Australian Security Guard Standing Trial After Shooting Robber

[1stWatch]

A security guard in Syndney is standing trial for murder after shooting a man she stated hit her on the back of the head with knuckledusters and robbed her of $45,000. The trial is set to begin on July 17, 2006.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18026883%255E29277,00.html

[Mr. Security]

Hey 1stWatch....How about some good examples. We get enough of the bad ones already. :(

[1stWatch]

I just post what I find. Some of these are examples of what we don't need, some of what we do, and some that are still under investigation and could go either way.

[Mr. Security]

I just post what I find. Some of these are examples of what we don't need, some of what we do, and some that are still under investigation and could go either way.

Fair enough. I checked your threads and you have a point. There are some good examples listed as well. :) I just got overwhelmed with 3 bad examples in a row. :eek:

[1stWatch]

Our law enforcement counterpart site has a whole section of bad news called "Internal Affairs".

[Mr. Security]

Our law enforcement counterpart site has a whole section of bad news called "Internal Affairs".

Maybe some of them should start reading it..... :D

[1stWatch]

Maybe some of them should start reading it..... :D

According to what I've read in there, some of those guys would be the topic of such stories themselves. There are several in there who I doubt are law enforcement officers at all.

[wisconsinite]

We've all heard of those reality TV shows, "when animals attack", and the like. How about a new spin-off of that concept for a reality TV show..."When Security Guards attack"

[N. A. Corbier]

It seems the Crown does not believe, or does not provide, that the private citizen (Brown) was in danger of having her life terminated by the attacker.

Do people from Australia have the right to defend themselves with deadly force from an attacker who is out to kill them?

Would you consider someone attacking you with brass knuckles, striking you in the back of the head, a lethal threat?

[wisconsinite]

That would depend on one thing. Are YOU any good at defending yourself with empty-handed countermeasures? Afterall, brassknuckles might hurt more, but it's still a hand-to-hand combat situation. Anybody who has had even a little bit of DAAT training, knows at least, the bare-minimum of knowledge needed to attack back.

[N. A. Corbier]

I think this depends on prevailing DT theory. To me, the person is armed with a weapon (brass knuckles), and constitutes a higher threat than someone who is actively resisting without a weapon.

In this case, more force than decentralization is needed, either lethal or active countermeasures depending on how badly your losing the fight.

Remember, too, in some jurisdictions, OC spray is answerable lethal force when applied against an armed professional. This is what Florida law enforcement officers and security officers are taught - depending on their level of OC resistance - they may be justified in using lethal force to protect their weapon from the assailiant.

[ACP01]

You have to remember that Austrailia banned a lot of firearms so they do have a negative outlook on their use by civilians.

Now as to her shooting him......
Most places in the U.S. the defense would look at the issue of Disparity of Force. There are three examples of that here....
1 Attack from behind that would result in disorientation allowing the aggressor to continue the attack, seriously injure and possibly even kill the victim
2 Male attacking female even if she is trained (bigger, stronger, faster)
3 The attacker being 25 and the guard 42 (also stronger, faster + quicker reflexes)

Also wouldn't she be responsible to try to engage to stop the robber from leaving otherwise why was she armed?

but then again the subjects of the Crown are after all just that...subjects not citizens. No offence meant to anyone.

[wisconsinite]

I don't know about that Corbier. Using lethal, or near lethal force against brass knuckles? Call me passive, or a wuss, but using near lethal force defending brass knuckles, just might end you up on the wrong side of a courtroom. Do you want to be the plaintiff or the defendant?
Or at least follow Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Now...if a perp has a baseball bat, then, obviously you're going to need to step up your game and bust out the OC spray.

[N. A. Corbier]

I don't know about that Corbier. Using lethal, or near lethal force against brass knuckles? Call me passive, or a wuss, but using near lethal force defending brass knuckles, just might end you up on the wrong side of a courtroom. Do you want to be the plaintiff or the defendant?
Or at least follow Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Now...if a perp has a baseball bat, then, obviously you're going to need to step up your game and bust out the OC spray.

I'd have to chalk it up to different training standards. Officer.com usually gets a thread about "Is OC a deadly force threat?" Alot of northern cops say, "No, it is not," and alot of southern cops say, "I need more bullets."


Keep in mind that if the offender has a baseball bat, many people could consider that a lethal force situation. The person has a weapon that is capable of causing you great bodily injury or death.

I am not a fan of "equal or lesser force." I am an fan of reasonable force to the threat. If the person is armed with a weapon that is capable of doing you GBH/Death, then they are a deadly threat.

[wisconsinite]

OK Corbier...baseball bat? If you can stay far enough away from him, he won't get a shot in. It's "fight or flight". Maybe a sidearm is most logical to most s/o's or LEO's....but shouldn't common sense dictate use of OC...or a taser gun? (These units fire small dart-like electrodes attached to wires propelled by the Taser unit.)

[N. A. Corbier]

OK Corbier...baseball bat? If you can stay far enough away from him, he won't get a shot in. It's "fight or flight". Maybe a sidearm is most logical to most s/o's or LEO's....but shouldn't common sense dictate use of OC...or a taser gun? (These units fire small dart-like electrodes attached to wires propelled by the Taser unit.)

Taser would be an effective weapon, however, citizens are prohibited from using them. This leaves:

Retreating: This may, or may not, be legally and morally acceptable. If the threat is engaging you and another victim, then the threat must be neutralized before he causes (more) harm. If you can retreat, what prevents the attacker from charging?

OC: OC is not a wonder weapon. You must close within its effective (not maximum) range, be able to place a shot onto the threat, and be ready to quickly close the gap.

Baton: Baton requires you to get in close enough to trade strikes.

Firearm: Firearm is used to cover the suspect until verbal commands are obeyed, and the weapon is dropped.

I have witnessed, as have countless others, offenders who have been sprayed with OC who shrug the effects off, or become even more combative.

If OC is deployed, and the suspect barrels through it swinging at you, what then?

If someone is wielding a baseball bat and appears ready to use your head for batting practice,

[1stWatch]

It seems to me this person was in danger of her life. If she was robbed of $45,000, or the equivalent, then she was probably carrying a money bag.
Considering the size, weight, and age of each person involved and the fact he hit her with brass knuckles on the back of the head , a spot that could result in death if hit there by a palm strike or elbow strike, she was already in fear of her life. If that was Texas, she wouldn't have even faced arrest, probably even no-billed by a grand jury. It sounds like people in that part of the world do not have the legal right to protect themselves if she is being tried for murder in the first place.

[wisconsinite]

Corbier, there are a lot of variables and hypotheticals in this scenario. Yes, we both know, WI law prohibits the use of tasers by civilians, and OC is limited to a certain percentage. But "if" you were permitted to use a taser, would you rather want to zap a perp, or use your sidearm and hope he complies to verbal commands? Which is more satisfying, when adrenaline, fear, and anger is running through your veins?

[Bill Warnock]

N.A., $45,000 stolen by force, brass knuckles, subject is fleeing with the fruits of a felony and still armed. Shooting a fleeing felon who may present a risk of harming others, is justifiable homicide is it not?
I am sure the person with the brass knuckles was not a choirboy.
I've seen what brass knuckles can do to a person, not pretty.
N.A. and all readers, please share your thoughts.
After the recent riots and especially after the cartoon incident, that country may be playing it extra cautious.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[wisconsinite]

I cannot speak for every state, because every state's laws vary. What I can do, is quote my OWN state, of WI. According to WI state statute 939.49, quotes:

939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
939.49(1)
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(In laymans terms, homicide is not justified, to prevent retail theft)

In the case of personal attacks, I cite WI state statute 939.48, which says:

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
939.48(1)
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(In laymans terms, homicide is justified only if you are POSITIVE death is imminent.)

[N. A. Corbier]

The term "reasonably believes" is addressed in a United States Supreme Court decision, which I'm going to have to go find sooner or later so I can properly cite it.

Most states had a "lesser or equal force" concept for use of force, including deadly force. This decision outlined that a person may use the level of force, based on the information the person had at hand, that is reasonable to prevent or terminate attack against them.

In as such, we have "reasonably believes." A reasonable person can believe that someone attacking them over great sums of money is out to do them great bodily injury or death. In as such, at the time, they are justified in using whatever force is required to terminate the attack.

When I say "you may use deadly force," I do not exclude other methods. However, it should be stressed that the threat or application of lesser force in a lethal force encounter may not be enough to terminate the threat.

When someone is armed with a weapon, and seeks to do you harm, it can be reasonably assumed that they are trying to kill you. Why else would they attack you, and keep attacking you, even after you took steps to retreat and/or give verbal warnings to stop?

As far as the scenerio, if I had a taser available, and someone was coming at me with a lead pipe, a baseball bat, a baton, or another impact weapon, I would use the taser IF I could have immediate access to lethal cover - either from another officer, or from my own weapon.

Ask yourself, would you attempt to use OC on a person wielding a knife? Knives, for the most part, are now accepted in law enforcement circles for the deadly weapons that they are. Other bludgon or impact weapons also have the capability of causing death or great bodily harm.

A perfect example of this is the police officer who uses their expandable baton on a suspect, the suspect resists and seizes control of the baton. The officer, being struck repeatedly in the head, uses lethal force to terminate the threat.

[wisconsinite]

Maybe, people have different definitions of the term "reasonable"? The judicial system isnt perfect. There's plenty of grey areas that are open to, dare I say, misinterpretation. Only the Wisconsin Supreme Courts can dictate for sure.

[IrishGuard]

You have to remember that Austrailia banned a lot of firearms so they do have a negative outlook on their use by civilians...............

Yes they certainly do have a negative outlook on the use of firearms and quite rightly so.

However, every person in Australia has the right to protect themselves and their property, but the force used must be in proportion to the offence being committed and in the case of the use of lethal force the person must believe on reasonable grounds that their life or the life of another is in immediate danger.

So, in the case of an Armed Robbery, the offender is pointing a weapon at the victim and the victim believes that their life is in danger and in response to the threat, the victim kills the offender, then the Courts would find that the killing of the offender was justifiable in the circumstances.

However, and here in my opinion is the difference beween Australia and the US; if the victim has complied with the Armed Robber's demand, has handed over the money and the offender is running away from the scene, the threat to life is over and the victim or say a Security Guard or even a Police Officer shoots and kills the fleeing offender in the back, then the person who fired the shot is in big trouble before the Courts and would definately be in need a good lawyer.

Another recent case in Australia which is a good example is where a Prison Officer was escorting a prisoner to a Public Hospital for treatment, the prisoner did a runner and the Prison Officer shot him. The Prison Officer was brought before the Courts and was committed for Trial and it was touch and go as to whether the officer was going to be able to prove that the fleeing prisoner posed a danger to the life of the officer or others.

The Prison Officer was subsequently acquitted of all charges because he was able to convince the Court that he was in fear of his life.

[N. A. Corbier]

Yes they certainly do have a negative outlook on the use of firearms and quite rightly so.

However, every person in Australia has the right to protect themselves and their property, but the force used must be in proportion to the offence being committed and in the case of the use of lethal force the person must believe on reasonable grounds that their life or the life of another is in immediate danger.

So, in the case of an Armed Robbery, the offender is pointing a weapon at the victim and the victim believes that their life is in danger and in response to the threat, the victim kills the offender, then the Courts would find that the killing of the offender was justifiable in the circumstances.

However, and here in my opinion is the difference beween Australia and the US; if the victim has complied with the Armed Robber's demand, has handed over the money and the offender is running away from the scene, the threat to life is over and the victim or say a Security Guard or even a Police Officer shoots and kills the fleeing offender in the back, then the person who fired the shot is in big trouble before the Courts and would definately be in need a good lawyer.

Another recent case in Australia which is a good example is where a Prison Officer was escorting a prisoner to a Public Hospital for treatment, the prisoner did a runner and the Prison Officer shot him. The Prison Officer was brought before the Courts and was committed for Trial and it was touch and go as to whether the officer was going to be able to prove that the fleeing prisoner posed a danger to the life of the officer or others.

The Prison Officer was subsequently acquitted of all charges because he was able to convince the Court that he was in fear of his life.

Only a few US states allow a peace officer the authority to summarily execute a convicted felon attempting flight. Most derive their lethal force statute from English Common Law, which allows a citizen to use lethal force to stop the escape of a fleeing criminal when the seriousness of their crime creates a danger to the "community," and ther is no other reasonable method available to stop them. The average "What does this mean" is when you stop someone from trying to kill someone else, they fight back and escape your attempt at submission, and at the time you reasonably believe they will be able to commit the crime you tried to stop before any other method will work to stop them. Ie: Calling for backup/police, using less lethal methods, raising an alarm in the community, etc. At that time, and only at that time, may you shoot at or otherwise try to kill the offender.

There's been alot of case law and legal theory supporting "shooting offenders in the back," when they are armed with dangerous weapons such as firearms or other projectile launchers. I was trained, in accordance with the State of Florida Statewide Firearms Course for Security and Private Investigators, that you cannot shoot people in the back, even if armed.

However, there is a ton of DT training and case law supporting that a person while facing away from you, so armed, is capable of turning 45 degrees and shooting you in under 30/100ths of a second. That's from the carry, not the ready, position. This is faster than the human eye can percieve.

[ozsecuritychic]

hey all new to this forum.the lady you are talking about did quite a few things wrong.1 she was at the same place at the same time everyday,
2.she refused to be interviewed by police but gave a tv interview for a lot of money,
3,when asked by interviewer why did she shoot him she said he hit me so i shot him,she should of said self defense,
4,he was leaving and no longer a threat to her,.she may face a suspended jail sentence but she probably wont get off.

[1stWatch]

hey all new to this forum.the lady you are talking about did quite a few things wrong.1 she was at the same place at the same time everyday,
2.she refused to be interviewed by police but gave a tv interview for a lot of money,
3,when asked by interviewer why did she shoot him she said he hit me so i shot him,she should of said self defense,
4,he was leaving and no longer a threat to her,.she may face a suspended jail sentence but she probably wont get off.

A use of force incident happened in Dallas in 2004 where two security guards shot and killed two 18 year olds who allegedly were trying to take their pistols away from them to kill them after pepper spraying them. They ended up being crucified by negative publicity because of two things - they were not tactically proficient and they did not know how to testify. These are both issues for which I blame the company they worked for for not providing adequate training.

After the trial was over, one was sentenced to manslaughter, a lesser charge than murder, because some of his bullets which he was blindly firing after he was pepper sprayed hit one subject in the back. The bullets in the back showed the intent to shoot a fleeing suspect. A non-police officer here does not have the authority to shoot a fleeing suspect. He ended up getting probation and no prison time, but is not able to work in security again and has a felony record now.
The other guard was completely exonerated because he was able to articulate and show tangible evidence in court how his life was immediately in danger during the incident. Understandably he is also not working in security anymore even though his license was not revoked. However, if he did go back to another security company he would have a terrible time finding someone who would hire him.

[crankloud]

I am a firm believer in avoiding dangerous situations.Oc spray,batons,duress alarms,firearms are all fine after you have been attacked,why not try to avoid being attacked.I have worked 3 years in a psyciatric hospital,i have never had a staff member injured while i have been on duty and have never been injured myself. I am constantly watching patients and staff to avoid incidents.I believe there are many guards out there that this incident could noy have happened too.

[1stWatch]

I am a firm believer in avoiding dangerous situations.Oc spray,batons,duress alarms,firearms are all fine after you have been attacked,why not try to avoid being attacked.I have worked 3 years in a psyciatric hospital,i have never had a staff member injured while i have been on duty and have never been injured myself. I am constantly watching patients and staff to avoid incidents.I believe there are many guards out there that this incident could noy have happened too.

Exactly - choose your battles. If you don't have to fight, why do it? Just last night as a matter of fact, someone tried to get into my car at a red light. Instead of opening the door to engage this person, I just hit the gas and drove away from him.

[ACP01]

Exactly - choose your battles. If you don't have to fight, why do it? Just last night as a matter of fact, someone tried to get into my car at a red light. Instead of opening the door to engage this person, I just hit the gas and drove away from him.

Now what would you have done if it had been the type of guy that just smashed the window and tried dragging you thru it? or leaned in and started pounding away?

Yes I know that awareness would help prevent this but you DID say they actually attempted to get in which means they were in contact with the vehicle.

Smoetimes you just HAVE to fight.

[1stWatch]

Now what would you have done if it had been the type of guy that just smashed the window and tried dragging you thru it? or leaned in and started pounding away?

Yes I know that awareness would help prevent this but you DID say they actually attempted to get in which means they were in contact with the vehicle.

Smoetimes you just HAVE to fight.

Close quarters double-tap to the chest...

[crankloud]

I agree entirely with ACP01 sometimes you have to stay and fight, i can't walk away from nurses that are treating patients. Always be alert for danger,always watch the suspect, patient, criminal. Never become complacient, Always watch your back. These are common sense rules used when engaging violent persons. The best way to defend yourself is self defence,no denying. But remember as long as you don't cause death or grevious bodily harm.(That's the general rule in Aus).

[IrishGuard]

A security guard in Syndney is standing trial for murder after shooting a man she stated hit her on the back of the head with knuckledusters and robbed her of $45,000. The trial is set to begin on July 17, 2006.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18026883%255E29277,00.html

Here is the result of the trial,

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20025610-421,00.html

[Mr. Security]

"Killer Guard Walks Free"

Nothing like a little unbiased journalism. :rolleyes:

[N. A. Corbier]

Her defense is something people should memorize.

"Opening the defence case, Tony Bellanto QC said his client had acted in a state of "automatism", during which she was "not under voluntary control" and could not have formed the necessary intent to commit a crime."

[aka Bull]

"Killer Guard Walks Free"

Nothing like a little unbiased journalism. :rolleyes:

Who needs a criminal justice system when you can be guilty by headline! :rolleyes:

[1stWatch]

According to an additional news story, Karen Brown has expressed major interest in reforming the security industry, stating the ordeal "wrecked her life" and that the security industry "needs to be cleaned up". I believe I am in total agreement with that. I will only believe it when I see it happen though. Yes I am cynical.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20080719-1242,00.html?from=rss

[aka Bull]

According to an additional news story, Karen Brown has expressed major interest in reforming the security industry, stating the ordeal "wrecked her life" and that the security industry "needs to be cleaned up". I believe I am in total agreement with that. I will only believe it when I see it happen though. Yes I am cynical.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20080719-1242,00.html?from=rss

I believe you'll find all of us in support of cleaning up the industry.