Car Dealership Burglar Shot and Killed

[1stWatch]

Lewisville, TX

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/101806dnmetsuspect.4d17e374.html

According to the report, a man working as a security guard shot and killed a man who broke into the dealership and was stealing cash. The person did not normally work as security there, but was asked to do so for the night.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-lewshooting_20wes.ART.North.Edition1.3e86543.html

And of course, the family is questioning the entire account. According to them, he worked at the dealership as a salesman. Medical examiners' details showed he was shot twice in the back. He was not armed. The family claimed he went into the building with a key to retrieve belongings.
The person who shot him is facing homicide charges.

This "security guard" is in for a lot of trouble if you ask me. It appears he was not properly commissioned as a security officer and was acting in that capacity. He shot the suspect in the back, which is a big no-no here since that shows evidence the person was "fleeing". A private citizen may not shoot a fleeing suspect. It looks like he will be having trouble proving the kid broke in. This guy definitely needs an attorney.

[Mr. Security]

I agree. Even Perry Mason isn't going to get this guy off.

[Black Caesar]

Lewisville, TX

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/101806dnmetsuspect.4d17e374.html

According to the report, a man working as a security guard shot and killed a man who broke into the dealership and was stealing cash. The person did not normally work as security there, but was asked to do so for the night.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-lewshooting_20wes.ART.North.Edition1.3e86543.html

And of course, the family is questioning the entire account. According to them, he worked at the dealership as a salesman. Medical examiners' details showed he was shot twice in the back. He was not armed. The family claimed he went into the building with a key to retrieve belongings.
The person who shot him is facing homicide charges.

This "security guard" is in for a lot of trouble if you ask me. It appears he was not properly commissioned as a security officer and was acting in that capacity. He shot the suspect in the back, which is a big no-no here since that shows evidence the person was "fleeing". A private citizen may not shoot a fleeing suspect. It looks like he will be having trouble proving the kid broke in. This guy definitely needs an attorney.

About the article: Yep, the guy is screwed big time. For a number of reasons.

About use of deadly force. No one can shoot an unarmed person in the back for simply "fleeing", not even LE, with only a couple exceptions. And armed person is different, if you reasonably belive a 3rd person is about to be threatened (ie the guy is armed and running toward an occupied building, you can lay him out to prevent more people being put in danger)

But there are plenty of instances where a person might get shot in the back and it'd be justified. If the person (suspect) had been running away with property belonging to the shooter or a 3rd person at night and the shooter reasonable believed that he couldn't get thenproperty back any other way (ie the guy was getting away), the shooter could use deadly force. Texas takes property rights seriously.

Penal Code , Title 2, Chapter 9, 9.43, also see 9.42 right above it

The 2 exceptions about just plain "fleeing" (that I know of). The 1st is if the person has escaped from death row and has been sentenced t death (duh). The 2nd is if a magistrate who has the statutory power to levy the death penalty orders you to (in other words, district court and higher judges can, municipal judges and Justices of the peace can't).

[jeff194307]

This is an excellent example of what can happen when a person has not recieved proper training on use of deadly force. Too many people simply do not know the ramifications around doing armed anything, police, security, bodyguard, etc. That is exactely why I prefer unarmed security work, no worries about use of force. We let the police handle those type of problems. I have the training, I just don't want the responsibility for the pay I recieve.

[Rick51a]

I can't believe the person(s) putting the man in that spot PLUS carrying a weapon. Now not only is this guy going to spend a lot of time in prison but the people he works for will be sued to the stone age: And rightly so.

Rick

Lewisville, TX

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/101806dnmetsuspect.4d17e374.html

According to the report, a man working as a security guard shot and killed a man who broke into the dealership and was stealing cash. The person did not normally work as security there, but was asked to do so for the night.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-lewshooting_20wes.ART.North.Edition1.3e86543.html

And of course, the family is questioning the entire account. According to them, he worked at the dealership as a salesman. Medical examiners' details showed he was shot twice in the back. He was not armed. The family claimed he went into the building with a key to retrieve belongings.
The person who shot him is facing homicide charges.

This "security guard" is in for a lot of trouble if you ask me. It appears he was not properly commissioned as a security officer and was acting in that capacity. He shot the suspect in the back, which is a big no-no here since that shows evidence the person was "fleeing". A private citizen may not shoot a fleeing suspect. It looks like he will be having trouble proving the kid broke in. This guy definitely needs an attorney.

[1stWatch]

The individual and the business may also be held liable for impersonating a security officer. There is such a law here.

[N. A. Corbier]

The individual and the business may also be held liable for impersonating a security officer. There is such a law here.

I had forgotten about that. I don't know many states that have that law. Florida makes it a misdemeanor to "perform guard services in violation of Chapter 493," which means that someone from a third party company who is renting out security personnel, or anyone providing armed security needs to be licensed.

That's about all the law says on it, and most LEOs don't know this exists, nor do they really want to. The criminality of 493 is usually used by the Division of Licensing when swearing out criminal complaints against license holders, but usually they just use their authority to issue a cease and desist notice.