Who’s guarding the guards?

One of the victims of a recent triple homicide in Georgia, USA, was the director of golf at Pinetree Country Club. Pro golfer Gene Siller was shot when arriving ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time’ to ascertain why a suspect vehicle was parked on the 10th green.

Closer to home, the body of a Knysna Hospice nurse was found at an upmarket residential estate in Plettenberg Bay in 2018. The local man convicted of her murder had gained access through the estate’s main security entrance, ostensibly telling guards on duty that he was a client of the victim.

The human factor

Such incidences serve as wake-up call for residents who harbour the illusion that their gated-community existence is guaranteed to be crime free.

This false sense of security results in them relying on gatehouse staff for absolute safety. In many cases, they neglect to lock doors and maintain alarm systems or cameras around the house.

But security personnel are human, after all, and thus vulnerable to various levels of intimidation – from having a gun pointed to their heads, to being duped by intruders they may know through a shared background or community ties.

Essential off-site monitoring

According to Andries Trahms of independent service providers Garden Route-based Smhart Security, most estates these days are rigged with cameras that are monitored in an offsite, central control room.

‘Certain estates operate with low-impact measures, only employing car licence readers upon entry. Others have more extensive systems that place increased emphasis on all-round checks, from the main gatehouse to 24-hour parameter monitoring.

‘But no matter what technology is being afforded by homeowners and management, it’s not viable to phase out the human factor and rely on tech alone. This makes it crucial to establish a good rapport between onsite personnel and those in the monitoring centre.’

Criminals not sole perpetrators

Entitled residents can create a fair amount of consternation upon entering estates, with instances of altercations when access discs or required identification is not at hand.

This scenario can similarly leave gatehouse officers in a position of having to make discretionary decisions they have not specifically been trained for. Again, the backup of live video footage and a vigilant monitoring team constitute the best combination to promote the incident-free conclusion of such situations.

In with the new

Trahms explains that, where estates are in the position to budget for advanced equipment, the twin risks of human error and faltering tech can practically be prevented.

‘No single person can concentrate on up to 20 screens at a time, for hours on end. Looking away for a few seconds may mean that a swift security breach can go unnoticed.

‘Newly available tech tracks all movement around the gatehouse and beyond, be it human, animal, automobile or none of the above; when the background picture changes, an alarm system reports it immediately, and then provides a clear video picture as proof.’

But there’s no enforcing the installation of such systems as they come at a price, of course. So, ascertaining that well-trained onsite officers enjoy the backup of experienced control-room teams must be a priority for estate managers when contracting security services.