6 ms·
I think redteam physical security is a necessary practice, and it’s a fun career for people I know in the industry, but you wouldn’t ever be able to convince me
by noodlesUK 7y ago
I think redteam physical security is a necessary practice, and it’s a fun career for people I know in the industry, but you wouldn’t ever be able to convince me to break into a facility with an armed response without first telling the actual security on site (in this case the police, and all of them at that) that there would be a red team test between a specific set of dates and NOT TO SHOOT. This could have gone much worse for the poor bastards who got arrested.
edit: not that that justifies at all the absurd response of the sheriff in this case.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- walshemj 7y agoGuns are a lot more accepted in the us and its unlikely that a UK site would have any armed guards - places like Sellafield and other nuke sites do, but you would have an order of magnitude of difference in the sort of organisations that do hardcore (red) pentesting But it does seem that the Sheriff is acting out the stereotype of the local and incompetent sheriff ala J.W. Pepper in the bond films.
- chrisseaton 7y agoWhy would anyone shoot an intruder on commercial premises? Is that ever legal? I know homes are different in the US, but would a security guard ever literally see someone they didn’t recognise, draw their gun, and just execute them like that?
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoGenerally speaking commercial security will not shoot you unless they have no other option. When you start talking courthouses and other government facilities where the people carrying guns more or less have government granted immunity if they use them in questionable circumstances all bets are off. You could get a normal security guard or you could get the ex-police officer who got kicked out of real policing for being too violent too often (whereas that guy would never be able to maintain employment in private security).
- 8note 7y agopeople panic -- if you've got a gun and are having an emotional response of some kind, anger, fear, what-have-you, someone could easily get shot when otherwise they wouldn't
- jdnenej 7y agoThis is why mall cops and speeding fine issuers should not be armed like they are about to raid an organised crime hiding spot. It's astounding that some countries allow random security guards to have guns. Unless you are highly trained and entering a very dangerous situation you should not have any guns at all.
- jakeogh 7y agohttps://americangunfacts.com https://americangunfacts.com
- Semaphor 7y agoNRA website with some questionable and some nonsensical info graphics.
- jakeogh 7y agoNot NRA. Sources are hyperlinked at the bottom. Which do you question?
- Semaphor 7y agoJust to take one example: The UK records violent crimes that are not violent crimes in the US. So yes, violent crimes are higher in the UK. But they’d soar in the US if they’d use the same definition.
- jakeogh 7y agoPossible! Source please. Ref: https://americangunfacts.com/pdf/www-telegraph-co-uk.pdf https://americangunfacts.com/pdf/www-telegraph-co-uk.pdf "2034[1] vs 466 Violent Crimes UK vs US per 100k people" [1] The July 2009 Telegraph article says "over 2000"
- devicetray0 7y ago> Why would anyone shoot an intruder on commercial premises? The article is about government property (a courthouse) not commercial property.
- wpietri 7y agoIf security were perfect, we wouldn't need pentesters in the first place.
- heavyset_go 7y ago> Why would anyone shoot an intruder on commercial premises? When all you have is a gun, everything is a nail that can be shot at.
- crooked-v 7y agoIt happens regularly enough that searching 'security guard shoots man' turns up applicable stories on the first page. For example: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/06/20/security-guard-shoots-and-kills-alleged-trespasser-outside-utah-government-offices/ https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/06/20/security-guard-shoots... (slightly more elaborate, but still a man shot in the back and and killed when peacefully leaving an area)
- t34543 7y agoArmed responders are human. Humans make mistakes. Drop guns aren’t unheard of when a bad officer decides to cover up a mistake.
- journalctl 7y agoThey only make mistakes when the other party isn’t white.
- austhrow743 7y agoPolice murder plenty of white people.
- chrisseaton 7y agoWhy do they arm normal police officers and security guards? Why not leave the armed response to specialist officers with much higher levels of training and accountability?
- LiNeXT 7y agoViolent criminals don't break for tea time while everyone waits for the "armed response" people to show up. Cops and security guards are armed because they encounter situations where they have to defend themselves against someone who wants to kill them. If a criminal is pulling a gun out of his waistband, suggesting that the cop or security guard should have to be a defenseless sitting duck while screaming into the radio for "armed response" is an utterly silly proposition.
- chrisseaton 7y agoAre most criminals really carrying guns? It seems like a bad trade-off to arm everyone all the time just for the one in a billion case that a criminal is armed.
- LiNeXT 7y ago
- angry_octet 7y agoThere is no basis for use of lethal force other than self defense against a threat to life. That seems to get lost in the US all too frequently.
- chrisseaton 7y agoI think US law considers being on someone else’s property to be an inherent threat to life, in cases like a home. Also defending another person against a threat to life is a basis for the use of legal force everywhere - that’s pretty uncontroversial I think.
- heavyset_go 7y ago> I think US law considers being on someone else’s property to be an inherent threat to life, in cases like a home. Only a few states have castle doctrine laws in effect, and there are restrictions on when they apply.
- angry_octet 7y agoDefence of others is indeed covered in self defence. But the threat response has to be proportional -- you can't shoot someone in the head because they look menacing or said you had an ugly dog. The 'castle doctrine' you refer to is a perversion peculiar to some US states, but it still has to be your home and you still have to have a reasonable belief your life is threatened. Strangely, although you can use lethal force on an intruder/trespasser, if you shoot a police officer about to conduct a lawful no-knock raid, I think you could get convicted. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/a-no-knock-raid-in-houston-led-to-deaths-and-police-injuries-should-police-rethink-the-practice/amp/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/a-no-knock-raid-in-houston...
- mindslight 7y ago"Lawful no-knock raid" is a basic contradiction. If there is no notice that the home invaders are police, then they're actually just home invaders. It's unfortunate that so many will have to die before a sympathetic enough casualty comes along to end the practice.
- Janeman544 7y agoIt is illegal for police, citizens and private security guards to use lethal force unless their or someone else's life is under serious threat. However the bar is very low for cops. Cops often shoot even people running away from them and still don't get punished for it.
- Thorrez 7y agoThey wouldn't shoot someone because that person is an intruder. They would shoot that person because they think that person has a weapon and is about to harm them. The article says there was suspicion that the men's backpacks contained pressure cooker bombs, and they were doing it on September 11. Consider Daniel Shaver, he was crawling on the floor with no weapon, but the police suspected he had a gun and was about to shoot them, so they shot him. The courts found the police not guilty.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ackbar03 7y agoI actually find physical security pentesting kind of lame but I guess everyone has there own opinion. I find fiddling around with door locks and stuff just takes more time and boredom rather than significant intelligence like cybersecurity