November 29th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
We all know that prison is a tough place where violence is a daily reality regardless of how vigilant the staff or how well organized the facility. Some might argue that this is what inmates get for choosing a life of crime, but what about facilities for minors? In these centers where children and teens should be learning to steer clear of crime, violence is all too prevalent.
Juvenile Camp Surrounded by Barbed Wire
Juvenile probation camps have recently come under a lot of scrutiny by the US Department of Justice, which on October 31, 2008 released a report on these centers based on detainee interviews, reviews of probation records and visits to camps.
According to federal investigators, “We learned that fights occur not only within the staff’s field of supervision, but many occur out of staff’s line of sight, in places that could not be well supervised given the small number of staff.”
These findings may offer some insight into how an 18 year-old African American inmate at Camp Miller in Malibu sustained serious neck injury during a racially motivated attack earlier this month, just one day after the federal report publicly criticized the unsafe conditions at these centers.
In response to the report, and quite possibly influenced by this latest incident at Camp Miller, “county supervisors approved plans to hire independent monitors to force the probation department to comply with its own standards for, among other things, staffing and violence prevention,” according to the LA Times.
In the meantime, the attack at Camp Miller is still under investigation, although for the time being staff misconduct is not suspected. However, youth advocates are speaking out against the attack, claiming that it proves there are far graver problems within the juvenile probation system that are being overlooked.
“We’ve continuously advised probation officials that they need to involve community leaders, gang interventionists, to help squash the violence,” said Kim McGill of the Youth Justice Coalition.
The corrections system has its flaws, but serves its purpose. However, when it comes to minors, one has to ask whether violence and staff misconduct aren’t fostering criminal attitudes, rather than providing these youths with alternatives to keep them on the straight and narrow.
Dana Picore, Ph.D.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Ever since 9/11 airplane passengers have learned what its like to be thoroughly scrutinized before accessing the airports terminals. Take off your shoes, pull out your laptop, put all gels and liquids in a baggie, and every once in a while, submit to a random bag search. So if everything on our person or in our bags is deemed as possibly posing a threat, why is it that personal firearms are allowed in some of the country’s major airports?
NO WEAPONS
The Associated Press surveyed 20 of the country’s busiest airports and found that seven – Philadelphia, Detroit, Phoenix, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles and San Francisco – allow people with permits to carry guns in the airports’ general public areas and right up to the security checkpoints.
Federal law makes it illegal to attempt to cross a security checkpoint with a firearm. However, state and local authorities decide on the laws pertaining to rest of the airport. The Transportation Security Administration refuses to take a stance on the issue, although the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., wrote the TSA a letter in July, calling guns “a threat to the safety of airline travelers” and warning that congress could ban the general public from carrying firearms in airports.
Guns and Airports
Anti-terrorism authorities are at odds on this issue. Some consider this issue a security loophole that is just waiting to be exploited and that can make smuggling firearms onboard a plane that much easier. While others argue that non-secure airport areas are no different from other public areas and should not necessitate special restrictions.
Gun owners who carry their firearms while at the airport claim to do so for two reasons: personal protection and because they don’t want to worry about removing and stashing their gun before entering the airport.
But are these reasons and explanations good enough to warrant possibly endangering airport personnel, fliers and those who come to pick them up and see them off? Especially when considering that in 2002, an Egyptian immigrant used a firearm to kill two people and wounded others at an LAX ticket counter before he was shot to death by an El Al Israel Airlines security guard.
Jason Major, San Diego Marketing Manager
October 26th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
The tides of change in Iraq, once unforeseeable, are now eminent, as the process of
Detainee Camp
handing over sovereignty to the Middle Eastern country enters the drafting stage. The newest draft of the security agreement between Iraq and the United States calls for a large-scale reduction of American military, which up to now has been responsible for the war torn country’s security issues, including the arrest and detention of criminals and people deemed a threat.
If this draft of the security agreement is passed, as of December 31st, America soldiers will no longer have the authority to arrest suspected insurgents and will have to turn over all suspects to the Iraqi authorities within 24 hours. But what to do with the nearly 17,000 people currently detained by the American Military in detention facilities around Iraq? The US would no longer have the right to detain these individuals, and the Iraqi authorities claim that they do not have the training or even the prisons necessary to taking control.
According to the New York Times, negotiations are being carried out in tandem with the agreement drafting that would allow the American military to continue confining detainees deemed particularly dangerous, if requested by Iraqi authorities, while allowing the other detainees to go free, a move that may undermine hard won Iraqi security.
Brig. Gen. David E. Quantock, commanding general for Task Force 134, responsible for the detention system in Iraq, says that of the 17,000 detained Iraqis, about 5,000 are classified “dangerous radicals,” while the remaining 12,000 may have been arrested mistakenly or played minor roles in the insurgency. Of all these detainees, the US will probably have to release all but 1,000: those that have been charged and are awaiting trial or those for whom an Iraqi judge has issued an arrest warrant.
As for the 4,000 “dangerous radicals” that will most likely be set free, General Quantock is relying heavily on a guarantor program. The released detainees are sponsored by a respected member of the community, such as a tribal leader, who agrees that if the released detainee commits another offense, he or another community member will go to jail for the offender.
Detainee Camp
The US military has been working hard to decrease the number of Iraqi detainees, which hit an all time high of 26,000 in the fall of 2007. Release of an additional 2,000 detainees has been scheduled for next month in preparation for the year-end deadline.
-Justine Bayod Espoz–European Marketing Director for Picore Worldwide-Spain
October 9th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Ridley Scott’s new film Body of Lies, an adaptation of Washington Post columnist
Film: Body of Lies
David Ignatius’ novel of the same name, hits theatres in the US this Friday, October 10, 2008. Scott is a director well known for his consistent choice of violent themes, so it was only a matter of time before he got around to making a movie about modern-day terrorism.
The basic storyline is simple and not altogether that interesting according to the major film critics: CIA operative Roger Ferris uncovers a lead on a terrorist leader and follows up on it. In listing the films shortcomings, New York Times film critic A.O. Scott referred in passing to the films “genre.” Scott could have easily been referring to any number of genres that would adequately suit the film, such as action, thriller, drama, but it got us at Picore wondering whether he might not have been referring to a whole new genre, the terrorism genre.
Ever since September 11, 2001, Hollywood, like many other business sectors, has become increasingly interested in the issue of terrorism. Whether this is for better or worse has yet to be seen, but one thing is certain, big names and big money are taking advantage of terrorism’s caché.
Before Ridley Scott came Steven Spielberg with Munich and George Clooney with Syriana, and we shouldn’t forget the small screen’s smash hit 24. Each work’s approach to the subject matter is different and there’s no question that each makes its own statement as to the origins and repercussions of terrorism.
While some of these works may be made with the purest intentions of starting a nationwide dialog as to the hows and whys and whens and wheres of terrorism, our more cynical side may make us question whether this serious matter isn’t being handled a little too lightly and a little too liberally.
It’s obvious that terrorism is an extremely complex issue that cannot be properly addressed in a two or even three hour film. So don’t feel strange for wondering whether Hollywood’s trussed up screen version of modern-day conflict isn’t just one more big budget glorification of violence. After all Hollywood is in the business of producing spectacles, but one has to ask, should terrorism be one of them?
-Justine Bayod Espoz, Picore’s Marketing Manager
October 4th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
On Tuesday, September 30th, officers from 100 police departments along the Northeast
Training Exercise
Corridor were deployed to 150 train stations in 13 states and the District of Columbia to conduct security drills, familiarize themselves with the rail system and work as a team. Amtrak Police Chief John O’Connor called the initiative “the longest wall of security ever mobilized along the East Coast.” Twenty-one additional law enforcement agencies were expected to participate, but duty called elsewhere, and officers could not be spared.
Officers with police dogs patrolled stations, while others asked passengers for identification or performed random bag searches, and according to Christopher White, Transportation Security Administration spokesman, there were even plain clothes officers. Officers were drilled on several tasks, including bomb searches around the stations and the periphery.
Amtrack Security Officer Edward S. Phillips announced that because of the drill, “If we were to receive information of a credible threat, we could mount something like this within 12 hours, maybe even faster.” Most might wonder after such a declaration whether that estimation is meant to be comforting.
As passenger Darnell Donahue stated to the press upon seeing the increased police presence, “It doesn’t necessarily make me feel any safer, but it doesn’t hinder my feeling one way or the other about taking the train.”
But when does this police presence and random bag checking become a hindrance? Barry Steinhardt Director of the American Civil Liberties Technology and Liberty Program said that asking for identification and performing bag checks “may be interfering with the right to travel, which is constitutionally protected… What do you do if someone refuses to present identification? Prevent them from getting on a train?”
Steinhardt also posed yet another question that has crossed the mind of anyone who has had to throw out every liquid in their carry on bags at the airport, “You have to ask yourself if this isn’t just security theater.”
Dr. Picore, CEO of Picore Worldwide stated, that this type of drill is critical and necessary in order to respond properly to a credible threat.
Gemma Beristain, COO Picore Worldwide
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Everyday we’re bombarded with headlines about corporate scandals, workplace violence, and
Background Checks
threats to every kind of security. The world has changed, and a new set of rules apply, even when it comes to employment. Today employers face a whole new set of challenges when it comes to hiring reliable workers, so many of them turn to pre-employment screening to ensure that they are choosing the right candidate.
Pre-employment screening is any combination of psychometric testing, background checks and drug testing that employers may perform on potential employees to ensure that the selected candidate is responsible, reliable and well suited to the work environment and position in question.
However, the background check is one of the most common and controversial forms of pre-employment screening. Reportedly, 96% of HR professionals conduct background checks on new hires; a substantial increase from the 66% of HR professionals conducting pre-employment screenings in 1996.
Background checks can provide access to all kinds of data, including:
Pre-employment Screening
Pre-employment screening can aid employers in detecting any number of discrepancies or warning signals, such as false information on resumes and applications or a criminal past. Plus, background checks have been credited with minimizing the chances of a negligent lawsuits and decreasing attrition rates.
Although most candidates won’t mind giving a potential employer the right to conduct a background check, others may not feel comfortable with a company gaining access to information that is private and irrelevant to employment. The legality of accessing certain information through background checks is still under scrutiny, so it is important that background checks only be performed with the employee’s knowledge and a signed disclosure form as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Gemma Beristain, COO for Picore Worldwide
September 26th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
On Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 22 year-old Matti Juhani Saari, a student at the School of Hospitality in Kauhajoki, Finland, a town of approximately 14,000 inhabitants, walked into the classroom where he was scheduled to take a business studies exam and shot his teacher and nine students before turning the 22-calibre handgun on himself. 
What’s even more disturbing is that the worst school shooting in Finnish history, although not the first, could have been prevented, as policemen visited Saari the day before the shooting after finding a disturbing video he’d posted on YouTube.
The video showed Saari at a shooting range unloading a Walther P22 pistol and reciting a poem that made reference to war and violence. After meeting with Saari, the police decided not to seize his weapon, a decision that would leave all of Finland shocked and with an upsetting feeling of deja vu the very next day.
In November 2007, 18 year-old Pekka-Eric Auvinen murdered eight people, including six students, at a high school in the town of Jokela. At the time, the shooting was deemed an isolated incident, but the shooting at Kauhajoki proves that it was not.
In the days since the shooting, evidence has come to light linking Saari and Auvinen. Both played on the same team of Battlefield 2, an Internet war game, and sent each other typed messages about planning school shootings, including one that read: “Let’s do it together.” They bought their guns at the same store, Tera-asekeks, and posted videos on YouTube that were eerily similar. Not surprisingly, both were the victims of bullying, both cited their hatred of the human race as their reason for the shootings and both committed suicide.
Matti Saari
In lieu of these events, Interior Minister Anne Holmlund has promised to draft amendments to the country’s firearms law. There are currently 2 million firearms in Finland, a country with only 5 million inhabitants.
-Justine Bayod Espoz, Picore Worldwide’s Marketing Expert-Spain
September 26th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Violence in the workplace is a global problem that has been on the rise in both first world and undeveloped countries since the beginning of the new millennium. In Europe, work related violence is defined as “incidents where people are abused, threatened or assaulted in circumstances relating to their work, involving an explicit or implicit challenge to their safety, well-being or health.”
Workplace violence can range from non-physical violence, including threats and intimidation, to physical violence, such a kicking and punching or aggravated assault with weapons. It is believed that this violence stems from job instability and a high pressure work environment, which places workers under so much stress that they commit acts of mobbing, bullying, sexual harassment and even homicide.
Surprisingly, a 2006 ILO study showed that the number of workplace murders and non-fatal assaults has been on the decrease in the US. However, it is important to keep in mind that homicide is the third leading cause of death in the American workplace, and OSHA and NIOSH have reported that the risk of being attacked while working is seven times higher in the US than in Europe.
Although Europe may not be experiencing quite the same degree of workplace violence as the US, it is still a troubling reality for the EU. The 2006 ILO study stated that within the EU:
- 2% (3 million) workers are subjected to physical violence from people belonging to their workplace.
- 4% (6 million) workers are subjected to physical violence from people outside their workplace. Highest exposure in Public Administration (6%) and the retail industry (5%).
- 2% (3 million) workers are subjected to sexual harassment. Highest exposure in catering services at hotels and restaurants (6%).
- 9% (13 million) workers are subjected to intimidation and bullying. Highest exposure in public administration (14%) and hotels and restaurants (13%). Service and sales workers are the most affected at 13%.
The amount of workplace violence differs greatly from country to country within the EU. It is believed that these differences are due to underreporting and less awareness in some countries. A 2007 study found that Europe has a physical violence rate of 5%, while the ILO study reported an overall European workplace violence rate of 9% and offered the following breakdown of country by country workplace violence levels:
- Finland 15%
- UK 14%
- The Netherlands 14%
- Sweden 12%
- Belgium 11%
- Spain 5%
- Italy 4%
- Portugal 4%
The EU has acknowledged workplace violence as an occupational health and safety issue that must be addressed. Belgium, France, Finland, Sweden and Poland are just a few European countries that have already amended existing laws to address this pressing issue. Copyright 2008
-Justine Bayod Espoz , Picore Worldwide’s Marketing Expert, Spain
September 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
PICORE AGENTS were deployed to areas of Louisiana, assisting companies impacted by the storm with security support as they prepare to open their doors for business. Agents are escorting repair crews to various locations, working frantically in order to recover from Gustav.
PW Agent
PICORE AGENTS were also deployed to ground zero in New Orleans three years ago when the horrific Katrina hit hard and devastated the city. CEO, Dr. Picore stated, “Thank goodness this was NO Katrina and the government was ready to ACT.”
Mayor Ray Nagin stated Wednesday that all residents of New Orleans would be allowed to return to their homes immediately, reversing a decision that prevented them from returning until today following the evacuation of the city in advance of Hurricane Gustav.
Nagin said in a televised interview that all checkpoints into the city have been lifted. “This is going to be a continued challenge going forward. Some people are going to come to their homes, they’re going to find trees in the middle of their kitchens and all that good stuff. Just let us know and we’ll try and accommodate you,” he said.
Gustav
Be Prepared:
Discuss the type of hazards that could affect your family. Know your home’s vulnerability to storm surge, flooding and wind.Locate a safe room or the safest areas in your home for each hurricane hazard. In certain circumstances the safest areas may not be your home but within your community.
Determine escape routes from your home and places to meet. These should be measured in tens of miles rather than hundreds of miles.
Have an out-of-state friend as a family contact, so all your family members have a single point of contact.
Make a plan now for what to do with your pets if you need to evacuate.
PW Dogs
Post emergency telephone numbers by your phones and make sure your children know how and when to call 911.
Check your insurance coverage – flood damage is not usually covered by homeowners insurance.
Stock non-perishable emergency supplies and a Disaster Supply Kit.
Use a NOAA weather radio. Remember to replace its battery every 6 months, as you do with your smoke detectors.
Take First Aid, CPR and disaster preparedness classes.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:30 am
There is a lot that goes into an assessment for violence towards self or others. First, it is 
imperative to gather as much behavioral and situational information as possible. We don’t always have time to gather background data if the situation becomes more immediate. The more control the person wants to have and the less impulse control they maintain makes a threat assessment more immediate.
When we do have time (most times we do) we need to gather intel such as criminal court records. It is important to look at whether the conviction was a felony or misdemeanor, but remember the initial charge may have been pled down to a lesser charge which in my opinion is done way too often. If possible, find out what was the subject’s behavior was like before the arrest?
We can’t just look at the charge, but rather use it as a starting point for us to look deeper into the mind of the subject to assess his/her level of violence.
Don’t forget to look into Civil Court Records as well. Is there a restraining order on file and what created the need for the RO? Was it due to a domestic violence issue or a corporate restraining order for past threats against an organization?
We are looking for as much behavioral intel as possible. Example: Divorce Records. It may be possible to gather what his/her behavior was like during the divorce. Aggressive, passive or physically abusive.
in regards to my first post, if we asked the right questions during the pre-employment interview we might be able to deter from hiring a high threat employee. Example: How did you deal with conflict with your last employer? Please provide an example.
