Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Use of snipers in the security field

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Use of snipers in the security field

    Does anyone know of any security company that employs snipers? That could be a really useful are of expertise in this business. Like outside a bank, the robber comes out and is taken down by a well placed headshot, taken out like surgery. What does everyone think of this idea?

  • #2
    Lon Horiuchi would be so proud

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Lone Wolf View Post
      Does anyone know of any security company that employs snipers? That could be a really useful are of expertise in this business. Like outside a bank, the robber comes out and is taken down by a well placed headshot, taken out like surgery. What does everyone think of this idea?
      I proposed similar, but diff, tactic for anti-bank robbery security in a recent thread. But instead of a sniper, there would be an unmarked minivan shadowing the armored car (or I guess could also be semi-static at bank).

      One problem I see is that such tactics would likely increase use of hostages/human shields by robbers. Even if the hostage is not "harmed" they will still be able to sue for much more than is lost in robbery, and give the bank a bad rep in the process.

      Comment


      • #4
        No. You are watching too much TV. Under WHAT laws would you be allowed to deploy "snipers?" Really. What ARE you thinking?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Soper View Post
          No. You are watching too much TV. Under WHAT laws would you be allowed to deploy "snipers?" Really. What ARE you thinking?
          Saved because you will need a link

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Soper View Post
            No. You are watching too much TV. Under WHAT laws would you be allowed to deploy "snipers?" Really. What ARE you thinking?

            Comment


            • #7
              Putting the aside the legality of when it would or would not be appropriate to shoot someone, what purpose would there be in using a private security sniper instead of a police sniper? I can't imagine any scenario where a bank would need to call in a private sniper because a police one was not available...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Soper View Post
                No. You are watching too much TV. Under WHAT laws would you be allowed to deploy "snipers?" Really. What ARE you thinking?
                over the years, I've been to about 5 diff trainers for my re-qual shoots, and about 1/2 of those are senior or retired LEOs.

                question always comes up "can we used deadly force on someone because they are putting someone else's life at risk?" (holding hostage, etc) and the answer is always "you bet" and that legally you may have easier time if you were using deadly force to protect someone besides yourself. Another question that comes up is "if someone's life is being threatened and due to DISTANCE a gun is your only option, whereas maybe if you were with them at arms length you'd have other options, can you use a gun?" and again its "yes".

                Also, "say someone is holding a knife to someone's neck, do you, or even should you, give them warning before making a well placed head-shot?" "No, take them out ASAP".

                In other words, there is no legal distinction between shooting someone as a hidden sniper VS uniformed guard with handgun confronting them. What matters is "are people in immediate danger of being criminally killed or seriously injured?" not length of gun barrel or distance between shooter and target.

                So the question is, can an armed guard open fire on armed bank robbers just because they are armed and in process of robbing the bank but maybe aren't focusing too much on any one person, like if they are pointing their guns in the air at the moment? Magic 8-ball says "Yes, just the fact they are threatening people with deadly weapons is good enough, and sniper had reasonable fear lives were in danger".

                What if one guy has gun showing but other robber doesn't, can you shoot the guy carrying the loot bag if you don't SEE a gun on him? I'd say "yes, you could assume he is also armed and a deadly threat to the innocent people". What if you got "good info" like someone saying "they got guns" but you don't see guns but they could easily be concealed under trench coats? Again, all goes back to "did you have good reason to believe lives were in danger AT THE MOMENT?" I'd say still Green Lighted but you better hope your witness sticks to their story.

                What if robber is shot dead buy his gun turns out to be fake? Not a factor IMO.

                Whether or not having a gang member shot from afar would make other gang members more or less likely to hurt other people at the scene is a good question, but IMO sniper is still Green Lighted.

                Of course, you gotta factor in your PERSONAL risk VS benefit factor if shooting someone to protect strangers without the benefit of legal protections as a LEO (including political and defense lawyers), to say nothing of how your "Brothers in Blue" will help you out when writing it all up. A big bank wont even give you a $100 bonus if you save someone's life, but you are guaranteed to do about 500hrs unpaid "work" after a shooting, even if cleared as 100% good shoot.
                Attached Files
                Last edited by Squid; 02-20-2019, 04:13 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Consolewatcher View Post
                  Putting the aside the legality of when it would or would not be appropriate to shoot someone, what purpose would there be in using a private security sniper instead of a police sniper? I can't imagine any scenario where a bank would need to call in a private sniper because a police one was not available...
                  I'm talking about banks having one on standby. Maybe, positioned across the street from the bank's entrance, at the ready waiting for an alert from the bank that a robbery is going on. Once the robber exits, that'll be all she wrote for him.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Lone Wolf View Post

                    I'm talking about banks having one on standby. Maybe, positioned across the street from the bank's entrance, at the ready waiting for an alert from the bank that a robbery is going on. Once the robber exits, that'll be all she wrote for him.
                    sounds problematic. from my earlier post: "What if you got "good info" like someone saying "they got guns" but you don't see guns but they could easily be concealed under trench coats? Again, all goes back to "did you have good reason to believe lives were in danger AT THE MOMENT?" I'd say still Green Lighted but you better hope your witness sticks to their story."

                    I think you would have a big problem if just the SUSPECTED robber exits the bank and no gun is showing and (if any) no other people are reacting to him as a robber, even if you got good info or even CCTV that he had a gun and you have eyes on him for the whole time he pulls gun on teller to when he walks out.

                    maybe a non-lethal approach, like a hail of Pepper&Paint(and even glue) grenades. since they are big-area grenades, they can be aimed to avoid hitting any bystanders with blunt force trauma.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Soper View Post
                      No. You are watching too much TV. Under WHAT laws would you be allowed to deploy "snipers?" Really. What ARE you thinking?
                      As Squid mentioned, I think that there are certain situations where it could theoretically be legal. However, the extreme rarity of the amount of times it would be needed means that it would not be possible to justify from a risk assessment point of view.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It is not. There are no situations in the banking field where security guards with "sniper" training would be legally authorized in the US.

                        It is not legal.

                        Who is in command?
                        what authority do they posses?
                        Who is going to indemnify?
                        What LE agency or state would abrogate such responsibility to a private company to use uncontrolled and unlawful lethel force?

                        You REALLY think this is a good idea? Justify it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Lone Wolf View Post

                          I'm talking about banks having one on standby. Maybe, positioned across the street from the bank's entrance, at the ready waiting for an alert from the bank that a robbery is going on. Once the robber exits, that'll be all she wrote for him.
                          They ALWAYS have an option to surrender. You just murdered someone.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Squid View Post

                            over the years, I've been to about 5 diff trainers for my re-qual shoots, and about 1/2 of those are senior or retired LEOs.

                            question always comes up "can we used deadly force on someone because they are putting someone else's life at risk?" (holding hostage, etc) and the answer is always "you bet" and that legally you may have easier time if you were using deadly force to protect someone besides yourself. Another question that comes up is "if someone's life is being threatened and due to DISTANCE a gun is your only option, whereas maybe if you were with them at arms length you'd have other options, can you use a gun?" and again its "yes".

                            Also, "say someone is holding a knife to someone's neck, do you, or even should you, give them warning before making a well placed head-shot?" "No, take them out ASAP".

                            In other words, there is no legal distinction between shooting someone as a hidden sniper VS uniformed guard with handgun confronting them. What matters is "are people in immediate danger of being criminally killed or seriously injured?" not length of gun barrel or distance between shooter and target.

                            So the question is, can an armed guard open fire on armed bank robbers just because they are armed and in process of robbing the bank but maybe aren't focusing too much on any one person, like if they are pointing their guns in the air at the moment? Magic 8-ball says "Yes, just the fact they are threatening people with deadly weapons is good enough, and sniper had reasonable fear lives were in danger".

                            What if one guy has gun showing but other robber doesn't, can you shoot the guy carrying the loot bag if you don't SEE a gun on him? I'd say "yes, you could assume he is also armed and a deadly threat to the innocent people". What if you got "good info" like someone saying "they got guns" but you don't see guns but they could easily be concealed under trench coats? Again, all goes back to "did you have good reason to believe lives were in danger AT THE MOMENT?" I'd say still Green Lighted but you better hope your witness sticks to their story.

                            What if robber is shot dead buy his gun turns out to be fake? Not a factor IMO.

                            Whether or not having a gang member shot from afar would make other gang members more or less likely to hurt other people at the scene is a good question, but IMO sniper is still Green Lighted.

                            Of course, you gotta factor in your PERSONAL risk VS benefit factor if shooting someone to protect strangers without the benefit of legal protections as a LEO (including political and defense lawyers), to say nothing of how your "Brothers in Blue" will help you out when writing it all up. A big bank wont even give you a $100 bonus if you save someone's life, but you are guaranteed to do about 500hrs unpaid "work" after a shooting, even if cleared as 100% good shoot.
                            Just because some gun card class tells you that, doesn't mean it's going to stand up in court. You need to read and understand CA Penal Code. Those one liner teachers are just being flippant. There's more to it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Soper View Post
                              It is not. There are no situations in the banking field where security guards with "sniper" training would be legally authorized in the US.

                              It is not legal.

                              Who is in command?
                              what authority do they posses?
                              Who is going to indemnify?
                              What LE agency or state would abrogate such responsibility to a private company to use uncontrolled and unlawful lethel force?

                              You REALLY think this is a good idea? Justify it.
                              I never said it was a good idea, only that there could theoretically be a situation where it was legal for a sniper to shoot someone. As I mentioned, both the cost/benefit and the various complications would mean that it would be a bad idea to do it.

                              Comment

                              300x250

                              Collapse

                              Mid 300x250

                              Collapse

                              Taboola

                              Collapse

                              Super Leaderboard

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X