retail guard shoots at fleeing iPhone thief, hits 6yr girl instead.

[Squid]

https://abc13.com/guard-who-accident...arget/4686455/

Doesn't say who client was or if in mall or what.

Sounds like this guard is gonna get off easy.

Shouldn't he be charged with "attempted murder" of thief? Sounds like thief was no threat to anyone at anytime and certainly not after exiting the store.

Would "all needed force to detain shoplifter" apply here??? How else you gonna stop an 18yr old in full sprint and you already way behind? IIRC none of the shoplifter detain laws have any limit on force required to detain. "Whatever it takes" but not more. IM(legal)O that also means "may use whatever you have on hand, if it injurers the Subject because he refused to be detained that is his problem".

This is why I avoid "public contact" gigs, and would quit on the spot if things got "hairy". I don't think T-Mobile is gonna be providing this guy a good lawyer. Maybe they will, since parents of victim should be suing Mall and T-Mobile for hiring this guy.

Sounds like it was matter of time till this guy "Happened". Guys like this make CA's new "shrink's permission required for gun permit" sound like good idea.

Interesting case to watch.

PS T-Mobile sucks. Had them and their lame service cost me time and money. Walmart family PREPAID NO CONTRACT runs on same and is cheaper.

[c0187]

https://abc13.com/guard-who-accident...arget/4686455/

Doesn't say who client was or if in mall or what.

Sounds like this guard is gonna get off easy.

Shouldn't he be charged with "attempted murder" of thief? Sounds like thief was no threat to anyone at anytime and certainly not after exiting the store.

Would "all needed force to detain shoplifter" apply here??? How else you gonna stop an 18yr old in full sprint and you already way behind? IIRC none of the shoplifter detain laws have any limit on force required to detain. "Whatever it takes" but not more. IM(legal)O that also means "may use whatever you have on hand, if it injurers the Subject because he refused to be detained that is his problem".

This is why I avoid "public contact" gigs, and would quit on the spot if things got "hairy". I don't think T-Mobile is gonna be providing this guy a good lawyer. Maybe they will, since parents of victim should be suing Mall and T-Mobile for hiring this guy.

Sounds like it was matter of time till this guy "Happened". Guys like this make CA's new "shrink's permission required for gun permit" sound like good idea.

Interesting case to watch.

PS T-Mobile sucks. Had them and their lame service cost me time and money. Walmart family PREPAID NO CONTRACT runs on same and is cheaper.

I sincerely hope this guard gets roasted. This POS fired a dozen rounds attempting to stop a thief! WTH?! The dude stole a cell phone, was it really necessary to kill the guy for it? No. Was it necessary to fire 12 rounds blindly at the fleeing thief? Heck no! He could have very well shot more innocent people. F*** this guy.

[Soper]

Nothing new here. Just ANOTHER highly trained guard...being stupid.

[Squid]

legit questions still remain: are there any LEGALLY DEFINED limits to amount of force you can use to "detain" an uncooperative shoplifter under general "shopkeeper's privilege"?

Would shooting someone technically be legal if that was in fact the only way to "detain" them?

This vaguely reminds me of a case where Santa Clara deputy got off after killing two cyclists, due to legal technicality that flew in face of common sense. https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2009/06...-two-cyclists/ A Jury wouldn't buy his "I musta fall asleep" moments after seen having fun driving recklessly, but to get to jury you must first get past judge, and judge will follow law, not common sense. No "evidence" he wasn't asleep for 0.1 seconds prior to crash, so "his own testimony is all we have".

Also reminds me of case discussed here about guy accused of shoplifting case of motor oil at Walmart and when he refused to stay and got up to leave he was choke-slammed by Security, who then high fived. It was considered legally a "good detain". He may have tried to push Security out of the way.

Is their some legal point about needed to first be "in the way" to use force to detain??? Legal to throw stick at legs to trip up a fleeing shoplifter?

[The Enforcer]

I tend to take the guard's side 99.99% of the time, even if it's a "bad stop," but this is inexcusable.

Only way I could've possibly cut this fellow some slack is if he was simply returning fire or in actual physical combat with the perp.

[Squid]

I tend to take the guard's side 99.99% of the time, even if it's a "bad stop," but this is inexcusable.

Only way I could've possibly cut this fellow some slack is if he was simply returning fire or in actual physical combat with the perp.

Another question I always ask and never get answered, is, what if "in my judgment I felt the guy was not fleeing but making a tactical retreat to a position of coverage from which he could fire on me in open without cover...so I shot him in the ass as he ran before he could reach tactical cover position."

IMO that could be a "good shoot", since you were "in fear of your life".

In this case, what I'm smelling is there was prior contact between these two and the robber had told the guard he was gonna snatch stuff out of his store and "punk" the guard, etc, or they both knew "what was up" so it was more personal.

PS-At armed requal they always tells us stuff like "If you do shoot someone you better be able to ARTICULATE a Fear for Life". On the other hand, "Never talk to the police" (at least not until your lawyer says so). Probably best to plan on spending a few weeks in jail unless you got a lot of money.

[Soper]

Squid, you obviously haven't paid attention to your guard training. Nor any training for that matter....

EPIC FAIL. Again.

[Condo Guard]

Squid - please stop joking around. Again, another serious incident that should serve as food for thought, but instead you take things out of context, draw conclusions from speculation, and try to be the class clown. The only way you can shoot anyone in the back is if a suicide bomber is running into the crowd with finger on the switch, or a mass shooter is running to kill more people - i.e. you can articulate a clear threat to yourself or others despite the fact the suspect is moving away from you.

You always have this weird thing about guards and perps working together to stage things - not saying it's never happened, just that you seem to be kind of fixated on that. Not going to draw any conclusions.

There may have been prior contact, or a combination of a bad day, personal stress, and adrenaline led to a regrettable decision. This is why training and updated training are this industry's sore spot and must be corrected. We have to find ways to curb property crime that don't involve excessive force.

[Squid]

Squid - please stop joking around. Again, another serious incident that should serve as food for thought, but instead you take things out of context, draw conclusions from speculation, and try to be the class clown. The only way you can shoot anyone in the back is if a suicide bomber is running into the crowd with finger on the switch, or a mass shooter is running to kill more people - i.e. you can articulate a clear threat to yourself or others despite the fact the suspect is moving away from you.

You always have this weird thing about guards and perps working together to stage things - not saying it's never happened, just that you seem to be kind of fixated on that. Not going to draw any conclusions.

There may have been prior contact, or a combination of a bad day, personal stress, and adrenaline led to a regrettable decision. This is why training and updated training are this industry's sore spot and must be corrected. We have to find ways to curb property crime that don't involve excessive force.

Not "Working together to stage", I'm saying there was likely an ongoing contest between perp and guard.

The guard was not motivated by desire to protect T-Mobile from losing an iPhone, he was motivated by being "punked" by his foe. 10 to 1 there had been "trash talk" at least 1/2 hour prior and probably several days prior between these two.

I'm also guessing the client told the guard he was expected to stop theft and that his job depended on him doing that. At an interview guy asked me what I'd do if a guy was rushing out the door with armful of merchandise. I didn't get the job.

IIRC it was OK for a cop to shoot someone in the back who was running for cover, but he had a gun and his fellow crook had fired on another cop. Old case from TX I think. No body died.

If the T-Moblie guard and perp were "working together" the perp would've pushed the guard onto the hottest clerk in the store and the guard would be "temporary paralyzed" or "shielding the T-Mollie employee with his body"