be kind and happy.”

Government agencies, similar to the private sector and regardless if it is the Secret Service, are tasked with doing more with less. When we look at “doing more with less,” it is not new. I once worked for a Fortune company that would order surveillance equipment specified for a particular need in a specific location to let the needed gear collect dust on a shelf because the cost was not in the location’s budget. Call me crazy, but maybe we could have expanded the location’s budget if we prevented the losses.

Additionally, positions at higher levels of the organization are filled based on someone’s limited exposure to close protection, if any, because they fit the culture. In other cases, someone is tasked with filling a position that does not fall within their pedigree, supporting their tasked decision-making.

So, let’s get to some of the other knowns. During an Executive Protection event, I was approached by a young man who introduced himself and worked in corporate intelligence. This was some years ago. To understand this, his company is a large pharmaceutical company. He described his current responsibilities as an intelligence analyst who sometimes provides close protection in the field. This statement made me curious, so I asked for more information. He went on to describe that he and his team provide risk analysis through intelligence at the company’s headquarters on a daily basis. When they identify elevated risks, they go into the field to provide close protection to the principal(s). He further stated this was not too often.

As time has passed, I continue to see this trend of organizations requiring field protection on an “as-needed basis” when risk levels indicate something different. Maybe I am old, but I find this simply astonishing. Yes, PGI, like many of our colleagues, is risk-driven. We, meaning Peeler Group, build each assignment based on the pre-identified risk level of the individual or organization. Our approach utilizes a holistic approach in protective coverage of the principal, such as covert protection and security drivers, or in higher risk cases; we provide 1, 2, or more assigned practitioners based on the risk level. This is not to say that in some situations, the individual’s risk assessment does not raise the need for a protective detail, but this is discovered long before in a third-party part 1.32 review. I will add that I am a large proponent of adequately trained security drivers in all transportation needs compared to chauffeured services.

In another encounter, a current client recommended my firm to a sizable name-brand organization. Once connected, I found this organization had hired someone from a former Alphabet federal agency as an Executive Protection Manager. He said he had no subordinates and was the only one in the EP program. This is not uncommon, largely exposed companies with a single EP person. To continue as our discussion went on, he “thought” he needed a security driver for an assignment. I must say, I was pleased with the idea he had the foresight to consider at least a security driver, as the principal would have no close protection. We concluded the conversation and engaged, but before we ended the conversation, he asked me if I had any openings as he did not see a future where he was.

Another trend we can likely all attest to is organizations that have been wrongfully consulted or who have yet to seek advisement. This trend continues to grow.

Who is to Blame?

How does this happen when sales and marketing drive our industry to fit the ideological needs of the organizations we serve rather than substance and depth in protection? Who is at fault?

Answer Overview

• Inexperience with Budget Constraints
• Inadequate Staffing
• Operations are not Risk-Driven
• Mismanagement of Personnel & Contracts
• Poor Consultation and Advisement
• Influence of Sales and Marketing (Smoke & Mirrors)
• Accountability Issues
• Fiduciary Responsibility
• Due Diligence in Direct & Contractual Hiring
• Training Deficiencies

I will start by answering this by pointing to the article from yesterday describing the impact of communication through social and news media vs. seeking information from fact-holders. We have created more folk heroes in the protection based on their social media presence than in any other manner. The news media does not escape responsibility here, either. To grab a sound byte and impress their producers, they will sensationalize a story about a duck crossing the road to turn into a duck attempting to kill a family driving in their car down that road.

Part two of this is on us, the providers of protection. We must set aside politeness when protecting people’s lives and ensuring their safety. We must continue to drive the needs of protective operations based on our knowledge, facts, and calculated risks. We must hold people accountable for putting those under protection at increased risk and call them to task through proper analysis that drives the facts.

Contrary to this exertion, we must take care of fiduciary responsibility when we are allowed open budgets. All too often, I am aware of five-car motorcades and eight-person teams created for low-risk assignments. Whether you are a protector assigned internally or externally, you are responsible for making the proper recommendations based on the data available.

Organizations must do their due diligence when hiring decision-makers internally and contractual service providers. I cringe whenever I see someone advertising themselves or their firm as able to take on an assignment, only to post it to Facebook and say they have a personnel need within twenty-four hours.

This extends to making decisions on engagements based on merit and not the attractiveness of the contractor’s or individual’s sales ability. I once had an Executive Vice President tell me, “Bill, we (meaning his organization) must hire individuals and contractors with global connections.” He went on to apologize that his organization was relying on Peeler Group for all of its global needs. I was dumbfounded and could only reply, “That is why we named our company Peeler Group International.” The contract and SOW with this company stated that PGI was to provide all global executive protection, and to that date, we had completed assignments in thirty-five countries.

As an industry, we must improve training at all levels beyond the act of physical protection to improve the necessities of engagements. Baseline training of walking a principal is needed but underserves the requirements of the whole mission of a protective assignment. We must be driven to continuously improve knowledge and capabilities through a broader sense of what protection requires.

I know what I have stated here does not directly speak of the attempted assassination of former President Trump, and now the Republican Candidate for the 2024 Presidential Election, and that was not my intent. My purpose is to bring out into the open the smoke and mirrors of our industry and speak to what we know is accurate so that, in some way, we can begin to improve our industry as a whole.

The facts surrounding the attempted assassination will surface in time, and we will be allowed to study the cause and origins of what happened. Until then, we must apply what we know to what we do daily to improve the protection and safety of those within our charge.