Police: Two Teens Die After Attacking Security Guard

[Covenant]

Man, I hated night-shifts because of shit like this. Even in places you'd assume were relatively safe, like one end or another of a fairground at night, just were not--and you were told either to avoid it completely, or only buzz by in some kind of vehicle and not dawdle. If this guy was relatively stationary in a dangerous area, I imagine this was basically his worst nightmare. It's a real shame anyone needs to be hurt, since that's the cop's job, not the security officer's--but at least no innocent people got hurt.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Is it... legal?

[Broomstick]

Depends on whether or not the robbers were offering physical violence.

It is certainly legal to defend yourself. If the assailants were armed, and given the 3:1 odds, the security guard has a case for self-defense. There will certainly be an investigation of some sort. If use of lethal force is found to be unjustified the security guard could be brought up on charges.

[dragon]

Is it... legal?

Some security companies are authorized to carry weapons and use lethal force. The private security company that helps protect the bases here in Germany can shoot you only in certain circumstances, however the security company my dad used to work for in the states were allowed to use deadly force if you even approached him in an incorrect manner.

[Tiriol]

Is it... legal?

Depends on the laws of the land; it is quite acceptable, although lamentable, to kill in self-defense so if those robbers were actually threatening (and capable) of inflicting fatal harm upon the security guard, he was justified (although how the situation is described it looks rather ominous). However, usually it is not within the right of a security guard to carry firearms unless special permission is given (at least here in Finland) and even then carrying and God forbid using them must have some pretty good reason (our security guard trainer said that quite possibly only nuclear facility security carry firearms, and some bodyguards perhaps). I don't know about this case - the description is short and rather vague. More information is required. It appears, though, that they were not carrying firearms themselves, merely demanding the guard in question to step out of his car. In this case, a case of self-defense becomes rather non-existent.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Wait? Why was he carrying a rifle instead of a sidearm?

[Glocksman]

Texas recently passed a 'stand your ground' law that appears to permit the use of deadly force to prevent a carjacking.
If the law indeed permits that, then the shooting is legal.

As as aside, what possessed these idiots to try and carjack a uniformed security guard who was armed with a fucking SKS (the local TV station's video clip shows an SKS laying on the ground at the scene.

Hell, he could have bayoneted them.

The police also stated that these three fine young men were also suspects in other robberies around the area, but DeTavias's mother said her son wouldn't do anything like that.

News flash, he was shot dead while doing just such an act.

[General Zod]

Darwin award winners perhaps? Maybe it's just me but you'd figure most criminals would go after people who weren't likely to be carrying a gun when looking for victims. . . .

[brianeyci]

Fuck legal, was the shooting ethical?

I think it is. Let's suppose a "best" case scenario. The three weren't robbers and the mom is right and his son is an angel. They asked the security guard to get out for god knows what reason, to give them directions say. Problem is, anybody who lives in our society knows if you swarm around a car with three guys and say "get the fuck out" or "get out" or any variation of, the driver is perfectly sane interpreting that as a car jacking. If the teenagers didn't know, then they died because they were fucking stupid.

So even in a best case scenario if they weren't trying to jack the car, their stupidity caused their deaths. In the worst case, the guard acted to protect himself. As soon as he gets out of the car he loses a lot of options, and it's all about reacting fast (how the hell did he know if the guys had a gun, it was three men surrounding his car in the middle of the night.) So the shooting was justified and I can't feel sorry for that kind of stupidity, robbers or not.

In this case, a case of self-defense becomes rather non-existent.

If you're going to react at all you have to do it fast, no time for thinking, since fast = survive. It doesn't really matter if the guys were armed... the guard was logical believing the guys to be armed, just like I'd be logical believing masked goons to be armed even if I didn't see a gun. Then, shoot back. Even if they aren't masked, saying "get out of the fucking car" swarming it can only be interpreted as a car jacking. And if they're willing to steal a car they could be willing to kill you for it.

[Enigma]

The second link only states that both were shot but only one died from his wounds while the second died from crashing his car.

The security guard had an assault rifle and shot at the group. Two people were shot. One of them was taken to the hospital, where he later died.

Another one fled in a nearby vehicle and died when that car crashed.

A third suspect was arrested when he came back to the scene.

I am just trying to wrap my head around the fact that the trio was tryong to car jack a security guard armed with a friggin' assault rifle!

[Glocksman]

Nitpick:
Even though the article described it as an 'assault rifle', the SKS is in reality a 10 round capacity fixed magazine semi-automatic rifle.

A true 'assault rifle' is full automatic, but even under the late, unlamented 'Assault Weapons Ban', the SKS wasn't considered one because the only listed feature (you needed 3 or more to make up an assault weapon) was the bayonet.


It doesn't really matter though, because only someone a few fries short of a Happy Meal would try to carjack someone who is visibly armed.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

The kids were obviously no loss... And if they're really involved with more thefts around the area, then all the better.

I am just trying to wrap my head around the fact that the trio was tryong to car jack a security guard armed with a friggin' assault rifle!

Basic sensationalism. Even if all the guard had had was a single shot Derringer they'd have called it something far deadlier because the era of News people knowing what the hell they're talking about is long since over.

[Kanastrous]

Is it... legal?

Depends on the laws of the land; it is quite acceptable, although lamentable, to kill in self-defense

Sometimes - like possibly this time - it's not lamentable, at all.

It's an absolute positive that these guys made the mistake of attacking someone who could permanently take them out of circulation. That town just got safer for every last one of their remaining potential victims.

Only fools do villains pity, who are punished ere they have done their mischief...

[aerius]

Is it... legal?

It's Texas, I'd say there's a pretty good chance it's perfectly legal.

[Covenant]

I can assure you it's probably perfectly legal. As a security officer, your authorization to carry a firearm extends from the private citizen who you're hired to protect (IE, you can carry a firearm on the property you're officering) and so bypasses a lot of the restrictions the cops have.

Another example is searching--cops can't search people randomly, or specifically, or at all unless they have a reason. Security officerss don't have to have a reason, and so they often pair up with cops to search people at checkpoints with a cop nearby to arrest anyone who either spazzes out, or is revealed to have a makeshift weapon, drug stash, etc.

And your firearm use works the same way. In this case there was a clear case for self defense as well as the fact he was patrolling at the moment (not off-duty) so he could have a reasonable expectation that these guys could do harm to him and the property, and that they wouldn't want him around if they were.

While this may not have been legal for a cop to do, I'm fairly certain the security officer has no such restrictions (and less than a private citizen) to make it possible. It all depends, but I know that if I was given authorization for carrying a firearm, it did mean I was allowed discretionary use of it. And as any self-defense-class taker could tell you, in a 3 on 1 situation, you need to strike first.

[Beowulf]

It's quite possible that the survivor will end up with murder charges. In a number of states(not sure about Texas), if someone dies in the commission of a felony, the perpetrator can be charged with murder.

[Raj Ahten]

And as any self-defense-class taker could tell you, in a 3 on 1 situation, you need to strike first.

Yes. Particularly as something many people may not realize is that a gun is only yours so long as its in your posesion. A lot of cops get shot by there own guns, and thats why they go through training for when to shoot people when they get too close to them in an assault situation.

In this case here, the gaurd was pushing near 70 and was attacked by three teens. If he didn't shoot them at a distance, he was likely totally fucked. Like everyone else, I would like more details though, especially how the teens were armed, did they ambush the gaurd, did the gaurd say he was armed, etc.

[Eulogy]

Problem is, anybody who lives in our society knows if you swarm around a car with three guys and say "get the fuck out" or "get out" or any variation of, the driver is perfectly sane interpreting that as a car jacking. If the teenagers didn't know, then they died because they were fucking stupid.

Or they were woefully ignorant. Not that it makes much difference.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Is it... legal?

Some security companies are authorized to carry weapons and use lethal force. The private security company that helps protect the bases here in Germany can shoot you only in certain circumstances, however the security company my dad used to work for in the states were allowed to use deadly force if you even approached him in an incorrect manner.

Umm did your dad work security on a government installation because private companies can't just disregard the local state laws.

[Broomstick]

Is it... legal?

Depends on the laws of the land; it is quite acceptable, although lamentable, to kill in self-defense so if those robbers were actually threatening (and capable) of inflicting fatal harm upon the security guard, he was justified (although how the situation is described it looks rather ominous). However, usually it is not within the right of a security guard to carry firearms unless special permission is given (at least here in Finland) and even then carrying and God forbid using them must have some pretty good reason

In the US the laws vary from state to state and even within a state. This incident occurred in Texas, which is well known for its lenient gun-control laws.

In contrast, security guards in the city of Chicago are typically NOT permitted to carry firearms unless they are also police officers.

Why was he carrying a rifle instead of a sidearm?

Why not?

What benefit is a concealed firearm to a guard? A visible firearm is a deterrent to the unarmed, and removes the excuse "But I didn't know he had a gun!" for troublemakers.

Around here, a shotgun is a frequent choice for property/home defense because

1) People recognize them and think "DANGER!"
2) They have very effective stopping power
3) They don't require precise aim

In fact, they are so recognized as dangerous that the mere sound of a pump shotgun being pumped is enough to send some intruders running - the visible/audible threat is sufficient to convince the Bad Guys to move somewhere else without causing trouble.

Rifles, likewise, are very visible as guns. I am not familar with the one in question, but many rifles also have very good stopping power. They also are more accurate, particularly at a distance, than handguns.

Of course, I don't know the particulars of this case, but use of a long gun for security isn't that strange to my mind.

[Glocksman]

The SKS fires the Russian 7.62x39mm cartridge, which is roughly equivalent to the 30.-30 cartridge many lever action rifles fire.

IOW, it's an intermediate powered cartridge with low recoil, thus it's both ideal for use in fully automatic weapons on the battlefield and for hunting deer-sized game in the field.

[Glocksman]

As someone who knows a bit about guns, I suspect the guard's choice of weapons was limited by his budget, as the primary advantage to an SKS is cost (I bought mine for about $150 each), not stopping power or portablility vis-a-vis a handgun.

Frankly, if I were a security guard and had to purchase my own weapons, I'd buy both a Mossberg 500 shotgun w/a 18" barrel and a pistol grip, and a handgun of some kind on my belt.