scenario


Big Guy

New member
I have been thinking about something that happened to a friend of mine's daughter, and what would happen if the circumstances were different. To make a long story short his daughter and her boyfriend were arguing in a parking lot when they were confronted by an armed security guard. They attempted to leave but were not allowed to. According to witnesses they were not aggressive to the guard, but he drew his weapon and begin waving it around. When the boyfriend said he was going inside to talk to the manager the guard opened up on him, hitting him at least once in the head. When the girl ran to her boyfriend the guard opened up on her, shooting twice at her missing once and hitting her once.
Now both of these people were unarmed and the boyfriend even pulled up his shirt at one point and said I am not armed.
My question is if a person legally armed had been involved would they be legally allowed to shoot back? The guard was obviously wrong although he has not yet been charged. Surely you wouldn't be expected to just let a crazed gunman shoot you down just because he is a uniformed guard?

Big Guy
 

Cooter

Liberty or Death
A security guard is not a police officer, or a soldier. He is a regular civilian (I hate that word.) If there was even a police officer or soldier shooting at me, I would shoot back. If you are not doing anything wrong, and someone starts shooting, then you are dealing with a crazy man that needs to be put down.
I would let the judge and jury sort it out later, but at that moment, of course I would defend my life.
 

Ironhorse

New member
Having done 11 years worth of security work (both armed and unarmed,) I have to say that the guard was way off base. Now, it's hard to say what may have actually happened, since I wasn't there to witness events first hand - BUT - the criteria for a security guard to shoot is the very same as a "civilian" - he/she has to be in fear of their life, or attempting to save the life/well being of another.

From the way you spell it out, the guard panicked when faced with an arguing couple, and the shootings were completely unwarranted. That guard is probably looking at at least one count of murder, and multiple counts of other fun things, like assault with a deadly weapon, etc. And when that's all done, he can probably look forward to a couple of civil suits from a grieving family and the survivor of the shooting.

The sad truth is that there are some guards carrying (legally) on the job who lack the ability to properly size up a situation, or the ability to verbally de-escalate things, thereby negating the need for use of any kind of force. Seeing a situation like this makes me VERY glad that in the years I carried on the job, I never once drew my gun on anybody. I did, however, draw my asp a few times, when a BG with a knife thought a game of "lets stab the security guard" sounded like fun.
 

Wolfling68

New member
"Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm." (FROM Legal Definition of Self-Defense Defense) I don't see anything saying except if the BG is a Security Guard.


This part is not meant to start a flame war, or offend anyone, especially those that know the INNOCENT victims. The guard was 100% wrong, he probably demanded the unreasonable, and what he did was probably illegal. The security guard may just have been a psyco out to kill someone, he may have been on drugs, who knows. (I say probably because we were not there). But probably not.

It sounds like the victims were probably wrapped up in their argument and were acting in an aggressive manner when the security guard arrived and he felt he needed to take control of the situation, in his stupid, untrained, "monkey brained" (Monkey Dance) driven fashion. What happened was:

the following comes from:
Violence Behaviorial Correction
“Behavior Correcting Violence”
“The goal of this kind of violence is to put an end to unacceptable behavior”
“Behavior correcting violence is deeply intertwined with threat displays”

Why did the security guard show up? Because the victims, in his eyes, were acting outside of the range of acceptable behavior, ON HIS TURF.
Why did he draw his gun? As a threat display so the victims would modify their behavior.
Why did he shoot? Because the victims didn’t modify their behavior to the gunman’s satisfaction. (the gunman may have been asking for something completely unreasonable which the victims could not have managed!!!)

Could the victims have done something different and not been shot? There are times to challenge the guy with the gun, there are times to kiss his feet. If you know what is going on, you have the choice. If you do not know, you cannot choose.
 

Big Guy

New member
Pretty much what I thought. If some mall ninja opens up on we for no reason I am shooting back. By the way both survived although the boy was gravely wounded. I am really amazed by some of the comments expressed in the link that Rick-e supplied. It seems that a lot of people think that shooting two unarmed people is justified since the shooter was a "security" guard. If it had been a CHP holder that shot two gangbangers the sheep would be crying for the poor victims. As I said I know the girls father. These are not thugs.

Big Guy
 

Rick-e

New member
Of most of the deadly force scenarios I hear of I am in awe of the restraint most LEO's use. This security guard looks like a cowboy...no that's an insult to cowboys. This just makes me shake my head in wonder.
 
Don't care who it is, if I'm minding my own business and someone starts shooting at me, and my "best" option would be to shoot back, that's gonna be my course of action.

That "security guard" needs to go to jail.



gf
 
W

wolfhunter

Guest
+1, GF. The only question I have, based on the reports here, is: "Does he get charged with 2 counts of Assault with a Deadly Weapon, 2 counts of Attempted Murder, or one charge of each?"
 

CathyInBlue

Tool Maker
"Lady in the car with the baby, your friends over there outside are arguing, so I need to see proof that that is actually your baby before I'll actually let any of you leave."

:wacko: WTF?

What part of any of that makes sense?
 
"Lady in the car with the baby, your friends over there outside are arguing, so I need to see proof that that is actually your baby before I'll actually let any of you leave."

:wacko: WTF?

What part of any of that makes sense?


No idea what you're talking about. Is this what happened with the OP? :confused:



gf
 

LVLouisCyphre

Obama is a mack daddy!
Yes, you are responding to lethal force with lethal force to defend yourself. It's pretty cut and dry in that incident.

I would have shot back. The insecurity guard needs to go to prison.

Responsible firearm owners want to avoid discharging any rounds in that type of situation.
 

Big Guy

New member
I don't see how the guard can not go to jail. Don't think there is any justification for shooting two unarmed people. I think the police are just waiting for the victims to recover enough to give complete statements.

Big Guy
 

fredmaidment

Individuals Rule
False arrest, too. Can't detain somebody against their will unless you have evidence of a crime. This guy didn't.

Minor of the crimes committed, but it was the crux of his reasons for shooting, it seems.

What a b@$t@rd.
 
Here's a link to the police report filed by KPD. I was hoping there would be more information in the report.

http://www.wbir.com/pdf/markmans_3_4_09.pdf

Also a link to a followup report by the news.

WBIR.com | Knoxville, TN | Updated: Vinson Guard Service lawyer apologizes for shooting


I think in this case the SG was wrong to take the actions he did and should be charged. Since the store he was guarding was not in danger of being robbed he should have returned to the store, called the police and observed the scene until the PD arrived. More of the story will come out in time. A lawyer for the copule shot has filed a 70 million dollar lawsuit.
 

todd

todd
Well, My 2 cents. If I was in the area, armed and witnessed the situation turning to gunfire, with not a second of thought the security guard would be down!!! Now, if I took this action and the boy and girl died, (I know the guard would be dead). I would likely be facing manslaughter and doing time. But, that is the price to pay. A paniced untrained person (as already stated there are plenty and piss's me off), once start firing will take out all THREATS (this is anyone in there little mind they think are) untill the ammo is depleted.
 

GeneralSumter

New member
My question is if a person legally armed had been involved would they be legally allowed to shoot back? The guard was obviously wrong although he has not yet been charged. Surely you wouldn't be expected to just let a crazed gunman shoot you down just because he is a uniformed guard?

Big Guy
First let me state, they couple should've complied with the guard until police arrived. Then his misuse of powers would've been made known to REAL officers you take action against the guard (lawsuit or firing, at least).

Are you legally allowed to shoot back? That will be up to the jury. My CWP instructor said, "if you are in fear of your life or the life of your family shoot." There was no disclaimer like "unless it's an officer [ or mall cop, or security guard, etc.]"

The reason all the posters on the news site are siding with the guard is because he's unifrom and the young couple have been stereotyped. Their story relies on the other eye witnesses, which from the second story link sounds like they have it wrapped up. The one witness said the girl was running away when the guard shot her with his third shot. He's meat if that story makes it to trial.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,102
Messages
621,552
Members
74,095
Latest member
BlackSwampLeather
Top