Criminal Justice Professor: Security Questions Follow Orlando Shootings
June 24, 2016
Contact: University Relations
Phone: 410.837.5739
Note: The following column by University of Baltimore Professor of Criminal Justice Jeffrey Ian Ross originally appeared in the June 24 edition of the Daily Record. It is reprinted with permission.
Jeffrey Ian Ross: Security and the Orlando shootings
Two lines of thinking are developing in the wake of the mass shooting at a popular nightclub in Orlando: Why did Omar Mateen shoot all of those people? And, perhaps more importantly, what can we do to stop it from happening again? Before politics and history do their work on this awful episode of extreme violence and hatred, let's take a look at what happened and how that information could lead to some effective preventive measures.
One of the questions that has yet to be satisfactorily answered is the nature and quality of security that was present at the Pulse nightclub and the possibility that it was insufficient.
Based on the initial reporting, with approximately 320 patrons on a Sunday night, and the basics of physical security protection principles, it does not appear that there was sufficient physical and human security at the club. Why?
Many bars and clubs in big cities are notoriously unsafe places. More importantly, there is a long history of anti-LGBTQ violence not only in this country, but also especially in venues like Pulse, where like-minded individuals could traditionally visit and feel at least temporarily safe.
All that was standing between the shooter and his victims appears to be an off-duty police officer, the fate of whom remains unknown to the public. Short of the security provided by this officer, it is not clear how many of its own security personnel the club had on duty that night. There is only one report of a bouncer, Kimberly Morris, who died in the gunfire.
Had the nightclub ever experienced similar kinds of anti-gay violence? If so, what kinds of security measures did Pulse establish as a response?
Other security options
At venues like this—especially when there is a large crowd as there was on that night—law enforcement agencies often will park marked patrol cars in front of or across the street. It's not clear that this was in place before the shooting began. Parking manned police cruisers in close proximity to a crowded venue can do a lot of good: It acts as a potential deterrent for would-be troublemakers, and it provides a rapid response in case a problem occurs.
Perhaps there might have been some reluctance on the part of the Orlando Police Department officials to have a squad car on the scene because they did not want patrons to think they were being singled out for some reason—surveillance because of their sexual orientation and so on. This perception, however, could be minimized by using an unmarked car instead.
Overall, we don't know much about the physical security at the club. Based on illustrations of the site, it appears that the club has a parking lot with 10 or so spaces, four of them for handicap access. There is fencing on about half of the perimeter of the lot—the back and side. There are also about five exits to the building. As of right now, it does not seem as if this potential ring of security was being used effectively.
To begin, no patron should be able to park their car in the lot without the vehicle being properly searched. Admittedly, parking controls will not deter a committed gunman. But physical barriers can minimize both vehicular and on-foot access to the club.
Based on news media interviews with patrons, it appears that once club-goers were entering the building, there were no pat-downs, use of metal detectors, or a requirement to open handbags, backpacks etc.
Social media warnings
Once Mateen started shooting, Pulse posted on its Facebook page that patrons should leave the premises. It's not clear if a similar message was sent through other social media such as Twitter. It's also not clear if music was still playing in the club. Were any warnings delivered through a public address system inside or outside the club? Was the intense noise a factor in the confusion and fear? In some venues, important information is communicated not only through social media, but also through digital signage—the kind of message board that you see along highways or in a mall.
Some observers are quick to suggest that the violence could have been prevented if we banned assault weapons—the kind of guns that are currently legally available to the public. Others have claimed that if concealed carry laws were scaled back, then one or more of the patrons could have shot Mateen. These points ignore the numerous mass shootings where other types of guns were used, and the historical legacy and reasons why most jurisdictions have banned the possession of guns in bars and other venues where alcohol is being served.
Physical security must be given top priority. We have to have it—it should be implemented to the very best of our abilities. If we don't make that choice, then there's a good chance that something as catastrophic as a mass murder at a popular nightclub could happen again.
Jeffrey Ian Ross is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Baltimore. He is the author, co-author, editor and co-editor of several books, including Encyclopedia of Street Crime in America (Sage, 2013). His email is jross@ubalt.edu.