Off Duty Texas Security Guard Shoots Car Thief

[mh892]

[QUOTE=S/O245]The reason LEOS support it they know first hand what criminals do against lawful people. I know many many law enforcement officers and none are against the right to bear arms, ccw etc. For some reason rich people in politics are tho. And it makes me wonder just what he/she may or may not be involved in.
QUOTE]

Right on S/O. I remember some years back, a prominent US Representitive, Senator, whatever he was......was steadfast against citizens having guns, made a big deal of it. Then one day we hear he had used "his" personal handgun to shoot a teenager that had taken a dip in "his" swimming pool.

[Mr. Security]

Very good textbook thinking (edit) Black Caesar, and accurate statements. And some around here may say "thats good for city folks".

But out here in the real world; No local police where I live. May take a deputy 30 minutes to an hour to respond to a call, sometimes longer. We value our families and our lives. We also value our real and personal property. We work for our personal property. We are the ones who loose when someone steals our property.

Law Enforcement, judiciaries, news media, etc. have no concern about me or my property and have no intention of replacing my loss. They are concerned only with the letter of the law and enhansement of thier own careers.

So, here in what we refer to as the real world, we have to take care of ourselves. You steal something of mine while I'm present and I'm going to take care of the matter post haste. Action depending on circumstances. Stealing a watermelon will get you warned but not shot. You steal my means of transportation or my well pump and you "will" find you had a real bad idea. And 911 'will' be notified.

This is not barbaric nor uncivilized thinking. It is survival. And has been the method of personal and property protection for thousands of years. We do not intend to end anyone's life over property, but if it happens.......well, the thief chose his actions and is responsable for the outcome.

Does your area have less crime than other areas where people might not agree with your stance?

[S/O245]

I think LE cares for people if not they would not even be in that type of work. As for media they dont and people in politics some of them dont. In KY i know a person which dont even have a CCW permit yet. Yet the police officers know this old man and know he dont have a permit. But they dont arrest him which state law says they are suppose to. The reason the 2nd admendment already gives a lawful person that right. And they dont care.

A Insturctor i had was a Cincinnati PO. He was assigned to a detail one day for transit line. He seen a two men and could tell one had a firearm the guy was in coveralls. He walked up to him put his hand on the gun said come to the security office to talk with me. Turned out the man had a KY CCW. However at the time Ohio did not have a CCW law. He didnt arrest the man. He unloaded the gun and gave it back to him outside. And told him he wished we had a law like that. 5 yrs later we got CCW in ohio. But again by law he could of arrested him. This also may have ended his CCW permit in KY. The ones carrying that are good we dont have to worry about as much as you do the felones carrying stolen ones or other weapons.

So again i think LE cares. But also people in government try and tie the hands of the men & women in blue. They are the problems. And they dont deserve to be in office in my book.

Stay Safe All

[HotelSecurity]

Yoy wrote "I dont trust the gun control lobby when they say no lawful person should own a firearm or have a ccw permit etc. Then they turn around a push for letting violent killers back on the street."

Can you tell me which gun control lobby is pushing to let violent killers back on the street?

[N. A. Corbier]

Ok, I got to the point where S/O245 says his security company is violating his rights because he has a CCW and wants to carry, but the post is unarmed.

I know of only one state that a security officer may carry a sidearm open or concealed on his citizen CCW, and even then, if the contract is not for armed security, the CCW is not valid.

CCWs are traditionally for self-defense. The Firearms Permit for Private Security is for protection of others. You are there to use deadly force to kill someone who actively threatens the lives of the people you are there to protect, in addition to your own life.

This is why armed security is usually regulated. This "duty to protect with lethal force" is something both public police and private security shares.

It is usually not the company that "violates your rights," as you lose some of those rights by taking on the profession of a security officer, as you are given the public trust to protect life, and the extraordinary authority to openly carry a gun.

[N. A. Corbier]

Yoy wrote "I dont trust the gun control lobby when they say no lawful person should own a firearm or have a ccw permit etc. Then they turn around a push for letting violent killers back on the street."

Can you tell me which gun control lobby is pushing to let violent killers back on the street?

Give someone a few minutes. Most of the senators supporting gun control are also demanding things like lighter sentencing, etc. Its an old party line on both counts.

[mh892]

Does your area have less crime than other areas where people might not agree with your stance?

My personal opinion is yes. We have a very low crime rate in our area. Very little theft, and most of the time it is for penny stuff, but still it is theft. Most of the problems around here are domestic but those matters are between the people involved and thier attorneys.

[Mr. Security]

No Secret

I hate guns (hand guns & non-hunting rifles) because they make it easier for someone to take another's life. The right to bear arms instituted over two centuries ago allowed citizens to protect themselves against governments like Britain w/their Red Coats.

Collecting might be an exception for possessing different types of guns. Otherwise, why do you need one if you don't hunt, or work in LE/security?

I have yet to read a scientific study that proves that you are safer by having a gun in the house or car. I'm sick of the senseless killing that takes place at our schools, workplaces, and on the street. How many cops would be alive today if some nut didn't have a gun?

There are millions if not billions of guns in the world today. Do you feel safer? If so, you wouldn't be carrying for self-defense.

Yes, owning a gun is a right for many people. But I don't have to like it.

[mh892]

I hate guns (hand guns & non-hunting rifles) because they make it easier for someone to take another's life. The right to bear arms instituted over two centuries ago allowed citizens to protect themselves against governments like Britain w/their Red Coats.

Collecting might be an exception for possessing different types of guns. Otherwise, why do you need one if you don't hunt, or work in LE/security?

I have yet to read a scientific study that proves that you are safer by having a gun in the house or car. I'm sick of the senseless killing that takes place at our schools, workplaces, and on the street. How many cops would be alive today if some nut didn't have a gun?

There are millions if not billions of guns in the world today. Do you feel safer? If so, you wouldn't be carrying for self-defense.

Yes, owning a gun is a right for many people. But I don't have to like it.

I respect your opinion and the freedom and right to express yourself. I do not condone injury or death caused by persons controlling a firearm (knives, vehicles, clubs, whatever). Please notice I did not say "caused by firearms". But to argue the point is to go nowhere.

I have had personal experience where using a firearm prevented the bodily injury and possable death of a couple people. I was off duty. Reasoning would not have worked. Had I(or someone else) not been where I was "with" the firearm............ Immediate action was paramount. No time to notify and wait for action from 911.

As for your comment "scientific study". In my opinion a lot of scientific studies are for bean counters. A majority of the time the results of the study seem to favor the researchers ideas/convictions/feelings/political correctness, cetra.

[Mr. Security]

I respect your opinion and the freedom and right to express yourself. I do not condone injury or death caused by persons controlling a firearm (knives, vehicles, clubs, whatever). Please notice I did not say "caused by firearms". But to argue the point is to go nowhere.

I have had personal experience where using a firearm prevented the bodily injury and possable death of a couple people. I was off duty. Reasoning would not have worked. Had I(or someone else) not been where I was "with" the firearm............ Immediate action was paramount. No time to notify and wait for action from 911.

As for your comment "scientific study". In my opinion a lot of scientific studies are for bean counters. A majority of the time the results of the study seem to favor the researchers ideas/convictions/feelings/political correctness, cetra.

Thanks for the respect. Just out of curiosity, what type of weapon, if any, was being used to threaten the "couple people" that you mentioned in your post.

[toxin440]

I respect your opinion and the freedom and right to express yourself. I do not condone injury or death caused by persons controlling a firearm (knives, vehicles, clubs, whatever). Please notice I did not say "caused by firearms". But to argue the point is to go nowhere.

I have had personal experience where using a firearm prevented the bodily injury and possable death of a couple people. I was off duty. Reasoning would not have worked. Had I(or someone else) not been where I was "with" the firearm............ Immediate action was paramount. No time to notify and wait for action from 911.

As for your comment "scientific study". In my opinion a lot of scientific studies are for bean counters. A majority of the time the results of the study seem to favor the researchers ideas/convictions/feelings/political correctness, cetra.

To each their own - we are all adults here and make our own choices. My take on the idea of guns has (im sure) already been said but it's paramout to myself. If I am at home at night sleeping (assume I have a wife and kids) and someone breaks in. Are they there to just steal my TV and leave? Are they there to rape my wife or my children? Are they an escape mental patient that just wants to chop us all up? The point is by the time I were to find out their true intentions it would be too late. I just recently bought my first handgun Sig Sauer 2022 .40 cal, mainly for target shooting but I am getting a concealed license soon. You can outlaw guns but they will ALWAYS exist in the illegal market, and why give the people that do not respect the law an unfair advantage. It's not a fun world when you think that this type of thing happens all the time - good people minding their own business having their lives ruined because of the lowest form of life in the world.

When I bought my gun, I sincerely hope I never have to draw it on anyone and use it to defend myself or property but in this world: "it's either him or me" and I refuse to just turn over and take it because of a criminal.

No matter how "good" our society becomes there will always be people with no respect or conscience about their actions - the only thing these people can understand is hate, pain, and death. Do you think if we chopped people's hands off for stealing we would have so much theft? I guarentee you we wouldnt. I dont see guns or the taking of the hands examples as barbaric - drastic problems call for drastic solutions.

[mh892]

Thanks for the respect. Just out of curiosity, what type of weapon, if any, was being used to threaten the "couple people" that you mentioned in your post.

I'm reasonably sure I see where you are going with the question. It was not a firearm. The implement is immaterial. The intent was obvious. To inflict severe injury that could have ended in death. It was the individual that was responsable for the action. Not the implement.

[FDG06]

I've never once heard of a crime, where the criminal stopped an act of aggression, stopped an immediate attack or ended early his assault, due to a lack of a firearm being present.. (The power of a gun, is in its presence & implied use at the time, not its actual firepower.) Man has always had weapons & tried to create one better/bigger/more powerfull then that of his adversary's, the firearm is simply the the highest obtainable result to date of that objective.

I have carried a firearm(s) in some "official" capacity (Mil/LEO/Tac Teams) for about the past 10yrs. I have drawn one countless times prepared to make a defense of life, to meet or trump a direct threat by observed, percieved or implied weapon or as a show of force in order to gain compliance when it was needed and that act alone always had the desired effect to those on the business end, without exception. I cant say the same thing about the other duty tools I was issued.
Stats wise, most PS individuals will go a lifetime & never actually discharge in the course of duty, the firearm they carry daily.

I've taken direct fire, its not hollywood and I've seen what the end result is up close & personal, when things go sideways & someone doesnt go home. Its nothing to be taken lightly, only those that have actually been there know what I am saying...its not like going deer hunting or watching Rambo II on beta & black & white 13" in grama'mas shack, and not something you really want to go thru if at all possible.

There was previous mention, (mostly to stir up the pot so it seems..didnt work, sorry) about use of deadly force over a simple property crime, after the perp fled from scene & the property and something to the effect of "thats just how its done back thar in the woods" & my "text book is fine for us city folks". Well, I actually live in the woods in an un-incorportated section of the county, but am still bound by city, county, state & federal laws regarding use of deadly force, just like any other.

Talk like that comes only from ignorance & a person that clearly:
#1, Doesnt carry a weapon in a real certified public service authority level & probably never could, given this train of thought (..its called a pshyc test).
#2, Has never had to shoot a "person"/been shot at/ or responded to an active shooter situation.
#3, Has never seen, up front & close in real time, the results of such bad things, either in the court of law later or witnessed the effects, long & short term, something like that has on both sides.
&
#4, knows little to nothing about real LE work or the law to which they would be ultimatley judged.

Your certainly entitled to think/believe the "backwoods" are a world apart from the laws inacted by the U.S. government & carried out by your local LE & Judicial systems, its a common mistake, yet ignorance is no excuse of the law, and I can assure you, that as long as you live in the U.S. territories, your trial wont be in the backwoods by your fellow inbreed hog farmers, it would be in a criminal/civil court & even if your fully justified in taking another human life over a stolen physical pocession (& you certainly could be given a specific circumstance, in certain places), you will get to sit thru the full one way roller coaster ride eitherway, none the very least of which could be a civil trail costing you far more then the the value of anything replaceable you own/owned.
You can buy another truck or tractor, but you U-turn a bullet once fired nor can you bring back a human being once deceased, no matter how low the scum bag was or wasnt... only then could you say with any real knowledge, that it was worth killing for, or not...but whats advice anyway, if it goes to deaf ears.
Yoda

[Black Caesar]

The short version FDG is simple, i'm saying the guy might not come to any greif because any prosecutor worth their salt in Texas knows that Texas jury's tend to side with the "Original victim". If the dead guy didn't want to get shot, he woulnd't have stolen a car. unless you're some place very liberal like Austin, that's how people think in much of Texas, for good or bad.

It dosen't matter what the laws says if a jury of citizens will not convict. This is why we have so many plea agreements around these parts.. Texas DAs fight the fights they can win, and hey, they are politicians, they don't want to tick off the voters by going after people who are just protecting what belongs to them.

Texas Jurys are unlikely to chop up a guy trying to get back his stuff, period.

Sometimes thats frustrating, my department has sent the Dallas DA some (what we thought were) very good cases, just to see them chopped up by ADAs who have to deal with the realities of our court system.

That does not mean the guy couldn't be charged and convicted. it dosen't mean the guy is totally justified in his actions.

It means reality is imperfect, thats all.

[Mr. Security]

I've never once heard of a crime, where the criminal stopped an act of aggression, stopped an immediate attack or ended early his assault, due to a lack of a firearm being present.. (The power of a gun, is in its presence & implied use at the time, not its actual firepower.) Man has always had weapons & tried to create one better/bigger/more powerfull then that of his adversary's, the firearm is simply the the highest obtainable result to date of that objective.

I have carried a firearm(s) in some "official" capacity (Mil/LEO/Tac Teams) for about the past 10yrs. I have drawn one countless times prepared to make a defense of life, to meet or trump a direct threat by observed, percieved or implied weapon or as a show of force in order to gain compliance when it was needed and that act alone always had the desired effect to those on the business end, without exception. I cant say the same thing about the other duty tools I was issued.
Stats wise, most PS individuals will go a lifetime & never actually discharge in the course of duty, the firearm they carry daily.

I've taken direct fire, its not hollywood and I've seen what the end result is up close & personal, when things go sideways & someone doesnt go home. Its nothing to be taken lightly, only those that have actually been there know what I am saying...its not like going deer hunting or watching Rambo II on beta & black & white 13" in grama'mas shack, and not something you really want to go thru if at all possible.

There was previous mention, (mostly to stir up the pot so it seems..didnt work, sorry) about use of deadly force over a simple property crime, after the perp fled from scene & the property and something to the effect of "thats just how its done back thar in the woods" & my "text book is fine for us city folks". Well, I actually live in the woods in an un-incorportated section of the county, but am still bound by city, county, state & federal laws regarding use of deadly force, just like any other.

Talk like that comes only from ignorance & a person that clearly:
#1, Doesnt carry a weapon in a real certified public service authority level & probably never could, given this train of thought (..its called a pshyc test).
#2, Has never had to shoot a "person"/been shot at/ or responded to an active shooter situation.
#3, Has never seen, up front & close in real time, the results of such bad things, either in the court of law later or witnessed the effects, long & short term, something like that has on both sides.
&
#4, knows little to nothing about real LE work or the law to which they would be ultimatley judged.

Your certainly entitled to think/believe the "backwoods" are a world apart from the laws inacted by the U.S. government & carried out by your local LE & Judicial systems, its a common mistake, yet ignorance is no excuse of the law, and I can assure you, that as long as you live in the U.S. territories, your trial wont be in the backwoods by your fellow inbreed hog farmers, it would be in a criminal/civil court & even if your fully justified in taking another human life over a stolen physical pocession (& you certainly could be given a specific circumstance, in certain places), you will get to sit thru the full one way roller coaster ride eitherway, none the very least of which could be a civil trail costing you far more then the the value of anything replaceable you own/owned.
You can buy another truck or tractor, but you U-turn a bullet once fired nor can you bring back a human being once deceased, no matter how low the scum bag was or wasnt... only then could you say with any real knowledge, that it was worth killing for, or not...but whats advice anyway, if it goes to deaf ears.
Yoda

I am impressed with the way you articulated your point that I underlined. Very well put.