Security Shot in Public Toilet

[1stWatch]

Townsville, Australia:
A security guard was found unconscious with a bullet wound from his own gun to the chest inside a public toilet stall. It is not known how it happened. The security officer is reported to be in stable condition in intensive care.

http://townsvillebulletin.news.com.a...E14787,00.html

[N. A. Corbier]

Use the stall. Lock the stall. Keep your duty rig off the floor.

No clue if it would of helped this guy. But, it will help others.

[Lawson]

If armed, I would set my gun on the toilet paper dispenser for easier access.

[Mr. Security]

Suicide attempt?

[Guest]

I hate to say it but the investigation will probably discover this guard was doing something idiotic like practicing his quick draw or something like that.

[ozsecuritychic]

see i didnt even hear about that and i live in australia.thanks for posting this stuff.

[ACP01]

Being as it was a staff restroom it will probably turn out to be self-inflicted but you never know.

When my brother went thru the police academy a fellow student shot himself in the lower leg practicing his draw. Treared and released from the ER and then dismissed from the academy. Bad day eh?

[1stWatch]

I'm sure they won't be able to properly investigate it until he regains full consciousness and mental health, provided there's no memory loss.

[1stWatch]

Guard was Ambushed

The security officer who was found shot regained consciousness and told police he was attacked by a man who took his weapon and shot him with it.

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=53720272/K=se...E14787,00.html

This is why body armor is such a great investment.

[Mr. Security]

Another problem with armed security. There's always at least one firearm at every confrontation.

[1stWatch]

Another problem with armed security. There's always at least one firearm at every confrontation.

In this case, it seems to be a problem of inadequate training in grappling and weapon retention. 30 or 40 hours of basic testing and a simple range qualification doesn't really cut it, but that's what most get.

[N. A. Corbier]

I was lucky in that my Florida G instructor bothered with weapons retention. The state licensing curriclium does not require it, in fact, its mainly classroom on theory of operation, then liability and legality of lethal force, then some range time.

ALl the G course covers is Lethal Force from Firearms. That's it. Nothing is required to be said about retention, holster types (You only say it must be plainly visible, encased in a holster, while on duty), or any defensive tactics instruction whatever. This is because it teaches you to the state's satisfaction when, how, and why you should kill your fellow man with a .38 caliber or 9mm pistol.

The rest of it is not related to the security industry, according to the state.

[medic15al]

Another problem with armed security. There's always at least one firearm at every confrontation.

I agree. My weapon! For me. not him. I am trained in weapon retention and tactics. Some from Waxkenhut, most from the PD I reserve at.

[1stWatch]

The rest of it is not related to the security industry, according to the state.

To me, the idea of weapon retention is naturally imperative, but I think that is because I was training in the martial arts long before I ever got into security. I always followed the notion the weapon is an extension of the hand. No amount of reading about theory or taking written tests is going to teach a person what he or she needs to know physically. It takes a physical class with consistent drilling. State minimum training is always a joke compared to that and it will continue to be. The only state agency I've seen that has an absolutely grueling course is for the state troopers.

[N. A. Corbier]

You have to remember something, which is scary. The state trains security guards NOT to train them, but to regulate the industry. You are trained in the aspects of legally using the weapon you are priveliaged to carry openly. You are trained in the nomenclature of the weapon, so that you may properly articulate that nomenclature to whomever needs to hear about it (the court, usually.) You are trained in the legality of non-lethal force because the state would be remiss in discussing lethal without non-lethal. You shoot a qualification course to demonstrate to the state that you are competent enough with your weapon to put rounds on a target.

What the state courses are not, and probably will never be, is training in how something is done. It's liability management on a societal scale, and nothing more.

What does weapon retention have to do with ensuring that a private person understands the legal, social, and ethical ramifications of choosing to use lethal force?