Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australian Security Guard Standing Trial After Shooting Robber

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

  • Australian Security Guard Standing Trial After Shooting Robber

    A security guard in Syndney is standing trial for murder after shooting a man she stated hit her on the back of the head with knuckledusters and robbed her of $45,000. The trial is set to begin on July 17, 2006.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E29277,00.html
    "We appreciate all the hard work you've done, the dedicated hours you have worked, and the lives you have saved. However, since this is your third time being late to work, we are terminating your employment here."

  • #2
    Hey 1stWatch....How about some good examples. We get enough of the bad ones already.
    Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

    Comment


    • #3
      I just post what I find. Some of these are examples of what we don't need, some of what we do, and some that are still under investigation and could go either way.
      "We appreciate all the hard work you've done, the dedicated hours you have worked, and the lives you have saved. However, since this is your third time being late to work, we are terminating your employment here."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 1stWatch
        I just post what I find. Some of these are examples of what we don't need, some of what we do, and some that are still under investigation and could go either way.
        Fair enough. I checked your threads and you have a point. There are some good examples listed as well. I just got overwhelmed with 3 bad examples in a row.
        Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

        Comment


        • #5
          Our law enforcement counterpart site has a whole section of bad news called "Internal Affairs".
          "We appreciate all the hard work you've done, the dedicated hours you have worked, and the lives you have saved. However, since this is your third time being late to work, we are terminating your employment here."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 1stWatch
            Our law enforcement counterpart site has a whole section of bad news called "Internal Affairs".
            Maybe some of them should start reading it.....
            Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mr. Security
              Maybe some of them should start reading it.....
              According to what I've read in there, some of those guys would be the topic of such stories themselves. There are several in there who I doubt are law enforcement officers at all.
              "We appreciate all the hard work you've done, the dedicated hours you have worked, and the lives you have saved. However, since this is your third time being late to work, we are terminating your employment here."

              Comment


              • #8
                We've all heard of those reality TV shows, "when animals attack", and the like. How about a new spin-off of that concept for a reality TV show..."When Security Guards attack"
                "If you run, you'll only go to jail tired."

                Comment


                • #9
                  On this story...

                  It seems the Crown does not believe, or does not provide, that the private citizen (Brown) was in danger of having her life terminated by the attacker.

                  Do people from Australia have the right to defend themselves with deadly force from an attacker who is out to kill them?

                  Would you consider someone attacking you with brass knuckles, striking you in the back of the head, a lethal threat?
                  Some Kind of Commando Leader

                  "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    That would depend on one thing. Are YOU any good at defending yourself with empty-handed countermeasures? Afterall, brassknuckles might hurt more, but it's still a hand-to-hand combat situation. Anybody who has had even a little bit of DAAT training, knows at least, the bare-minimum of knowledge needed to attack back.
                    "If you run, you'll only go to jail tired."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think this depends on prevailing DT theory. To me, the person is armed with a weapon (brass knuckles), and constitutes a higher threat than someone who is actively resisting without a weapon.

                      In this case, more force than decentralization is needed, either lethal or active countermeasures depending on how badly your losing the fight.

                      Remember, too, in some jurisdictions, OC spray is answerable lethal force when applied against an armed professional. This is what Florida law enforcement officers and security officers are taught - depending on their level of OC resistance - they may be justified in using lethal force to protect their weapon from the assailiant.
                      Some Kind of Commando Leader

                      "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You have to remember that Austrailia banned a lot of firearms so they do have a negative outlook on their use by civilians.

                        Now as to her shooting him......
                        Most places in the U.S. the defense would look at the issue of Disparity of Force. There are three examples of that here....
                        1 Attack from behind that would result in disorientation allowing the aggressor to continue the attack, seriously injure and possibly even kill the victim
                        2 Male attacking female even if she is trained (bigger, stronger, faster)
                        3 The attacker being 25 and the guard 42 (also stronger, faster + quicker reflexes)

                        Also wouldn't she be responsible to try to engage to stop the robber from leaving otherwise why was she armed?

                        but then again the subjects of the Crown are after all just that...subjects not citizens. No offence meant to anyone.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I don't know about that Corbier. Using lethal, or near lethal force against brass knuckles? Call me passive, or a wuss, but using near lethal force defending brass knuckles, just might end you up on the wrong side of a courtroom. Do you want to be the plaintiff or the defendant?
                          Or at least follow Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Now...if a perp has a baseball bat, then, obviously you're going to need to step up your game and bust out the OC spray.
                          "If you run, you'll only go to jail tired."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by wisconsinite
                            I don't know about that Corbier. Using lethal, or near lethal force against brass knuckles? Call me passive, or a wuss, but using near lethal force defending brass knuckles, just might end you up on the wrong side of a courtroom. Do you want to be the plaintiff or the defendant?
                            Or at least follow Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Now...if a perp has a baseball bat, then, obviously you're going to need to step up your game and bust out the OC spray.
                            I'd have to chalk it up to different training standards. Officer.com usually gets a thread about "Is OC a deadly force threat?" Alot of northern cops say, "No, it is not," and alot of southern cops say, "I need more bullets."


                            Keep in mind that if the offender has a baseball bat, many people could consider that a lethal force situation. The person has a weapon that is capable of causing you great bodily injury or death.

                            I am not a fan of "equal or lesser force." I am an fan of reasonable force to the threat. If the person is armed with a weapon that is capable of doing you GBH/Death, then they are a deadly threat.
                            Last edited by N. A. Corbier; 02-05-2006, 12:28 PM.
                            Some Kind of Commando Leader

                            "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              OK Corbier...baseball bat? If you can stay far enough away from him, he won't get a shot in. It's "fight or flight". Maybe a sidearm is most logical to most s/o's or LEO's....but shouldn't common sense dictate use of OC...or a taser gun? (These units fire small dart-like electrodes attached to wires propelled by the Taser unit.)
                              "If you run, you'll only go to jail tired."

                              Comment

                              Leaderboard

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X