Printed from the blog of Lori Greene, AHC/CDC, CCPR, FDAI
Email:, Blog: or

Apr 01 2015

WW: PSA? Really??

Category: School Security,Wordless WednesdayLori @ 12:00 pm Comments (19)

I’m at the BHMA Codes and Government Affairs meeting in sunny Fort Lauderdale, and the “public service announcement” below was just shown during our discussion about codes that pertain to the use of barricade devices in schools.  It illustrates the marketing methods used by some of the manufacturers of these locking devices.  I will remain Wordless, but you don’t have to!

Previous Post: | Next Post:

19 Responses to “WW: PSA? Really??”

  1. Lee Francisco says:

    So the warranty states:
    3. Anchorman Inc. shall have no obligation under this limited warranty or otherwise if:

    (ii) The ACT Device is not installed in accordance with all applicable building, health, safety, fire, or other
    applicable codes or regulations

    That right there should make it not code compliant in most buildings as this requires two motions to exit the opening.

  2. lach says:

    How would that have been any different than the electric strike lock if it had actually closed? It would take quite as much effort to get that open as a floor bolt. And I guarantee if the intruder took any time to research the school as I’m sure most already have prior knowledge of the facility then he would know where to get one of those slide under devices (either the manufacturer would sell him one or he’d make his own). Making it less safe than a key and lock classroom security lock. But that just might be my take on the whole situation.

  3. Jeff Tock says:

    First mistake, the school did not have a secured front entrance. He walked in without having to buzz in. I wonder how Coca Cola feels about their name being on the napkin dispensers at 2:04. 2:08, and 2:16. This type of marketing is in really bad taste, especially the scene where the intruder is shot.

  4. Eric says:

    “Make it tough for the enemy to get in and you can’t get out.” ~ Murphy’s Law of Combat #29.

  5. Eric says:

    It’s a shame the manufacturer is using fear to sell a product.

  6. Austin B says:

    How is this any different than a barrel bolt?!?

    All it would take to render this code-violating product non-functioning is a small rock. I can guarantee that, being in a school, it would not take long for the hole to be filled with enough crud from the bottom of shoes for this to happen.

    As a parent, I’d also like to state how disgusted I am at this company’s use of fear imagery to hock it’s product.

    As a member of the hardware industry, I just have to shake my head.

    • Ron says:

      may i suggest writing to them and expressing the same sentiments ? 🙂

      • Lori says:

        That has already been done, to no avail. I can’t blame them – they’re trying to sell a product and if a local code or fire marshal allows it, they are free to sell it. I’m sure they think their marketing is realistic.

  7. Marcus Muirheade says:

    The real crime here is the device itself. Using a real-life scenario is not bad; that stuff really happens. However, the “stick in the door” device would be perfect for a troubled person to use as a way of barricading himself in the room, with or without victims, and my experience with first responders using something as simple and well-known as a Knox box doesn’t give me any confidence that they would or could properly deploy their magic wand to enter properly under duress. I don’t like this.

  8. Chuck Park says:

    Wow. I was hoping that this was Lori’s idea of an April Fool’s joke, but, unfortunately, I see that it is all too real.

    I agree with Lach that it would be too easy to defeat it.
    And also agree with Austin, that even if it was legally, ethically, and morally okay to use this device, its floor prep would have to go on a preventative maintenance schedule to ensure that the strike/hole didn’t get packed with dirt, floor wax, etc.

  9. Thomas Norman, CPP/PSP/CSC says:

    This ad is just so irresponsible and abhorrent on so many levels.
    – Completely non-code compliant.
    – The Germanwings mass homicide and makes it abundantly clear that if the threat is on the inside of the room, a device like this assures 30 victims of the killer.

    How horrible. Use a terrifying video to sell a product that can contribute to the deaths of school children, paid for by loving parents who contribute money to what they thought was a good cause.

  10. Bryan McKeehan says:

    Great responses, all of them! Still amazes me that inventors / designers / manufacturers don’t figure out these negative / failing points before they get this far.

  11. Pete Schifferli says:

    The Active Crisis Tool (ACT) is yet another well-intentioned apparatus devised by some imbecile with a total lack of understanding of the many complex issues involved and should be declared unlawful for use. My two cents.

  12. Eric T says:

    It is essentially a plunger stop with a key override. Again, thanks for the effort.
    Has anyone here taken the opportunity to write to ACT to let them know how many codes they violate by using this product?

    • Chuck Park says:

      Eric, check the comments section on the Youtube page for this video.

      • Eric T says:

        Thanks Chuck. I didn’t think to look there. I’m not a frequent YouTube visitor.
        I did take the liberty to write to Jeffrey C last night. He replied very quickly with the same arguments from his “white paper”. He truly believes he has a code compliant product.

  13. Jerry Richmond, AHC/CDC says:

    I agree with everyone… the tool itself is not code compliant, nor is it a good solution. Heck, even our best hardware and best intentions don’t amount to anything when an “assailant” is hell-bent on killing. I have previously ranted about how easy it is to commit horrible acts of murder without stepping one foot into a school. I won’t repeat myself on specifics, but all the well intentions and physical electro-mechanical hardware, security systems, card readers, cameras, security guards, intercom systems, etc. are meaningless to the patient, calculating killer.
    There are good people out there… concerned parents who want to protect their children and school boards who must, by threat of a potential lawsuit, take action, or suffer the monetary consequences. They become ripe fruit that can be easily plucked from the tree of common sense and security by these fear mongers… oh, excuse me… these “experts”, with their clever inventions and tools. They do not leave blood on the walls or floors. No, they massacre our school district budgets and wallets and we have a false sense of security. How horrible is that?
    Don’t get me wrong… I am sincerely grateful for law enforcement and I have no issue that some, as entrepreneurs, are trying to do something to help. My real displeasure is with those who deliberately take advantage of fear and turn it into profit. They have blood on their hands without actually pulling the trigger or stabbing.

  14. Joel Niemi says:

    As Lee Franscisco pointed out, the disclaimer – “we’re not liable if this product is used contrary to laws and codes” could literally mean, “we’re not liable”, since it doesn’t comply.

    Kind of like the insurance agent’s phrase “You are fully covered, unless you are alone or with someone”.

    It may, unfortunately, take an incident or two, where victims were unable to exit, to roll this trend back. Even then, there will be people to whom the message didn’t get out.

Leave a Reply