Failure in Disaster Risk Management
ITI190 - Insurance Top Info 190 | Failure in disaster risk management.
This could be historic because the United States Congress votes to approve the elections. It happens every four years. Usually with a bit of hassle, but this time it's really different.
It's not even historic as some senators and congressmen are considering disagreeing on the vote. It looks good for the course of this electoral cycle.
It was historic because crowds were allowed to break through the doors of the Capitol, resulting in death, property damage and delays in government affairs.
There were several failures leading up to when the riots closed, but one of the biggest failures was a risk management failure outside the capital that day.
Who is (or should be responsible) for managing risk in capital?
According to the websites of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, the Sergeant-at-Arms is the chief of law enforcement in their congress building. Part of their responsibility is the safety and security of Congress. Since safety and security are included in this job title, risk assessment is in their hands. In addition, the DC Metro Police Department is the governing body responsible for ensuring that protests and protests are conducted safely and within the law.
Should they see this coming?
You could say it's Monday morning quarterback, and you're right. There is more than we can all see now that the incident is over than we could have seen before. However, this event must be seen very differently from before. A person will not be elected a firearms sergeant or appointed police chief of a major American city, let alone the capital of the United States, without extensive law enforcement experience and a life history. shining in the sun.
These officials are law enforcement officers and they need to know that something big can happen. Police officers have a reputation for suspecting problems, even when there is clearly no problem. Why don't these experienced law enforcement officers think there could be more than what is seen at this protest? Do they have an instinct that tells them something could go wrong? Do they ignore this instinct because they cannot apply facts to their instincts? Do they just believe that no one will ever try what is going on just because no one else is?
There are several reasons why they should know that something could happen.
- Groups are encouraged to apply for permits for public events. The protest outside the convention building while the convention was in progress should be such a big deal that the police chief needed to be aware and warn the Sergeant-at-Arms. They should talk about the potential risk of this demonstration. I'm not sure if they didn't have this conversation, but based on their will together, they didn't seem to say much about it.
- Based on what we were told about this group, they came together to support the outgoing president in rejecting what has been called electoral theft. The idea of groups of people coming to protest what they see as a failure of the electoral system should indicate that things could get out of hand. It is no exaggeration to imagine that this group might go into an heightened emotional state, or that there may be people in the group who are planning to do more than just demonstrate.
- The group first holds a general assembly during which the president takes the floor. Given the president's history with his public comments, including his rhetorical schemes, one should have realized that his comments could lead to action. This group is particularly interested in the president who remains in office, and it is reasonable to think that after such a festive speech, any of them might be inclined to take matters into their own hands.
- It was reported that days before the protest turned violent, the FBI and the Department of Defense offered to help DC police secure the capital building. The Department of Justice and Department of Justice have resources that will provide them with better information than the DC Metropolitan Police. It seems plausible that the leader should know that something bigger than a simple demonstration of free speech was possible there.
I am a fan of freedom of expression. I like it even when the ages
They don't agree with me. If someone doesn't agree with me, it forces me to at least think about their position. When a dispute becomes violent, it is not protected speech. It's rebellion. It's not even a legitimate revolution. This is how anarchy is.
Failure in disaster risk management by ITI - Insurance Top Info.