limited equipment

[hemi444 Member Find all posts View Profile Close hemi444]

Here is a Scenario and a question.
A private security agency has a contract with a nationwide auto parts store throughout the city of philadelphia. The ageny allows the s/o to carry a pistol and nothing else. One evening a male subject enters the store, picks up a set of hubcaps, tries to hold the place up. The s/o onsite confronted the subject and was beaten to the ground with the hubcaps the subject had in his hand. Knowing that the subject was much bigger, overpoweringto the s/o and stating that die mother f--ker. The subject got away before the police arrived. The s/o was asked by one of his counterparts that was relieving him, "while didnt you shoot him"? The s/o replie was I was afraid that I would get in trouble.

This type of Scenario get me a little hot due to the fact that the agency does not allow s/o's who are certified in asp,oc and handcuff to carry these tools. Correct me if I am wrong but would rather spray someone than just shooting them. It seems to me that the agency allows one type of force and that being lethal force.

Let me know what you think.

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

The question is, "Is lethal force reasonable during the situation?"

There are several questions, actually, but it boils down to, "Is lethal force reasonable during the situation, to a reasonable man?"

As described, lethal force would of been reasonable after the security officer disengaged, and was subsequently attacked by the suspect - who stated he wished to kill the security officer.

However, under those circumstances (lethal weapon only), the security officer should not have confronted anyone. They are obviously present for visible deterrance and protection of property only, as they are not equipped to confront or detain persons, only respond to lethal attack with their own lethal force.

If you can, find out what the post orders stated the job function of the guard was. I will bet that it was "non-confrontational physical observation" only, and that the guard was acting without company authorization in confronting the suspect.

I'd also be interested to know if the guard is allowed to wear a "police style" duty belt, or if he is required to carry his pistol in a holster on his trouser belt. Also, is he allowed to have extra ammunition, or just what is in the weapon?

There are state laws that prohibit security companies from sending guards out to armed accounts with unloaded guns for a reason.

[ACP01 Member Find all posts View Profile Close ACP01]

The question is, "Is lethal force reasonable during the situation?"

There are several questions, actually, but it boils down to, "Is lethal force reasonable during the situation, to a reasonable man?"

As described, lethal force would of been reasonable after the security officer disengaged, and was subsequently attacked by the suspect - who stated he wished to kill the security officer.

However, under those circumstances (lethal weapon only), the security officer should not have confronted anyone. They are obviously present for visible deterrance and protection of property only, as they are not equipped to confront or detain persons, only respond to lethal attack with their own lethal force.

If you can, find out what the post orders stated the job function of the guard was. I will bet that it was "non-confrontational physical observation" only, and that the guard was acting without company authorization in confronting the suspect.

I'd also be interested to know if the guard is allowed to wear a "police style" duty belt, or if he is required to carry his pistol in a holster on his trouser belt. Also, is he allowed to have extra ammunition, or just what is in the weapon?

There are state laws that prohibit security companies from sending guards out to armed accounts with unloaded guns for a reason.

Good points N.A.
It sounds as if the badguy was using the hubcaps as a weapon to rob the store, if so and the guy was refered to as "bigger and stronger", that demonstrates a disparity of force between him and the employees and the SO. If he was then that would justify the SO stepping in but with his weapon drawn and covering the badguy.

Here in WV that would be enough to justify the use of deadly force as the hubcaps could do great bodily harm and if the guy was big enough then that also can demonstrate. Harder to prove but it still does.

I have been stabbed and shot at and I tend to react more aggressively to a threat. That stuff hurts and I try to let anyone that wants to do that again know that I will not take kindly to it.

There is the old saying of better to be judged by 12than carried by 6.

Just my humble opinion.

[hemi444 Member Find all posts View Profile Close hemi444]

I'd also be interested to know if the guard is allowed to wear a "police style" duty belt, or if he is required to carry his pistol in a holster on his trouser belt. Also, is he allowed to have extra ammunition, or just what is in the weapon?

Her in Pennsylvania most of the majority of s/o's wear a police style duty belts and as for the extra ammo I have seen that mostly everyone carries two extra magazines on the belt. I only carry six and one in the pipe. If I cant get out or reteat to a safe area with seven rounds or even make a contact, I need to be back on the range on a daily basis. With the ammo is concernedpeople are using hollow points instead of the regular ammo. It has become an issue for were I am at. I only carry what I was qualified with and that is the regular ammo just for liabilty issues.

[VargaM Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close VargaM]

One thing I see wrong in this situation, If you have a gun you need to first of all have handcuffs, also he should have secondary weapons having just the gun can escalate the situation faster

[1stWatch Member Find all posts View Profile Close 1stWatch]

I have all that equipment, except a taser. I have rarely had to use any of it. It seems nobody is foolish enough to attack an armed officer with a hubcap or any other makeshift clubbing weapon.

[T202 Member Find all posts View Profile Close T202]

The subject picks up the hubcaps and tries to hold up the store using the hubcaps as a weapon. The security guard is over powered, beaten and told that he is going to die. Pull the trigger, pull it again. In Michigan an exception to the "Duty to Retreat" is a security guard acting in the course of employment. This would be a good shoot.

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

Its a forcible felony in progress, I'd say its a good shoot anywhere. The media, of course, disagrees.

[1stWatch Member Find all posts View Profile Close 1stWatch]

The subject picks up the hubcaps and tries to hold up the store using the hubcaps as a weapon. The security guard is over powered, beaten and told that he is going to die. Pull the trigger, pull it again. In Michigan an exception to the "Duty to Retreat" is a security guard acting in the course of employment. This would be a good shoot.

Texas has no such duty to retreat. In fact, one section of the penal code that caught my eye when I first read it was titled "no duty to retreat". Then again, we are thought of as the state most resembling the brawling old west.

[1stWatch Member Find all posts View Profile Close 1stWatch]

Its a forcible felony in progress, I'd say its a good shoot anywhere. The media, of course, disagrees.

That is because the media typifies social prejudices.

[T202 Member Find all posts View Profile Close T202]

Texas has no such duty to retreat. In fact, one section of the penal code that caught my eye when I first read it was titled "no duty to retreat". Then again, we are thought of as the state most resembling the brawling old west.

There is a Bill before the Michigan House right now that will eliminate the Duty to Retreat. Maybe we are catching up with Texas.
In part it states
"A person not engaged in an unlawful activity and attacked in a place where he or she had a right to be would have no duty to retreat, but rather would have the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believed it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself, or to another person, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

[1stWatch Member Find all posts View Profile Close 1stWatch]

There is a Bill before the Michigan House right now that will eliminate the Duty to Retreat. Maybe we are catching up with Texas.
In part it states
"A person not engaged in an unlawful activity and attacked in a place where he or she had a right to be would have no duty to retreat, but rather would have the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believed it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself, or to another person, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu...00.htm#9.01.00

[robvancamp Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close robvancamp]

I agree with the concensus...

The concensus is that it would have been a reasonable use of force, in that situation, to have shot the suspect. However, I cannot believe that any contract company would send their Officers out into the field with only the absolute lowest and absolute highest points on the use of force continum - that is one of the most irresponsible actions I can imagine a professional security company taking.

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

The concensus is that it would have been a reasonable use of force, in that situation, to have shot the suspect. However, I cannot believe that any contract company would send their Officers out into the field with only the absolute lowest and absolute highest points on the use of force continum - that is one of the most irresponsible actions I can imagine a professional security company taking.

I can. It sounds like you work for a company with its head wired on straight. Or, you work for one of the huge companies with a branch manager that hasn't been replaced (yet) with a used car salesman.

I actually worked a post for 12 hours with a gun and a flashlight on. Made sure the client knew it too. Because the client told us that we were not authorized, according to the police, to touch anyone or remove anyone or do anything but call them. He made it a post order that we are to call the police for any rules or law violation.

So, I took my OC off, I took my baton off, I took my four pairs of handcuffs off, took my gloves off, took my radio off, took my cell phone off... And walked around the site with a .357 magnum, 18 bullets, and a Stinger flashlight.

When one of the troublemaking teens asked where all my stuff was, and how I'd defend myself, I told them. "I'm only paid to stand out here and watch you guys. And, if you guys touch me, the only force option I have is to shoot you dead. Keep that in mind."

I got so many complaints to my company about that from the residents who were afraid that we couldn't do our job. When they told them that our job was only to call the police, and not to intevene according to management, they called his boss.

Went back to wearing full rig the next night.

[HotelSecurity Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close HotelSecurity]

So, I took my OC off, I took my baton off, I took my four pairs of handcuffs off, took my gloves off, took my radio off, took my cell phone off... And walked around the site with a .357 magnum, 18 bullets, and a Stinger flashlight.

I don't think the Montreal Police SWAT team carries four pairs of handcuffs!!! Where the heck was this place? I've heard the US has more crime than Canada but 4 pairs of handcuffs worth?