TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Threat Management -- A Definition
• Threat Management Consultative Services and Training
• Risk Management Consultative and Training Services
• Crisis Communications Consultative and Training Service
• Cost of Services

ADDENDUMS

A. Biographies
B. References

 Threat Management vs. Crisis Management

 The term "crisis management" is one of the great oxymorons of our time. The term is misleading as a true crisis is completely unmanageable and unpredictable. Conversely, anything that is inherently manageable, although a problem, is not a true crisis. Threat management consultation and training as provided by SAFE-LLC, is a professional discipline designed to recognize early warning signs of possible or imminent danger and to successfully de-escalate, manage and/or resolve the crisis prior to its becoming a tragedy.

 Threat management training provides companies, agencies, professionals, managers, employees and individuals with a realistic understanding of and practical solutions for potential threats to safety and security that can occur in the workplace or any other part of their lives. Our consultation and training covers options for recognizing and successfully resolving potential risks to which every business and professional organization are exposed. The frequency of property loss, injury and even death resulting from threats in the workplace is far more common than most people realize. Property loss, damages and wrongful death or injury cases cost businesses hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars every year. According to the US Justice Department, murder is the leading cause of death to women in the workplace.

 The following are just some of the threats to which owners, managers, employees and the public are exposed in businesses and public or government agencies:

w Wrongful use of force by "security" personnel
w Property loss through shoplifting, vandalism, etc.
w Harassment, threats and stalking
w Domestic violence
w Bomb threats
w Threats and assaults by disgruntled or terminated employees
w Assault and random acts of violence from emotionally disturbed person(s) (EDPs)
w Public or "show" suicides
w Assault with firearms both from within and without the premises
w Armed robbery
w Assault and/or abusive behavior from irate or violent customers
w Sexual and/or physical assault
w Politically or religiously motivated violence or terrorism
w Custodial kidnapping (facilities with daycare)
w Stranger kidnapping
w Hostage taking
w Gang violence on or around the premises
wCorporate espionage

"According to the US Department of Justice, murder is the leading cause of death to women in the workplace."

Despite the overall rarity of violent events, they do occur and often with tragic results. Generally, there is greater risk of injury from random or spontaneous acts of violence than from politically or religiously motivated terrorism. Realistic policies and training are the only effective ways to prevent these tragedies.

Proactive vs. Reactive Policies

Tragically, most organizations either ignore their exposures or hire "security" personnel, which provide a false sense of security. These personnel are almost never adequately trained, which can lead to even greater tragedy for themselves, the public or the people they are confronting. Other companies resign themselves to paying civil damages instead of adopting proactive training policies that would minimize the damage resulting from liability claims. Most organizations, unfortunately, spend far more time and money on fire prevention than on threat management procedures, yet the statistical risk of violence is many times greater than that of fire.

Hardware (Technology) vs. Software (People Skills) - Training is the Key

Almost all organizations concentrate their efforts and budgets on security hardware -- alarms, video cameras, etc. Yet any organization open to the public negates much of the hardware’s effectiveness. Video cameras only record events -- not prevent or resolve them. The greatest tragedy of any violent attack is injury or the loss of human life. The risk comes from people and it is people who become the victims. It is also people who must confront and ideally resolve a potential crisis. If a threat becomes imminent and nonnegotiable, then it is the employees and staff who must confront, manage and survive the threat, prior to the arrival of emergency rescue professionals (police, EMTs, etc.). Being a helpless victim should never be an option. Proactive and effective policies, training and emergency procedures are the only effective ways of preventing, managing, resolving and/or surviving a crisis.

Threat management policies and training MUST EMPHASIZE HUMAN INTERACTION AND REACTION TO THE THREAT. Violence occurs when security measures fail and usually in the absence of security or law enforcement personnel. During the time that transpires before the emergency professionals arrive, those present must attempt to manage the problem. This is why any threat management and security training must center around awareness training and skills valuable to the people most at risk of being the victims.

Awareness Training

Awareness training is a fundamental component of threat management. In order to prevent an impending crisis and minimize the risk of loss, security personnel, managers and staff must recognize early warning signs of danger and know steps to resolving it effectively and without injury. The training of employees and key management personnel in awareness training tactics for responding to potential crisis is key to effective threat management.

"Generally, there is greater risk of injury from random or spontaneous acts of violence than from politically or religiously motivated terrorism."

Awareness training continued:

In many cases involving violent assault, the following victim responses were very common:

1. Most victims had no prior awareness of the attack, despite clear and early pre-assaultive warnings.
   
   
2. Once the attacks began, many victims merely froze in disbelief because this is a natural reaction when faced with a lethal threat for which there is no experience or training in how to respond.

In examples of violent public assaults, it becomes clear that awareness and basic threat management training would have drastically reduced the number of injuries and loss of life.

There are four fundamental parts of successfully resolving a threat, with awareness and preparedness being the most important. It is helpful to remember the acronym SAFE, coined by Bob Smith, Director of SAFE (Post Falls, ID):

S - SECURE YOURSELF FROM ANY POTENTIAL THREAT

A - AVOID A PERCEIVED THREAT IF AT ALL POSSIBLE

F - FLEE FROM ANY FORM OF ATTACK IF AT ALL POSSIBLE

E - ENGAGE THE THREAT ONLY IF ABSOLUTELY UNAVOIDABLE

Our consultation and training for employees and staff typically concentrates on the first three options. Engaging the threat should involve specialized training on the use of force. This option is generally reserved for law enforcement, security personnel, or an individual who has made a personal self-defense decision.

Priorities to Surviving a Crisis

In any threat management scenario, the priorities of survival are listed in order of importance:

1. MENTAL AWARENESS AND PREPAREDNESS

2. TACTICS AND THE PROPER USE OF TACTICS

3. SKILL WITH SAFETY RESCUE AND/OR SECURITY EQUIPMENT

4. OPTIMUM CHOICE OF SAFETY RESCUE OR SECURITY EQUIPMENT

Equipment is far less important than mental awareness, preparedness, training and tactics. Unfortunately, most organizations rely on equipment, such as alarms, surveillance and other mechanical devices. Although this equipment is important, merely securing a facility does not go far enough in managing most threats, particularly when the facility is accessible to the public.

"In examples of violent public assaults, it becomes clear that awareness and basic threat management training would have drastically reduced the number of injuries and loss of life."

Vicarious Liability Exposure of Companies and Organizations

Most companies’ "crisis management" and security policies, as written by human resource officials and/or legal council, are almost always unknowingly negligent. Human Resource specialists usually do not have appropriate training in this area - nor does the typical corporate council, as this field is almost never taught in law school. It is a common misconception that should crisis response and threat management training be provided to security personnel, staff, management and employees, then corporate liability exposure will increase. Nothing could be further from the truth as companies possess the liability exposure regardless. It is the lack of pertinent training that increases liability exposure. Providing substantive and documented training is the only way to reduce this vicarious liability. A company’s liability exposure becomes even greater once they become aware that threat management training is available and they still fail to provide it.

Liability exposure and company responsibility are critical when employing and/or empowering security personnel. Even if these personnel are contracted, the contracting company still must ensure that competent standards of training have been provided and documented. Punitive damages for wrongful death and improper use of force by company security personnel are common across the country. In addition, if a security professional is injured or killed due to lack of training, the liability burden remains on the company for having failed to provide and/or ensure adequate, competent training. Similar lawsuits by surviving family members are what finally fueled the development of this country’s police officer survival training mandates.

Organizations That Employ or Contract For Security Personnel

More and more companies and government agencies either employ or contract with private companies to provide armed or unarmed security personnel. Tragically, almost all of these private security personnel have little or no training commensurate with the awesome responsibility of their position and duties, especially if they are armed. Training standards are inadequate to protect either the security officer, employees, the public or the perpetrator(s).

Private security companies forgo sufficient training for their personnel for two primary reasons. First, they either lack sufficient knowledge of what adequate training is, or they wrongly assume that they already possess such training. Second, they do not have an adequate training budget due to keen competition on contract bids. The contracting organizations do not require adequate training and push for the lowest possible price. Sadly, the small amount they save may cost hundreds and even thousands of times more in civil damages. Thus, the demand for competent security training must come from companies that contract with these agencies. The contractors, after all, possess the greatest liability, not the security companies. If standards were required, all contract bids would be on a level playing field and security companies would have to ensure adequate training. This would increase the cost of security services, but this increase would be a fraction of the civil damage claims which can result from inadequate training and policies, not to mention moral and ethical issues.

"The best proven defense against vicarious liability is adequate, competent and documented training."

The best proven defense against vicarious liability is adequate, competent, and documentable training. In addition, both the contracting agent and employer can be held vicariously liable for any lack of training that could have reduced the likelihood of damage, injury or death to security guards, employees, customers, the public or perpetrators.

 Mandatory Training for Security Personnel in the Legal, Ethical and Operational Parameters for the Use of Force

Many states do not set minimum standards of training for security guards. Those that do often require only the barest minimum standards -- far less than what is prudently required. Despite their responsibility to confront and physically restrain a potential threat (as in the case of shoplifters), they are almost never given adequate training on the legal, operational and ethical parameters for the defensive use of force. As a result, they do not know when they can and cannot intervene physically, or at what level. This often leads to unnecessary injury and sometimes death. Without properly trained personnel, confrontations often go from bad to worse because inadequate, improper or too much force is used. This alone has cost US companies hundreds of millions of dollars in civil and punitive damages. If companies insist on having policies mandating security "stop" a perpetrator, then they are under legal and ethical obligation to ensure that they have sufficient training to successfully resolve conflict with minimum risk of injury. Training and competence must be commensurate with the responsibility.

Mandatory Training for Armed Security Personnel

There is a growing trend for companies and agencies to hire armed security guards. In fact, there are now more armed private security personnel in the US than sworn law enforcement officers. These guards almost never have sufficient use of force or firearms training. The vicarious liability exposure is extreme. Law enforcement trainers generally accept that it requires a minimum of 40 to 60 hours of intensive training before an individual can be considered minimally safe and competent with a duty firearm and related equipment.

According to the US Department of Justice and Labor, security personnel are among the highest at risk for injury and/or death in the workplace. Companies that hire these security agencies or employees should verify and document that each guard possesses a standard of training and competency testing to ensure that the chances of tragic mistakes are minimized. Legal standards on the use of force for private security guards vary from state to state, and companies’ policies should reflect these specific standards. False assumptions about when a security guard can and cannot use force, let alone to what degree, is a recipe for tragedy and large civil damages.

An example of the type of training that should be required for armed security is weapon retention and retrieval disarms. For years 3 out of 5 police officers shot were shot by their own weapons, that were taken from them in an assault against their person and gun. Armed security faces the same risk. This statistic has been reduced to less than 15% by the advent of structured weapon retention training for police, as pioneered by the National Law Enforcement Training Center (NLETC), and the greater use of proper equipment, such as "snatch resistant" holsters. Not to provide this training to law enforcement personnel would be considered a moral, ethical and civil travesty today.

"False assumptions about when a security guard can and cannot use force, let alone to what degree, is a recipe for tragedy and large civil damages."

However, no such training is provided by security companies nor required by the companies that contract with them. The fact that most armed security guards are untrained, and carry their firearms openly in non-security holsters, poses a tremendous threat to both the public and to themselves. Apart from the moral demands for this training, simple economics dictate the cost of providing this training to be far less than civil actions justifiably brought against employers and contracting agents for lack of proper training commensurate with the demands of the position.

Mandatory Training for Armed Security Personnel continued:

Another common misconception is that security personnel are empowered with greater standards for the use of force than the average citizen. This may or may not be true, depending on the state. What is clear is that the guidelines for the use of force are NOT equal to what is allowable for law enforcement officials. Whereas sworn law enforcement officials are legally mandated to use NECESSARY force to enact their duties, private security guards, generally, can use only EQUAL or REASONABLE force in resolving conflicts. In many states the standards for use of force (including deadly) are no broader than those provided to private citizens.

"There are now more armed private security personnel in the US than sworn law enforcement officers."

 "According to the US Department of Justice and Labor, security personnel are among the highest at risk for injury and/or death in the workplace."

 "The courts have upheld that both the contracting agent and employer can be held vicariously liable for any lack of training which could have reduced the likelihood of damage, injury or death to security guards, employees, customers, the public or perpetrators."

 SAFE-LLC, can provide the following consultation and training services. They are divided into sections relevant to each company or agency’s specific needs. This list is not all inclusive.

ANALYZING A COMPANY’S NEEDS, POLICIES AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURES

 w Analyze and assess a company’s or agency’s risk exposures. This includes review of past events.

DEVELOPING POLICY AND TRAINING GUIDELINES

THREAT MANAGEMENT TRAINING FOR MANAGERS, SUPERVISORS AND SELECTED (OR ALL) EMPLOYEES

ADDITIONAL CRISIS RESOLUTION, PERSONAL SECURITY AND SAFETY TRAINING FOR MANAGERS AND EMPLOYEES

w Provide techniques for de-escalating a conflict.




w Outline and develop defensible options if engagement becomes unavoidable.




w Provide additional awareness and tactics training for controlling the space around you.

w Provide additional security and safety information:

- Workplace safety.

- Going to and from your car.

- Automobile security.

- General information awareness on home security.

- Security hardware -- what works and what doesn’t.

- Guidelines for safe travel.




w Provide list of recommended reading material.

TRAINING FOR SECURITY PERSONNEL

w Legal, ethical and operational parameters for the defensive use of force (US common law).

w Overview of the standard for use of force by security personnel as defined by the resident state.

w Use of force continuum.




w Threat management tactics, skills and techniques for security personnel, designed for optimum effectiveness, while minimizing the risk of injury to security guards or perpetrators.




w De-escalation of a potential confrontation.




w Awareness training and recognizing pre-assaultive behavior.




w Recognition of potential or concealed weapons.




w Effective Aikido-based restraining techniques, designed to minimize the risk of injury to either party.




w Certified training with any and all security equipment.




w "Three Rings of Safety": interaction with suspects, witnesses and responding emergency officials.




w Post-event trauma.




w Survival and success in the civil justice system.

TRAINING FOR ARMED SECURITY PERSONNEL

NOTE: The following are general guidelines for a minimum standard of training that should be completed by all armed personnel. If armed security guards are not direct employees of an agency or company, then documentation of certified training and competency standards should be presented to the contracting company. All guards working on the premises should have documentation of compliance with these standards. This training must be certified by an acceptable and recognized agency such as the National Law Enforcement Training Center (NLETC), American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers (ASLET), Police Officers Standards and Training (POST), the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, Inc., or Lethal Force Institute (LFI).

w A minimum of 10 hours on threat management, awareness training, and use of force continuum.




w A minimum of 10 hours on the legal, ethical and operational parameters for the defensive use of deadly force.




w A minimum of 10 hours of structured weapons (firearms) retention and retrieval disarms training, as certified through the National Law Enforcement Training Center (NLETC).




w A minimum of 10 hours of defensive unarmed restraining skills and tactics.




wA minimum of 4 hours on the defensive use of OC (pepper) spray and handcuffing techniques (if applicable).




w A minimum of 6 hours training on any form of contact device: the PR-24, collapsible baton, and/or Persuader/Kubotan key-ring baton (where applicable).




w A minimum of 25 hours of hands-on defensive firearms skills and tactics, training including at least one 300 - point police standard qualification requiring a minimum of 85% passing score.




w A minimum of 2 hours on Post Shooting Trauma (PST).

SURVIVING AND WINNING IN THE CIVIL COURT SYSTEM

In cases involving threat management and use of force by either civilians, security professionals or law enforcement, US juries have repeatedly ruled in the defendants’ favor when they were able to document and articulate the training they had received and the knowledge they possessed at the time of the incident. Documented training is the most effective way to reduce a company’s liability exposure.

w Proper method for documenting all threat management, security and safety training.




w Development of a proper crisis communications process.




w Procedures for selecting and interacting with civil defense council versed in the dynamics of threat management and its defensibility in court.

Description

In this day and age of OSHA requirements, increased litigation and contemporary human resources practices and policies, the specialty of risk management is assuming increased importance in the service industries. All businesses have legal, as well as ethical, imperatives to take reasonable precautions to ensure their employees have a safe work environment. Those businesses providing in-house services to clients, like the hospitality and entertainment industries, have an increased responsibility for their guests.

Problems arise when danger to guests and employees is unanticipated or goes unrecognized, unreported or unfixed due to a lack of training, caring or motivation.

Risk management is the discipline of using professional knowledge and techniques to minimize danger to employees and guests by the establishment of policies and procedures directed towards this end. It includes management training, loss prevention tour establishment and post-accident procedures.

Consultative Services

Training -- Risk Management

Policy and Procedure Plans

Loss Prevention Tours

Prevention Techniques

Crisis Communications

Description

Most organizations doing business today have well-developed crisis communications plans -- that are developed well after the last crisis. No group or organization can develop a strategy for every possible contingency, but significant planning can be done to prepare an internal and external communications blueprint that addresses crisis communications techniques.

In the broadest sense, a crisis communications plan is intended to provide the methods, tools, and training that ensure:

w Speedy relief and recovery.

w Reduced uncertainty.

w Minimized liabilities.

w Protection of the organization's image/credibility, thereby its operating relationships.

w Its ability to start up again after the crisis or disaster.

The plan guides the organization in preparing an accurate, reliable, timely, and authoritative explanation of the organization's actions, problems, and goals to audiences inside and outside of the organization. An effective crisis communications plan helps an organization demonstrate that the organization's self-interests are the same as those of its various audiences, and that the organization has consistently kept faith with these mutual self-interests.

In crisis communications planning at least some of these eight psychological objectives are sought:

w To change morale.

w To improve efficiency.

w To create allies from neutrals, neutralize enemies, and strengthen and unify existing allies.

w To inform and educate.

w To redirect interests.

w To build credibility and/or image.

w To establish a sympathetic audience.

w To reduce uncertainty.

The first task when embarking on a crisis communications planning process is to define what a crisis is and develop a crisis communications policy statement. There is a range of statements defining a "crisis" that are in vogue today. Whether it involves lost souls, damages involving millions of dollars, or a midnight realignment of senior management responsibilities, any event that results in a major disruption of business at any location within which an organization operates can be considered a crisis.

A general policy statement commits the organization in writing to carrying out communications activities in the event of a crisis or disaster. It states that someone has the duty, authority and responsibility to speak on behalf of the organization in case of an emergency. This will be someone who can address the public, employees, stakeholders, and the media and assure audiences that the information provided is true, that it came from a source in a position to know and that these utterances carry the weight of an "official" release of information from the organization.

The policy statement sets broad boundaries for conducting emergency communications activities -- e.g., the organization will not lie or intentionally mislead the press. It acknowledges that various audiences have a right to know information concerning crises or disasters that may impact them.

It makes sense to develop a background statement of communications exposures created by real vulnerability. Where is the organization prone to crisis or disasters? What audiences will be affected by these, and what will they demand to know about the incident and the organization's response to it?

This exercise should be followed up with a separate statement of objectives that is built around the eight psychological objectives. When the organization speaks to an audience during an emergency, what does the organization want to achieve by telling them what it is telling them? What is the least amount of information and time required to achieve this?

Problems that must be overcome for the organization to attain these ends, must be carefully considered. How has the crisis impeded the organization's ability to communicate with a special group, or their ability to hear or believe what they are being told? What can be communicated by word or deed to alleviate this problem?

The organization needs to go through this planning exercise repeatedly. It must have alternative plans for dealing with various problems. The organization must then prioritize the plans.

The organization must test the plans. Do the proposed solutions and approaches actually meet the objectives? Frequently, it is helpful to conduct simulations or actual role-playing tests to see if the plan accomplishes its objectives when actually placed in operation.

The final step is to formalize the plan by having the necessary officials study and approve it. This gives additional clarity and authority to both the plan and those tasked with carrying out the function. This aspect is particularly necessary in crisis communications responses where low credibility and limited authority to act must be overcome.

Plans should be reviewed and updated regularly.

Consultative Services

TRAINING

The suggested training curriculum includes:

w How a disaster can affect communications between the organization and the public, the news media, employees, the community and others.

w The necessity for preparing communications plans. The content of such plans. The place for communications plans in overall contingency planning.

w What journalists in the print and electronic media look for when covering emergency situations. How stories are covered. The positive and negative role of the press in relief and recovery. The need for an acceptable balance between the public's need-to-know and right to know and the organization's need for secrecy in delicate situations.

w The analysis of communications/public relations exposures. The problem of rumors, and making of notifications. The importance of being a good news source, exercising positive news management and maintaining a "single source" philosophy.

It is often useful to require communications and/or public relations professionals to study the actual vulnerabilities of the organization, determining the psychological, communications, and/or public relations exposure these create. The risk can be considered in three dimensions:

Chance -- the likelihood of a public relations exposure occurring

Magnitude -- what would be the cost of leaving this exposure unattended as opposed to the cost of planning to meet and respond to the exposure. A cost/benefit comparison.

Finality -- are the consequences of acting or not acting in the event of a public relations crisis reversible, irreversible, and to what degree?

A formal approach may be quite alien to many communications and public relations professionals, and may require both guidance and cooperation between security and public relations/communications practitioners to create and give priority to such a risk list.

w The tools and methods needed for effective crisis and disaster communications/public relations. The special information activities necessitated by emergencies. Notification of next-of-kin, public relations and communications liaison and referral of questions to experts. Using and maintaining silence as a response.

CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS MANUAL

Introduction

Preparing A Crisis Communications Plan

- Sample Contents From A Crisis Communications Plan

- Developing A Communications Policy Statement

- Looking At Vulnerabilities And Public Relations Exposures

- Checklist Of Communications Considerations When Reviewing the Organization's Overall Disaster Plan

- Exposure Worksheet

- Response Planning Sheet

- Content Analysis -- Aiding Planning By Prior Examples

- The SCAME Formula Also Lends Itself To Rumor Analysis

Implementing Communications Activities In The Event Of An Emergency

- What Will Be Asked?

- Understanding The Media

- Television, Radio, And Print Coverage

- Predictability Of Media Coverage

- Criteria Used In Selection Of National Network News Stories

- Similarities And Differences In Local, Regional And National News Gathering And Reporting

- Press Behavior In Response To Emergencies

- Consider The Audiences

- Helping You To Get One Story Across

- Vulnerability Determines Public Relations Exposures And Appropriate Responses

- Key Personnel: Duties And Responsibilities

- Do's And Don'ts

- Notifications: Priorities And Protocols

- How SAFE-LLC, adding Notifications Operates

- Preparing SAFE-LLC, adding Notifications Lists

- Alternative News Media Notification List

- Special Notifications

- Notification For Deaths And Serious Injuries

- Sample Letter Of Condolence

- Sample Letter Of Sympathy To Deceased's Family

- Information Centers

- News Management And Press Discipline

- Press Pooling

- Single Source Philosophy

- Information Request And Release Log

- Other Methods For Limiting The Press' Access To Information

- About The Crisis

Methods And Tools For Disseminating Information During Emergencies

- Press Conferences, Briefings, and Open Meetings

- News Conference Checklist

- Attribution

- Broadcasts

- Public Speaking

- Outreach

- Employee Briefings

- Personal Visits

- News Release

- Sample News Releases For Print And Broadcast Media

Consulting Services

The standard rate for SAFE-LLC,’s threat management and related consulting services is $150.00 per person per hour, plus all relevant expenses. Travel time is billed at half this amount. Typically a retainer is charged.

Hands-on Training Services

All hands-on, physical or firearms training are billed at $200.00 per person per hour, plus all relevant expenses. This includes defensive firearms, unarmed defense and retraining techniques, weapons retention, Kubotan/Persuader or other baton techniques, OC (pepper) spray, etc. Travel time is billed at $100.00 per person per hour. Typically a retainer is charged.

ROBERT B. SMITH
DIRECTOR OF THREAT MANAGEMENT
THREAT MANAGEMENT BIOGRAPHY (CURRICULUM VITAE)

Robert Smith, is Founder, Director and Chief Instructor of SAFE - Security Awareness and Firearms Education in Post Falls, Idaho. Since 1985, it has been recognized as one of the finest and most comprehensive schools in threat management for civilians, security professionals and law enforcement in the United States.

Mr. Smith’s voluminous expertise and experience in threat management and crisis resolution spans over 20 years, covering several countries, including Africa and South America. He is an Associate Instructor for Lethal Force Institute (LFI), specializing in civilian and police training, presenting annual seminars on Lethal Threat Management for Police, Officer Involved Shootings, Weapon Retention, and Judicious Use of Force. He holds numerous instructor certifications from organizations such as the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, National Law Enforcement Training Center, National Rifle Association and Personal Security Systems Training. He is a specialist volunteer and consultant for the Spokane Police Department and is the Defensive Strategies Instructor for the Spokane Fire Department.

Mr. Smith is a full-time Firefighter/Paramedic for the City of Spokane, Washington, and is a member of the Fire Department’s Technical Rescue Team. He consults with corporations, public agencies and other private organizations on threat management, security training, and personal safety. As an expert in this field, he often provides expert testimony in both civil and criminal trials. His personal training encompasses thousands of hours and spans more than 25 years.

TROY R. BUNKE
THREAT MANAGEMENT & SECURITY TRAINING SPECIALIST

Troy Bunke provides some of the most valuable expertise to SAFE-LLC,’s threat management consultative and training team. He is an investigator for the Spokane County Public Defender’s Office, and is an expert in the defensive use of force by law enforcement, security personnel and civilians. He has a BA in Criminal Justice with an emphasis in law enforcement and forensic science, from Eastern Washington University. Mr. Bunke specializes in justifiable homicides and assaults where the issues of self-defense and legal use of force are factors during the investigation and trial phases. His competence also includes knowledge of the civil court system, civil liabilities based on the improper use of force, and other cases stemming from vicarious liability exposures. This experience is invaluable to corporations in developing their policies on threat management, security, awareness training, and potential use of force and restraint techniques by security personnel. His training also includes dealing with aggressive and violent behavior in the workplace.

Mr. Bunke is an Associate Instructor in the defensive use of force and threat management at Security Awareness and Firearms Education (SAFE) in Post Falls, Idaho. He is the owner of Northwest Defensive Tactics, a self-defense training and legal consulting company based in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Mr. Bunke has many hundreds of hours of instructor-level training and multiple instructor certifications from the National Law Enforcement Training Center. His teaching certifications include Oleoresin Capsicum (OC "Pepper") Aerosol control system, CAS - Expandable Police Defensive Batons, Handgun and Long Gun Retention and Disarming, and Control/Defensive Tactics. Mr. Bunke has also attended threat management courses by Calibre Press, Inc.; the Firearms Academy of Seattle, Inc.; Gunsite Training Center, Inc.; Insights Training Center, Inc.; Lethal Force Institute; Northwest Safari Group-9; the Spokane Police Department; Washington Defender Association and the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission.

Mr. Bunke is a published author on the subject of old English jails. His is a guest lecturer for Eastern Washington University’s Criminal Justice Department, where he graduated Magna Cum Laude, and was a member of Alpha Phi Sigma and the National Criminal Justice Honor Society. When not investigating cases and instructing civilians in self-defense, Mr. Bunke spends much of his time reading and researching different areas of threat management to further his own knowledge and expertise. He enjoys shooting defense-oriented firearms, taking advanced-level self-defense courses, and spending time with his wife and family.

Mr. Bunke is a member of the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers (ASLET) and the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, Inc., (IALEFI).

DAVID C. NACCARATO
THREAT MANAGEMENT AND SECURITY TRAINING SPECIALIST

Mr. Naccarato specializes in threat management that includes preventing violence in the workplace; comprehensive professional security, defensive use of force, and firearms training; managing risks to international business travelers; and successfully surviving the civil and criminal court system. He has a BA in both cultural anthropology and history, with an MA in Russian and Latin American studies, graduating with Honors and Departmental Distinction. He has over 12 years experience in international business development, management, and marketing and sales, being twice awarded by the Governor of Idaho for his excellence in export development. His work has included projects in over 20 countries including many high-risk areas such as the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Turkey, China, Korea, Thailand, The Middle East, Mexico, The Dominican Republic and South America. Mr. Naccarato’s extensive business and project management experience provides a valuable perspective of the unique needs of corporate clients and their efforts to minimize vicarious liability, while at the same time providing their employees, managers and security personnel with adequate and competent training and policies.

Mr. Naccarato has over 12 years of advanced threat management and security training from the finest schools and instructors in the world, including Massad Ayoob’s LFI (Lethal Force Institute), Robert Smith’s SAFE (Security Awareness and Firearms Education), NLETC (National Law Enforcement Training Center), Jim Cirillo, NWS-Group 9 and FAS (Firearms Academy of Seattle). He is a LFI certified STRESSFIRE Instructor in handgun and long-gun, with additional instructor certifications in firearms, Kubotan/Persuader "mini" key-ring baton, weapons retention and the defensive use of force. He is also a certified firearms instructor with the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission for private security guards and investigators. Mr. Naccarato is a member of ASLET (American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers), and is a certified instructor for Idaho’s Department of Law Enforcement, Peace Officer’s Standards and Training Academy (POST). He has acted as an Associate Instructor for SAFE, and is a frequent instructor on the legal, ethical and operational parameters for the defensive use of force, defensive tactics and techniques, advanced defensive firearms tactics and skills, workplace violence, defensive use of deadly force, and threat management for international travelers.

Mr. Naccarato has over 5 years experience as a domestic violence and crisis intervention counselor, specializing in successfully resolving violent confrontations. He is a frequent guest lecturer on international business and is Owner, Co-Director and Head Instructor of Shin-Ken Institute, a private company specializing in training professionals in defensive tactics, skills and use of force, from restraint techniques to advanced firearms training.