On October 05, 2007, two Loomis armored truck guards (both retired career Philadelphia police officers) were shot and killed by a robber in broad daylight as they removed deposits from a Philadelphia Wachovia bank ATM.
The robber approached the car from behind shortly after 8 a.m. after parking his getaway car across the parking lot and walking 700 feet to the Loomis Armored van, apparently undetected. He shot one guard in the chest, then went around the vehicle and shot the second guard as that guard "tried" to un-holster his gun. The suspect then fired at the cab of the Loomis van, shattering the glass and injuring the Loomis driver before fleeing the scene.
"He just came out initially and just assassinated them, that fast," police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson said. "Neither the victims nor a third guard in the Loomis van (who was injured) fired a shot, it was an assassination."
These "assassinations" were caught on bank security cameras, enabling the police to identify the suspect in a short time, who coincidentally was taken into custody soon after the incident on an unrelated charge.
None of the three guards were wearing bulletproof vests. Loomis does not require guards to wear the vests, which cost $350 to $700, but it encourages their use, Loomis company spokesman Mark Clark said.
What we have here is a classic example of management failure to provide for the basic safety of their employees. Having worked in the armored truck industry as a firearms and street survival trainer and safety compliance supervisor for nearly ten years following a career in law enforcement and diplomatic security, I am perhaps more qualified to evaluate this situation than most. This admittedly very tragic incident contains within it three primary safety issues that really need to be addressed within the industry if anyone expects to reduce the number of similar incidents in the future.
- No ballistic vests
- Complacency of the victims
- Training
The armored truck industry provides vital economic services to the American business community as it attracts hundreds of players who compete for bank and business cash transport contracts that are generally awarded to the lowest bidder. This generates low wages for employees and severely limits the amount of capital investment that can be made for operational expenses such as training and equipment like ballistic vests, trucks and firearms.
That being said, it must be pointed out that it IS possible to provide for the safety of employees in the three areas listed above without bankrupting the armored truck company. It is simply a matter of priorities and awareness.
Unfortunately, management expertise and capabilities vary greatly within the industry. In my experience, I have observed that managers are all too frequently prompted or hired based upon "who they know" rather than how qualified they are in terms of people management skills and safety awareness. And in this particular field, safety awareness and enforcement is crucial because if it is not handled properly, people die.
The two major players in the industry: Loomis and BRINK'S, INCORPORATED have similar "voluntary" employee ballistic vest programs. They pay for part of the cost of the vests if the employee wishes to purchase one but they do not require their employees to wear them. Most other armored companies do not even provide such a program and more often than not, armored truck guards do not wear vests.
Considering the inherent risks of the occupation, this seems incredible to me. OSHA requires employers to provide proper PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) for all industries but for some reason, OSHA seems to have dropped the ball in this particular area. As a certified OSHA instructor and a certified armored truck street survival instructor for BRINK'S, Incorporated, I have been expressing astonishment about this for years but my words have thus far, fallen on deaf ears, even as employees have continued to be killed.
The armored truck industry has had ample time to respond appropriately to this threat and they have failed to do so. I believe it is now time for OSHA to step in and require that ballistic vests be worn by all armored truck employees who work on trucks.
The other issue that needs to be addressed is training. Street survival training for armored truck guards varies widely within the industry. There are no national standards and few states have managed to address this particular aspect of the private security industry with specific training requirements. This is tragic, because lack of training and complacency gets more people killed in the industry than any other single factor.
This Loomis incident appears to be a good example of what happens when two security professionals let their guard down. Anytime you have a two-man ATM crew, one is supposed to serve as a guard to watch for bad guys while the other replenishes cash in the ATM. Furthermore. the armored truck driver is supposed to be constantly watching for bad guys as well. It is a team effort devoted first and foremost to safety and survival. Unfortunately, human beings get complacent. After months or years of no threats, they tend to get lazy and fall into a mental condition that reduces their awareness of their environment. When this happens, they become easy (soft) targets and those are the individuals who become statistics in our society's war against the bad guys.
This is where management must bear the responsibility. Training is important in this industry because it prepares employees to survive deadly-force encounters. But to be effective, basic training must be followed up with appropriate policies and procedures that send the message that the company is REALLY serious about employee survival and safety. Those rules must be enforced consistently and fairly and follow-up street survival training should be regular and ongoing.
Right now, this only happens infrequently at best, even among the major players in the industry who may provide lip-service to believing in the importance of such training. I experienced this over and over at BRINK'S. Corporate security officials battled with local branch managers constantly in a futile effort to convince them to spend the money for such training and branch managers (who are under additional pressure to generate more profits) generally played shell games to avoid having to spend any more than absolutely necessary for deadly-force encounter preparation training.
If we as a society ever expect to reduce the number of armored truck deaths, we simply must step forward and demand changes and accountability for such companies by passing legislation that will require adequate training for this industry and make armored truck companies liable for negligence that results in employee deaths and injuries.
Michael James Jaquish- International Security Consultant
