Charlie Kirk murder: Another failure of the close protection concept
11/09/2025
No Comments
Read More "
On Tuesday, March 11, in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, ministerial police intercepted a businessman identified as Alan Perez on the San Miguel de Allende-Dolores Hidalgo highway in order to serve an arrest warrant. The businessman tried to escape with the help of his bodyguards, who, while fleeing, fired at the agents. The agents repelled the aggression and, in the shooting, two of the businessman's daughters were wounded; unfortunately, one of them, aged seven, died.
This tragic incident highlights a debate we have long held. There is a common argument when talking about firearms: "It is better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them". However, the real question is: do we really know when to need them and when not to?
In many incidents involving armed agents, such as the cases of businessmen Adolfo Lagos, David Gonzalez or Lidia Villalba, who were killed by their own protectors in crossfire while trying to defend them from assaults, we observed that weapons were misused. In those cases, the protectees may have lost a bicycle or a watch, but not their lives. In the Guanajuato case, there would have been an arrest, but a seven-year-old girl would still be alive.
This unfortunate event also confirms once again what we have repeated on several occasions: weapons in or around unarmored vehicles raise the risks instead of reducing them. In this event, the vehicle was clearly not armored, which led to the tragic outcome.
Firearms work very well in a practice or executive protective display, but in reality, the consequences of their use are often tragic. To reiterate, this is not to say that they are useless in our profession, because, despite their low effectiveness (3,65%), they can save lives.
https://ivanivanovich.com/es/armas-de-fuego-en-la-proteccion-ejecutiva/
The big problem is that guns are not used as a last resort, as they should be, but as the only resort. This means that, whatever the problem is, the protector is going to use the gun when he should and when he should not. And here are the consequences.
As Abraham Maslow said, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." This is due to poor training in the use of weapons in executive protection.
Before teaching them how to shoot, protectors must first:
1. To know the effectiveness of firearms in executive protection:
Understand that their successful use is minimal and that their inappropriate use can aggravate the situation.
2. To know Tueller's rule:
This rule proves with scientific rigor that if the attack occurs at a distance of less than 6.5 meters, the protector does not have time to draw his weapon. Since the vast majority of attacks on executives occur at short distances, this explains in part the poor effectiveness of the weapon mentioned above.
3. Understand how the firearm can elevate risks rather than reduce them:
Identify under what operational conditions the use of weapons can worsen the situation, as was the case in this unfortunate incident involving the use of weapons in unarmored vehicles.
4. Mastering advance protection techniques:
- Intelligence
- Counter-surveillance
- Protective logistics
- Baseline control
- Cognitive operations
Only then will the protector be ready to go out to the range and practice shooting, as he will know the most important things: the weapon's ranges, when to use it and when not to use it.
It is essential to change the concept of education and training in executive protection so that tragedies like the one in Guanajuato do not happen again. In this way, executive protection will be much safer for both protectees and protectors.
Executive Protection Academy
EN 
ES