On Monday, April 10, in broad daylight, in a café in the tourist area of Tulum, Mexico, David Gonzalez Cuellar, a businessman from Monterrey , was killed when his escort used his firearm to defend him from assailants who wanted to steal his luxury Rolex watch. The Tulum shooting is an unfortunate example that shows that the indiscriminate implementation of firearms in executive protection often significantly increases risks instead of reducing them.
In this case, the initial risk of losing a watch turned into the loss of the executive’s life. It also recalls the tragedy of Mexican businessman Adolfo Lagos, who died in a shootout when his escorts tried to save him from being robbed of his bicycle.
The Lesson from the Tulum Shooting
Protection services are hired to reduce risks and save lives, but in practice, as we can see, it often happens the opposite. This is due to a great lack of knowledge on the part of all involved, but mainly by the users of the service. Executives often believe that by having an armed companion, all their security problems magically disappear without the need for any other protection measures or precautions. Likewise, there are still many advisors and security directors who think very similarly.
I have heard various arguments that say that guns are used in 98% of attacks on executives, so their implementation is essential in protection tasks. Obviously, this is false. The fact that firearms are very effective for attack does not mean that they are effective for defense, as we could see in this unfortunate example. Also, in a historical analysis of 124 cases of attacks on prominent public figures, in the last 123 years and in 60 countries, firearms were only effective in 4.03% of the cases.
The famous saying used as an argument, referring to firearms, “it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it,” is refuted in the case of the Tulum Shooting, as the first problem is to know when the use of the gun is really needed and when not. If David Gonzalez’s protector had not had or attempted to use his gun in these conditions, the result would most likely have been less tragic.
Having armed companions as the only protection measure has been shown to be ineffective and dangerous. In the last 9 months, in Mexico alone, 7 executives and 8 of their protective agents were murdered.
Carlos Bildmart, Salvador Llamas, Sully Ponce, Gabriela Sanchez, Fernando Urbano Castillo, Jesus Alberto Navarro, and David Gonzalez Cuellar are the names that make up the tragic and alarming list of executive protection users who lost their lives since last August in Mexico, along with eight of our colleagues.
To prevent this list from getting even longer, we must reformulate executive protection services, starting with intense and constant training of users, i.e., executives and their families. Likewise, update and reinforce the training of advisors and security directors in executive protection matters, as they are the key factors in implementing these services. Executive protection must adopt new forms, methods, and tools and stop being identified only with armed companions and close protection.
Conclusion
Finally, it is important to underline once again that we are not against the use of guns in our profession, but against their indiscriminate use as the only resource.
If guns are implemented in an operation, it will depend on a careful study in each of the cases that determines whether they are necessary, whether they reduce or increase risks in each particular case, and what the protocols of their application would be in each specific operation.
