Use of snipers in the security field

[Lone Wolf]

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.

Save your words, there’s no point in talking to Soper, he’s right everyone else is wrong.

[Squid]

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.

All it would take is some Court ruling to affirm that it is legal for someone at a fair distance to assume "life is in danger" during a bank robbery, and that use of rifle was fully legal even if not pre-authorized by BSIS etc. I've noticed that in cases were someone pulls (or pulls and uses) a gun when they claim to be "in fear for their life" suddenly all the questions about if they were carrying legally vanish if they can come up with plausible (not good, just PLAUSIBLE) reason for their Fears.

Examples are Valley Fair Mall draw-down (guy wasn't even legal guard, much less legal with gun, but was in a guard uniform, etc) and Oakland Hills garage shooting (guard wasn't "authorized" by firm to carry, but brought his piece to investigate open door).

To go fully operational, fully legally, all you need to do is keep your sniper rifle under Legal Public Carry until an emergency happens. That generally means unloaded in "locked container" which means a soft-case with loaded uninserted mags with zipper lock and combo lock that only needs one of 3 dials moved one click to unlocks. Under 5 secs to deploy.

I think the idea has great merit. G4S is the big player in the "idiot guard standing outside bank" around here for B of A (all BofA around here got armed guard posted outside). Cost a lot and for what purpose? I guess they figure it means the robbers will need an extra person to deal with guard, because regardless of what you tell guard many will try to jump into a robbery. You could make very good argument that having an armed guard posted is a very bad idea, because it means you are much more likely to have bullets flying around in BARELY controlled patterns. Just having a loaded gun at "street level" is a risk because anyone could hit the guard from behind and take his gun.

Plus, "standing post" is problematic says guys who were G4S supervisors. LOTS of call offs. Standing like an idiot in same spot is much tougher than active walking post, where you get to do your own little breaks, etc.

A "Sniper" could be a guy with bad knees on the roof in a "dog house" more or less watching on CCTV. He might be there, or he might not. Since little old ladies don't rob banks, the Sniper only needs to eyeball a few customers. Have close CCTV of each teller window so he can see exactly what the teller sees ("this is a robbery" note, confirmed by large payout without any SOP bank procedures). Then, as robber exits bank, the Sniper activates a couple Scare Crow pop-ups that look like a sniper drawing a bead on you. Robber fires at Scare Crow, which green lights Sniper to take out Robber. Robbers bullets would have fired upward, so little risk to bystanders, and Sniper would be firing Safety Slugs down on robber. Put the word out that while the bank has mucho CCTV inside at teller windows, they might on have much CCTV outside, so its going to be the Sniper's word VS the (dead) Robber's word that the Robber did indeed give Sniper reason to open fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug

[Consolewatcher]

All it would take is some Court ruling to affirm that it is legal for someone at a fair distance to assume "life is in danger" during a bank robbery, and that use of rifle was fully legal even if not pre-authorized by BSIS etc. I've noticed that in cases were someone pulls (or pulls and uses) a gun when they claim to be "in fear for their life" suddenly all the questions about if they were carrying legally vanish if they can come up with plausible (not good, just PLAUSIBLE) reason for their Fears.

Examples are Valley Fair Mall draw-down (guy wasn't even legal guard, much less legal with gun, but was in a guard uniform, etc) and Oakland Hills garage shooting (guard wasn't "authorized" by firm to carry, but brought his piece to investigate open door).

To go fully operational, fully legally, all you need to do is keep your sniper rifle under Legal Public Carry until an emergency happens. That generally means unloaded in "locked container" which means a soft-case with loaded uninserted mags with zipper lock and combo lock that only needs one of 3 dials moved one click to unlocks. Under 5 secs to deploy.

I think the idea has great merit. G4S is the big player in the "idiot guard standing outside bank" around here for B of A (all BofA around here got armed guard posted outside). Cost a lot and for what purpose? I guess they figure it means the robbers will need an extra person to deal with guard, because regardless of what you tell guard many will try to jump into a robbery. You could make very good argument that having an armed guard posted is a very bad idea, because it means you are much more likely to have bullets flying around in BARELY controlled patterns. Just having a loaded gun at "street level" is a risk because anyone could hit the guard from behind and take his gun.

Plus, "standing post" is problematic says guys who were G4S supervisors. LOTS of call offs. Standing like an idiot in same spot is much tougher than active walking post, where you get to do your own little breaks, etc.

A "Sniper" could be a guy with bad knees on the roof in a "dog house" more or less watching on CCTV. He might be there, or he might not. Since little old ladies don't rob banks, the Sniper only needs to eyeball a few customers. Have close CCTV of each teller window so he can see exactly what the teller sees ("this is a robbery" note, confirmed by large payout without any SOP bank procedures). Then, as robber exits bank, the Sniper activates a couple Scare Crow pop-ups that look like a sniper drawing a bead on you. Robber fires at Scare Crow, which green lights Sniper to take out Robber. Robbers bullets would have fired upward, so little risk to bystanders, and Sniper would be firing Safety Slugs down on robber. Put the word out that while the bank has mucho CCTV inside at teller windows, they might on have much CCTV outside, so its going to be the Sniper's word VS the (dead) Robber's word that the Robber did indeed give Sniper reason to open fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug

Concerning the armed security guard outside the bank, I suspect that it mainly for deterrence; a potential robber might decide that it's not worth the extra complication to have to deal with a security guard as well.

What we need to remember is that strictly speaking, the role of a security guard isn't to deter a bad guy from committing the crime entirely; it's to deter people from committing the crime at their client's property. If a person who wants to rob a bank sees the security guard, recognizes that it's a potential complication and instead robs the bank across the street, then the deterrence worked (it doesn't matter that the guy still ended up robbing *a* bank.

[Lunch Meat]

What we need to remember is that strictly speaking, the role of a security guard isn't to deter a bad guy from committing the crime entirely; it's to deter people from committing the crime at their client's property. If a person who wants to rob a bank sees the security guard, recognizes that it's a potential complication and instead robs the bank across the street, then the deterrence worked (it doesn't matter that the guy still ended up robbing *a* bank.

Valid point. If I'm working an arm site I am carrying a gun to defend myself not the clients property.

[v859]

All it would take is some Court ruling to affirm that it is legal for someone at a fair distance to assume "life is in danger" during a bank robbery, and that use of rifle was fully legal even if not pre-authorized by BSIS etc. I've noticed that in cases were someone pulls (or pulls and uses) a gun when they claim to be "in fear for their life" suddenly all the questions about if they were carrying legally vanish if they can come up with plausible (not good, just PLAUSIBLE) reason for their Fears.

Examples are Valley Fair Mall draw-down (guy wasn't even legal guard, much less legal with gun, but was in a guard uniform, etc) and Oakland Hills garage shooting (guard wasn't "authorized" by firm to carry, but brought his piece to investigate open door).

To go fully operational, fully legally, all you need to do is keep your sniper rifle under Legal Public Carry until an emergency happens. That generally means unloaded in "locked container" which means a soft-case with loaded uninserted mags with zipper lock and combo lock that only needs one of 3 dials moved one click to unlocks. Under 5 secs to deploy.

I think the idea has great merit. G4S is the big player in the "idiot guard standing outside bank" around here for B of A (all BofA around here got armed guard posted outside). Cost a lot and for what purpose? I guess they figure it means the robbers will need an extra person to deal with guard, because regardless of what you tell guard many will try to jump into a robbery. You could make very good argument that having an armed guard posted is a very bad idea, because it means you are much more likely to have bullets flying around in BARELY controlled patterns. Just having a loaded gun at "street level" is a risk because anyone could hit the guard from behind and take his gun.

Plus, "standing post" is problematic says guys who were G4S supervisors. LOTS of call offs. Standing like an idiot in same spot is much tougher than active walking post, where you get to do your own little breaks, etc.

A "Sniper" could be a guy with bad knees on the roof in a "dog house" more or less watching on CCTV. He might be there, or he might not. Since little old ladies don't rob banks, the Sniper only needs to eyeball a few customers. Have close CCTV of each teller window so he can see exactly what the teller sees ("this is a robbery" note, confirmed by large payout without any SOP bank procedures). Then, as robber exits bank, the Sniper activates a couple Scare Crow pop-ups that look like a sniper drawing a bead on you. Robber fires at Scare Crow, which green lights Sniper to take out Robber. Robbers bullets would have fired upward, so little risk to bystanders, and Sniper would be firing Safety Slugs down on robber. Put the word out that while the bank has mucho CCTV inside at teller windows, they might on have much CCTV outside, so its going to be the Sniper's word VS the (dead) Robber's word that the Robber did indeed give Sniper reason to open fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug

Squid the problem is that the use of force laws for civilians (including security guards) is that deadly physical force CAN NOT be used if you instigate the need for such force. So having your "fake sniper" aim at someone who then raises their weapon is not enough to shoot them. In certain states deadly physical force can be used to affect an arrest of a robbery suspect if it is NECESSARY. Having a weapon not raised is not enough

[Squid]

deadly physical force CAN NOT be used if you instigate the need for such force. So having your "fake sniper" aim at someone who then raises their weapon is not enough to shoot them. In certain states deadly physical force can be used to affect an arrest of a robbery suspect if it is NECESSARY. Having a weapon not raised is not enough

Nice tip, but not sure what it really means.

I'm pretty sure you are Green Lighted to fire on anyone raising a weapon on you while they are committing a crime.

I'm pretty sure you are allowed freedom to do anything to misdirect or distract someone you find committing a crime for your own safety and tactical advantage.

Is a bank guard is allowed to draw on a bank robber even if the guard doesn't see a gun?

[v859]

Let me explain this to you again:

Security guards are civilians.

Civilians have a duty to retreat before using deadly physical force

Civilians can not antagonize someone into a situation where force needs to be used

Force can only be used if reasonable and necessary

If you are in a concealed position on a roof and you pony a laser at some one to antagonize them into pointing a gun in your direction then:

1. You did not retreat when you had the safe opportunity to do so
2. You antagonized someone by pointing a laser at them
3. Force may have been allowed but was not Necessary or reasonable because you didn't give any opportunity to surrender.

This means that force was not justified, necessary or reasonable and you go to jail. Got it?

the only exception would be if they exit the bank and point their weapons at someone on the ground or otherwise put someone in immediate danger of death or serious injury (ie start beating someone with a club, etc).

Also the scenario would be different if you were only pointing a weapon at them while effecting an arrest. But in this situation you admit your intent is to shoot them.

[Lunch Meat]

Security guards are civilians.

So are cops. So is anyone who isn't .mil

Civilians have a duty to retreat before using deadly physical force

That would depend on your local and state laws. Assuming deadly force is justified I have absolutely no duty to retreat where I'm at before employing it.

Civilians can not antagonize someone into a situation where force needs to be used

true but neither can cops.

Force can only be used if reasonable and necessary

Again, true but it still applies just as much to Cops as it does to civilians

[Squid]

Originally posted by v859 View Post


Civilians can not antagonize someone into a situation where force needs to be used



true but neither can cops.by Lunch Meat

some big change in Police Policy/Law happened a couple decades ago. Something about now staying "one force level ABOVE" the suspect, which translates into starting fights where no fight existed, due to newly recognized Police mind-reading ability. IIRC this kicked off the common use of the term "pro-active" (vs "reactive") among all sorts of dorks and sporks who wanted to be kinda cool like overly aggressive cops.

These were everything from school admins to sales managers, and suddenly it was cool to create problems for others that didn't exist before.

A typical police shooting involves police rushing up on someone hoping for a minor drug bust, then shooting "in self defense" when the subject makes a movement, because the cop has put himself in a danger zone (very close to subject, no cover).

Modern Policing is AKA "Community Policing" is not about "service"(solving crimes) its about "production" (creating a situation using a proven script).

[v859]

some big change in Police Policy/Law happened a couple decades ago. Something about now staying "one force level ABOVE" the suspect, which translates into starting fights where no fight existed, due to newly recognized Police mind-reading ability. IIRC this kicked off the common use of the term "pro-active" (vs "reactive") among all sorts of dorks and sporks who wanted to be kinda cool like overly aggressive cops.

These were everything from school admins to sales managers, and suddenly it was cool to create problems for others that didn't exist before.

A typical police shooting involves police rushing up on someone hoping for a minor drug bust, then shooting "in self defense" when the subject makes a movement, because the cop has put himself in a danger zone (very close to subject, no cover).

Modern Policing is AKA "Community Policing" is not about "service"(solving crimes) its about "production" (creating a situation using a proven script).

This is getting a bit off topic but you don't seem get the point of police use of force. Police use of force is designed to effect an arrest, prevent escape, terminate a crime or protect officers and third parties. It is NOT to have a fair fight. It is to induce compliance. This is why to some extent the police are not restricted by what the suspect is using except when it comes to deadly force. A police officer is not going to sit there and argue for hours or get into a twelve round boxing match with someone.

If you fail to comply with an arrest expect force to be used it is that simple. It is not about starting a fight where none exists. It is about society determining through the lawmaking process that the societal good of arresting criminals is worth the negative to an individual who chooses to resist

You also don't seem to understand what is meant by proactive vs reactive. Proactive means trying to prevent crime before it starts or while it is at a low level.

[Soper]

Squid is just spouting more BS. He makes things up in order to satisfy his exaggerated ego. He’s an idiot, plain and simple.

ANYTHING posted by him, Lunch meat, and lone wolf should be promptly ignored, since it’s all idiotic garbage. The Stupid is so epically strong with them, that it’s sad.

This ENTIRE forum has been run into the ground by these three completely stupid dumbasses.

Im hoping one of their mommies will show up soon and turn off the power to the basement.

ANYONE who takes direction or follows the suggestions of LUNCH MEAT, LONE WOLF, OR SQUID, is going to end up unemployed and under arrest. These three fools are EPIC examples of how NOT to be a guard.

Absolute epitome of losers. Being a guard is about the only job these guys can get, since the labor pool for Honey Bucket Operator is full.

Pathetic.

[Lunch Meat]

Squid is just spouting more BS. He makes things up in order to satisfy his exaggerated ego. He’s an idiot, plain and simple.

ANYTHING posted by him, Lunch meat, and lone wolf should be promptly ignored, since it’s all idiotic garbage. The Stupid is so epically strong with them, that it’s sad.

This ENTIRE forum has been run into the ground by these three completely stupid dumbasses.

Im hoping one of their mommies will show up soon and turn off the power to the basement.

ANYONE who takes direction or follows the suggestions of LUNCH MEAT, LONE WOLF, OR SQUID, is going to end up unemployed and under arrest. These three fools are EPIC examples of how NOT to be a guard.

Absolute epitome of losers. Being a guard is about the only job these guys can get, since the labor pool for Honey Bucket Operator is full.

Pathetic.

Donut eater

[Squid]

This is getting a bit off topic but you don't seem get the point of police use of force. Police use of force is designed to effect an arrest, prevent escape, terminate a crime or protect officers and third parties. It is NOT to have a fair fight. It is to induce compliance. This is why to some extent the police are not restricted by what the suspect is using except when it comes to deadly force. A police officer is not going to sit there and argue for hours or get into a twelve round boxing match with someone.

If you fail to comply with an arrest expect force to be used it is that simple. It is not about starting a fight where none exists. It is about society determining through the lawmaking process that the societal good of arresting criminals is worth the negative to an individual who chooses to resist

You also don't seem to understand what is meant by proactive vs reactive. Proactive means trying to prevent crime before it starts or while it is at a low level.

At our "cop visits Civics class" in Jr HS (1977) a student brought up an recent case where a town cop "didn't do anything for over an hour" but did THREATEN to write a woman a citation after she shoved the cop. It was explained that a lot of what cops do is "just listen", and that the cop still COULD write the cite and even make an arrest. Back then, you had to actually do something to a cop for violence to break out. If you didn't go along with an arrest the cops would first TELL you they were also gonna charge you with "resisting" unless you calmed down, and they might even explain how THAT would stick regardless of if you got off on the charges you didn't feel were justified.

Later, about 1995, talking to some guys in Admin of Justice classes, I found it had all been changed, and you were allowed to make up stuff about their "stance" and you were supposed to be grabbing their hands and arms because they MIGHT have a weapon or be about to hit you, and as expected this was doing a great job filling up the jails, and that was considered a good thing.

IMO much of that change was "shift in demographics" but also the end of Cold War. During the Cold War there was a vibe that our govt was worthy of support because it wasn't like the Commies ( or at least had the threat of Commies ready to offer an alternative) and was restricted in how it treated people, and would error on the side of caution and always "be the better man". Then that changed when War On Drugs at home replaced NORAD and NATO, and it was now cool to be "bad cop".

Old long retired cops have told me "there is no 'law' anymore, its just another business".

Some of this I blame on shift in TV. I've manned warm body posts with at least 1/2 guys on track to become cops, and every single one has been big fan of "gritty" cop shows and viewed the Bad Cops as role models. They all want to be Miami Vice, not Dragnet.

The current LEO habit/policy of overreaction and inappropriate behavior is a major factor in clients increase in hiring private security. If an employee or customer chimps-out a client will want it contained with as little disruption to business as possible. The last thing they want is someone who feels a need to stay "One Force Level Continuum" above/ahead of an emotional person.

[v859]

The current LEO habit/policy of overreaction and inappropriate behavior is a major factor in clients increase in hiring private security. If an employee or customer chimps-out a client will want it contained with as little disruption to business as possible. The last thing they want is someone who feels a need to stay "One Force Level Continuum" above/ahead of an emotional person.

This is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. You show me one LEGITIMATE source that proves this. And by legitimate I mean a recognized media source (AP or UP member), academic research article or law enforcement, security or loss prevention magazine.

If i owned a business and I had a customer or employee "chimping out" (racist?) I would want someone to remove them from the store and keep them from hurting my other customers and destroying my property. That is not an O&R guard who is going to say "Stop or I'll say stop again, then call 911 (for the police) and run and hide like 95% of the "security industry"

I would say to go on a ride along but I feel bad for whateve officer is saddled with you

[Lunch Meat]

This is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. You show me one LEGITIMATE source that proves this. And by legitimate I mean a recognized media source (AP or UP member), academic research article or law enforcement, security or loss prevention magazine.

If i owned a business and I had a customer or employee "chimping out" (racist?) I would want someone to remove them from the store and keep them from hurting my other customers and destroying my property. That is not an O&R guard who is going to say "Stop or I'll say stop again, then call 911 (for the police) and run and hide like 95% of the "security industry"

I would say to go on a ride along but I feel bad for whateve officer is saddled with you