Use of snipers in the security field

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Consolewatcher]

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.

[Soper]

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.

[Soper]

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.

[Soper]

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.

[Consolewatcher]

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.

[Squid]

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.

[Lone Wolf]

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.

[Squid]

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.

[Consolewatcher]

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...

[Lunch Meat]

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