Today’s casualty figures from yesterday’s catastrophic stampede at a German music festival: 19 dead, over 300 injured. A lengthy Daily Mail account of the event includes a video clip and several photographs of the tunnel where panicking attendees squeezed together with suffocating intensity (Ref. 1). One witness even claimed he could see the potential calamity coming some 45 minutes before it happened. Did he really convey anything useful to police at the event, whom he accused of being insensitive to his warning? Doubtful. Any Monday morning quarterback may recast on-scene grousing into dire predictions after the fact. Could the stampede and casualty count have been averted? Absolutely.
Crowd Control
Event security practitioners call it crowd control for a reason. It is not just about signage, ingress, and egress routes – although these are important. Crowds can be innocuous or lethal. Their capacity and intensity vary according to the event and to the immediate circumstances affecting them at different points in time. Crowds change, even at the same event. What started out as a cohesive crowd of tame spectators yesterday ended up turning into an escape mob that rapidly went out of control (Ref. 2). What counts most in crowd control? Leadership.
“Leadership has a profound effect on the intensity and direction of crowd behavior … The first person to give clear orders in an authoritative manner is likely to be followed.” So says the US Army Field Manual on Civil Disturbances (Ref. 3). One of the thorny problems with conveying directions to a crowd at a music festival, however, is being heard. Reporting on yesterday’s event indicated that parts of the crowd were oblivious to ambulance sirens and anguished cries of stampede victims, as amplified music was drowning out other ambient noise. For crowd control, this means that bullhorns and loudspeakers would not have helped yesterday.
Leadership comes in many forms, and it need not necessarily be in commanding crowds to disperse. One of the most important things to do is to keep the crowd moving and, if at all possible, to do this with a light touch (Ref. 4). While this is easier said than done, there is precedent to support that a keen sense of how to avoid chokepoints can keep crowds from becoming stampeding mobs.
Big Event Success Stories
An untrumpeted beneficial demonstration of crowd control came in 1984 from then Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department Daryl Gates. Fearing potential terrorist attacks, a joint task force including the Secret Service and an assortment of federal agencies had converged on Los Angeles to assist with preparations for the Olympic Games. One security product of this collaboration was the introduction of metal detectors through which all spectators were to pass. As lines behind the metal screening points started to grow exponentially, it became evident that the metal detectors threatened to cause more of a problem than they would potentially solve. This was clear to the crowd and to event staff. But no one seemed able to do anything about it – until Chief Gates stepped in and ordered the lines open and the metal detectors shut down – while other officials were still dithering about who had the authority to make that call. As a result, a public relations fiasco and the potential for a stampede were averted. Someone took charge, rapidly assessed conditions, made a tradeoff decision involving chokepoints, and adjusted security and crowd control to make the best of the situation.
Think also of Woodstock, where authorities avoided stampedes by deciding to stop trying to force gate crashers to pay for the iconic, open-air concert once it became clear that attendance had overwhelmed ticket sales.
A Micro-Level Comparison
Years ago, when I was master of ceremonies for an annual event that my service club put on for my community, I found we had grown to the point of having to contract with local law enforcement for a security presence. Experience showed that this was an attractive duty for the cops, who received overtime pay otherwise not available, in addition to free food and all beverages except beer. Past experience also showed, however, that assigned officers had a tendency to congregate and lose themselves in their own conversations when not refeeding, rehydrating, or attending to a call for immediate assistance. So we actually developed a security plan and, when signing the contract for the support our club was paying for, we established fixed and roving security posts as well as regular communication intervals and feedback loops so that police and event organizers worked closely rather than independently. As a result, traffic and crowd control worked flawlessly, even as the annual event started to outgrow its original size and require a larger site and shuttle buses to accommodate attendees.
Lessons for the Germans
Germany is no stranger to public events and crowd control. So the Germans will no doubt arrive at these same lessons as they perform their failure analysis:
• If you are going to use your police force, then assume command and control the crowd.
• Keep the crowd moving.
• Keep the crowd engaged. Communicate with them effectively. This may mean having your officers talk to them as they pass by or, if the music is too loud, then having elevated, electronic signs that you can change as circumstances warrant. Even a flip sign with some different messages that police can hold over head to adjust crowd movements can help.
• Run through multiple scenarios in advance. If you see a dangerous chokepoint, seal it off and set up signs and officers in advance to keep it from turning into a gathering point or attractive nuisance with the potential for becoming a death trap, as the tunnel did yesterday.
• Above all, put in charge someone who has the capacity and judgment to shift priorities and make on-the-spot decisions, like closing off a chokepoint, redirecting traffic, or changing the rules on the fly if this is what it will take to avoid turning a tame crowd into a stampeding mob.
References:
1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1297346/Love-Parade-17-crushed-death-80-injured-mass-panic-tunnel.html
2. Jane’s Facility Security Handbook, 2nd Edition, by D.S. Fenn et al, Surrey: Jane’s Information Group, 2006, pp. 277-278.)
3. FM 19-15, Civil Disturbances, 2005, p. 2-2.
4. Event Risk Management and Safety, by P.E. Tarlow, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002, pp. 102-103.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Moral License, Offset, and Human Rascality
Few things in life rival for annoyance the sanctimonious self-satisfaction of the prominently virtuous. In some arenas, such irritating rascals lord over their fellow mortals that they are more ardent church-goers. In others, they avow being more sensitive, more green, more tolerant – of anything other than doubted omniscience – more … you name it. Until today, however, articulating exactly what makes such people so infuriating has been problematic; a useful term with analytical underpinnings has been missing from many lexicons. Certainly it has been absent from mine. Thanks to Michael Rosenwald’s essay in today’s Washington Post, however all that has changed. In “Does being good make us bad?” (http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/c.jsp?item=http%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fwp-syndication%2farticle%2f2010%2f07%2f16%2fAR2010071606839_mobile.xml&cid=578815)
Rosenwald breathes life into the term moral license and supplies pointers to an analysis that suggests there remain sound reasons for cutting the cards when dealing with those who make a show of their virtue. Are there lessons for homeland security as well?
We begin with terminology. Moral license is how people rationalize away bad behavior by stacking it up against a past or future reservoir of good behavior. The stacking exercise invariably makes the bad pale in comparison to the good. The net result of this balancing act is that it leaves the ones performing it wearing a mantle of nobility in their own minds, despite the blood stains and bullet holes their reprehensible acts may have produced in the eyes of witnesses. How does this come to pass? Offset (my term, not Rosenwald’s). Adapted from international contracting in the defense business, offsets are legal trade practices between nations, often governed by laws or policies.
Offset is the way a government buying modern technology from a U.S. supplier can afford to do so or to improve its balance of trade by insisting on some form of consideration for the deal that will lessen the buyer’s burden. Sometimes, it can be in terms of co-production, where the American company has to agree that, as part of the deal, the foreign buyer will be allowed to manufacture some particular components at home, which the seller will then buy back or give credit to the buying country by a comparable price reduction. Sometimes it can be more along the lines of agreeing to pay for all or part of what the buyer needs by counter-trade or barter, i.e., by paying not only in cash but in whatever it is that the buyer country has in ample supply, whether it be oil or oranges. Applied to the algebra of moral calculation, however, offset is how we are now seeing people explain away apparent misdeeds or transgressions while trumpeting their nobility with gusto.
Where is this self-conferred moral license apparent? Look no further than the parking lot full of SUVs delivering attendees to an environmental protest. Or look for exercise aficionados unable to resist taking the escalator to their trendy fitness clubs. Yesterday, society would have branded them hypocrites or half-hearted believers in their stated objectives. Today, thanks to moral license, they can stray but hold their heads high. After all, they rationalize, is it not enough to promote the right cause and to sustain a net balance on the right side of the equation? If the promoter of the cause uses private jets and limousines that seem to leave a careless environmental footprint, this is acceptable as long as he trades in enough carbon credits to offset the apparent hypocrisy. If the fitness fan indulges in pampered conveyance to and from the gym, she can offset that by doing another half hour on the elliptical machine.
Finally, suppose extra airport security measures triggered by a Homeland Security alert ignore suspicious behaviors of hale and hearty young adults whispering in hushed tones and paying inordinate attention to what is inspected. There is no need to worry. We can offset that insouciance by intensifying supplementary baggage checks on a wheelchair-bound veteran who happens to be first in line at the departure terminal or on the stately grandmother who is the last to board – since without her we might have missed our quota for additional scrutiny. How about border security? Mobilize National Guardsmen – in installments – to perform administrative tasks while criminal entrepreneurs and illegal unfortunates break laws to improve their lot at others’ expense. The offset of visibly assigning more life forms to the situation belies the absence of an impact and sidelining of the problem. Or perhaps dispensing unsolicited (and unaccepted) apologies for American swagger on the world stage somehow offsets a calculated failure to draw hard lines and let enemies know that crossing such lines constitutes an act of aggression.
Who needs judgment, purpose, or focused attention to stated intent, when today’s offsets offer moral license to take the most expedient path? Is moral license epitomizing the kind of smartness that will one day lead us to slit our own throat? If so, at least we have a name to attach to this phenomenon so that future archivists will be able to chart its ascendancy with our decline.
-- Nick Catrantzos
Rosenwald breathes life into the term moral license and supplies pointers to an analysis that suggests there remain sound reasons for cutting the cards when dealing with those who make a show of their virtue. Are there lessons for homeland security as well?
We begin with terminology. Moral license is how people rationalize away bad behavior by stacking it up against a past or future reservoir of good behavior. The stacking exercise invariably makes the bad pale in comparison to the good. The net result of this balancing act is that it leaves the ones performing it wearing a mantle of nobility in their own minds, despite the blood stains and bullet holes their reprehensible acts may have produced in the eyes of witnesses. How does this come to pass? Offset (my term, not Rosenwald’s). Adapted from international contracting in the defense business, offsets are legal trade practices between nations, often governed by laws or policies.
Offset is the way a government buying modern technology from a U.S. supplier can afford to do so or to improve its balance of trade by insisting on some form of consideration for the deal that will lessen the buyer’s burden. Sometimes, it can be in terms of co-production, where the American company has to agree that, as part of the deal, the foreign buyer will be allowed to manufacture some particular components at home, which the seller will then buy back or give credit to the buying country by a comparable price reduction. Sometimes it can be more along the lines of agreeing to pay for all or part of what the buyer needs by counter-trade or barter, i.e., by paying not only in cash but in whatever it is that the buyer country has in ample supply, whether it be oil or oranges. Applied to the algebra of moral calculation, however, offset is how we are now seeing people explain away apparent misdeeds or transgressions while trumpeting their nobility with gusto.
Where is this self-conferred moral license apparent? Look no further than the parking lot full of SUVs delivering attendees to an environmental protest. Or look for exercise aficionados unable to resist taking the escalator to their trendy fitness clubs. Yesterday, society would have branded them hypocrites or half-hearted believers in their stated objectives. Today, thanks to moral license, they can stray but hold their heads high. After all, they rationalize, is it not enough to promote the right cause and to sustain a net balance on the right side of the equation? If the promoter of the cause uses private jets and limousines that seem to leave a careless environmental footprint, this is acceptable as long as he trades in enough carbon credits to offset the apparent hypocrisy. If the fitness fan indulges in pampered conveyance to and from the gym, she can offset that by doing another half hour on the elliptical machine.
Finally, suppose extra airport security measures triggered by a Homeland Security alert ignore suspicious behaviors of hale and hearty young adults whispering in hushed tones and paying inordinate attention to what is inspected. There is no need to worry. We can offset that insouciance by intensifying supplementary baggage checks on a wheelchair-bound veteran who happens to be first in line at the departure terminal or on the stately grandmother who is the last to board – since without her we might have missed our quota for additional scrutiny. How about border security? Mobilize National Guardsmen – in installments – to perform administrative tasks while criminal entrepreneurs and illegal unfortunates break laws to improve their lot at others’ expense. The offset of visibly assigning more life forms to the situation belies the absence of an impact and sidelining of the problem. Or perhaps dispensing unsolicited (and unaccepted) apologies for American swagger on the world stage somehow offsets a calculated failure to draw hard lines and let enemies know that crossing such lines constitutes an act of aggression.
Who needs judgment, purpose, or focused attention to stated intent, when today’s offsets offer moral license to take the most expedient path? Is moral license epitomizing the kind of smartness that will one day lead us to slit our own throat? If so, at least we have a name to attach to this phenomenon so that future archivists will be able to chart its ascendancy with our decline.
-- Nick Catrantzos
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Kidnap Comp, in Colombia?
Is a presidential candidate who was kidnapped while on the campaign trail and then held in captivity for several years entitled to government compensation of $6.8 million? It depends. The July 12 issue of Economist sheds some light (http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/07/betancourts_demand_compensation)
On the one hand, as victim Ingrid Betancourt said when announcing her claim, the Colombian government refused her transportation via military helicopter and apparently denied her a protective detail. These circumstances could have materially contributed to her vulnerability, placing her at greater risk of harm.
On the other hand, the government maintains it warned her not to venture into the area where the kidnapping took place. Every other politician took such warnings to heart. There is another rejoinder, and one that gained so much popular traction in Colombia that Ms. Betancourt is now rethinking her claim and relabeling it a symbolic gesture. The same Colombian government that she says let her down also rescued her, at considerable risk and expense, including infiltrating Colombia’s FARC rebels. This is why vocal Colombians are fuming, demanding she reimburse the government for the cost of her rescue – instead of looking for a payout.
Which camp is right? There is no question that Betancourt suffered. Did she have some responsibility for her own protection, however? Was she indeed petulant or irresponsible in ignoring government advice that other political candidates heeded when she went into rebel territory as if danger for the common folk would somehow not mean danger for her? Other reports begin to paint an unflattering picture of Betancourt as demanding, condescending, and egoistical, as befitting the well born and pampered. Hostage Keith Stansell, in Out of Captivity, recalls that side of her. He and fellow Americans found her perpetually claiming and taking more than her share of food, clothing, and personal space, compared to other hostages. According to Stansell and his compatriots, Betancourt chafed at being held in the same space as the Americans. So she told guards that the Americans were working for the CIA and had tracking chips embedded in their bodies – all in an effort to have them removed, so that she could have more space to herself. The Americans felt they could have been executed over that maneuver. Meanwhile they noted she formed a romantic liaison with another captive, which may have contributed to the estranged relationship with her husband following her escape from captivity. Finally, in making her claim on Colombia’s treasury, Betancourt apparently made no mention of sharing her million-dollar book deal with Penguin to publish her memoirs.
She does seem to be reconsidering her demands, however. Did the government have and ignore a duty to protect her? Perhaps. One or two courts will decide. The first is the civil court which will allow or reject her claim. The second, court, however is less formal but more influential. It is the court of public opinion now branding her an ingrate and rapidly losing sympathy for an individual who basked in the light of a heroine while exhibiting the cutthroat and self-absorbed behaviors of a poltroon.
- Nick Catrantzos
On the one hand, as victim Ingrid Betancourt said when announcing her claim, the Colombian government refused her transportation via military helicopter and apparently denied her a protective detail. These circumstances could have materially contributed to her vulnerability, placing her at greater risk of harm.
On the other hand, the government maintains it warned her not to venture into the area where the kidnapping took place. Every other politician took such warnings to heart. There is another rejoinder, and one that gained so much popular traction in Colombia that Ms. Betancourt is now rethinking her claim and relabeling it a symbolic gesture. The same Colombian government that she says let her down also rescued her, at considerable risk and expense, including infiltrating Colombia’s FARC rebels. This is why vocal Colombians are fuming, demanding she reimburse the government for the cost of her rescue – instead of looking for a payout.
Which camp is right? There is no question that Betancourt suffered. Did she have some responsibility for her own protection, however? Was she indeed petulant or irresponsible in ignoring government advice that other political candidates heeded when she went into rebel territory as if danger for the common folk would somehow not mean danger for her? Other reports begin to paint an unflattering picture of Betancourt as demanding, condescending, and egoistical, as befitting the well born and pampered. Hostage Keith Stansell, in Out of Captivity, recalls that side of her. He and fellow Americans found her perpetually claiming and taking more than her share of food, clothing, and personal space, compared to other hostages. According to Stansell and his compatriots, Betancourt chafed at being held in the same space as the Americans. So she told guards that the Americans were working for the CIA and had tracking chips embedded in their bodies – all in an effort to have them removed, so that she could have more space to herself. The Americans felt they could have been executed over that maneuver. Meanwhile they noted she formed a romantic liaison with another captive, which may have contributed to the estranged relationship with her husband following her escape from captivity. Finally, in making her claim on Colombia’s treasury, Betancourt apparently made no mention of sharing her million-dollar book deal with Penguin to publish her memoirs.
She does seem to be reconsidering her demands, however. Did the government have and ignore a duty to protect her? Perhaps. One or two courts will decide. The first is the civil court which will allow or reject her claim. The second, court, however is less formal but more influential. It is the court of public opinion now branding her an ingrate and rapidly losing sympathy for an individual who basked in the light of a heroine while exhibiting the cutthroat and self-absorbed behaviors of a poltroon.
- Nick Catrantzos
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
