“Sounds like they had all the security the law allowed.”
Perhaps, but they had a very bad security PLAN with a known “weak link” (a lady returning after lunch with a toddler, who opens the door with a code.)
Being that Charlie Hebdo was a known terror target, this is inexcusable. ANYBODY with the code should not have been such an obvious “weak link.” My guess is that terrorist surveillance revealed the weak link, and their way in.
Their plan depended on getting inside and going upstairs BEFORE going loud with the AK-47s.
And it worked perfectly.
They had “security” officers at the front door apparently, are those the unarmed guys who fled or were killed?
Yes, but that is not the woman’s fault.
Attributing idealogies consistent with an American way of thinking to a French woman in this regard is not appropriate.
This very scenario may be playing out in the USA very soon...and I’m afraid the results will be much the same.
Military installations (disarm employees and servicemembers via regulation) with only one layer of defense (main gate). Once a perp is in, they have a lot of time in which to commit mayhem and destruction.
We’ve already seen this at Ft. Hood and the Navy yard...yet, nothing has changed.
OMG... hindsight and all that but still...
Even an old rentacop behind bulletproof glass with a revolver and an alarm button would have been a deterrent...
Was someone saying something about cost?