Transcription
The recent shootings at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, which left 26 dead and several others injured, has once again focused attention on church safety. With many church leaders asking what steps, if any, they should implement to protect their congregations, most churches in America are safe places. While incidents of shootings on church property are shocking, they are rare, averaging no more than one or two per year. But because of the open access policy of most churches, they remain easy targets for violent acts. While such acts cannot be prevented, there are steps that church leaders can take to reduce the risk. Let's review some of them.
The optimal response to the threat of an armed assailant on church property is to have two or more uniformed law enforcement officers on-site during church services, with the police car parked in a highly visible location outside the church. Such persons are thoroughly screened before being hired as police officers; they receive extensive training in dealing with volatile situations as well as the use of firearms; they receive continuing training in the use of firearms and job-related skills. They serve as a deterrent to crime because of their uniform and vehicle and, according to some courts, become on-duty police officers even while otherwise acting as private security guards when responding to criminal activity, which can reduce a church's liability based on negligence for their actions. Churches considering the use of uniformed, off-duty police officers should check with the local police department regarding the recruitment of such persons as security guards and the number that are needed. Yes, there is a cost involved in using police officers to provide security, but the cost impact is diminished by the fact that you will not be using them for more than a few hours per week.
A second option is to hire uniformed private security guards. This is a far less effective response than using uniformed law enforcement officers, since private security guards typically have far less training in both firearms and crisis response. Further, unlike law enforcement personnel, they do not become on-duty when responding to a crime, and so the church has a higher risk of being liable for their negligent response. And the cost of hiring private security guards often will be comparable to using police officers.
A third way to respond to the risk of armed assailants on church property is to use church members legally authorized to carry a concealed weapon as non-uniformed security guards. The problem here is the wide range of competency among permit holders in handling firearms, with some permit holders having a very minimal ability in the use of firearms, resulting in a significant risk of collateral damage in the use of the firearm, and others having extensive training and ability. As a result, church leaders should not treat all permit holders equally. Churches can help to bolster the competency of such persons and the protection of church members by the following actions: First, place a reasonable limit on the number of concealed weapons permit holders that the church will use as part of its response to armed shooters. Second, perform a thorough background check on each person, including references. Third, use a written application that includes a description of the applicant's weapons training. Fourth, periodically confirm that the individual's permit is active. Fifth, only use concealed weapons permit holders who have passed the same firearms training course that is prescribed for local law enforcement personnel in your community. And sixth, only use these persons as auxiliaries who at all times are under the control and direction of law enforcement personnel.
A fourth way to address the risk of armed assailants on church property is the use of technology. In evaluating the feasibility of various technologies to prevent or reduce the risk of shootings in public schools, the United States Department of Justice noted that the effectiveness, affordability, and acceptability of each technology must be considered. Devices that often are employed by churches and commercial businesses to prevent or reduce the risk of criminal acts include surveillance cameras, metal detectors, and entry control devices. In each case, church leaders should consider the devices' effectiveness, affordability, and acceptability in evaluating its usefulness.
Let me make several concluding observations. First, let me repeat: Church shootings and other violent crimes on church premises are rare. Second, the law imposes upon any place of public accommodation, including the church, a duty to protect occupants against foreseeable criminal acts. The level of protection is directly proportional to the degree of foreseeability. Many courts assess foreseeability on the basis of the following factors: whether any criminal conduct previously occurred on or near the property; how recently and how often similar crimes have occurred; how similar the previous crimes were to the conduct in question; and what publicity was given the previous crimes to indicate that the church knew or should have known about them. If shootings or other violent crimes on church property are highly foreseeable based on these factors, then a church has a heightened duty to implement measures to protect occupants from such acts. Third, many church leaders and congregations, guided and informed by their theological and ethical values, feel compelled to take steps to protect human life from acts of violence, whether or not they have a legal duty to do so. Fourth, in evaluating which technologies to implement in order to discharge a legal or moral duty to protect human life, church leaders should consider the affordability, effectiveness, and acceptability of a measure before implementing it. Fifth, church leaders should consult with local law enforcement professionals, the church insurance agent, and legal counsel in making decisions regarding which protective measures to implement. These same persons should also review the church's emergency response plan. Sixth, contact other churches and other places of public accommodation in your community to see what measures they have enacted to protect occupants against shootings and other violent crimes. Examples include schools, malls, libraries, restaurants, stores, sports facilities, theaters, and concert halls. This research will help church leaders ascertain the community standard, which is an important consideration in deciding if a property was negligent. Seventh, I must admit that even the most stringent protective measures would have prevented few, if any, shooting incidents on church property. In fact, in some of these cases, the church had implemented what seemed to be reasonable precautionary measures. However, no measures will foil an armed and dedicated assailant, especially if that person plans on taking his or her own life.
Eighth, while it is not possible for church leaders to prevent acts of violence on their premises, it is possible to deter such acts in some cases and to contain the damage and destruction when an incident occurs. The United States Department of Justice has prepared the following recommendations for schools to help reduce the risk of violent crime. I have substituted the word "church" for "school." First, every church needs a well-thought-out, annually updated crisis response plan with regular training for all those who are involved. Second, the crisis plan needs to make assignments of who is in charge during different types of emergencies; who is the alternate in charge; who is called first, by whom, from where, and using what; whether persons are relocated and how; what type of statement is made to the press and by whom; and who is in charge when emergency responders arrive on the scene. Third, ideally, a pre-selected team will immediately be mobilized upon the occurrence of a serious threat. Team members will know who to look for for decisions and then proceed automatically in their roles under the church's crisis response plan. Fourth, crisis team members should wear distinctive clothing and be located in places of high visibility so they can be contacted in the event of a crisis. Fifth, crisis team members should immediately contact law enforcement when a crisis is reported, either on a cell phone or two-way radio. All crisis team members should have one or both of these devices with them at all times while on church premises. Sixth, consider the use of duress alarms that anyone can activate to report a crisis. These can activate an audible alarm or an inaudible alarm that is detected only by the crisis team members and first responders. Seventh, be sure to have your crisis plan reviewed by local law enforcement professionals, your insurance agent, and an attorney. President Bill Clinton, following a 1999 shooting rampage in a Texas church that left seven dead and seven wounded, noted that, "There is nothing we can do to assure that this will never happen again, but there is a lot more we can do to assure that it will happen less often," and that has been the purpose of this presentation.