Does the Private Sector want Security Firms to hire Veterans that have more recent experience with anti-terrorism training?

Interesting view, although you can't really use excessive force in all situations within a Professional Environment William; If it's life threatening actions, then yes, a Security Officer needs to defend others and himself. Not sure we are talking about the same topic with your reference comparing gangstar, lunatic, and dictator. They might do similar things but not for the same reasons and behaviors that can provide early warnings.

Agreed, but the same thing exists in all criminal elements. they are always out for themselves. I myself have been in High Risk Security for 30 years and never killed anyone. had a lot of close calls and skirmishes but, in the end, I went home and the bad guy went to jail.

Richard,

Thanks for asking, but this was directed at all parties for discussion. It's always nice to see the various responses from all perspectives. What are your thoughts here?

Sgt Kevin Ott I think it would make sense, if I were in a position to higher security. My only concern would be ROE considerations ,but I generally know how well disciplined military members can be, but that's kind of the point, we know ourselves, do the outsiders?

That's is a good point. Several contracts today are created for Un-Armed Guard scenarios but proper training and Post Orders (SOP's) are vital for eliminating those risks. Some Security Guards are wearing cameras for just that reason. I know it's a major offense in some states to even place your hand on a loaded side arm if your life or someone your protecting is not in jeopardy with life threatening scenarios. Active Shooter type drills are another way to prepare people for worst case scenarios but not often enough to be effective in my opinion. ROE's are a must but sometimes are still not enough to prove a case if you can not verify your position.