Should the government be held civilly responsible when they fail to provide adequate security in the face of a known threat? https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/should-the-government-be-held-civilly-responsible-when-they-fail-to-provide-adequate-security-in-the-face-of-a-known-threat <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Under current policy, law and regulation, the Military forbids its members from carrying privately owned weapons in self-defense while on a Federal installation. Service members and family are only allowed to implement passive security measures.<br /><br /> This places the onus of providing security for all on that military installation at the feet of the Commander, CIC, and those in congress that allow this to be the law of the land. Should the Military, or governmental leaders be held civilly responsible when the provided security proves to be inadequate? Recent history has shown the security provided by the government to its employee’s and their family members is not sufficient. <br /><br />If a civilian company was to do the same, survivors or family members would likely be victorious in a civil suit brought against that company who failed to provide sufficient or even reasonable security when a clear threat was known about in advance. <br /><br />Thoughts? Wed, 03 Dec 2014 14:17:21 -0500 Should the government be held civilly responsible when they fail to provide adequate security in the face of a known threat? https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/should-the-government-be-held-civilly-responsible-when-they-fail-to-provide-adequate-security-in-the-face-of-a-known-threat <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Under current policy, law and regulation, the Military forbids its members from carrying privately owned weapons in self-defense while on a Federal installation. Service members and family are only allowed to implement passive security measures.<br /><br /> This places the onus of providing security for all on that military installation at the feet of the Commander, CIC, and those in congress that allow this to be the law of the land. Should the Military, or governmental leaders be held civilly responsible when the provided security proves to be inadequate? Recent history has shown the security provided by the government to its employee’s and their family members is not sufficient. <br /><br />If a civilian company was to do the same, survivors or family members would likely be victorious in a civil suit brought against that company who failed to provide sufficient or even reasonable security when a clear threat was known about in advance. <br /><br />Thoughts? SGM Erik Marquez Wed, 03 Dec 2014 14:17:21 -0500 2014-12-03T14:17:21-05:00 Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 3 at 2014 3:40 PM https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/should-the-government-be-held-civilly-responsible-when-they-fail-to-provide-adequate-security-in-the-face-of-a-known-threat?n=353454&urlhash=353454 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>The gov per se should not be totally liable, negligent people should be at least 50% personally liable. SGM Private RallyPoint Member Wed, 03 Dec 2014 15:40:27 -0500 2014-12-03T15:40:27-05:00 Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 3 at 2014 3:47 PM https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/should-the-government-be-held-civilly-responsible-when-they-fail-to-provide-adequate-security-in-the-face-of-a-known-threat?n=353463&urlhash=353463 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Good question, <a class="dark-link bold-link" role="profile-hover" data-qtip-container="body" data-id="365577" data-source-page-controller="question_response_contents" href="/profiles/365577-sgm-erik-marquez">SGM Erik Marquez</a>. This kind of ties in with the question about the Iran Hostage Crisis and compensation of those folks who were held 444 days (I think it was 444). There's a discussion thread on that here on RallyPoint. I learned that those folks were paid $22,000 apiece, in the mid 80s, but that seems like nothing nowadays. Some would argue they were there voluntarily, others would say their being taken hostage was the result of a "failure" of our government (/embassy) to protect them. And there's the tie-in. <br /><br />Here's the thread on the Iran issue: <a target="_blank" href="https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/are-we-hurting-our-own-with-iran-s-deal">https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/are-we-hurting-our-own-with-iran-s-deal</a> <div class="pta-link-card answers-template-image type-default"> <div class="pta-link-card-picture"> <img src="https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/link_data_pictures/images/000/005/714/qrc/fb_share_logo.png?1443028352"> </div> <div class="pta-link-card-content"> <p class="pta-link-card-title"> <a target="blank" href="https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/are-we-hurting-our-own-with-iran-s-deal">Are we hurting our own with Iran&#39;s deal? | RallyPoint</a> </p> <p class="pta-link-card-description">For Former U.S. Hostages, A Deal With Iran Also Remains ElusiveYour thoughts on Iran and its former hostages.https://www.readfulapp.com/site/Headlines/?tag=US&amp;item=5479c21706c4b03a6b11d799(Sent from Headlines)</p> </div> <div class="clearfix"></div> </div> CW5 Private RallyPoint Member Wed, 03 Dec 2014 15:47:31 -0500 2014-12-03T15:47:31-05:00 2014-12-03T14:17:21-05:00